We all know about dead beat dads, but their are plenty of dead beat moms. Instead of child support going to mommy's boyfriend's-jack-daniel's-fund, would it make more sense for a disadvantaged child to have saved money at the age of 18 that neither parent can touch for college, trade school, or whatever. Your thoughts?
2007-03-28 12:06:31 · 4 answers · asked by alberthastings3 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Better yet--if the child support money the custodial parent is receiving from the non-custodial parent is going to ANYONE's jack daniel's fund instead of going to support and care for those children, the non-custodial parent should sue for full placement.
But I do agree that IF the custodian earns enough to support the children then yes, that money should be set aside for the kids when emancipated. Many parents who can afford to do so do just that--what a great thing to do for your kids. Unfortunately--many single parents need the support money for food, housing and clothing--and are lucky to have any left over for 'fun' stuff FOR THE KIDS (ie vacations, birthday parties etc).
2007-03-28 13:22:36 · answer #1 · answered by Cherie 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I am not divorced and do not plan on that ever happening, but my sister is. The child support she receives goes in a separate account that she started just for my nephew. She spends that money on him and his needs and it is a far cry from what half of the actual expenses are. I do understand your point as far as mom spending on things that do not pertain to the child and then the child still goes in need.
2007-03-28 21:22:53 · answer #2 · answered by mom of 2 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you paying enough? Usually child support is what the child needs day to day.
2007-03-28 19:10:53 · answer #3 · answered by DAR 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
if there is money left over after the childs needs have been met yes, but its more important the child is fed and clothed now then thinking about later on.
2007-03-28 19:11:28 · answer #4 · answered by fiddich59 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋