State of Michigan has a complicated formula which includes variables: Number of kids, amount of time children spend with each parent, income of both parents. For me it comes out to %30 of my income. My costs for health ins. dental ins. are deducted from that total. I pay it directly to the state, and then the state sends the money to the ex. Unreimbursed medical expenses are split, and in my case not 50/50. The money comes right out of my paycheck, automatic deduction.
Simple and easy. I started paying as soon as I moved out of the house, before the court was even involved. We share other expenses as they come up.
These are MY DAUGHTERS, and because of work arrangements over the years, I was very fortunate to spend a lot of time raising my girls.

You seem to be the rarity these days. I know I've never seen anything close to this from my ex. He has, in the past, in order to not help support the kids, gone as far as saying that my youngest was not his. His reason, she has blue eyes and he has green (blue eyes on both sides of the family).

It is refreshing to hear of a man who is more than willing to do what is needed to raise his kids.

Thank you.

State of Michigan has a complicated formula which includes variables: Number of kids, amount of time children spend with each parent, income of both parents. For me it comes out to %30 of my income. My costs for health ins. dental ins. are deducted from that total. I pay it directly to the state, and then the state sends the money to the ex. Unreimbursed medical expenses are split, and in my case not 50/50. The money comes right out of my paycheck, automatic deduction.
Simple and easy. I started paying as soon as I moved out of the house, before the court was even involved. We share other expenses as they come up.
These are MY DAUGHTERS, and because of work arrangements over the years, I was very fortunate to spend a lot of time raising my girls.

now for how i feel child support should work

i think both parents should pay support and it should go into a separate account

and it should be accounted for

and living expenses rent utilities should be 1 share per adult and 1/2 share per child (if 2 adults and two children at 600 a month then the adult share would be 400 and each childs share would be 100 each)

this does not count things like clothes and such

the govt has a food stamp scale for families and that scale should be used for the purposes of child support

toys and extras do not come out of this account

and when the child become a college student then any money left in the account goes to help pay for college if child does not go to college the money gets returned to the parents in the same ratio it was paid into the account

just a thought

but hey

what do i know

(i can name at least three custodial parents that use child support for their own means and the child gets very little)

Who pays for the toys and extras then? The $75 to play a sport at their school? The computer they need for school?
Field trips, school pictures, birthday presents for parties, scouts, school trips, and more?

I know. The custodial parent and probably the one that earns the less of the two.

the toys and extras come out of your personal money

school expenses are from the support it is a cost of education

not the support money

yikes, are you saying that everything outside the realm of overhead expenses are to come out the personal money of the parent that buys it, school expenses are also to be the custodial parents responsibility as it's education not support???

wow

reread it fran

school expenses come from the support account as it is a cost of education

then the support needs reassessed

just like it is reassed when someone changes their circumstances now

there are parents out there that can not afford to see their kids cause there is no money left after they pay their support

then they are considered the bad person cause they do not see the kids

it should not be based on income

it should be based on the same scale the govt uses to decide how much a family needs to survive

and it should then be divided between both parents

then maybe there would not be so many that refuse to pay

i know a guy that is paying 160 a week for one kid

sorry but that is way out of line

he pays more for one kid in three weeks than the govt gives a family of 4 to live on for a month

just aint right

if your friend is paying 160/wk - thats great, maybe that child will be able to do things and have things a person who received govt assistance doesnt. Why should this child be raised on what the gvt thinks a family should make to survive? When apparently your friend makes a pretty penny, should the kid also benefit from that???

if only that was the case -

she uses the money to make her car payments and house payment

that is not what it is for

if it went to the kid it would be different

and it happens that way a lot

i know another that has kids just so she can get the support from the father

prostitution that pays for 18 years

i would laugh but it is really pretty sad

Morning Fran!

I'm in the weird position of being able to see this from both sides of the equation, being a single mom and dating a non-custodial dad. So, for what it's worth, here's my 2 cents. Both parents, by accident or choice, brought a child into the world therefore they are both EQUALLY responsible for providing for that child in terms of shelter, food, clothing, education expenses, medical, dental, etc. etc. etc. THOSE are the necessities, everything else is a want, not a need (though those should be addressed as well). Regardless of who has custody or the custody arrangement, both parents should bear equal financial responsibility, which means yes, that mom (or custodial parent, I used mom as this is traditionally the case) may have to get a job to actually support their children. Most women do, of course, but there are lots more who do not. I also think that all sources of income within a household should be taken into account. I know of one woman who lives with her parents and her boyfriend, who pay all her expenses, she refuses to work so she can be a full-time mom yet sloughs them off on other relatives as often as possible and uses her child support for her own habits. This child support money is NOT going to her kids. So, why is this dad paying child support, then buying them necessities on the side because the mother doesn't provide them? And if he so much as sneezes "wrong" she refuses visition? But, the courts don't care about that, she's the mom and he has no rights whatsoever. He has to basically kiss ass in order to see his own kids once every 2 weeks. I don't think child support should be solely dependent on the non-custodial parent's income. Just because they pay more doesn't mean that the child's quality of life will improve. As long as all the necessities are covered, that's the important thing.

Perhaps an extreme example but the thing is, and I think most us would agree, the child support system and family courts are extremely lop-sided and need some serious fixing.

It's our job as parents to support our kids to the best of our abilities. But once the divorce is final (if there was ever a marriage), then our responsibility to the other party ends.

Maybe I'm an anomaly but I do not want child support from my ex, even if I needed it. I do not EVER want to be dependent on someone else and I will do whatever it takes to support my kid. I'm not saying his dad shouldn't contribute (and he does) but I think women, especially, make themselves dependent on that income, when it's not theirs to begin with, but what happens when the kids grow up? Or the father dies or otherwise becomes incapacitated? And they feel entitled to have the father still support them. When my ex and I split up, I simply told my son that life was gonna change, all the extras would have to be cut down or out. And you know what, he could have cared less. What he did care about is that he got to see his dad on a regular basis and that we as parents were trying to get along in our divorce than we could in our marriage.