This is a very important but also very touchy subject. More than likely, I’ll offend quite a few people with my views, but I’m going to share them anyway. I’m open to having discussions and maybe there is even a way to do that publicly at some point, but for now feel free to read or move on
I’ll start out by saying I think the idea of child support I good and I’m not necessarily opposed to it. Prior to my divorce it seemed like it might have some flaws but overall, it seemed like a necessary evil that ensures our children are taken care of. Now that I’m divorced and have a more personal involvement with this subject, my opinions are becoming much more jaded.
Why do we pay child support? To support the child, obviously. When a family had one working parent and one stay at home parent, clearly the stay-at-home parent can’t raise the kids without a source of income. When there were two working parents and one leaves, it wouldn’t be fair for the kids lifestyle to suffer by now only being on one income. Can we all agree? It sounds like a good concept to me so far.
I haven’t done any historical research but I would assume child support started when it was more of a traditional household. Dads were out working while moms stayed home and took care of the house and kids. During those days, I assume there were plenty of dads that chose to pack up and leave for what ever reason. Maybe a new younger woman or just a chance to get out and explore the world with the money that he’s earned. In this case he’s abandoning is family and I definitely agree he needs to pay child support, especially because the mother probably wasn’t in a position to leave the house and earn a comparable income.
Although those examples still happen, it doesn’t seem to be the norm. According to recent and very factual Instagram and tik tok posts, it seems over 80% of divorces are initiated by women. So… I’m kidding about those sources being factual but I’ll still go with the number for arguments sake, and I’m aware that some of these divorces initiated by women, could be based on a father abandoning his family. Again, in this case I support it. But lets assume that the majority are not based on absent fathers, lets just say the mother wants to move on for what ever reason. Maybe she cheats and finds someone new or maybe she just fell out of love or gave up on the marriage. Either way, this was a choice that she made to break up the family. I believe something like 95% of the time, the mother gets custody. In these cases, should the father pay child support?
Short answer for me is still a yes. I don’t like writing that because it wasn’t his choice to have his kids taken from him and maybe he was even still wanting to work on the marriage. Maybe he was a great father and possibly even the better parent. Either way, he has a responsibility to his children and needs to help ensure they are taken care of. How much he needs to help is the follow on part of this statement though and I’ll cover that a bit later.
So, here is a quick scenario. For arguments sake, lets say the family is about average as far as income, housing, health, and even luxuries. In this case, that is what the kids are use to and what this family was able to provide for them. If the Mother chose to leave, she should be responsible for the change in that status. If she found someone better, that can offer more and give the kids a better lifestyle, good for her. I hate that the father becomes a part time parent through someone else’s choice but at least it seems to be an improvement for the kids and that is what this whole conversation is about, right? So, if the kids lifestyle is better, why would the father have to pay to anything? The arguments I’ve been told is that its his kid and he has a responsibility to them. I agree, but someone else had the power to remove that responsibility from him and turn him into a part time parent. Shouldn’t she assume his portion of that responsibly? Shouldn’t the new replacement guy be willing to assume that responsibility if he wants the role of being the father in that household? This is even more true if there was an affair and a conscious choice to kick out the real father and replace him. In this case I would say that if the father had to pay child support, it should be minimal and maybe just a portion of common expenses like food, clothing, and medical for instance.
The other side of that argument, what if the mother made the choice to leave but it degraded the lifestyle the kids had. It took them from average to below average or maybe upper class to average. Maybe not the best terms but I think you get the point. So, her choice that negatively affects the kids, should the father pay child support? I would still say the father has a responsibility to ensure the safety and wellbeing of his children but I don’t agree that he is responsible to maintain their previous lifestyle. I say this because he is not the one that made the poor choice so should not be the one required to carry the burden. Maybe her decision to leave was based on her being in love with someone else and his status wasn’t important to her. Ok, fine. But in this case, she is putting her own desires ahead of the welfare of the kids. She should be the one that is held responsible for that decision. If she can’t provide a similar lifestyle for her children then maybe the farther should be awarded primary custody and she pays the child support. This seems logical to me but not what our family courts seem to believe. In my opinion, the person that made the choice should carry the weight of that choice. If she can’t find a way to maintain the lifestyle than she shouldn’t be awarded primary custody, end of story!
Now to discuss how much child support should be. Based on what I describe above, that should be fairly clear, child support should be enough for the kids to maintain their current lifestyle. That’s my basic description and I know that will be easily dismantled but its still my starting point. I’m aware that if a family only had one working parent and they spent every penny every month, you can’t expect that person to still give every penny when they are no longer in the family. Well, child support isn’t suppose to support an entire family, it is supposed to maintain the CHILDRENS lifestyle. A portion of housing, food, medical, clothing, and so on but not 100% responsibility for everything. It might not be super easy but I believe this can be calculated. A percentage of the common/required bills and a review of historical averages within that household. I’ve heard the argument that the father should pay 100% of required things like housing and food, but I disagree. The mother has an equal responsibility to the health and welfare of her children, same as the father. If she is unable to provide her portion of that responsibility, then she shouldn’t be awarded primary custody. End of story! Everyone should be held accountable for the decisions they made that affect the children.
For arguments sake, lets say that in this case the child support came out to be 15% or the fathers income or maybe around $400. The numbers are not really relevant, I just need them for a follow on discussion. That would mean the father makes about $2700 a month, so $2300 after paying child support. He needs to recover from the divorce which probably means hes starting over with everything, need to buy/rent a new house and fill it with all the basics that he previously owned. Trust me this is very expensive to do and definitely overlooked by most. Try going to the store and see how much it would cost just to replace dishes, pots and pans, utensils and linens….. there are plenty of other things but this would just be a start. In my scenario, I was set back hundreds of thousands of dollars and went into pretty significant debt. Although this was painful, I slowly chipped my way out and even found a higher paying job so I could get back to my previous lifestyle and then make an effort on improving on that. This brings up the next issue. With the current system, if the father puts in the effort to make more money, child support goes up along with that. This is where I start having even bigger issues with our system. The initial justification is that if you have more money, your kids are entitled to a better lifestyle. I disagree! Although I want them to have a better lifestyle, I also want the ability to provide that to them. The ex made the choice to leave, whether that resulted in an improvement or degradation to the kids life has already been discussed and determined the fathers level of responsibility. If the ex ended up coming into money and improving the kids lifestyle, the father doesn’t get a break on child support. If her situation get worse, he doesn’t pay more. If it gets too bad then obviously custody should be switched over to the father. Bottom line is, any changes after the initial determination of “current lifestyle” should not result in changes to child support.
To dig into that just a bit more based on the argument that is always thrown back at me. They say its for the kids and the kids deserve it. I agree that child support should be for the kids as I previously discussed. This is now more related to whether or not the ex should be the one that gets the increase and can offer the improvements. Instead, I should be able to keep the additional income and the kids benefit from it during the times they are with me. They still get the improvments but can also relate it to me and my hardwork and commitment to them.
Expanding on the fact that “its for the kids” since this is probably the biggest issue with our current system. Child support is mandatory and enforced heavily, fathers go to jail all the time for not paying but its never enforced that the money is actually spent on the kids. Think about that for a moment…. Its so important for the kids to get the support they need but there is zero verification that it is actually spent on the kids. I won’t get into specific numbers but I’ll just say I pay quite a bit in child support but when I talk to my kids during almost any meal time, they are eating cream cheese sandwiches. Their clothes are worn out and a lot of them don’t fit. The lifestyle that they had when I lived with them included a lot of activities and travel but that really hasn’t happened in the subsequent 6 years. Meanwhile my ex and her man have watches that cost more than their car and the best yard in the neighborhood. I was under the impression my money was supposed to support my kids and maintain their lifestyle…. When she degrades their lifestyle in order to save the money and use it on herself, that is no longer child support. It would be a super easy fix though. There should be checks and balances and enforcement just like on the payment side of this. If the money isn’t being spent on the kids, at a minimum it should go into their bank account. If the kid’s lifestyle isn’t being maintained, the mother should be held responsible and potentially lose custody to a father that will maintain that lifestyle. Again, if this is supposed to be about the kids, then make it about the kids!
I know every scenario is different and there are examples that are exactly flipped from what I wrote. I’m not implying that all mothers/fathers fall into this description. This is just my example based on what I’m familiar with.
I end with one quick summary…. Child support is one parents financial support for their child
- It should not be expected to cover 100% of the child’s expenses.
- It should not alleviate the other parent from their financial responsibilities
- 100% of child support should benefit the child. If there is excess, it should go into an account for the kids future or be reduced
- Not a single penny should benefit the ex, that is what alimony or other divorce settlements are for. Keep these separate!
Comments