The other day a client was in my office discussing the amount of child support he was paying. My client, who is in the entertainment industry, makes a large amount of money. As a result, he pays a fairly significant amount of child support to his ex-wife for their two children. His ex-wife does not work. In addition to that, he pays her spousal support. She also receives half of his royalties accrued during their marriage.
My client was not complaining about the fact that he was paying this money to her, although he certainly would like to pay less. He was telling me a story about how the week prior his daughter came to him needing shoes. Prior to that, she told him she needed an article of clothing for school. In fact, for some time now, on a regular basis both his son and daughter have come to him and asked him to buy them this or that. When he has asked them why they are asking him for these things, they give the same answer: "Mom said your dad needs to take care of it."
My client does provide clothing and other items to his children. They live with him part of the time and have their own clothing and personal effects at his house. What my client is objecting to is paying child and spousal support and then still being put in the situation of either having to supplement those items further by buying these things for his children, or telling his children that he is going to do so. After all, if he is paying child support, it seems that the children's mother should be spending the money on things that his children need. This is not an uncommon situation.
In California, as well as in many other states, there are guidelines in effect which determine the amount of support that someone is to pay the other parent. The guidelines have several factors: the income each parent has, the tax deductible expenses that each party pays, and the amount of time that the children are in the direct care of each party. These child support guidelines are implemented by statutes. There is one thing missing from these statutes, however. That is a requirement that the child support money be used for the children, not for the parent to whom the child support is being paid.
Some states impose limitations on the dollar amount of support to be paid. In these states, such as New York, there is a presumed limit which is intended to insure that the children have basic needs, but also intended to make sure that the parent receiving the payment does not get a windfall. In other states, such as California, this limit does not exist. We often see articles in the tabloids and mainstream press about battles going on in court over child support.
In the cases of children born out of wedlock where the parents do not live together, child support alone can provide sufficient income for the parent who is receiving it to maintain not only the child's lifestyle, but also that parent's. In extreme cases, the payment of child support can mean that the receiving parent does not have to work. Child support is intended to be just that: support for the children, not the parent with whom they are living. One way to counter this problem is to require the parent who is receiving the support to actually spend it on the children. Our statutes go into great detail about how to calculate the amount of support, but they are completely devoid of any requirement which mandates that the parent receiving it account for the expenditure of the money received.
These statutes are devoid of any court procedure to allow a party to question how the money is spent, nor do the statutes grant judges the authority to curtail the amount of support paid or mandate how the support received is expended.
If there were a mechanism in place for oversight, there would be much less abuse of this process. Oddly enough, our legal system gives judges broad discretion to make orders concerning custody arrangements, but it severely limits that discretion over the amount of support paid for the benefit of those very same children.
We expect fiscal accountability on so many levels in our society: of government, of corporations, of financial institutions, of recipients of welfare and food stamps. We are outraged by the fact that lack of personal financial accountability contributed in large part to the housing bust and our present recession. Why then, does it seem that we simply do not care if child support is not used for the direct needs of the children for whom it is being paid?
Follow Fred Silberberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/fredsilberberg
Jenée Desmond-Harris: When Fathers Fall Somewhere Between Awesome and Absentee
Laurence J. Kotlikoff: Making Divorce a Win-Win Proposition
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-hymowitz-families-20101111,0,6462852.story
Did you read it?
A parent acting as a representative payee receiving Social Security Disability benefits for their child(ren) MUST fill out an SSA-6230 form showing how much Social Security benefits you received and how much was used. You also have to show if any money wasn't used, where it is, what bank accounts you use to deposit the benefits or keep the remaining benefits in savings. You must keep receipts to show how the money is spent on the child(ren) each month. I believe these forms are required quarterly or 2X per year.
Compel your state legislators to follow the law and implement the SSA-6230 form into state law for purposes of child support accountability.
The real costs of raising the children should be determined based on lifestyles of the parents AFTER separation. Then the cost should be shared proportionately. States prefer to take the easy way out by imposing one-size-fit-all solutions without regard to how it infringes upon the fundemental rights of fit parents to raise their children.
Title IV-D has rewarded states by setting up sole custody incentives in Family Court and the counties that administer the program. As a result, children are awarded to one parent, to the financial advantage of the state, and the non-custodial parent has to pay more money, since their time with children is less.
Child support should be only based on presumptive mandatory, shared custody. It is a violation of the 14th Amendment, and the numerous Supreme Court decisions that support a parent's rights to custody, care and nurture of the child, as quoted above.
Those who oppose mandatory, shared custody are generally womens rights groups that believe that "primary" parents is always the mother, and father have no say in a child's future, education, or medical matters. Children are held hostage, taken into custody by the state, to the economic benefit of the custodial parent's purse, and the to the detriment of the children's well being, emotional and mental health.
The "best interest of the child" and "tender years doctrine" violate children's and parent's legal rights under the US Constitution. Children are not a commodity, custody is legal slavery.
Clothing: Clothing costs are to be paid for 1/2 child support and 1/2 CP. The child is allowed to have whatever the NCP says they may have and CP should buy the child anything they want even if this includes the latest 300 dollar pair of tennis shoes.
Medical expenses: The NCP generally has to cover child on medical insurance and this is not right, CP should have to reimburse for this expense (never mind that in most states it is already covered in CS calculations). As for uncovered expenses these should be covered in the calculation for child support. After all this is an expense of having children, taking them to the doctor.
Extra curricular activities (even those pursued pre-divorce/separation): The NCP should have the right to attend if they choose even if they do not agree with the activity and even if they never attended previously. And even so, the CP should pay for this 100% as the NCP is not being contacted regarding choices of said activity. And not all children can afford to particpate so why should these children and why should the NCP have to foot the bill (or even half of it)?
This is just a very short list but all of these are covered by MRA's on their websites over the dissatisfaction they have over issues of child support.
Rent should be 50% of the difference between what mother (or father) has to pay in order to house child. Example: If mom has 3 children then one or two additional bedrooms should be sufficient. So child support should be used to pay 1/2 of the difference between say a one bedroom for mom(dad) and a 2-3 bedroom for mom (dad) and children.
Food should not be 1/2 of the food bill, it should be 1/2 of the child's breakfast (and as a custodial parent you should keep tabs on exactly what your child eats every day), 1/2 of the child's lunch and 1/2 of the child's dinner.
Utility costs (power, gas, water, sewer, trash) this should again only be 1/2 of what the child uses. So parents who have electric costs, you should determine how much energy the child (children) consume and child support is 1/2 of that. Maybe there should be some sort of monitor on the electric box in order to determine how much energy is consumed by the child. Things like refrigerators do not count though because CP would have to have a refrigerator anyway. Same thing with gas, water, sewer, trash. You as a custodial parent should determine how much of each of these is due to the child's use and exactly 1/2 of that is to be paid for by child support. (cont)
All this penny pinching by the wealthy parent - a parent who is frequently the selfish partner who destroyed the family in the first place - is really ugly.
I have a problem with Silberberg's repeated comment that the mother "doesn't work". It is more appropriate (and probably more accurate most of the time) to state that the mother is not employed. Semantics do make a difference.
And that plays into my second problem with Silberberg's position, that he apparently believes that only income producing work is of any value. Age of the children makes a difference, and if it is possible for a parent to be available to the children for more than just five or six hours a day, that is usually a good thing for the children.
Like the "Cadillac Welfare Queen", the indolent ex-wife often has more to do with hyperbole than reality.
The other problem many fathers face is that the courts treat us all as potential deadbeats or rich people hoarding our cash, this does nothing but enable mothers to leave us in a position where the children suffer under our care during visitation. Having lived divorce my whole life growing up and raising my children to adulthood I have one piece of advice to people thinking of marrying. Look for someone who will make a good ex wife as you can live with a bad wife but you cant live with a bad ex wife.
So if mom and dad together make 100K, dad makes 80K and mom makes 20K, and let say the state determines that the total child support amount for one child is $800/month, if mom has custody, dad has to pay 80% of $800/month.
I make much more than my ex, so according to my states child support formula he only has to provide for 30% of the total support amount. If the situation were reversed, and he made a lot more than me, his portion would have to cover 70% of the total support amount.
See, it's actually pretty fair and equitable.....
the system assumes that men must pay.
If the children had gone to live with my husband, they would have eventually had two adults taking care of them and then the ex could have taken class after class to see if she could figure out what she wanted to be when she grew up...
And, by the way, you people who think every woman that is a mother is automatically a "madonna" should get a clue... (Christ was lucky, but he had a big advantage.)
Needless to say, child support is barely helping me to make ends meet. When our divorce is final, the few hundred dollars of alimony will stop, I'll be forced to downsize and try to find an apartment with 3 boys, and have to secure an evening job to pay the divorce costs, the community debts, etc.
Oh yeah .. my husband inherited 200 acres with a paid family home and millions of dollars in the bank when his father recently passed. Our sons and I get none of it because it's a family trust.