That a woman and man should do equal share of supporting the child. Foe example, one is order to pay $500 a month therefore resulting in each paying $250 a piece and also sharing half of other obligations. After all the baby was made by both parents.
2006-08-28 07:52:54 · 25 answers · asked by JoJoBa 6 in Family & Relationships ➔ Other - Family & Relationships
yes our system has many flaws
2006-08-28 07:55:52 · answer #1 · answered by rosary 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The person with custody is already going to pay for more than half of what the child needs,so I think the one that only gets the child once in awhile should pay a little more. If you count the one with the child may help buy the groceries,but they also have to cook the food & do the clean up after,where the person that just gives the money feeds then when they go visit.They should both pay for any medical expenses half & half.
2006-08-28 07:59:29 · answer #2 · answered by fairy53042000 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, if one was ordered to pay $500 a month to the other, it is assumed that the other parent would also be contributing $500 to the supporting the child. Also, if one parent's earning capacity is much higher than the other parent, then the parent earning more should pay more simply because that parent is better able to support the child.
2006-08-28 07:57:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's not how Child Support works.
If you're ordered by a judge to pay $500/month, that's done under the assumtion that the parent with custody already spends $500/month out of their own pocket on the child.
If you split YOUR SHARE, then the other parent is paying 75% and you're paying 25%
Suck it up and support your kid.
2006-08-28 08:04:48 · answer #4 · answered by drumrb0y 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, if the man is ordered to pay $500 than you can easily assume the woman is paying more than that each month. You have to take into account housing, daycare, clothing, dr's appt.'s, entertainment, and if it's a baby diapers and formula as well. Anyone who thinks $500 in the full cost of a child each month is living in a warped reality!
2006-08-28 07:57:01 · answer #5 · answered by Nunya 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think basing support and the other obligations should be shared by percentage of income. Example. Mom makes 60,000 dad makes 40,000 totaling 100,000. Moms share is 60% dads is 40%. Yearly support is 10,000. So mom is responsible for 6,000 and Dad 4,000. Whoever doesn't have residential custody pays the other person let's just day Dad is paying in this example. Adjustments made depending who is paying for other things(often medical insurance and day care). Say medical is 3,000 a year and paid by Dad. Dad's obligation is to mom is now reduced
$1800. Mom pays 5,000 in Day care so dad owes her 2,000 for his part. Total yearly obligation for Dad is 4,000 -1,800 + 2,000 which is 4,200.
I don't think making someone pay half when they only earn a small part of the income is fair at all.
2006-08-28 09:35:13 · answer #6 · answered by Carp 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not quite sure what your question is. Is the one who is ordered to pay the $500 the non-custodial parent? If that is the case, then no. The $500. is used to offset the cost of housing, clothing, food etc. The amount is determined by the court based on how much the non-custodial parent makes, regardless of other responsibilities; ie new wife, children, step childrem...........
2006-08-28 08:00:37 · answer #7 · answered by tallerfella 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would be right if you shared custody . If one parent has sole custody and the other just gets them for a weekend , it is not a good idea. But even then the absent parent should help share the expenses, child support usually is not enough to take care of even half their expenses.
2006-08-28 07:59:48 · answer #8 · answered by jingles_200 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maybe you both should pay 500 a month. Put it in an account that is used exclusively for the child. Maybe there might be some left over for a collage fund!
2006-08-28 07:57:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, because the custodial parent bears the burden of ALL the costs of the child. The non-custodial or non-primary custodial parent pays a small percentage of their salary towards child support.
So if Mom is the custodial parent she is paying for everything and relying on a paltry 18% (maximum) of her ex-husband's income to help her out with child support.
2006-08-28 07:56:28 · answer #10 · answered by kja63 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sounds fair but...
if the mother has custody and is keeping the dad from seeing the child for no reason then the father shouldnt have to be made to pay for the child at all
if the father has custody and the father is keeping the mother from seeing the child for no reson then she shouldnt be made to pay for anything for the child
i think it should be up to the parent who has to be absent how much they should pay considering they love the child so they wont let him/her go without and considering they can not see the child.
i think its stupid for a parent to keep the other one from seeing the child and take his/her money
i dont think any of the parents should be out of the child's life the only reason they should be out of the child's life is if they would harm the child or the other parent then i could see them just paying for the child without seeing them then again why take their money anyway if you want that parent totally out of your life
2006-08-28 08:11:08 · answer #11 · answered by knowssignlanguage 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋