I had my daughter approach me when she was 16 told me that the child
support i was getting should go to her as she had a friend whose mother
was giving him the child supposrt check --- sooo i sat her down and
went over the bills and the support and other niceties that occurred --
i let her ask questions and also let her answer them herself --- she
never asked again -- but yes the system does suck -- as my daughter
pointed out -- it was not nearly enough....

any usage of child support is just fine...as it adds to the family
income which IS for the child.

the original "set" amount here is based off of a percentage...and then
stays there to prevent the payer from being able to take the week off
and not have to pay.

i DO receive support for two of mine, but i didn't pursue it. his
lawyer set it directly in the divorce and asked that it be
garnished...as jay wasn't in the room with us, and his lawyer was ALSO a
friend of mine. child support takes over when they don't pay, as the
money is sent through their clearing house so that they know who is
paying or not.

the problem comes when you receive it steady for a couple of months and
begin to count on it...and then it just disappears. can take months to
be reinstated...and you're screwed cause you were counting on that cash
to pay the bills.

i receive nothing for my youngest, and i prefer it that way. i want
nothing to do with him or his.

so if the receiver of the support spends it on drugs and alcohol

it is ok and a benefit to the family

interesting

hhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

she shouldn't be on drugs in the first damned place. my point was that
the money adds to the family income...you can't pinpoint exactly what
was spent where. children need a roof, clothing, bed, food...they need
experiences and spending money...they need to go to dinner with mom
every now and then...they need a cook-out at the park...

so many things that don't fall directly under what most consider a need.

methinks you knew what i meant, robin.

to add...before receiving child support, i couldn't afford to take my
children to do any of those things. no movies, no dinners, no skating,
no museums...that doesn't mean that "oh, my gosh, lori spends her child
support on MOVIES", it just means that as a family, we can now afford to
go places that will enrich their childhood. not very often, but we DO
get to go places.

yes i did

but i wanted others to know what ya meant

and keeping an expense account record is

what i meant

it is not that unreasonable request

after all the irs expects it

and it was never their money

It certainly is "their" money, as it is the obligation of parents to
support their children. In general, when marriages or couples with
children split, it is the mother, who maintains primary physical custody
of the child(ren), whose income suffers. Not always, but generally.
She typically earns less than the father,and then has the burden of
child-related costs, including a diminished earnings potential that has
to do with bearing responsibility for child care. Child supprt
guidelinea are based on the earnings of both parents, and do operate on
a net percentage basis, except in cases of the very wealthy. I happen
to think your percentages are way off, but hte principle is intact.
More commonly, an income equalization model prevails. In the vast
majority of cases, recipients of child support on behalf of minor
children are NOT buying beer for their boyfriends--a disturbing,
misogynist myth. Rather, they are trying to juggle rents or mortgages
against food, medical care, clothing, and otehr costs. And they are
working, as well.
Asking an obligee (the recipient( to account for the child support
received is demenaing and insulting. the amounts mandated by the
guidelines are quite low, and coverleittle more than essentials. And
remember, these are ewssentials for the children, not the custodial
parent.

i was speaking of the irs

when i said it was never their money

i feel child support should be paid

but there should be an accountability

to where it goes

not saying it should not be paid

irs = internal revenue

if accountability for how money is spent

it may be easier to collect

Then do you also feel that the obligor--the paying parent--should make
an accounting to his or her child/ren about where his or her money goes?

as long as the amount ordered is payed where the rest goes does not
matter

they are not receiving money to be used for specific purpose

and the receiver does not have to account for all their money neither

just show what is spent for the court ordered kids

and yes a percentage of rent and utilities food and such count

Well, then I suppose what you desire is not illogical, but it is
unnecessary based on demographics of obligors and their children,and
practically speaking, probably undoable and unenforceable. Especially
given that the compliance rate on obligees hovered around 30% when I
last checked (a while ago--it undoubtedly is higher now), I think that
the staff time of the child support program (the IV-D program) or the
IRS would be better used in an alternative way--lke paternity
establishment or interstate enforcement in the case of the child support
program, or white collar tax fraud in the case of the IRS.

But that's just my view--the biggest bang for the buck.

you may be correct

but if some one wants to go in for a change in the support
amount they should have to have an accounting of where the money is
being spent

it is not that hard to set up a budget

it is obvious that those receiving would not want to be forced to
provide the info

but if such info is mandatory then maybe just maybe some not paying
because of the unaccountability of the money may pay

your agruement of 30% compliance helps to make my point

after all it is not a needed enforcement unless one party wants
to go to court to change the support amount

be well and hope things are good for you

my ex makes close to double what he did while we were married...while i
make less than half. i had to quit my well-paying job, as i had to be
available 24/7, and with nobody to back me up with the kids, that's just
not possible.

in fact, even WITH child support...i don't even come close to the amount
i used to make.

Again, a primary model for determining support is an income equalization
model, whcih proffers that children are entitled to live in one
household as they do in another--that assumes going back and forth with
custody. Each parent does have to provide a financial statement. If it
is validated, why would there need to be a monthly accounting? Is that
not somewhat patronizing, especially given the typically low amount that
is ordered as support? Your suggestion seems to stem from a belief or a
suspicion that the custodial parent has lots of money to spare, and htat
is demographically, and demonstrably not the case. Non-compliance has
everything to do with the obligee--he or she makes the decison not to
support his or her child/ren. They have legitimate need, regardless of
what the obligee may want to believe about the obligor. Non-compliance
is the result of many factors,and is being enhanced substantially by
remedies like tax return interception, seizure of assets like cars,
refusal of license renewals, etc. That suggests to me a prioritization
problem--as in, I value my car more than my children--and not anything
to do witht he financers of the obligor. I cannot tell you how many
times non-custodial parents are dragged into court for contempt, and it
is only when they are told to "bring a toothbrush," as in, "get ready
for jail," that the back support appears.

The best strategy for obtaining support, of course, is to maintain
something of a cordial relstionship with the ex, offer free access to
the child/ren where possible, and implement a wage withholding order as
soon as htere is a problem of delayed or non-payment.

In any event, I am glad you are interested.

Child support???? What is child support?

<I don't get it for either of my two children either...don't feel bad>

How would you feel if you were paying child support and living with the
person who had your son!

It really sucks!!!!!!!!