SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Lots of parents work out CS and custody amicably. I have probably a dozen or so friends who are part of divorced family situations, and in all cases their custody and CS is worked out amicably.

You only have to go to court for a CS award where the parties can't work it out. Keep in mind that CS stands for child support. These are the children of the two adults. Each adult is individually a parent of and responsible for the child. My experience has been that people go to court if (a) one is being a complete asshole, to the point where he/she is willing to harm the kids to make a point, or (b) one is totally broke and they simply want the award in place in case the broke spouse ever comes into money.

As to circumstance (a), anybody pathetic and petty enough to begrudge support for their kid(s) deserves whatever kind of ass-reaming the court might mete out to them.

GoldenR, I certainly wouldn't think that never happens to fathers. It is significantly less common than it happening to mothers based on stats, which RIO seems to like.

And, what bftg said, anyone who would begrudge their children being provided for deserves to be wiped out.

IDK much about alimony.

The largest percentage of single parents in the US by far are single mothers. This is because a lot of single parents were never married and the fathers abandon the woman and child, and also because courts tend to award custody to mothers over fathers in divorces, especially if the kids are young. The amount of child support paid in these circumstances is normally significantly less than the actual cost of raising the child, meaning that the mother is relegated to a working poor existence of earning one income to support two (or more) people. I've known a few working poor single mothers. Their lives are unimaginably difficult.

Men who complain about the amount of child support they are ordered by a court to pay generally fall within that small class of fathers who:

(a) earn enough money to support a substantial child support award; and

(b) do not live as a family with the child's mother; and

(c) fail to work out an amicable or voluntary child support/custody arrangement; and

(d) believe that the amount the court orders them to pay is excessive.

What does the combination of those three factors tell you about the character of the man: an asshole, usually. Somebody who has no idea what it actually costs to raise a child (and by the way the cost is higher for a single parent because of the greater need for third party child care), and who resents having to pay anything regardless of the fact that the money is for the support of his child.

[This message edited by Butforthegrace at 7:44 AM, March 25th (Monday)]

BFTG, I don’t remember your backstory. Have you ever been divorced? Have you ever had to pay CS? If so, did you ever have to pay it to a cheating SAHM?

If so, did you ever have to pay it to a cheating SAHM?

What does CS have to do with who’s cheating? CS would need to be paid to the custodial parent, whether BS, WS, or if the spouse who wants the divorce wakes up one morning and doesn’t like the looks of the other. The child who needs supporting isn’t the cheater, so why begrudge them $$?

The person who cheated on me and left me for her AP was not my wife. We were in a LTR, however, and lived together as a family for many years. She had a son from a prior relationship before we got together. He was a toddler when the LTR began. I was the only adult male he knew and in our LTR I raised the son as my own.

After we separated, we co-parented the son, including shared custody. Yes, I paid support (voluntarily -- no legal requirement) to raise this young man. Also, when we separated, I moved out and left all of our jointly-acquired household stuff behind. Furniture, kitchen wares, TV, stereo, everything, so that the son could enjoy as much life continuity as possible. It is my strongly held opinion that children should not suffer from the foibles of their parents. Or, at least, the impact should be minimized to the extent possible.

[This message edited by Butforthegrace at 9:25 AM, March 25th (Monday)]

DF- I get your question. My point was that the questions I asked of BFTG will all be answered “no”. Once the working parent has to go through the legal system, they will have a better understanding of how unjust and slanted it is in favor of the person not working. If that non working parent happens to be the WS (as in my first M), it becomes a bitter pill to swallow. Unfortunately, the kids becomes weapons used as leverage (usually by both sides) and that is the ugly truth.

My entire point is when someone is spewing how “just” the legal system is, and calling out dads that complain about CS “assholes” makes me assume he has never been through it himself.

As to your question, it makes no difference financially that the WS doesn’t work. The money is for the kids. However, let’s just say I wish I could have given envelopes of cash to my minor children every month instead of writing out a check to my ex. Because I couldn’t do that, my kids ended up buying a lot of alcohol and cigarettes they didn’t realize they were buying.

BFTG, thanks for the reply. This has turned into a thread that hits way close to home. For ongoing legal reasons (yes, I’m still going through a court case 14 years after my D), i’ll bow out and take my next shot on a different thread (hopefully not about porn or sex)

BFTG, there is a difference between supporting one child in that manner and several.

Losthope, I’ve heard that argument before—that CS doesn’t always go directly to the kids, or at least not every penny of it, and to an extent I can understand the resulting frustration and resentment on the part of the one paying it. But let’s take your alcohol and cigarettes scenario and put it into an intact family. One or both parents work. All sources of income go into one pot, which is then spent from to cover everyone’s needs and affordable wants. Now it might be true that, in one of RIO’s “corner cases,” a family might make a specific accounting of every dollar spent solely on the kids, possibly even down to the percentage of each parent’s income that is spent on kid stuff (analogous to CS). I’d wager, though, that the vast majority of families just spend out of that pot without taking into account whose percentage goes to what.

In the case of single parenthood resulting from divorce, the CS, along with the single parent’s paycheck, is part of the new family pot. The kids might be “buying” cigarettes and alcohol out of that joint pot, but they’re also paying the light bill and putting gas in the car. Just like in the intact-family scenario, it becomes all the same money.

If you're talking about maintaining the lifestyle of a nonworking parent after D, then you are talking about alimony. CS is separate.

If you're talking about maintaining the lifestyle of a nonworking parent after D, then you are talking about alimony. CS is separate.

Alimony has become less prevalent. My ex did not apply for alimony.

Ex is not a single mom, since she married her AP. I don't know what AP turned hubby and step-dad earns. It's certainly possible that she would have more money available than when she was married to me. Even if he earns more than I do, that does not affect CS.

CS in my state is based on formula. Contributing factors are number of kids, income differential, and placement. I had to fight for the placement I got since the ex lowballed me on that part of the agreement, and points in her favor were the young age of the kids and her status as SAHM.

I had her income imputed at a level that helps my burden some. It was part of the agreement. It's at a lower level that what she is capable of earning. Also meaning that she could work part time and not affect her CS.

Also, the more kids, the higher support number. My income does not increase with more children. I also have to pay more for suitable housing for multiple children than if I had only one.

So my non-working wayward ex gets to maintain her lifestyle of paying for someone to clean her house. My dwelling is the cheapest I can get in a safe neighborhood. I have been employed for decades, will be until retirement I hope, and wonder if I will even be able to hold onto the place I'm in now. All for the privilege of not seeing my kids four nights a week. Seems fair.

Striver,

Completely sincere question: what would you consider fair? To not pay CS? To require your ex to remarry someone who earns equal to or less than you, so her standard of living is not improved? Or require her to remain single altogether?

It seems to me that the only way to protect oneself is to choose to never have kids in the first place.

Striver

All you can do is remember that the system is not trying to be fair to you, or to your WW.

It's trying to be fair to the kids.

If you look at it strictly from that point of view, things might make more sense (or maybe not).

And along the money lines, I’ll get controversial. I realize some families really HAVE to have both spouses working to get by. I’m not talking about those families here. But the trending culture of “we both make good money and can afford for a parent to SAH, but nah, let’s ‘outsource the childcare’ so we can both continue to make bank” is really disturbing. I believe one of the most harmful messages to come out of the generation prior to mine is “you can have it all!” Nope, nope you can’t. I’d rather “suffer” a little with a tighter belt than make my precious KIDS suffer by having their love and care “outsourced” so I can have a nicer car or a vacation every year.

How very offensive. Glad to know you're so much better than working moms who clearly have their priorities all out of whack and are making their children suffer.

Also, the more kids, the higher support number. My income does not increase with more children. I also have to pay more for suitable housing for multiple children than if I had only one.

That's always true, whether kids live with you in an intact marriage/family, or with a divorced spouse. It takes money to support kids. It takes more money to support more kids. The answer is to think about that before having the kids.

Striver,

Completely sincere question: what would you consider fair? To not pay CS? To require your ex to remarry someone who earns equal to or less than you, so her standard of living is not improved? Or require her to remain single altogether?

It seems to me that the only way to protect oneself is to choose to never have kids in the first place.

50/50 custody would probably put me in a secure enough position that I could live with the rest. That is what I would change about the system today. Put the burden of proof that it should not be 50/50.

CS, placement, they are footballs in any divorce situation. Yes, CS "goes to the kids." Really, it just goes into the family pot with everything else. No specific allocation. If more money stayed in my household, where there are also kids when they are with me, since I'm one of the parents, the money still "goes to the kids." I consider paying down my mortgage for my modest dwelling, and making the payment on my minivan, and working so the kids can have medical coverage, as "going to the kids." So I see no particular moral virtue in having a higher CS amount. Or in a particular placement allocation.

xWW being a SAHM was not all that great for our budget while she was doing it. I presumed it to be a temporary thing.

Mostly otherwise, I caution people against marriage in the first place. I am done with it. All I got out of it was being taken advantage of. There were no positives in it for me.

I would agree that a presumption toward 50/50 unless a very good reason why not would be a lot more fair.

50/50 custody would probably put me in a secure enough position that I could live with the rest. That is what I would change about the system today. Put the burden of proof that it should not be 50/50.

To this I agree. With my H's children, we paid childsupport but only saw them every other weekend. They are now grown. Out of the two concepts - what was most harmful was not having them more. We thought at the time they needed that stability of one household. But, I think we all agree (H's ex wife included) there were many downfalls of the arrangement. Our house became more like "Disney land" because we were trying to cram a lot of good bonding excursions in with the little time we had with them, and that put mom in a weird place. It made the kids think dad didn't want to see them, he only wanted his new family (which could not have been less true), this has all been dissected and dissolved and we enjoy a good relationship with all involved, but in hindsight we should have moved towards the other way, it would have been best.

There were times she made more than H, and there were times H made more than she did. We never went back and did anything about CS. She had to house them, feed them the majority of the time, she sometimes picked up things from their activities and did not ask for reimbursement. But for most of our marriage the CS (and then college) was more than our mortgage for sure. I don't think the other person's spouse should have anything to do with it. My income was never considered, so I wouldn't have expected their stepdads to be considered either.