Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    First, I'm not a parent of any kind.  Second, one of my hobbies
    is serving a treasurer for non-profit organizations.
    
    I'd divide the expenses up three ways:  C.P.'s expenses as an
    individual: $10.  Family� expenses: $318.  Children's expenses:
    $130.  (At this point I realize how expensive kids can be.)
    
    So, the kids' share of the family expenses is two-thirds of
    $318, or $212.  Total kids' expenses is therefore $342.  (Eek!)
    A fifty-fifty split of payment would mean that the non-custodial
    parent pays $171.  A split proportional to gross income would
    mean that the non-custodial parent pays $156.51.
    
    How I'd choose between the two depends on who would be worse off
    without that `extra' $14.49 a week.  (This is different from
    who is more likely to be 14.49 short each week -- too many people
    cannot budget worth a wooden nutmeg.)
    
    							Ann B.

    �  Family *in this context* means this bunch of people who live
    under one roof.

I question several of your expenses:

"Heat                  75.00 (yearly divided by 52)"

3900$ a year heat?  1000-1200$ sounds typical from what I've heard.

"Childcare             80.00 (yearly divided by 52)"

At those ages, the children would be in school, wouldn't they?

"Savings (education)   10.00"

This is for college, right?  Effectively what you are doing is asking for more
then 18 years of support. 

Jim.

    Assuming the costs given:
    
    I considered the car payment and health insurance as the custodial
    parent's own costs, not directly related to the kids.  I considered
    2/3 of the household costs as being child-raising expenses: rent,
    heat, electricity, phone, food, car expenses, tenant insurance,
    laundry and medical/dental bills.  I considered the other costs
    as strictly related to raising the kids: daycare, children's insurance,
    children's clothes, school expenses and lunches, and savings.  This
    brings the child-related expenses to $268.63.
    
    Based on income, the non-custodial parent would pay $122.93/week,
    which would be about 16.5% of his/her net pay.
    
    This amount does not include any entertainment, lessons of any sort,
    vacations, etc.  I guess whichever parent gets to enjoy the child
    during those times would get to pay for those.  I'm not entirely
    comfortable with that, though.
    
    This is similar to the education expense.  This is the type of thing
    that parents who are together will decide together: whether we want
    to pay for that and, if so, how much.  I'll assume for the sake
    of this exercise that that amount (certainly not exorbitant) was
    determined to be appropriate (either by the two parents together,
    or if they were unable to, a judge, based on the information provided
    by them).
    
    Jim, I suppose the fact that the kids are school-aged explains the
    ridiculously low per-week cost of daycare (probably for after school
    and summers?).
    
    Next case.
    

    in re college...
    
    Jim,
    
    Do you expect your children to be entirely responsible for their
    college expenses or do you plan to help pay for their education?
    
    Having taught students who were so over whelmed with school and
    jobs that their grades suffered, I fully intend to support my
    kids through college.
    
    Bonnie

As pointed out, saving for college is not normally *manditory*.  The questioon
of whether I would save for college or not is irrelevant.  I still hold that
forcing savings for college education is in effect demanding more then 18 years
of support.

And what happens when the child does not go to college for one reason or
another?  Who has the money?  The child?  The parent who paid it?  Not on your
life, the custodial parent has it.   As long as it is included in "child
support", instead of being in trust for, I doubt that the child will get it. 

Why is the rest of the family expenses, namely the noncustodial parents expenses
not considered in the child support computations?  Now I know the 'pay it
regardless' argument based on the 'the custodial parent cannot walk into a
grocery and say "I only have $$ to pay for the groceries"', but the living
expenses of the noncustodial parent need to be paid just as much as the
custodial parents.  Or does being a noncustodial parent make one a second class
citizen automatically, or less worth then others?  Sure, the total expenses
might exceed the income, and the sacrifices need to be made on BOTH sides. You
cannot expect a noncustodial parent to give EVERYTHING to support their children
if necessary, and be left with nothing to live on themselves, and nothing to be
left to be a parent with. 

As for me putting in numbers for child support, I am afraid that I cannot relate
to this scenario where the noncustodial parent is ignored except for his
PAYCHECK.

I feel that there should be no distinction between custodial parents and
noncustodial parents, and children should be allowed to spend equal time with
both parents.  The expenses BOTH parents have on behalf of the children should
be considered.  

The question of HOW the expenses are calculated is actually pretty moot as long
as the same method is used consistantly.  Then the question of whether only the
additional children's expenses are considered, or all of the household expenses
are considered becomes irrelevant. 

Jim.

    The quiz was designed to generate some discussion on what should
    be considered expenses that are used to base a non-custodial parents
    child support figure. 
    
    The figures are arbitrary, and the categories are listed as expenses
    around child support.  Because a category is listed does not mean
    that I feel or it should be included in a child support agreement.

    re: .7
    
    There is nowhere in the base note any assumption that the
    noncustodial parent is a *he*.
    
    My first reaction is that those expenses look pretty low for
    someone trying to raise a family in southern NH -- but I'm going
    to think them over in line with Joyce's other questions . . . what
    does it take to raise a child?  What's necessary and what's
    optional? 
    
    --bonnie

    Yes, housing is at least 50% low, electricity is about 300% low
    -- but the phone bill is about right (exclusive of marathon long
    distance phone calls).  Car payments are low, unless the C.P.
    expects a car to last fifteen years, and the car maintenance is
    assuming that the C.P. lifes less than ten miles from work.
    
    There ought to be an emergency fund, but that should not affect
    the N.C.P.'s payments.  (The N.C.P. should have one too; life is
    full of little monetary surprises.)  The education fund should be
    a lot bigger.  ($260 per kid per year is pitiful.)  I can see the
    N.C.P. not contributing beyond a matching $10 per week, but I see
    it with a *very* jaundiced eye.
    
    Now the fight:  I think the car is a legitimate family expense.
    Kids (ages 5 and 7, remember) don't drive, but they do ride.  They
    can get carted to and from *their* place of work, after all, and
    a weekly trip to the Public Library is a lot cheaper than even an
    occasional book.
    
    							Ann B.

    I was wondering why the children have life insurance coverage?
    Life insurance is usually to cover the expenses of a person's
    dependents for some period of time, and to cover funeral costs;
    I have no dependents, so I don't carry much life insurance. So,
    I'm not sure what is being bought with the $10.00/week for that
    expense, unless it is really some kind of investment plan that builds
    a cash value (in which case there are better ways to invest money).
    
    Of course, some adults do this too.  A former-DECcie friend of mine,
    in his late thirties with no dependents, was explaining to me about
    his fancy life insurance policy, insuring him for many times his
    annual salary - he was real puzzled when I asked him why he needed
    to pay for all that.  (The only thing I thought up later is that
    he may have the policy written to pay off to his divorced sister's
    children, since his sister hasn't got much money.)
                           
    /Charlotte

    .11
    Children's life insurance...
    
    Children do die...before their time.  Funerals are a large expense
    and required by law.  Insurance against this catastrophe makes sense.
    
    

	Sorry this is so long, but it is a complex issue and I wanted to
explain my thinking as much as possible.

	I agree with some previous replies that state that the figures are
a little bit low, and I have made some assumptions that may be off somewhat.
However, I think that the basic reasoning is still correct, you just have
to play with the numbers.

	One comment that I would like to make: Two can NOT live as cheaply
as one, but it doesn't cost twice as much for two. When people get divorced
their _combined_ total expense is greater than if they were still together.
The bottom line is that you have the same amount of money trying to run two
households. It is inane to think that the standard of living will remain the
same. Both will go down until salaries move upwards. 

	Let's get to the Basics.

	The issue is child support, not custodial or non custodial parents.
The issue is the need of the children, not the parent's income.

	Basic assumption: Each parent needs a place to live. Because of the
income level, I propose that we assign each a 1 br apartment. This is the
parent's expense only. Each must have certain basics as would any single
person, with no children in the picture.


	Since all the expenses are incurred on a monthly basis, I am going to
convert all my figures to monthly.


Expense		Base		Child	       50/50        55/45%

Rent		350		85             42.50        46.75/38.25
Heat		 56.25          18.75           9.38        10.31/8.44
Electric         15.00           5.00           2.50         2.75/2.25
Telephone        24.00           N/A
Food		100.00         100.00          50.00        55.00/45.00
Car Payment     100.00           N/A
Car expense      80.00           N/A
Childcare         N/A          350.00         175.00       192.50/154.50
Health Ins        N/A           40.00          20.00        22.00/18.00
Tenant Ins       16.00           N/A
Child Life Ins    N/A           40.00          20.00        22.00/18.00
Child Cloth       N/A           80.00          40.00        44.00/36.00
Laundry          16.00          16.00           8.00         8.80/7.20
Med/Dent(1)       N/A           41.60          20.80        22.88/18.72
Med/Dent(2)       N/A           30.00          15.00        16.50/13.50
School Exp/Lunch  N/A           40.00          20.00        22.00/18.00
Savings (ed)      N/A           40.00          20.00        22.00/18.00
Misc              N/A           40.00          20.00        22.00/18.00
                               ------         ------       -------------
                               926.35         463.18       509.50/416.85

Custodial fee                   50.00/mo

	So, child support care is calculated as follows:

50/50    926.35 total child expenses per month
	 x  .50 half the total
	-------
         436.18
         +50.00 custodial fee
	-------
         486.18
	 x   12 months
	-------
       5,384.16
      /      52 weeks
      ---------
         112.20 per week expense non custodial parent
	
50/50    926.35 total child expenses per month
	 x  .50 half the total
	-------
         436.18
	 x   12 months
	-------
       5,234.16
      /      52 weeks
      ---------
         100.65 per week expense custodial parent
	
55/45    926.35 total child expenses per month
	 x  .45 weighted portion of the total
	-------
         416.85
         +50.00 custodial fee
	-------
         466.85
	 x   12 months
	-------
       5,602.20
      /      52 weeks
      ---------
         107.73 per week expense non custodial parent
	
50/50    926.35 total child expenses per month
	 x  .55 weighted portion of the total
	-------
         509.50
	 x   12 months
	-------
       6,114.00
      /      52 weeks
      ---------
         117.57 per week expense custodial parent
	

	Explanation:

	Columns:

	Expense: Self explanatory

	Base: This is the amount a person would have to pay to live with NO
	children in the picture.

	Child: This is the additional expense with a child. Note that this is
	NOT per child.

	50/50: Even split of CHILD column expense.

	55/45: Split of CHILD column expenses weighted by income. ( I personally
	do not support this. One's income is immaterial for calculating the
	need of the children. And yes... my ex makes more than me!)

	Expenses:

	Rent: Every person, married, single or custodial has certain base
	expenses. When a marriage ends, so does the responsibility of one
	partner to provide for the other. (There are some exceptions...
	for example if one of the partners did not work and has no income.)
	For the custodial parent. The additional amount required for an
	additional bedroom(s) is the cost of the child. I do not support the
	total/number of people calculation. You are going to have a living
	room whether or not the children are there, so no additional cost
	is incurred except the additional bedroom.

	Heat: Same reasons as above. The additional cost is to heat the
	additional bedroom(s). It will cost the same to heat the living room
	whether or not children are there. (actually it will cost _slightly_
	less because each person represents about 400 Btu/hr!)

	Electric: Same as above. Possibly a small additional charge to run
	the TV, washer, VCR, videogame or a lamp or two in the bedroom.

	Telephone: Exclusively the parent's expense. (Long distance calls
	have to be handled separately). The base cost of the phone is the
	same regardless of the number of people using it.

	Food: This is a toughie. From my experience, feeding two people does
	not cost twice as much as feeding one person. (I'd like to meet the
	person who can feed three people for 200/mo. I know my bill is
	more than this and we eat hot dogs and hamburger... _nothing_ fancy!)

	Car payment: Parent's cost exclusively. If you didn't have the kids,
	would the car payment go down?

	Car payment: Parent's cost exclusively. There is an additional cost
	when transporting the kids, but I'll get to that later....

	Childcare: 100% child related. Using the above logic, childcare would
	drop to 0 without kids.

	Health Insurance: Only that difference between what you would would
	pay singly and what you pay to have children added. I assumed it the
	given figures it was all for the children's expenses because of what I
	pay.

	Tenant Insurance: Exclusively parent's expense. It's the same no
	matter if the kids live there or not.

	Child Life Insurance: 100% child cost. It is in the best interest
	of the non-custodial as well as the custodial parent. I do think
	that this should be only enough to cover the costs of a funeral and
	other related expenses.

	Child Clothing: 100% child related.

	Laundry: Given two children of this age and 1 adult I would say it's
	about a 50/50 split. Living alone would require more, smaller loads.

	Med/Dent(1): This is the deductible from the insurance ONLY. My
	deductible is 250 so I multiplied by 2 and divided by 12. This is
	for the children only.

	Med/Dent(2): This is the amount for additional medical expenses NOT
	covered by insurance. (Non prescription meds, the difference between
	what insurance covers (80% usually) and what you have to pay, etc.)

	School Exp/Lunch: 100% child related.

	Savings (ed): I would agree to this ONLY if neither parent held the
	money, but that it would be put into a trust that would require
	the signature of _both_ parents as well as the child to withdraw.

	Misc: 100% child related additional expenses for things like
	toiletries, entertainment, camp, music lessons, etc.

	Custodial fee: This is a fee that would be given to the custodial
	parent for the additional work (and it _is_ work) for the care of the
	child. in addition it would cover the additional cost of gas or
	other expenses incurred by the custodial parent because of requirements
	_directly_ related to custodial duties.


	Conclusion:

	Visitation rights for the non custodial parent must be enforced. 

	Because of the number of days the non-custodial parent has the
children in a year (62) for the two weeks of vacation time there would be
no payment to the custodial parent. This would allow the non custodial parent
to use the money for the children. It takes into account the custodial fee
for 62 days and the additional expense of food and entertainment for the
non custodial parent. After all child support is for the child, not the
custodial parent.

	I believe that this is an equitable arrangement. Parenting is forever.
If two adults choose not to continue a marriage, that is their decision.
However _each_ parent is responsible for the children. It should _not_ be
required of one parent to support the children exclusively.

	As a custodial parent I have _less_ than no desire to receive a single
cent from my ex for _my_ expenses. However, I should not be required to bear
all the expenses for the children. We had them together... we should provide
for them together until they can provide for themselves.

    
    	RE: .13 
    
    	 Tom, I think you did an excellent job in breaking down the
    	costs related to child support. I could support such a system
    	with no problem, now we have to have a way to get the courts
    	(at least in Mass.) to do it as well. As is now, it's all up
    	to how the judge feels on any given day. It should apply
    	regardless of the sex of the non-custodial parent.
    
    
    	Good Job!!!
    
    	G_B

    Re:back a few:
    
    There's no legal requirement for funerals that I know of.  There
    probably is a legal requirement for disposal of remains, but
    cremation is fairly cheap, isn't it?  There seems to be no need
    for life insurance for the child.
    
    				-John Bishop

    
    The law (in California) does not prevent parents from making their
    own arrangements. 
    
    If the non-custodial parent wants a better deal, make it with the
    other parent.  
    
    Otherwize accept the consequences and responsibility for the situation.
                  
    
                                                                           
    

RE: eagle

I think Tom Cross did quite a good job of detailing a CUSTODIAL/NONCUSTODIAL
parent situation.  I don't think I could add to that.  However, I do not want a
custodial/noncustodial parent situatioon for my children, so it is of limited
use to me.

Unfortunately the MA court system is a far cry from anything like any of
this...

"Why not tell the folks about a "Yuppie Life-style" scenario in which the
children get whatever is left over after payments for a Saab and a Condo and a
new Stereo ..."

I cannot comment on this becasue I have never seen such a thing...

I have said, in principle, what I believe is fair.  The numbers I believe,
are largely irrelevant, except how they compare to the other numbers.

"Fortunately the legal system for divorce does not depend on the ability of an
ex-husband to "relate" to the financial problem!"

What an odd comment.  What do you mean by it?  Perhaps the court should...

"If the non-custodial parent wants a better deal, make it with the other parent.
Otherwize accept the consequences and responsibility for the situation." 

 
One more time WITH FEELING!

YOU CAN'T DEAL OR NEGOTIATE WITH SOMEONE WHO HAS ALL THE MARBLES!

Jim.

    Not to get on a tangent, but my SO is currently doing extensive
    research into funeral laws, and has found that very few actually
    exist.  He has also found that there are groups in existence for
    the purpose of "simple burial".  What the funeral industry does
    to bereaved families is absolutely disgusting!  If anyone wants
    to know more about this, contact me.
    
    As far as the subject at hand - what kind of burial you would want for
    your children should they die is a personal matter.  A simple burial
    can be done for well under $100.  Bodies can also be useful to medical
    schools in many cases, which incurrs no cost to the family.  If both
    parents agree that they want a standard, $5K modern American burial,
    and want to have insurance to cover it, they should pay equally for it.
    If one parent or the wants this, and the other doesn't care or would
    prefer the simple methods of burial, the one who wants the larger
    expense should pay for it.  If, on the other hand, it is an investment
    for the children, the parents should either agree on it, and pay
    equally, or the one that wants this type of investment should pay for
    it. 
                                     
    Elizabeth       

    ... or we can declare that the line in .0 "really" reads
    ~Children's Life and Health Insurance~ and assume that the
    previous line about insurance reads ~C.P.'s Life and Health
    Insurance~.
    
    						Ann B.

re .19
>  What the funeral industry does to bereaved families is absolutely disgusting!

    So 'tis!  Jessica Mitford also wrote a scathing book called
    _The_American_Way_of_Death_ on this topic.

re .13

    I'm impressed by Tom's distribution.  Can't think of a fairer
    way to do it...although I'm not absolutely convinced that the
    parental distribution shouldn't be based on income, rather
    than an even 50/50 split.  The biggest problem with it that I
    see is that it seems to be a fair distribution for *this*
    situation:  should we expect the courts to examine every
    situation so carefully?

    On a tangent, I was astonished at how high heating costs are
    for (presumably) East Coast locations.  I've always heard
    that oil is *lots* more expensive than gas, must be true...

    -- Linda

    
    Bravo!  To those [non-nitters] who look to working out a fair and
    equitable support schedule based upon the financial facts [at least
    as they are today].  And Bravo! again to the couple that can work
    thru this [together] and agree and get it on paper and approved
    through the courts.  The kids benefit.  The custodial parent gets
    a fair deal.  And the Non-custodial parent doesn't feel taken advantage
    of by an un-fair system.  
    
    If there were only an organized, legalized , un-biased panel of
    folks who could arbitrate these types of matters with the "families"
    interest in mind prior to it going to the courts.  This conference
    in a way is a form of an informal arbitration panel.  The orginator
    provided the facts.  The panel tested some of the facts and then
    eventually recommendations went out.  
    
    I think the originator feels more comfortable with the data and
    what needs to be done.  Thats good-ness.
    
    Now!  If there were a formalized arbitration panel with fair guidlines,
    manned by competent trained personnel in all the states that could
    deal with these matters prior to it getting in front of a judge
    this major social issue [divorse/children/welfare/support/etc] might
    take a turn for the better.
    
    Only those cases that could'nt be arbitrated [concluded] would be
    left up to the judge.
    
    Unfortunatetly most cased involving support begin with one or both
    spouses seeking legal council.  The next thing you know its someone
    getting served papers and a long drawn out battle resulting in a
    winner and loser, anger, etc.   The victoms become the children.
    
    And the lawyers abscond with the biggest % of the assets and take
    expensive vacations.
    
    One person's perspective of how it is.  An how un-fair the system
    is at delaing with it.    It's good to know that some people believe
    in arbitrating on a fair and equal basis.  If only we could get
    the legal system to do the same.
    
    Bill

    I AM A COSTODIAL PARENT (FATHER) OF TWO BOYS AGED 8 AND 11.
    
    AS FAR AS THE EXAMPLES GO WITH SIMILAR INCOMES I FEEL THAT THE 50/50
    SPLIT OF THE CHILDRENS PORTION OF EXPENSES IS FAIR. BUT WHERE THEIR
    ARE LARGE DIFFERENCES IN INCOMES THEN I BELIEVE THE SUPPORT PERCENTAGES
    SHOULD BE ADJUSTED SOMEWHAT. IF THE NON COSTODIAL PARENT IS AT OR
    BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL THEN POSSIBLY THAT PARENT WOULD PAY NOTHING
    WITH NO LOSS OF VISITATION PRIVILAGES BUT IF THE NON COSTODIAL
    PARENT MAKES SAY TWICE AS MUCH AS THE COSTODIAL PARENT THEN THE
    PERCENTAGE PAID BY THE NONCOSTODIAL PARENT SHOULD BE SOMEWHAT HIGHER. 
    I DONT THINK ANY ATTEMPT TO MAINTAIN
    PREVIOUS STANDARDS OF LIVING SHOULD BE MADE. IN MOST CASES BOTH
    WILL SUFFER A REDUCTION IN STANDARD OF LIVING AND THATS THE WAY
    IT IS. I THINK THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IS TRYING TO MAKE ONE RULE FOR
    ALL. THAT WILL NEVER WORK IN MY OPINION. I THINK SOME GENERAL GUIDELINES
    ARE NEEDED AND THE EACH CASE DECIDED ON ITS OWN CIRCUMSTANCES WITH
    SOME PROVISION FOR ADJUSTMENTS OVER TIME AS THE ECONOMIC STATUS
    OF THE PARTYS CHANGE. I ALSO BELIEVE THE INCOME OF A NEW SPOUSE
    SHOULD HAVE NO BEARING ON SUPPORT PAYMENTS TO OR RECIEVED FROM A
    PREVIOUS SPOUSE. I ALSO BELIEVE WHERE THEIR IS A LARGE DIFFERENCE
    IN INCOME ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL THE CHILDEREN SHOULD GO TO THE PARENT
    WITH THE LARGEST INCOME. 

    this is TEXAS law... 
    the NET WAGES of the NON-CUSTODIAL parent is computed as follows:
    	Gross wage less Social Security less Federal Tas for ONE DEPENDANT
    	equals NET WAGE.  This is computed as a MONTHLY figure.
    
    Child Support Guidelines are>>>
    
    1 child	19% to 23% of NET
    2 children	24% to 28% of NET
    3 children	30% to 34% of NET
    4 children	35% to 39% of NET
    5 or more 	not less than 4 children.
    
    My NET MONTHLY computes to 2531.11 which means the court will award
    40% or 1012.44 per month for child support for my 5 kids.  Their
    ages are 9, 12, 17, 19, and 21 (next month).  All the older kids
    are in college and living at home.  Texas also does NOT have alimony.
    
    All this poses a great problem for me.  My divorce will be final
    this month (August)...or early Sept.. at the latest.  I am presently
    contributing more than $500 per week to the family, and when this
    divorce is final, the amount will drop to about 234 per week.  This
    will have a BIG impact on the whole family, and I feel a lot of
    guilt over that.  How do you learn to get along with that guilt
    and FORCE the custodial parent to assume SOME of the financial
    responsibility?
    
    tony
    

    I think that, as you figure out your finances and discover that
    you can't live on ~$500 per month, you'll have less guilt.
    And two of your kids should be able to help support themselves,
    right?  Even if they're in college, they can work summers and
    do some work during the school year.  
    
    In order to deal with guilt, first you've gotta figure out if
    your reason for feeling guilty is rational.  Then you know more
    or less the direction for dealing with it.  If it's rational, you
    have to figure out if you can DO anything about it or not, and
    carry out that decision.  If it's not rational, you can choose
    to understand it and work out the guilt.  You might even be able
    to discuss this with your children.
    
    --Louise

    RE: .13
    
    Bravo!  I also thought your response was GOOD.  I am on the other
    side of the fence, I pay child support.  It is really hard to
    concentrate on just the children and not get mad at the style of
    living of the custodial parent.  My case is not the "norm", I am
    the mother, giving custody to the father. Without a fight, we actually
    agreed on something without a fight.  But, I have a real hard time
    when my ex says to me he wants to file a motion to increase my payments
    to him 250% because he "can't afford to live". But he can afford
    a new van, an accelerated mortgage on his house so it will be paid
    off in 10 years, 2 racing bicycles that cost approx $500 - $600
    each! Shops for his clothes at a high buck department store.
    ETC...ETC... Most people who pay child support run into this at
    one time or another.  My ex & I set it up like this:
    
    I pay:
    Standard monthly CSP $100.00
    All school clothes (I have 2 teens, 1 expensive 14 yr old girl,
    1 moderate 13 yr old boy) this includes shoes, 2 prs each
    1/2 special lessions, etc.
    
    It gets pretty expensive at times, because my ex has trouble saying
    "no" sometimes, he is getting better.
    
    In closing......
    
    It seems to me, child support is used like a club to get back at
    the other parent at divorce time, because more times than not, the
    custodial parent goes for the top $$$$$ they can get. 
    
    I personnaly don't get the theory on it, but for all those who are
    getting divorces and have children, try to keep your personal feelings
    out of it, all the money in the world will not recoup what has been
    lost between you.

    re:  .27
    	There are people out there who only have a small amount of
    Child Support to pay.  My ex's is set at $150.00 per month for 
    2 teenagers (now) -- we've been divorced for 14 years.  He does
    not even pay the $150. as he barely makes more than minimum wage
    at his job.  So....I let him pay nothing! 
    
    	

    
    re .27
       
    Even a piker like me would be ashamed of that...

    100.00 doesn't sound like much to you maybe, but I don't make alot
    either, he has twice my income and has been married the whole time
    we've been divorced, so there have been 2 incomes, while I've had
    1 until May of this year. And like I said, his style of living makes 
    things what they are.  Even if I would have custody and getting
    support, I wouldn't have taken every dollar I got my hands on. Since 
    when does it take 650.00 month to raise a child.  I know a case where 
    a woman had a child out of wedlock, sued for paternaty, won after a
    two year battle, and WOULD NOT SETTLE for less than $650.00/month. She 
    got the $650.00 for ONE CHILD!!! You would be HARD pressed to convince
    me that it's not a form of punishment from the CP.  It's like they
    want the divorce, but want the luxury of being married (financially).
    
    Its not right! Lay on all the guilt you want....the directly related
    costs of the child(ren) are all that should be taken at support
    time.  Unless one is far better off financially than the other,
    it isn't fair.

    I know I am late into the note, but my husband has paid $100 a month
    for the last 9 years till I had the nerve to file for divorce. 
    We have been seperated for 9 years. Any way he makes 25-30k a year.
    He lives with his girlfriend of 9 years who also works.  I paid
    day care(with the 100 and then what ever was left owing,, all 
    clothing expenses, all school expenses, insurance, dental, doctors.

    RE -1, The $100 seems entirely fair, good grief, you pay for *all*
    expenses.  looks like all thats provided by him is a house and food.
    wonder what would happen if he had to pay for everything himself?
    I know my lawyer had both him and I give them noterized financial
    statements with paystubs in order to have the court establish the
    new amount.  All the checks that I have received over the years
    have been endorsed to daycare centers, the courts looked very favorably
    on that.  
    
    vivian    

    re -1
    sure $100 is really reasonable.
    lets see, here in colorado...
    as an assembler about $4.00 an hour
    that usually comes out to take home of about $135-140. 
    so then we have his $100, 135x4.5=607.5 + 100= $705.5.
    rent 350 leaves 257.5
    utilites if all are paid except electricity = $45 a month.
    leave 212.5. Daycare was $60 a week, but I had to apply for 
    ADC to that only meant that if I signed over the $100 check 
    welfare paid the rest. That left 112.5 then we take out the phone
    with monthly payment, no long distance= about 10 that left 102.5.
    That was food, diapers, clothes, gas/oil for the VW.  That about
    summed up how my daughter and I lived for a couple of years. every
    raise seemed to go to taxes. manufacturing is well known for .02%
    raises. Sure I apperciated his $100, expecially when he would send
    me cards from vacations to bermuda, mexico, california.  God forbid
    the kid should get sick!  Personnally,in my opinion, the experience
    made me very very strong.  There will never be an occasion that
    I will ever allow my daughter or myself to go hungry again. I don't
    know how women with incomes equal to or less then what I made, with
    more than one child can survive.  My hats off to all of you!
    
    This has absolutly nothing to do with the woman who has mentioned
    what she pays, there is no comparison.  He has obviously not had
    to contact welfare, work two jobs to eat, had social services visit
    etc. As far as custodial women parents, we usually don't have it
    as good as her ex seems to. 
    
    vivian
    
    

    Re: .34
    
         Let's see, .02% of $4.00 is eight-hundreths of a penney.  That
    raise wouldn't even show up on the check!
    
         The situation you described does not look like fun.  My hat
    is off to you.  I don't think I could've done it.
    
                                    Greg

    Re: .34
    
    I lost a hundred in there.
    
    >so then we have his $100, 135x4.5=607.5 + 100= $705.5.
    
    Then we have:
    
    Rent:		350
    Electricity:	 45
    Daycare payment:	100
    Phone:		 10
                        ---
                        505
    
    Which leaves $202.5 or so a month, which is still pretty bleak for
    food, clothes, gas, etc.  Of course, I don't see taxes or social
    security mentioned anywhere.

    TO .34-
    
    Call me a chicken _hit, but that is what my two children had to
    look forward to if I would have kept them.  I had no real work
    experience except factory, I came from a broken home, I lived in
    a foster home where 17 year olds got pregnant often - then married
    and their young husbands went off to Vietnam or where ever, they
    lived on welfare food stamps, low income housing that wasn't real
    fit for occupation, maybe eventually got a job.  Some where in all
    that mire....I wanted more for myself and my children.  Some single
    parents would call me selfish, self-centered, maybe so by some
    standards, but I was going to be damned if my children were going
    to have nothing too.  My ex wasn't a suitable husband for me, but
    he is doing a good (not perfect, but I doubt I'd be any better even
    now) job being a father.  And in the end, isn't it whats best for the 
    kids that counts?  The funny part is, people say that, but they only
    seem to mean it if you fit the society *norm*. I think guys really
    get the short end of the stick at divorce time, I witnessed it at
    my divorce and during my new husbands.  They always assume the mother
    is better.   I'm getting off the subject here......
    
    There will always difference of opinion between paying and receiving
    child support.  If you are in a situation where communication is
    slim...it's harder to deal with.  But it's HARD to pay out that
    monthly amount, every month without fail, whether you have it or
    not.  At the same time single parents need some financial help,
    some more some less.  And I still believe in some cases child support
    is used a punishment against the NCP. (my new husbands an example).
    

    re .36

    I should have known Jim would comment.  
    I have to apologize, I almost flamed at Jim, I had to delete my
    previous reply.  The reason my pay and expenses count:
    this is what it cost to have a roof over the kids head, to keep
    the house warm, to feed her, to cloth her.  If the court had of
    raise the child support at least for clothing for her, or the baby
    food, I would have been happy.  At this point in my life, I have
    the attitude that if the man helps make the baby, he can damn well
    help keep her clothed and fed!  Oh, excuse me, almost flamed again.
    
				CHILD SUPPORT IS FOR THE CHILD!
    
    It *helps* support the child!  If this means the parent might get
    one meal with the child, where is the inequality in that?  At least
    the parent won't be passing out from hunger.....
    
    vivian

    re .-1
    nothing is wrong with taking the childs expenses and deviding by
    two. It just makes the child support amount unrealisticly too high.
    I would rather of had some food in the house and clothes on her
    back then an increase of child support.
    1/2 of rent = 175.00
    baby food 1/2 = 75.00?
    clothes/diapers=about 50.?
    (so many years ago, don't remember the actuals)
    
    nah,, just feed and clothe her. 

    actually she is almost ten now, and she and I have decided that we
    have so much to be proud of, we live in a nice house, she has nice
    clothes, a bike, skates, food when she is hungrey and we do it on
    *MY* pay.  Dad still is being garnished for the 2/3's of the daycare
    bill never the total, but we don't WANT anything from him. we are doing
    great without his addition to the rest of our lives.  
    
    So our rough past, and my belief that he could of helped her more
    when she was young won't change with anyones opinions.  and I
    apoligize for sounding sexit, but especially a non-custodial mans 
    opinion.
    
    In regards to the woman whos children are living with the father.
    I know that was a hard decision for you, and no matter what I would
    say in support of you and your decision it would probably sound 
    condesending so just know that I admire you. 
    
    vivian

    RE: Why half of the rent..
    
    Well.. Mike... if I didn't have the kids with me, I could move into
    an apartment with someone else (or have someone move in with me),
    and thus reduce my rent payment by half... with kids, 1. I have
    to have a larger apartment, and 2. Not too many people want to move
    in with 2 or more kids around...
    
    Gale
    
    P.S. Half rent for me would be $420.00 ....  that could be a sizable 
    savings each month...
    
    DISCLAIMER -- I'm not saying half of the rent is or is not a valid
    argument...    When it comes to child support -- there never seems
    to be a right answer...

All this of course is assuming that there is a custodial parent, and a
noncustodial parent, and ignoring the needs of the noncustodial parent and
concentrating solely on the custodial parent and the children.

If both parents want to continue being parents, it should be an entirely
different ball of wax.

Jim.

    No, I am not ignoring the non-custodial parent.  I realize     
    that there are a large amount of men in this file who do 
    participate in their childs lives or wished that they could. 
    However there is a very large majority of men who want 
    absolutely nothing to do with the children after conception. 
    All you have to do is contact the local DA's office, they 
    are the ones looking for them. 

     Why 1/2 rent:

    As stated eariler, If I had not had custody, I could have 
    rented a small apartment or room and that would have been 
    fine. as it was I lived in a very seedy area, but it wasn't 
    just one room.  

    vivian
    

"No, I am not ignoring the non-custodial parent."

'''you''' aren't?  All of the discussion has been with the assumption of one
custodial parent and one non-custodial parent, and on the needs and wants of the
custodial parent and children.  Doesn't that fit the definition of "ignoring"? 

Jim.

    
    I leave this discussion to Jim, he obviously wants me to discuss
    something I don't know anything about, raising a child with the
    assistance of her father.
     
    continue on Jim
    
    you're on your own, validate your own feelings.  I am not going
    to argue with you any more...
    
    vivian

    If y'all are going to snarl at each other, could you do it by mail?

    Re: .51
    
    Yes, I believe that was the word I used.

    
    from the age of initial understanding until she gets married
    she is told (brainwashed) by her parents and society that
    "someday she will meet a handsome young man and fall in love
    and live happily ever after and raise a family....etc"
    Up until the past 12-15 years she was also convinced that
    once she achieved this state of bliss her hubby would take
    care of her (financially) while she raised the family, cooked
    the meals, cleaned the house, did the dishes, and got old
    and fat. Of course, now, she is told that should she like a part
    time job or a full time job just for fun or extra money that
    would be ok but really, hubby is still the breadwinner...
    oh, by the way, if you do work 40 hours a week just remember
    that you still must have supper ready for hubby!
    
    so it's a man's world with men making the money and women not
    really taken seriously, especially the ones who still succumb
    to the narcotic of "happily ever after"...
    
    then....reality sets in....
    and divorce takes place...
    and the man, secure in his job making 30-40-??? k per year bitches
    about child support...
    while the woman, very insecure in her new role as divorced mother
    with no real job experience or no real job or, if she's lucky,
    in a secretarial position where the work is real but the money
    isn't, has now got to make ends meet.
    
    her choice: stay married in a dead end relationship or get
    out and suffer financially.
    
    splitting the expenses of child support 50/50 is only good
    if they are making equal pay....
    otherwise, she loses and he wins...
    and since women, on the national average (especially those
    who dropped out of the work force to "have a family") are making
    much less then men on the average they should recieve a "fair"
    amount of child support...
    
    so ladies...
    tell your children
    especially your daughters...
    TAKE CARE OF YOURSELVES!
    make your own money, pay for your own life, don't expect some
    guy to do it for ya cuz when he leaves.....and they do leave...
    you're gonna be hurting...
    
    i was in a similiar situation to some of the cases mentioned here..
    
    made 8k/year
    me and my two daughters
    living in a 15k/year world (which has since gone up to 22k)
    it was real rough....
    food, child care, clothes, sneakers, gas...
    and didn't get a dime from my ex...
    but i also never had any bad feelings for/towards her...
    
    it just helped me to learn/grow a lot...
    which was very valuable and thank you very much....
    but the extra money would have been nice...

    RE:56
    
    I'm with you on teaching your children to take care of themselves!
    In reality thats the way it always should have been....but parents
    (mostly fathers, sorry guys) tell there daughters - DON'T WORRY-
    you'll find someone to take care of you.  My daughter is almost
    15 now, and she is being raised by her father (custodial) and myself
    (non-custodial) to learn as much, about everything there is in life,
    because you can't always count on someone to be there,(my ex and
    I lived that kind of life and figured it out the hard way. It wasn't
    taught to us, we unfortunately got to live it).  There is pride
    to be taken in it too! It's not all bad, hopefully you will find
    a happy medium.
    ok, everyone should be able to stand on their own at one time or
    another

    Re: .56, .57
    
    I honestly can't remember growing up with the expectation that I
    would marry someone who would take care of me.  Of course, both
    my mother and my grandmother were professionals (physical therapists).
    Mom gave up work when the kids came, but went back later.  My
    impression is that Grandma also quit when the kids came.  But I
    really don't remember anyone telling me about how I'd get married
    someday.  I certainly hope that daughters of working women (or at
    least women in professions) don't get fed that stuff.

    RE: 58
    
    I think it goes beyond what your mom does/did/said.  Its more like
    the attitude in the home.  Example: mother is real passive, father
    dominates. Father is a true chauvanist (women belong at home, taken
    care of).  Mom does that, never teaches you different.
    
    Kind of hard to learn otherwise, wouldn't you think? (until you
    get in the "real" world.

    Re: .59
    
    True, it's the whole environment, but I think homes with professional
    women are less likely to have an environment that teaches "nice
    man to marry you and take care of you."

    Once a formula is derived for determining the expenses of raising
    a child it seems it should be fairly simple to divide those expenses
    in half and each parent be responsible for their portion.
    
    As I have said many times before those of us who note have a higher
    median income than the average and our views are slanted and our
    experiences are different because they deal with other issues.
    
    When an individual says they cannot afford to pay $X in child support
    I say that is their problem.  They owe it and they should find a
    way to meet their obligation.  If it means they have to live frugally
    to pay off past debts, if it means that they have to get a part
    time job so be it.
    
    When a NCP is paying more than 1/2 of the childrens support then
    they have an issue.
    
    The purpose of this note was to generate an awareness of the costs
    of raising children in the hope that some NCP's would understand
    that their child support is indeed realistic.

    Vivian,
    
    I don't know when your divorce was actually final but by
    recent (last year or so) Colorado law the child support
    guidelines are pretty cut and dried.  My ex is taking me
    back to court for joint custody and reciprocal child
    support (when he has our daughter).  By Colorado law
    he will automatically have to start paying his percentage
    of her expenses as determined by the percentage he makes
    of our combined incomes.  Clear as mud, huh?  Basically
    using the base note's example and assuming that all expenses
    are the child's expenses, they add up to  $458.00 per
    week.  The non-custodial parent's income is about 46% of
    the combined income of both parents.  Therefore the non-
    custodial parent would have to pay $210.68 per week or
    46% of the child's weekly expenses.  Of course that doesn't
    guarantee the payment will be made.  If the non-custodial
    parent lives in Colorado, a motion can be filed with the
    court for garnishment of wages.  If not, you're out of luck
    as far as I can tell.  Isn't the legal system fun?? (;^)
    
    Nanci

    I believe in Kansas one can file a motion to garnishee the
    wages of a non-custodial parent who seems reluctant to pay
    child support.  However I know one non-custodial father of
    five who has stated that he would quit his job and go back to
    working at odd jobs for which he could get cash, rather than
    let someone take money from him that he feels rightfully
    belongs to him.  I also heard this same man a few years ago
    tell someone else "Why worry about child support? If you
    don't pay it they can't do anything to you anyway." 

    -- Linda

"When a NCP is paying more than 1/2 of the childrens support then they have an
issue."

Sounds reasonable... from what I have heard, support has been set
unrealistically low (by these standards) in many cases in the past. 

Now, I feel that the (MA) law support formula's have been set unrealistically
high, and forcing payment for items which under normal circumstances are at
parental discretion. 

The (MA) law also makes no provision for joint custody cases.  A father who has
joint custody must still, by law, pay full child support.  Also, for periods
such as weeks/months of summer vacation when the children are visiting
nooncustodial parents, the noncustodial parents must still, by law, pay full
child support. 

Don't you think that joint custody parents should both have to pay child
support?  Do you think that support should be reversed or at least cancelled for
periods when the children are with the noncustodial parent?

Also, (in MA) child support is counted as income twice by social services, once
as the noncustodial parent's income, and once as the custodial parent's income.
This makes it difficult or impossible to qualify for many usefull government
programs.

Not only must the noncustodial parent pay child support, but they must pay taxes
on that support, in addition to the support.  Under the theory that income taxes
are supposed to tax "disposable" income, it would seem that noncustodial parents
should not be taxed for child support, since it is in no way "disposable".  I
personally do not like the idea, but can see how it would solve many problems. A
compomise would be to tax the support as the custodial parents income at a lower
tax rate. 

"If the non-custodial parent lives in Colorado, a motion can be filed with the
court for garnishment of wages.  If not, you're out of luck as far as I can
tell."

Not true...  All state's social services/probate court agencies have reciprocal
agreements/law to take noncustodial parents to court for child support. For
instance, if I moved from MA to NH, and did not pay child support, the NH social
services/probate court would come after me for the child support.  The only way
to get out of that as far as I know is to leave the country.

"I believe in Kansas one can file a motion to garnishee the wages of a
non-custodial parent who seems reluctant to pay child support."

In MA, your wages will be garnisheed even if you have been faithfully paying
child support.  If a noncustodial parent quit work to avoid garnishment, they
are still liable for that support, and would be taken to court and found in
contempt of court, and put in jail untill they paid the past, and future child
support.  Reminds me of the 17th century debtor's prisons. 

Last year, there was a bill in the US Senate which would, amoung other things,
mandate garnishment of the wages of EVERY divorced or seperated (non full
custody) parent in the United States.  Curiously, NYC, the stomping grounds of
the author of the bill, Senator Moynihan, was exempt.  For further details, see
the earlier topic in this conferrence. 

Jim.

    Re: .64
    
>    Not only must the noncustodial parent pay child support, but they must
>    pay taxes on that support, in addition to the support.  Under the
>    theory that income taxes are supposed to tax "disposable" income, it
>    would seem that noncustodial parents should not be taxed for child
>    support, since it is in no way "disposable".  I personally do not like
>    the idea, but can see how it would solve many problems. A compomise
>    would be to tax the support as the custodial parents income at a lower
>    tax rate. 
    
    I don't see why money used to pay for a child's expenses should
    be taxable while one is married, but non-taxable after divorce.
    How do you justify this notion?
    
    				Steve

    Just another tack, It would be interesting to hear the comments on this
    logic. 

    1. The custodial parents pays all expenses. The non custodial donates
    without any obligation. Unless of course both people sign a contract -
    Part of the marriage contract. This would be binding and cover the
    divorce contingency. As 2 out of 3 marriages end in divorce it might be
    meaningful to plan ahead. 

    1.1 Result:-  Massive saving on court cost and all the fighting. The
    kids then go to the parent who really wants and is able to provide for
    them. The revenge effect of support charges would be gone. 

    1.2 Result:-  No surprises when the relationship ends. 

    a. It does not help the existing cases but Divorce might not be the
    automatic soution to a short term diference of opinion. 

    b. Bringing of children into the world might be more seriously
    considered. Especially if you are going to be stuch with them. 

    c. Getting married for the purpose of b. would be more seriously
    considered. 

    d. All children allowances should be stopped.    NO TAX allowance. 

    The reason for d. is that if people have children they should do it
    just for the children. 

    As parting thought,-- we might have a few lawyers out of work. An
    occasional contract might have to be renegotiated. Partners would
    be conditioned from day 1 on how much divorce would cost. With this
    preconditioning the payments would be easier to collect.
    
    
    As second parting thought. - If the day before the dress suit and
    white dress were worn, a contract were signed which promised 52%
    of the net salary???

Regards
Stephen
    

    re .66
    
    While I agree that people could make divorce easier by having
    contingencies written in to a marriage contract I think this
    is highly impractical.  First, when you get married you do not
    necessarily plan for children.  Many couples have no idea whether
    they want children.  Second, people change, circumstances change.
    How can you decide what you'll do with children _if_ you have
    them until after you find out how you actuallu feel about being
    a parent.  This can only happen after the fact.
    
    Another consideration is that the parent who can financially
    support the children is not necessarily capable of providing
    the emotional support necessary.  Also this parent may not
    necessarily _want_ the children.  Another consideration is
    abusive parents.  They may be able to provide financial support
    but not be the parent who will provide the healthiest
    environment for the children.
    
    Ideally your idea has merit but it seems to me that the ideal
    situation in a marriage/divorce rarely (if ever) exists.
    
    Nanci

Re .67

On the contrary     Nanci,

I will look at your objections one at at time and I hope you dont mind me 
quoting you.


>				First, when you get married you do not
>    necessarily plan for children.  Many couples have no idea whether
>    they want children.  

That is exact why a contract is needed. This would al least make some 
people aware that the night time activity carried out by married people can 
have other consequences.  Accidental or later planned. If you sign a 
contract and the contingency does not appear then whats the problem?

>                       Second, people change, circumstances change.

This is exactly why you want a contract. If circumstances  didnt change
then the marriage would not end and the contingency would not exist. 

>    How can you decide what you'll do with children _if_ you have
>    them until after you find out how you actuallu feel about being
>    a parent.  This can only happen after the fact.
    
I am not deciding what to do with children. I am contracting their 
financial future. The law dictates how long you have to support children 
then why not %wise  how much.

This is exactly why the decision should be taken before the kids appear. It is 
not so much being a parent or not as how should the children be cared for
that is being planned. 

>    Another consideration is that the parent who can financially
>    support the children is not necessarily capable of providing
>    the emotional support necessary.  Also this parent may not
>    necessarily _want_ the children.  

The financial support was the point being addressed. 

     So - 1. The parents decide between themselves who will get custody.
             at divorce time... not at marriage time. No change.

          1.1. If they both want the children then an independent body 
               decides. - No change.

          1.2 If neither wants custody. then again no change, except that 
              they will both contribute to the state system/ surrogate. The 
              amount they contribute will be a predetermined amount by %.

The contract that I propose will state. - Each parent will provide x% of 
their income towards the upkeep of the children. This percentage will then
be moderated, relative to the means of the other parent. 
                    
>                                        Another consideration is
>    abusive parents.  They may be able to provide financial support
>    but not be the parent who will provide the healthiest
>    environment for the children.

The current regulation for who gets custody will not change. This is a 
matter for the individuals concerned, if they cannot decide then the 
courts must.  My consideration is that at "marriage time" each parent will
agree what percentage of their income will go towards child support. While
they remain married there is no problem. When the marriage ends, The custodial
parent has an contract that just requires execution. 

What happens when one parent marries again and has more children... This 
does not in my eyes reduce the responsibility for the first brood.
    
>    Ideally your idea has merit but it seems to me that the ideal
>    situation in a marriage/divorce rarely (if ever) exists.

Marriage, children then divorce are a part of our society. Now that we have 
taken out "Honour and obey" ,"till death do us part" etc there should be 
some contingency for the parting. 

Regards
Stephen
    

    Re: .68
    
    Unfortunately, such contracts would typically be ignored by the
    courts, which would use their own rules for determining payments.
    
    				Steve

    
    
    I think the contract is only a means to an end. The most important
    part of it is the conversation/communication that would take place.
    This conversation would raise an awareness that most of us do not
    have until the marriage ends. We do not talk about it until we are
    in the middle of the battle and all our emotions are so mixed in
    that we sometimes do not think straight. 
    
    Sue

    Stephen,
    
    In response I thought I'd try to take it point by point.
    
    1.  I concede ypur point about the need for contingency
    plans being necessary should a marriage produce children.
    
    2.  How can you set a level of support % when income/outgo
    (directly regarding the children) may change?  Ex:  What if
    one parent is laid off - children have unexpected medical
    expenses, etc.?
    
    3.  As far as % of basic support goes, Colorado law does use
    a formula for financial support.  See 555.62.
    
    4.  I agree with you about children of a subsequent marriage
    not being a factor.  That's a choice made by the parent after
    the fact.  Therefore it's a concious (hopefully) choice.
    
    Nanci

     Consider for a moment some of the "details" that haven't been
     mentioned, yet.

     There is no consistent method of determining how much money is
     needed to support a child!  The amount is different for each child
     and family.  Not only that, but the amount of money available also
     changes.  This is 1 of the reasons that many states use formulas
     based on the salaries of the parents.  It makes it simpler if the
     available money is simply divided up by percentage.

     Unfortunately, this is all too easy to manipulate (as was my
     experience) and is not based on the real costs of raising children. 
     It is common for parents in divorce and support negotiations to
     stop working, change to lower paying jobs, incur excessive debts,
     etc. in an effort to manipulate the amount they will end up paying
     (or receiving.)  This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the
     courts seldom allow changes in the initial support decision.  Even
     getting the court to hear a request for change can be more
     difficult (and expensive) than getting the divorce in the first
     place.

     What does it cost to raise a child?  How much of the rent and heat
     costs, electric and transportation expenses of the custodial parent
     need to be allocated to the support of the formula?  How much money
     is needed to dress a child and keep them healthy?  What level of
     life style should the child be supported at? (K-Mart, Sears, L.L.
     Bean, designer originals?) What system of "checks and balances" is
     available or used to assure that child support payments actually
     benefit the child?  None that I am aware of!

     Every lawyer and judge finds their own "facts" and makes up their
     own answer.  Lots of "facts" and arguments are made in the name of
     "providing for the children."  In the end, though, the children's
     needs are only ammunition for the negotiating process.  And the
     best that can be hoped for is that the fighting will stop.  It
     seems that the goal of the courts is to bring a judgment and a stop
     to the visible fighting as quickly as possible.  The most used
     method of doing this that of using a formula.

       "How much to you earn? 
        What are your expenses?  
        How much do you [the other] earn?  
        What are your expenses?  
        You pay $X each month.  
        Case closed.  Next."  

     If the couple works out their own formula in advance, and it's close to
     the judge's, it'll probably be allowed.  If not,...(see figure 1.)

     For the sake of the previous discussion, Let's look at 2
     possibilities where a prior formula is agreed upon.  [ <:) Any
     resemblance to real life here is purely coincidental <:)  ]

     2 people marry and agree to pay 50% of their income to support any
     children that may result during the marriage (and afterward if there 
     is a divorce.)

     Children are born and need to be supported.  1 parent stops working
     and provides for the children at home.  (Wages = $0.  50% of $0 = $0)
     The other parent earns $28K/yr. and owes $14K.  Total available to
     the children $14K.  During the marriage, no one keeps track of how
     much is actually spent on them.  Now there's a divorce.  According
     to the agreement, 1 parent's share is $0 and the other's $14k.  If
     you were the judge, would you allow this?  "But we have a contract,
     Your Honor..."

         =-=-=-=-=

     The same 2 people marry with the same agreement, which also
     specifies a formula for determining the "appropriate" amount
     needed to support a child.  (Please assume that something reasonable
     can be determined. [We aren't dealing with reality here.] )

     The couple has the same number of children the same incomes and
     divorce.   The difference is that now the amount needed to support
     the child has been artificially determined and both parents can be
     held responsible for providing their portion.  Neither gets to
     choose to not work...  What happens if 1 or both aren't able to
     earn enough to meet their agreement/obligation?  Does the court
     throw them both in jail until the earn enough to pay it?  Is this
     contract enforceable?  If you were the judge, what would you do?

     =-=-=-=-= 

     Summary:  Formulas and contracts that specify percentages of
     variables won't work in most cases. They both encourage and are
     subject to external manipulation.  (The person who decided to not
     work or only work for subsistence cash is just 1 form of
     manipulating this system.) In those cases where a formula would
     work, it is highly probable that it wasn't/isn't needed.  (Yes,
     there are some divorces where there is no arguing about how much
     support will be paid.  They may not make the papers or the NOTES
     file, but they exist.)  Yet, the fact is that most divorces have
     support payments determined by a formula of some sort.  What is the
     formula based on?  National statistics, modified by a local formula.

     National statistics are constantly used to justify decisions that
     support national statistical trends.  <;)

     � Set mode philosophical optimism �

        Wouldn't it be a lot more effective to start educating people 
        in what it means to be a parent?  in what the job of parenting 
        is all about?  Teach social responsibility.  Rather than try to
        find a formula or write a contract, change the way we deal
        with divorce and support culturally and socially.

        There is no magic pill, formula or law that will cure the ills
        of the way we view parenting, divorce, support, alimony, and the
        emotional trauma that make up the picture of this aspect of our
        culture.  Yet, change is needed, and to some extent, change is
        happening.  The changes that happen each time a parent goes
        beyond their personal emotions or cultural expectation and does
        what is necessary out of their love for the child -- and them
        self.  These are the changes that go beyond finding fault and
        exacting punishment.  They are changes that happen individually,
        in the moment.  Sometimes they just happen.

        Social education and change doesn't happen just in schools.  It
        happens at home, in the work place, at faith gatherings, and on
        the street.  It happens with each communication we make with
        each other.  Consider your own answer to this question:  Was
        what I said to the last person I saw something positive and
        uplifting?  Did I acknowledge either them or myself?  What am I
        doing to improve the way things are?  What am I teaching my
        children and my friends about how I handle my responsibilities
        in marriage and parenting?  ...in divorce?  Am I going along
        with "the way things are" perpetuating and complaining about
        what didn't happen or am I setting a positive example of doing
        the best I can with what is current reality, and acknowledging
        myself for what I've done?  We all model our culture and social
        beliefs for our children.  What does that model look like?  If
        you don't like the way things are...
        
        A friend I have a great deal of respect for who does professional
        counseling for families has a sign on her wall that says:
        



             "If you always do what you've always done,

                   you'll always get what you've always gotten."



        I think that says it pretty well.  We are the models for our
        children (and friends) of what we believe our culture is.  If we
        don't like what we see in the mirror, it might be time to take 
        the words of Michael Jackson's "The Man In The Mirror" to heart,
        and...
                 "...make that change."

        � Peace �