how much support,should a non-custodial parent pay 30%50%60% explain why?

Answer 1

You know that you opened up a line of selfishness, where people can complain about child support. Has any one here ever thought about the child involved or their children. If everyone would do the right thing then there would be no need for child support enforcement or court telling people how much their child support was going to be paid. If people on the receiving end of child support would stop being gold diggers and the money actually went for child support ie.clothing hygiene stuff schools etc. it would all be a different story. I too have to pay child support, I have my own story to tell but it would only hurt my daughter to get things changed and that's not right either. There is a formula that the court goes by and it's based on your expendable income which is a part of your gross. In Ohio its 80% of your expendable gross. The child support is 157 dollars a week for 40,000 a year gross income personal income.

Answer 2

I don't think you can put a percentage on child support. Each individual situation is so different, and needs to be looked at as such. What the situation was, what it is, as well as many other factors. You don't want one parent paying 60% of the income and then not be able to pay their own bills. This would just leave the future open for street living and social assistance income. (totally defeating the whole purpose in the first place) I believe we should all take our responsibility and share our children and pay our support. However, it is hard as each situation is so different.

Answer 3

I guess that would depend on your state's laws on the subject. Personally I think it should depend on the father's involvement. In my pre-nup I had it stated that if (god forbid) something happened and my husband and I got a divorce that if he was actually a DAD to our kid(s)-you know spending time with them and buying them things that I wouldn't even pursue child support. I think it just breeds resentment between the parents and they need to be there for the child and not worry about who's paying for what and how much. Yes, there may be certian circumstances in which it should be paid-say the dad isn't involved at all or there was abuse and the dad legally can't see the child then by all means, but I believe that LOVE is more important than money and kids want LOVE more than anything. Just be a good dad and don't worry about the money. Your kid(s) will only be kids once. (by the way I do NOT work and we are far from rich-we have one daughter and one due in december)

Answer 4

Its all sorted with income ect and time seen. Yet its really according to state policy. I feel its 50/50 for both parents. They both should be equally responsible since they both had the kids. Visitation and such outside of child support I feel should be considered, but not greatly. Some non-custodial parents pay alot out of childsupport...at that it would be fair they pay less for the child support. Over all ...big picture it should be 50/50 for both parents.

Answer 5

It is mostly based on their income, and the father is usually the non-custodial parent, and have higher paying jobs, and they are also usually required to carry health insurance on the child. The mother, or custodial parent has to pay for rent, food, utilities and other day to day items...soap, shampoo, school items, etc and it is very expensive, and if a child is in afterschool sports they cost money too.

Answer 6

I think it should be 50/50 but, I believe that it should also be affordable for the paying parent. Some people just want as much as they can possibly get. My brother pays so much in child support he can't afford his own place. He also get his kids every weekend and buys them school clothes and pays for their health insurance. Everytime he gets a raise and thinks he is getting ahead she takes him back for more money.

Answer 7

The federal government has a lot of control over child support. Both parents income gets combined. Then a table is used to look up the child support for whatever number of children there are. The parents percent of combined income is computed and the non custodial parents percentage multiplied by the number from the table. Other factors come into play so a quick example.
Mom - 35,000 dad 45,000 for a total of 80,000. They have two kids and the table says 19,000 dollars a year. Mom is custodial so dad pays support to her. Dad's percent of total income is 56.25%. So his obligation is .5625 x19000=10,687.50 a year. But wait, he is ordered to provide health insurance which costs 4,000 a year. Mom's percentage is 43.75 so .4375*4000=1750 is deducted from 10687.50. Wait.. the kids go to daycare so the parents can work, mom pays that so dad has to pay his 56.25 percent of 250 per week day care(that's 13,000 a year) so .5625x13,000=7312.50 gets added to dads support order.
10,687.50+7312.50-1750=16,250 being dads yearly support total. divide that by 12 to get 1354.17 per month in child support payments. Is it fair? Yes and No. Yes because both parents percentage of total income available was used in the calculation but NO for many reasons.

Who the heck saves over 16,000 a year on a 45,000 dollar Gross Wage?

The tables seem highly inflated for basic expenses to raise a child. I've added ours up, it's really about 20% of what those tables say. Courts maintain they do it to keep the childs standard of living the same which is B.S. Things change in life and all they do is teach children that there lives will never change.

The courts fail to realize that the same income now has to provide for two households, insurance policies, etc. Our children start as part of our households and lives no matter what they may be or the circumstances.. This should not change. In our example the income was 80,000. Half of that is 40,000, so the non-custodial should pay 5,000 as the base amount to the custodial parent to equal out the income for both households. The 80,000 basis should never change! Once the parent with the lesser income reaches that 40,000 half way mark then support should stop for the base amount! Doing this allows both parents to improve there own income for their benefit without affecting child support. I'd love to get a second job to get ahead on some bills or take a nice vacation. But I won't because it raises my child support, and that stays in effect even when I quit job number two.

So how do we deal with insurance, daycare, and some of the other expenses. Same way as above but 50/50 since that is what the income is.

How do you keep custodial parents from over spending and tagging the non-custodial for half! Receipts submitted to Child Support enforcement for actual expenses, by both parents, which get reviewed for reasonableness and then the monthly amount adjusted.

Re-marriage or live in boyfriends/roomates. Well you could say mom or dads expenses just got reduced by half for things like rent/mortgage/utlities. But what if there is no mortgage, no rent. You could take the same postition that's taken regarding alimony. You cohabitate then support ends(at least the base) and it's reduced to actual expenses. Or you could say that person just improved their financial situation. If you choose the second option then swcond and third jobs have to be off limits for child support because improving a situation through a roomate has the same affect on disposable income as earning more income through 2nd or 3rd jobs.

During a divorce, whether with children or not, the entire financial picture and financial well being of both parties has to be taken into account. Right now, when children are involved, the financial picture is skewed towards putting the person paying support into dire financial consequences, bankruptcy, or poverty. It should not happen this way but often does.

It's funny, they say the children need all the same interaction and contact with the non-custodial parent but they make no considerations financially to allow the non-custodial parent a reasonable means to even go do something with their kids. A meal out, fishing, ball game, zoo, for a non-custodial parent can be a HUGE financial undertaking. That's why an expense based system is needed to level the playing field. I bet I would have a hard time finding non-custodial parents who have not heard some kind of grief from their kids because they don't havethe money to do the thigns mom does for them. Right there, when they say that, you know the system has failed to foster healthy relationships between the children and both parents. They have actually pitted the parents against each other in a round about way. Not to mention, they usually end up forcing kids to see one of their parents in dire circumstances.

One other solution is to have BOTH parents pay their obligation to a common account overseen by the courts. Then receipts are submitted at suitable intervals and disbursements made back to both parents. This service could be privatized and create jobs on top of it. We already pay poundage to cover the cost of administering the child support account. This would also provide a huge amount of data regarding actual expense to provide the basics for children. I think we would see both parents obligations reduced drastically which helps both parents financial situation which in turn aleviates alot of other problems created by the current system.

If they really wanted what's best for the children then they would anlayze the situation to a much deeper level.

Answer 8

I say Atleast 50% but inmost states they go by your income. Which my sons father only pays $80 a MONTH and you tell me what person can live on $160 a month that barely gets him his school clothes.

Answer 9

You don't pay by a percentage per say...depending on how much money you make they have a scale. Its a certain percentage of your wages. Personally I think that it should ne 50% but that's not realistic..

Answer 10

depends on which stae you live in. In florida it is formulated by how much each parent makes, who pays the child's health insurance, and who pays for daycare.