ssmom79
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/27/07
Posts: 7784
|
|
"I don't understand why all NCP's have to do is cut a steady check each month...and they are DONE with their responsibilities to their kids.
Why should all extra and unexpected costs fall soley on BM's shoulders?"
________________________________________________________
ALL? Please don't group ALL NCP's that way. We pay our support, pay for ALL extra-curricular activites, we purchase all our own clothes, shoes, and all the other expenses while they reside with us 50/50. We still pay $1250 in CS. So that means for one week for two kids, she gets $625. It does NOT take $1250 to raise two kids for two weeks out of the month.
So we pay more support than required and prove tons of extras without batting an eyelash.
1966Gal, our BM would have asked for 50% all of those costs you mentioned. However, on the flip-side, we, the NCP's would NOT ask for it, however if she volunteers the money we accept it.
She volunteered to pay for 1/2 of camp this year, which was awesome. I expected nothing since it was my idea, so it was a blessing.
Anyway, not ALL NCP's are that way, and I understand that our family is far from the norm...I just hate to be grouped with those once a month check writers who toss out "that's what CS is for" as excuses not to pay for additional things that kids may need.
|
1966Gal
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 04/04/08
Posts: 10098
|
|
Agreed. Some NCP's don't want to pay more because they are already paying plenty and BM is squandering it. Why would you feel compelled to pay more when what you are already paying isn't going where it should be?
On the other hand, some NCP's are just selfish. They KNOW BM is doing the best she can. They know they *should* be helping more, but they hide behind a law that clearly says that all they HAVE to do is cut a CS check each month and nothing more. They are lousy parents.
--------------------
The Gov cannot give anything to anyone - that they have not first taken away from someone else.
|
cincsu
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/05
Posts: 4686
Loc: residence in AZ, case in CA
|
|
we contribute more because we have to. BM doesn't send SS in clothing, so we must buy clothing for him. she doesn't send anythign with him nor does she pay her portion of travel and daycare. unfortunately, if we don't pick up her slack then there won't be anyone to care for SS while we are at work and Dh wouldn't have him anyway because of the travel.
in some cases you have to.....you don't want your children to suffer just because their mother is lazy and selfish.
--------------------
wife of 1, mother of 2, stepmother of .3475902453
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20056
|
|
"And if the child is costing more than the CS the CP is receiving and the CP's SHARE of expenses (if they were ordered t pay CS) then obviously you are living above your means. "
Not necessarily... personally, I think the cs guidelines for the lower income (and probably higher income, but don't have much experience with THAT) are "off"... Look at pm's for example... the guidelines allow her ex to pay $25/month...regardless of how much her share is on paper, it's not necessarily an indicator of her living above her means of cs and her "official on paper" share don't cut it. Yes, I know, pm's scenario is extreme, but it happens... my personal experience wasn't quite as dire as pm's, but bf's share was supposed to be around $425 per the guidelines, but because of the "poverty" clause, it was lowered to $275...guess who got to pick up the difference? Certainly not him, but apparently, it was okay for me to be expected to have an above guideline share to make up the difference.
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20056
|
|
"in some cases you have to.....you don't want your children to suffer just because their mother is lazy and selfish. "
Change "mother" to "other parent", and I'll agree with you.
|
motorboater
old hand
Reged: 03/14/08
Posts: 921
|
|
Nope, not your husband's ex :-) Just an example of someone who is consumed with trying to milk the system rather than act with integrity.
Assuming she will get $400 a month it's to be expected that she spends the rest of her life saying "$400 a month! That's not enough! Poor me!" Rather than explaining the equitable way $1700 a month total (which is more than enough) gets broken down to a fair $400 from me to her.
Because we have two kids, we're both claiming one on our taxes, btw.
|
Cassie23
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/07/05
Posts: 14714
|
|
Sherron yes PM is a rare example of how NYS CS laws SUCK!!
But that is why I am a believer in the idea that if there are subsequent children CS amount should be split and used to care for all the children and not just the oldest ones first. Some then would argue WHY should the firstborn lose out because the parent CHOSE to have MORE children? I am concerned about the welfare of our children not WHO was born first and why they DESERVE more...
I can see it both ways, I would like to see it fair. In PM's case this is wrong... If instead of her ex paying 17% of his income to the first child they should UP the percentage of CS to 25% (for two children) and split that CS 12.5%/12.5% to cover EACH child. BUT the CS laws will not do that because the second child was subsequent...
So we get one child getting 17% and the other getting $25/month because AFTER he pays CS to the FIRST child he is at poverty level. Whatever- in a INTACT family if a new child is born the first gets a little less, EVERYONE does to make up for that new child. It's called common sense, but CS laws don't really see it that way.
|
cincsu
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/05
Posts: 4686
Loc: residence in AZ, case in CA
|
|
sorry, i was referring to my/our/SSs situation here.
--------------------
wife of 1, mother of 2, stepmother of .3475902453
|
Cassie23
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 10/07/05
Posts: 14714
|
|
I reread the post and I have to say something about SP's bytching about paying for extras...
It depends--- I mean some CP's will demand that a NCP pay for an extra without giving any regards to what the NCP thinks.
I am a SP and if in my OWN household we can only afford one sport a year and one activity but BM starts demanding that we pay HALF of two sports and 2 activities then WHY should we??? Just because that's what the CP wants? Why should we conform to a DIFFERENT standard of living for the first child if the other children will have to suffer (get less) to obtain it?
That I just don't get. We have to remember that CS is paid by the NCP, but the NCP is usually spending money while the child is with him/her as well. That we can't as a family conform to what a CP deems necessary if in our own family we don't. DH and I try to be FAIR when it comes to all the kids- that's important to us.
|
accesskas
enthusiast
Reged: 08/22/05
Posts: 209
Loc: Missouri
|
|
My personal feelings are when someone is upset about the other party asking for more money when they are receiving child support is their lifestyle. For example my husband's ex won't keep a stable job, will not pay her bills and go and run up her credit cards, then complain to my husband that she can't buy their son something because she is broke. THAT is when i say ENOUGH is ENOUGH. We shouldn't be held responsible for her irresponsibility. She makes enough and with our child support and the CS from 2 other fathers from her 2 other kids, she shouldn't need a lot of what she claims to need. That is my opinion based on my circumstances.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
