Child Support... The good, the bad & the ugly

[K-ice]

My friends are at the age where this is starting to come into play for them.

In most cases I see it causing resentment and even makes an ex want to be under employed.

In the long run, being under employed never seams like a good idea but I have heard of people doing it intentionally to keep child support lower.

If a person was very MMM, and could FIRE, child support would be quite low. Oh boy. I never thought of being FIRE as a way to dodge child support. That seams kind of evil as a motivation.

Where I live, if you can prove to a judge the ex is under employed then child support can be calculated according to their potential. But good luck proving it!

In the cases I have seen, there was never really a SAHP who gave up a job for the family. Yet somehow you are financially tied together for 18y because of the kids.

Also, it seams like the child support payments can be adjusted every year. This makes sence if one parent suffers a major hardship or illness. But if one parent is still playing a vital role in raising the kids (ie joint custody) but then also gets a promotion at work, why would they now need to share part of that promotion with the ex? They can spend more directly on the kids if they want, but maybe they should just use the promotion to build their stash. If that big promotion happens, 2, 5, or 15 years after they seperate should that make a difference?

In one case, spending a few more hours a week with the kids could be the difference between one parent getting $6000/y or having to pay the other parent $6000/y. A 12K difference!!  I wish they could just agree to not count every minute and decide that child support is zero either way.

In one case, I thought everything was going to turn out well. They have been living apart almost 2 years and drafted a legal separation agreement. But now that it is divorce time it's getting complicated. I really hope I can share this as a good case in a few weeks/months.

I have a few more examples but I was curious to hear your good, bad & ugly tales.

[Argyle]

Well, a certain ex of my acquaintance complains that he keeps getting unfairly fired from his freelance jobs, so he shouldn't have to pay child support.  In my view the excess drinking might account for the getting fired, but in his view he's the victim of random injustice and so he can't be expected to step up and pay.  Regardless of this, the courts have ordered him to pay $200 a month. (He has 0% custody, which is fine by him.)  You can be the judge on how far that goes toward supporting a child.  Whether it's excessive or too little is actually irrelevant, as he's never paid a penny of it in eleven years.  You can't garnish freelance wages, or to put it another way, you can't squeeze blood from a turnip.

In my view, though, if someone gets a big raise, I'm in agreement that more child support should be forthcoming.  If both parents were making $40,000 a year, and then ten years down the road one is making $100,000 a year, why should the kids still be living as if the combined income is $80,000 rather than $140,000?  That extra could be useful for college savings, for extra-curriculars, for all kinds of things.  Children are a part of the high-earner's family just as much as of the low-earner's. 

My experience is also that non-custodial parents tend to underestimate how much it costs to raise a child, even a Mustachian's child.  There are all kinds of crazy expenses, like a certain kind of white shirt for a band concert, demanded with a week's notice, and Goodwill doesn't always have the right shirt in stock, and the band director lowers the grade for not showing up with the right kind of shirt.  If the kid does sports or music, there are all kinds of expenses.  My child's school just demanded $50 for a field trip to see an event relating to one of the classes.  And if the child has health issues, oh my God do the costs mount quickly...

There's also the fact that being a single parent is exhausting, and makes it less likely that you'll do all that cooking from scratch, all that cleaning, all that yardwork, all those house repairs, all by yourself without hiring help or taking shortcuts or buying prepared foods. Not to mention the childcare or after-school care because there's no stay-at-home-parent in a single-parent household (assuming your job makes enough to pay for the childcare, which some of them don't), and there's no one to tag-team you.  And the lost wages in many jobs if you have to take a sick day to take care of the child.  There are about a million ways for expenses to climb.

That's what it's like with one small kid.  The single parents who have several, I don't even want to think about.

[markbrynn]

But if one parent is still playing a vital role in raising the kids (ie joint custody) but then also gets a promotion at work, why would they now need to share part of that promotion with the ex?

Money paid after a divorce is typically divided into two categories: alimony and child support. Alimony is money that one person pays to their former partner after divorce to ensure that the lifestyle during the marriage is not suddenly gone. Most common is one partner who didn't work or worked less to ensure the career of the other, often involving staying home with kids. If alimony is paid, it can be raised in line with raises in income (not sure whether this sounds reasonable or not, but I guess it could depending on the case).

Child support is money paid to pay for things for the child. This is sometimes abused by the parent receiving child support (by using money to support their lifestyle rather than for the child). Child support shouldn't be income based (in my opinion), but it usually is. As discussed many times on this website, your expenses should be independent from your income (preferably well below).

People who play games with their life/income in order to not pay alimony/child support are usually hurting themselves at the same time, so it is not only a sadly vindictive behaviour, but also stupid. People who get divorced would do well to remember that they made a mistake (both people made a mistake) and live their life free from negative feelings about the past. It happened, move on. [And yes, this includes people whose partner cheated on them. Apparently you chose a bad partner. Learn from your mistake and move on. Don't make it worse by being angry for the next 20 years.]

[former player]

Children that grow up in poverty have much worse outcomes than those that don't, all other things being equal.  Any parent who doesn't support their kids to an appropriate, above-poverty, level is shitting in their own gene pool.

I know a couple of people whose alimony settlements included paying half their pensions to their ex-wives.  They are both now in their late 60s with comfortable jobs and no intention of retiring, partly because they don't want to live on a quarter of their current incomes and partly because they don't want the ex to have the money.

[rosaz]

I can see the point in tying child support to income, up to a certain level. Of course, there's usually no reason for someone making $200k to pay more than someone making $100k, but between $20k and $100k I think there should be some variance.

The upper amount you can reasonably collect from someone making $20k wouldn't be enough to pay for half of decent upkeep for a child (at least while the kid requires childcare); that shouldn't mean the state doesn't try and collect reasonable support from an affluent parent. Especially given the number of government programs that are based on parental income... I don't mind paying for Head Start when Mommy and Daddy each pull in $20k a year, but if Daddy's making $100k he can pay for decent daycare himself.

[K-ice]

What would happen in your area with this scenario?

parent A makes $85K
parent B makes $50K

The kids (2) spend more time with parent A 60-65% but see parent B often 35-40%.
Thankfully no poverty and there are no drunks or deadbeats... yet.

Parent A currently pays for child care, all activities, clothes, birthday gifts for friends and every extra little expense. ~$1400/month
@Argyle, you are right those do add up.

Both parents pay their own groceries and home expenses to feed and put a roof over the kids heads.

Parent A wants Parent B to contribute and pay up to $600 support since parent A has the kids more.
Parent B wants Parent A to pay them child support up to $600 since parent A has more money.

[Scubanewbie]

Interesting topic.  I (thankfully) do not know anyone in this boat but we're still relatively young (married 10 years).  So, having made it clear I have no personal experience it seems to me that although there are very many individuals on this board that spend well below their means, the average American spends what they make (+/- 10-20%).  So in the case where the non-custodial parent gets a raise, it seems reasonable that some of that windfall should go to child support.  A sliding scale seems reasonable (you get a $30K raise and you previously made $20K means you give a lot more of it to child support than if you previously made $100K for instance).  But, in an ideal world I'd like to see a whole lot more equitable distribution of parenting, in which case I think it's a lot less likely I'd agree to increase child support.  So, example, husband/wife divorce while each makes $50K/year for a HH income of $100K.  They decide to split child custody 60/40 with wife taking primary custody.  If ex-husband then gets a raise to $100K/year, no, he doesn't owe more to wife.  However, it wouldn't kill the guy to setup an auto-debit to the kids college savings.  I think if he's a mustachian and doesn't increase his lifestyle, there's no problem with this.  If, like most American's, he's not, and buys himself a BMW while claiming he can't afford band instrument rental, you're likely to be called a douche.  But, since the courts can't really examine every case in detail and get to the heart of all spending decisions, they scale child support based on income and call it a day.  While I think it's not particularly fair to mustachians, I think it's MORE fair in MORE cases because, heck, there are fewer of us. 

I am by far the more mustachian of my husband and I and I make double what he does.  And we would not have half the stache we have if it weren't for my frugal ways.  It would feel incredibly unfair that he would get half of "my" retirement if we split, but I am aware that in the eyes of the court it would be an equitable split.  Sometimes what is technically fair just isn't possible to discern for the courts and I think they have to go with what is more fair in the majority of cases.

[markbrynn]

What would happen in your area with this scenario?

My area is the Netherlands, so probably doesn't help you. However, to generally answer your question, more on what I think is fair and reasonable.
Over here, there is no reward for looking after the kids more (except the joy of bonding more). What you do it  add up all of the kids expenses (there are guidelines based on income, but you can also just itemize their expenses). Next you subtract any money received from the outside (typically government). Then each parent contributes to a theoretical pot their share of the remaining expenses; the share is based on incomes. The next part can sometimes cause confusion: for each of the expenses you determine which parent is paying the expense and add those up. From the pot, you allocate the money to each parent to pay those expenses. Now, in reality, as the final step, you work out what this means in terms of money moving from Parent A to Parent B, or vice versa.

Example (to mirror your case):
Expenses: 1600/month
Expense A: 100/month   paid by Parent B
Expense B: 100/month   paid by Parent A
Expense C: 700/month   paid by Parent A
Expense D: 700/month   paid by Parent A
I increased your child's expenses by 100/month to include their share of food/housing at both houses. Around here this would be the official way to go.

Received as tax credit by Parent A: 50/month

Pot: 1550/month needed   -> split 85/135 for parent A    and 50/135 for parent B
Parent A contributes 975/month    Parent B contributes 575/month

Parent A pays for 1500/month in expenses
Parent B pays for 100/month in expenses

Parent A gets 50/mth from the tax credit and 1450/month from the pot = net of 475/month received from Parent B
Parent B gets 100/mth from the pot = net of 475/month give to Parent A

In your case, since you're paying the majority of the expenses (to be confirmed by both parties detailing their child related expenses), you would receive money even though to make more. Not because the kids are with you more often, but because you actually pay out the money for the expenses.

Parent B asking for money because Parent A sounds like alimony. Alimony is a completely different story, but it's easy for people to become confused. All money that is considered child support should be spent on the child (a small amount can be for their share of the living space, if you want to get down to details, but in general their food contribution should be what they eat, same with clothes, vacation, school supplies, etc.).

Last advice, work on open discussions and staying civil (even friendly, if possible). These situations are always made worse by bad interaction. Also understand that the situation sucks for everyone. Rare is the divorced parent who feels like their child support agreement is fair. 

[driftwood]

That extra could be useful for college savings

This is mentioned twice in this thread... If the purpose of child support is to support a child from time of divorce to age 18, then there should be no legal consideration for college savings.  If either parent voluntarily saves up for college, that's fine. 

If you paid child support and then found out it all went into a fund to provide for the child after they became an adult, wouldn't you be looking for legal recourse?

I'm married, and my wife and I don't plan on funding our child's college education.  We will give each child a chunk of money ($5k?) to do whatever they want with when they turn 18.  Also, if we did split I would be happy to provide for my children, until they turned 18. 

[Argyle]

If I paid child support and found it had gone into a college fund, I'd be delighted.  Many people gripe because they suspect their ex is using up their child support on frivolities.  You appear to consider college expenses a frivolity.  My family, however, does not.  One big difference between the affluent and the strapped is how much college debt they have — whether they start their adult life off with huge debt around their neck, or whether they're debt-free.  I know all the stuff about building character and "skin in the game" and so on.  If you want your kids to come through it the hard way, so be it.  I'm a college professor and I see students weighed down by college expenses every day: working long hours to pay their expenses, exhausted, doing badly on assignments because they're working 40 hours a week, desperately trying to juggle jobs and education.  My own parents funded my undergraduate education fully, though they weren't particularly rich.  I worked hard and I will be forever grateful to them.  College expenses have skyrocketed since then, and I doubt I'll be able to do the same for my son.  However, I'll contribute what the budget allows.  It would make me see red if his dad were making a ton of money and yet left me, on my more modest salary, to do the heavy lifting as far as college is concerned.   As it happens, in my state the law requires child support through age 20 for children who are still in education.  If I ever received any of that child support, it would go towards his education, as it should.

[K-ice]

What would happen in your area with this scenario?

Over here, there is no reward for looking after the kids more (except the joy of bonding more). What you do is add up all of the kids expenses (there are guidelines based on income, but you can also just itemize their expenses). Next you subtract any money received from the outside (typically government). Then each parent contributes to a theoretical pot their share of the remaining expenses; the share is based on incomes. The next part can sometimes cause confusion: for each of the expenses you determine which parent is paying the expense and add those up. From the pot, you allocate the money to each parent to pay those expenses. Now, in reality, as the final step, you work out what this means in terms of money moving from Parent A to Parent B, or vice versa.

Leave it to the Dutch to come up with a fair way of splitting expenses.  I really like this way.  There is no fighting over time with the kids for financial reasons.  In the scenario I was discussing (and it is honestly not me ;) ) I think some money would flow to parent A in the Netherlands.

There is no alimony. Both parents have the same education, both have reliable jobs, and neither sacrificed their career to help raise the children during marriage. Parent A has taken the opportunity for promotions and gets a salary, and parent B prefers to work hourly and often part time.  This explains the income difference. Assets were split and Parent B already got a large lump sum from parent A.  (To make things worse, parent B has said they kept a chunk of that for a legal battle just in case. Sigh!) 

As for child support everything would need to be tabulated. With the exception of food and mortgage I do not think parent B has even bought the children socks or a T-shirt. But I could be wrong. I know Parent A more; you probably heard the bias in my tone.  They have paid for food and mortgage but also school fees, school supplies, daycare, clothes, bikes, activities, winter gear, college savings, friend’s birthday party presents ...  Parent A is feeling stressed with all the expenses and has been using a Cc.  I have tried to tell them they need to reign in their budget regardless.

@ Driftwood & Argyle
As for the college savings, Parent A should put that on hold for a while. But in my area child support is often extended to 22 as long as the "child" is a full time student. This kind of makes sense but every family has different philosophies of paying for college. It is very odd that you cannot force a married couple to pay for their children's university costs but you can force divorced parents to pay their share.

You can kind of think of it as a divorce scholarship!

[rockstache]

That extra could be useful for college savings

This is mentioned twice in this thread... If the purpose of child support is to support a child from time of divorce to age 18, then there should be no legal consideration for college savings.  If either parent voluntarily saves up for college, that's fine. 

If you paid child support and then found out it all went into a fund to provide for the child after they became an adult, wouldn't you be looking for legal recourse?

I'm married, and my wife and I don't plan on funding our child's college education.  We will give each child a chunk of money ($5k?) to do whatever they want with when they turn 18.  Also, if we did split I would be happy to provide for my children, until they turned 18.

This may vary by state/presiding judge. My dad had to pay until my youngest sister graduated college or turned 25, whichever came first. She graduated first, so that was the end of it. YMMV

[Kaspian]

I never have any sympathy when I hear people whine about child support payments.  Hey man--you play, you pay.  Shoulda thought of that before you jumped in the sack.

[Blonde Lawyer]

Child support varies greatly by state.  Some states, the court can only order support up to age 18 or high school graduation, whichever comes later.  Others, do until college graduation or "so long as a full time student."  My state will not order parties to save or contribute to college or support in college but if the parties reach such an agreement on their own as a part of a divorce settlement that agreement will be enforced by the court as a contract. 

If you want to see what you would pay for child support in NH, they have a handy calculator right online.  Click "see worksheet" after and you can figure out how it was calculated.

http://business.nh.gov/dhhs_Calculator/

I believe this is the presumed amount and you can request deviations for cause.

ETA - if you click "show worksheet" after and then look to the parental support obligation line, it has an amount for both parents.  This tells you what the other would owe if you were the one seeking child support instead of paying it.  How you decide who pays and who receives can be unclear, particularly when the parties have the kids 50/50.

[K-ice]

http://business.nh.gov/dhhs_Calculator/

I believe this is the presumed amount and you can request deviations for cause.

ETA - if you click "show worksheet" after and then look to the parental support obligation line, it has an amount for both parents.  This tells you what the other would owe if you were the one seeking child support instead of paying it.  How you decide who pays and who receives can be unclear, particularly when the parties have the kids 50/50.

That is a good calculator. It takes into account the "Total adjusted monthly gross income" which seems fair.  But as you stated things become grey if the parents have 50/50 or 70/30 or 30/70 etc.   

[CheapskateWife]

DH pays child support in South Carolina, and we find that the online calculator is hugely helpful to determine what we should be paying vs. what is on paper.  So when he gets a raise, we go ahead and recalculate and adjust voluntarily.  She is going to get it anyway, so there is no point in getting lawyers involved.

[MayDay]

This subject is so interesting to me, probably because I am a SAHM, so if we ever got divorced, I would definitely be relying on my H paying child support and possibly alimony.

There are obviously some crazy mothers (or fathers if they were the SAHP) who are getting huge CS and not really using it for the kids.  I get that it happens all the time- or at least that those stories get told and retold!  We have a neighborhood acquaintance whose H was a SAHD on account of being too lazy too work.  She worked FT, eventually got sick of him and left him, and now pays him huge CS and alimony.  And he is perfectly capable of working, he just doesn't want to, and can live off what she pays him. 

But I feel like in most cases, you are paying a lot of CS because kids are really freaking expensive, even for mustachians.  They eat a lot of food, their clothes need replacing, they need $$$ medical care, there are a lot of school expenses and sports expenses as they get to HS, etc.  But the biggest thing is you need a bigger car and house/apartment (depending on the number of kids, of course!). 

In fact the house size thing is what I think is the most financially difficult now, in the age of shared physical custody.  Back in the day of EOW custody, the dad could have a 1 bedroom apartment and the kids could sleep on the pullout couch, while the mom maintained the larger dwelling.  Now custody is typically fairly evenly split, so both parents have to maintain a larger residence.  (Not that evenly split custody is a bad thing!).

[unno2002]

Personal opinion:

Child support should never exceed that which the welfare system pays. 

[Argyle]

So if Donald Trump or Bill Gates were paying child support to an ex, he'd be paying $100 a month for each kid, even if his ex-wife were destitute?  How does that make any sense?  Last I heard, children were 50% created by the man as well as the woman.  It costs a certain amount to raise a child, whatever welfare says. 

[Pigeon]

I never have any sympathy when I hear people whine about child support payments.  Hey man--you play, you pay.  Shoulda thought of that before you jumped in the sack.

Yup.  And if you don't want to provide for your child, you are not a good human being, IMO.  Getting divorced can be hard on kids.  I can't understand adults who are unwilling to suck it up and try to be civil and do the right thing for their kids.  Once your kids are grown, go ahead and resume being nasty to your ex if it brings you personal joy.

[Eric222]

I'll add my personal situation to the discussion here.

After an *expensive* divorce, I ended up convincing my ex to agree to 50/50 custody of the kids.  In MA there is a standard worksheet for calculating child support expenses.  You fill the form out as if there was 80/20 custody one way, then 80/20 the other way.  You subtract the differences, and whomever would have owed more pays the difference.  It gets even more complicated for 60/40...but I digress.

Luckily the worksheet ended up at <~$10 per month, so we agreed to not worry about who owes child support.  However, child support can be re-calculated at anytime.  At least my ex and I have been amicable about the kids, and I don't think it will ever be an issue. 

I really don't like the idea of redistributing money from one parent to the other when both are actively involved in parenting and both parents are well above the poverty line - and even if my ex ended up with a significantly higher net income that me, I don't think I'd go for child support. 

[infogoon]

There are obviously some crazy mothers (or fathers if they were the SAHP) who are getting huge CS and not really using it for the kids.  I get that it happens all the time- or at least that those stories get told and retold!

I get the impression that it's sort of like the endlessly recycled tropes about "the guy in front of me bought steaks with his benefits card and then loaded his groceries into an Escalade!" Sure, it happens occasionally, but not nearly as often as the outrage indicates.

[CheapskateWife]

There are obviously some crazy mothers (or fathers if they were the SAHP) who are getting huge CS and not really using it for the kids.  I get that it happens all the time- or at least that those stories get told and retold!

I get the impression that it's sort of like the endlessly recycled tropes about "the guy in front of me bought steaks with his benefits card and then loaded his groceries into an Escalade!" Sure, it happens occasionally, but not nearly as often as the outrage indicates.

Probably, likely....As the step mom, I see my SS's coming to our house in name brand clothing, and Mom on facebook with perfect nails and roots never showing (bottle blond).  Regular vacations to sunny locales; all the while telling us we don't do enough for the boys.  We are incredibly responsible with our income so it burns me to see our support used for items we wouldn't purchase ourselves.  But in the end, the CS will end; and their mom will have to find another way to subsidize her un-mustachian habits.  I try to focus on the fact that we will be FIRE when the CS ends, and then we don't have to work any more.  What she does at that point is her business.

I tease my DH a little in that being divorced and remarried is a lot like polygamy, except you only "get" to have sex with the most recent wife.  He is still having to "support" two wives. 

[Bob W]

Having diligently paid child support for 12 years I am not happy.

Ex is a spendthrift.  She earns more than I plus CS.  Her budget should have a net extra of over $1,500 per month yet she is always at zero and tells the kids constantly they are poor and don't have money.  Cigarettes,  cable,  impulse purchases,  bad budgeting etc..  Keeps the kids dressed in rags so I end up providing clothing and extras for them. 

I could go on about her poor parenting skills as the custodial parent but I think not today.

Only 4 more years to go. 

[Blonde Lawyer]

Different states have different theories on child support.  Some states look to provide for the reasonable needs of the child.  Others (like mine) seek to have the children in near equal households.  They don't want the kids eating steak and playing video games on the big screen in one house (and going to Disney) and eating tuna with no cable in the other house with no vacation.  The idea behind it is it skews the kids perceptions of the parents, creates favorites, etc.

However, allocation of money doesn't fix that if one parent is thrifty or one parent is a big spender.  The courts take on it is that we aren't going to make you live a certain lifestyle, we are just going to make sure you have equal means for the kids to live a certain lifestyle should you provide it for them.

My state just recently came around to having a sliding scale where the percent of income you pay in child support goes down as you enter high income territory.  Before it was fairly absurd what was considered reasonable child support. 

Also, in meeting the needs of the child, it does include the ex using the money towards housing and utilities and transportation etc.  Even if the ex spouse also benefits from this, the court considers it part of the child's basic needs.  So, it is perfectly legitimate in my state for child support to be used to make car payments, pay the mortgage/rent, etc.

[K-ice]

Thanks to everyone for sharing.  I still don’t have “good” news as my friends are still going back and forth.

I think it is mathematically impossible for a double income + kids household to be split into two homes without some pain.

It is hard for those two homes to approach the same standard as the one home before.

The children obviously need access to a certain level of health, food, schooling and activities regardless of what home they are living in. But as mentioned, when both parents are actively parenting & well above the poverty line why does money need to exchanges hands?

When they are in the different homes it is up to the parents to provide a good example of what money can & can’t buy. What that parent has to spend on the child is dependent on their education, hard work &/or frugal savings etc. Forcing one parent to subsidise the other to give the appearance of equality is not doing the kids any favours in terms of responsible money management & independence in the long run.

(Alimony is separate and something SAHP are entitled to until they get back on their feet.)

[K-ice]

OK I will share a good story I know of. But this is not that recent. Maybe it is even an urban legend of good divorces. 

Second marriage for both, married for about 15y, one child 16 involved.

Both had their own business and were self employed. The one had a professional practice, the other a small business including property.

When they split they each kept their own businesses. What they were worth was not even evaluated. But neither could run the other’s business anyway. The father probably made 2x the wife. The wife got the house (with mortgage) & sole custody of the child but visits were often with the other parent.  How much does a 16y old want to hang out with their parents anyway ;) The father agreed to pay a $200 monthly allowance directly to the child. The father then paid for the child’s bachelor’s tuition at a public local university.   

I think this case was win-win. The child was well provided for and there was no financial resentment between the parents. The child has a good relationship with both parents.

[markbrynn]

The children obviously need access to a certain level of health, food, schooling and activities regardless of what home they are living in. But as mentioned, when both parents are actively parenting & well above the poverty line why does money need to exchanges hands?

I think you've got the theory correct, there are just some practical issues to deal with for real life situations.

You're saying that each parent pays for what happens in their own house (which I generally agree with, no reason why that has to be equal), but there are a whole list of other expenses (whether you are frugal or not). Who pays for the kids clothes? Do you keep two sets and force the kid to change clothes before he/she goes to the other house? What about school trips or any fun activity out in the world that doesn't include the parents? Birthday present for a friend, etc., etc.

The question whether the higher income parent should pay a higher proportion of the costs is fair, but the part that many people ignore is also who is physically making the payment. Theoretically, if the higher earning parent is doing the actual spending (clothes, gifts, trips, lessons, etc.) then they could receive money from the lower earning parent.