Is my wife using the legal system to leverage me for money in our divorce is similar to a drug dealer calling the cops when he gets robbed?

[heatherrae]

Do you support the law that requires a parent that makes 30% of the income to pay the parent that makes 70% of the income even with custody is split 50/50?

Is that a child support law in function, or simply by name?

Do you support *THAT* law?

Just curious. You seem to blindly support any law labeled child support without even really knowing the efffect it has on the parties involved, or if the outcome is even beneficial to the support of the child.

I think that the non-custodial parent should always pay SOMETHING toward the support of the child, even if the custodial parent makes double that of the non-custodial parent. Yes, I do.

There are a few states that give you a credit based on how many nights the kids has overnights with the non-custodial parent, but most don't. I think the reasoning is that they don't want visits to be predicated just on someone saving some cash.

In Kentucky, at least child support can't normally be modified for two years. I don't know what the rule is in your state. I'm sure you will get raises, etc for the next few years. Is paying child support really going to kill you? Or, just perhaps, are you reacting to an emotional divorce?

Like I said before, it is early, submit your calculations to the other side and see what pans out. Try not to be so bitter. Chances are she didn't even come up with any of those figures. Her attorney did it. Of course her attorney has to get the best result he or she can for his or her client. If your attorney does the same for you, the numbers will probably fall somewhere in the middle, anyway.

 

[jh1]

I think that the non-custodial parent should always pay SOMETHING toward the support of the child, even if the custodial parent makes double that of the non-custodial parent. Yes, I do.

There are a few states that give you a credit based on how many nights the kids has overnights with the non-custodial parent, but most don't. I think the reasoning is that they don't want visits to be predicated just on someone saving some cash.

In Kentucky, at least child support can't normally be modified for two years. I don't know what the rule is in your state. I'm sure you will get raises, etc for the next few years. Is paying child support really going to kill you? Or, just perhaps, are you reacting to an emotional divorce?

Like I said before, it is early, submit your calculations to the other side and see what pans out. Try not to be so bitter. Chances are she didn't even come up with any of those figures. Her attorney did it. Of course her attorney has to get the best result he or she can for his or her client. If your attorney does the same for you, the numbers will probably fall somewhere in the middle, anyway.

Yeah... that whole custodial / non-custodial thing seems to be crap. If you are spliting 50/50 legal and physical custoday...

The *ONLY* difference that I can decifer is that the 'custodial' parent is the one that gets paid the money - EVEN IF THEY MAKE MORE. So if everything is 50 / 50... what gives one parent the label as 'custodial' over the over?

What determines that?

So in my case... say I get labelbed the custodial parent. Should my wife pay me money even though she makes say 19% of the income?

If so... am I still a bastard and wanting to let me child starve while in her custody if the law says she should pay me? LOL... I am just curious how the 'custodial' label gets determined - and why two parents that are spliting custody down the line - legal and physical - can end up with the dad still paying the mom even if the mom makes more. Simply because of an otherwise meaningless label on a decree?

I am not sure I see the justice in that situation.

My situation isn't that bad... I know I make more money, and I am willing to pay support. Just not to excess. And yes... I know it's hard to look at this situation and wonder why I am just not clear out going for full custody. You know... Maybe I should.... Maybe I will. But I would PREFER if she got clean because of my pressure, because I have alot of fears about raising a daughter all by myself. Is that so bad? To want her mom to be around to help? Am I a terrible dad for not WANTING the custody battle? They are nasty... I don't want to have to bring up the drugs in court... I don't want to drag anyone through the mud much less my daughter's mom. I will if that's what I have to do...

But obviously... the best outcome is this:

She gets clean, we split custody 50 50...
I pay a reasonable amount of child support knowing that she is clean and won't use my money for drugs.

Who can argue that isn't the best outcome of this bad situation? That's my goal.

 

[heatherrae]

Yeah... that whole custodial / non-custodial thing seems to be crap. If you are spliting 50/50 legal and physical custoday...

The *ONLY* difference that I can decifer is that the 'custodial' parent is the one that gets paid the money - EVEN IF THEY MAKE MORE. So if everything is 50 / 50... what gives one parent the label as 'custodial' over the over?

What determines that?

So in my case... say I get labelbed the custodial parent. Should my wife pay me money even though she makes say 19% of the income?

If so... am I still a bastard and wanting to let me child starve while in her custody if the law says she should pay me? LOL... I am just curious how the 'custodial' label gets determined - and why two parents that are spliting custody down the line - legal and physical - can end up with the dad still paying the mom even if the mom makes more. Simply because of an otherwise meaningless label on a decree?

I am not sure I see the justice in that situation.

My situation isn't that bad... I know I make more money, and I am willing to pay support. Just not to excess. And yes... I know it's hard to look at this situation and wonder why I am just not clear out going for full custody. You know... Maybe I should.... Maybe I will. But I would PREFER if she got clean because of my pressure, because I have alot of fears about raising a daughter all by myself. Is that so bad? To want her mom to be around to help? Am I a terrible dad for not WANTING the custody battle? They are nasty... I don't want to have to bring up the drugs in court... I don't want to drag anyone through the mud much less my daughter's mom. I will if that's what I have to do...

But obviously... the best outcome is this:

She gets clean, we split custody 50 50...
I pay a reasonable amount of child support knowing that she is clean and won't use my money for drugs.

Who can argue that isn't the best outcome of this bad situation? That's my goal.

That isn't exactly the meaning of 50/50 custody. Probably need to talk to your lawyer. You have some misconceptions and misinformation floating around. I don't want to argue with you. You obviously aren't receptive to any other opinions right now.

 

[mrplunkey]

JH1 -- at least in Tennessee the custody arrangement is independant of the overnights/year arrangement. For example, you could have sole custody of the child yet your wife could still get 7/14 overnights. What you specifically want (I think) is something called "joint co-parenting with a 50% time split".

Joint co-parenting gives you joint decision-making and equal influence as a parent. I think you can even get the "primary residential assignment" (where the kid lives, technically) assigned to "joint".

The 50% time split guarantees you get to see your kid half the time (I personally like week on / week off myself)

Then, there is a table they use based on you and your ex wife's incomes and the number of overnights per week at each home. If both parents make the same and have the same number of overnights/year then the net payment should be zero. More days or less income from one parent to the other shifts child support payments one way or the other.

And I do completely understand where you are coming from. The first time a guy questions a child support payment amount, some people loooove to come out of the woodwork and tell you how you must be greedy or inconsiderate to your children. The harsh reality is that a ton of child support money gets diverted every year -- and that is the greater crime. I believe anyone receiving child support payments should be required by law to provide a detailed accounting of where the money is spent. Just like the Kanye West son says... "she was supposed to buy Tyco with your money but instead she got lipo with your money".

 

[Jimsbbc]

With regard to public choice theory economics, it is called "rent seeking". Using the government to take a dollar out of someone's pocket and put it into your pocket is rent seeking. It happens all the time and the rent seekers are using this rent to float their lifestyle unjustly and at the expense of someone else.

Who ever gets full custody should pay fully for it - full financial responsibility, With regard to economics, on one hand they are gaining all the utility/satisfaction of having the kids, they should pay a premium for this utility that the other parent is being robbed of. On the other hand, you should not have a situation where a parent is stripped of their children and suffer the loss of that utility and pay the "rent seeker" a high premium for it so that they can enjoy a better standard of living at the expense of the non-custodial parent.

However, if custody is split 50/50, there should still be no welfare payments/ transfers of wealth between ex-spouses since they are sharing the burden equally. I in no way can see how wealth redistribution in this case is ever effective or justified.

 

[jh1]

JH1 -- at least in Tennessee the custody arrangement is independant of the overnights/year arrangement. For example, you could have sole custody of the child yet your wife could still get 7/14 overnights. What you specifically want (I think) is something called "joint co-parenting with a 50% time split".

Joint co-parenting gives you joint decision-making and equal influence as a parent. I think you can even get the "primary residential assignment" (where the kid lives, technically) assigned to "joint".

The 50% time split guarantees you get to see your kid half the time (I personally like week on / week off myself)

Then, there is a table they use based on you and your ex wife's incomes and the number of overnights per week at each home. If both parents make the same and have the same number of overnights/year then the net payment should be zero. More days or less income from one parent to the other shifts child support payments one way or the other.

And I do completely understand where you are coming from. The first time a guy questions a child support payment amount, some people loooove to come out of the woodwork and tell you how you must be greedy or inconsiderate to your children. The harsh reality is that a ton of child support money gets diverted every year -- and that is the greater crime. I believe anyone receiving child support payments should be required by law to provide a detailed accounting of where the money is spent. Just like the Kanye West son says... "she was supposed to buy Tyco with your money but instead she got lipo with your money".

Bingo... Bingo... Bingo...

Exactly... our parenting plan (ideally) will be 50/50 PHYSICAL and LEGAL... so there is not any bias towards either parent.

I hate the language that makes it look like one parent is less of a parent than there other. Custodial / Non-Custodial language / Primary Residence should not HAVE to exist and it does not HAVE to exist in a parenting plan that is agreed upon by both parents.

 

[jh1]

With regard to public choice theory economics, it is called "rent seeking". Using the government to take a dollar out of someone's pocket and put it into your pocket is rent seeking. It happens all the time and the rent seekers are using this rent to float their lifestyle unjustly and at the expense of someone else.

Who ever gets full custody should pay fully for it - full financial responsibility, With regard to economics, on one hand they are gaining all the utility/satisfaction of having the kids, they should pay a premium for this utility that the other parent is being robbed of. On the other hand, you should not have a situation where a parent is stripped of their children and suffer the loss of that utility and pay the "rent seeker" a high premium for it so that they can enjoy a better standard of living at the expense of the non-custodial parent.

However, if custody is split 50/50, there should still be no welfare payments/ transfers of wealth between ex-spouses since they are sharing the burden equally. I in no way can see how wealth redistribution in this case is ever effective or justified.

You sound just like my attorney, that's why I hired him. I agree with all these concepts in theory.

However... I have a little bit of a conflict in my own mind about this last part.... in bold. I am not sure how to feel about it... I agree with what you wrote... but perhaps having one parent not being able to provide for them at the same level as the other might cause the child to prefer the parent that can provide 'more' for them...

I am not talking about food, but maybe fashionable clothes, material stuff, etc... I am not sure... I feel it's my money, but I don't want my child to be conflicted. Additonal thoughts?

You, sir, should come post on my divorce threads more often. All these haters trying to make me out to be a bad dad...




Heatherae... I hope you're not offended by my argumenative nature. Do you care to respond with your thoughts to Mr. Plunky and Jimsbbc's posts?

 

[gotmilk]

are you bringing that pic of naked co-ed coked out ping-pong to your divorce proceedings?

 

[mrplunkey]

I agree with all these concepts in theory.

However... I have a little bit of a conflict in my own mind about this last part.... in bold. I am not sure how to feel about it... I agree with what you wrote... but perhaps having one parent not being able to provide for them at the same level as the other might cause the child to prefer the parent that can provide 'more' for them...

I am not talking about food, but maybe fashionable clothes, material stuff, etc...

I am not sure... I feel it's my money, but I don't want my child to be conflicted.

Exactly!

That's why the child support tables take into consideration the relative incomes of both parents as well as the time split. The idea is that the additional payment would allow the children to live at comparable lifestyles in either home. That's why a parent who receives a payment based on a relative income differential should be required to document how that differential is spent. Its scandalous what happens to that money today.

 

[jh1]

are you bringing that pic of naked co-ed coked out ping-pong to your divorce proceedings?

LOL... my wife and her sister... eh.. prolly not beneficial to my case.