Child Support

123bedebtfree · September 2016

Hello Everyone! I have 2 friends that get child support and last night we had a girls night and this some how became the topic of the night! Both are single parents, one of them uses the money for whatever she needs it for such as a bill, gas, food , clothes, etc.. the other one says that she only uses it for the childs sports or clothing or whatever the child needs, and its not for a bill or gas or groceries. I was silent the entire time because I didn't know what to say! So, do any of you get child support and if so, do you count it as apart of your monthly income? What do you use it for? One kid is 14 and the other is 10

als1982 · September 2016

I don't have kids, but would think it's fine to spend a portion of child support on utilities, gas and housing in addition to a child's educational and extracurricular expenses. The kid presumably receives benefit from a warm home, food on the table and a parent who can drive them to school and other activities. I would draw the line at using it to afford luxury expenses like clothes for the parent, cable tv, salon visits, etc.

LillibetteV · September 2016

I don't get child support (married and currently TTC) but if I did I would use it for utility bills and groceries if I needed it to supplement my own income - that's what it is for! To support the child who needs a warm house, running water, working lights, clothing, health insurance, and food on the table. If I had extra it would absolutely go to their activities and interests.

brij2006 · September 2016

I'm of the personal belief that child support can be used for anything that supports a child. Including food on the table, a roof over their head, their transportation too and from things, clothes on their back, etc.

jtmh2012 · September 2016

als1982 said:

I don't have kids, but would think it's fine to spend a portion of child support on utilities, gas and housing in addition to a child's educational and extracurricular expenses. The kid presumably receives benefit from a warm home, food on the table and a parent who can drive them to school and other activities. I would draw the line at using it to afford luxury expenses like clothes for the parent, cable tv, salon visits, etc.

Not an issue here, but I agree with this. I think it's fine to spend it on anything that directly and indirectly benefits the child. The child benefits from food, electricity, water, transportation, and even cable tv. I could maybe even make an argument for at least basic phone service.

However, I don't think it should be used for things that just benefit the parent....a new purse, nail appointments, parent's clothes, etc.

vlagrl35 · September 2016

I'm under the believe that it should be used on the child. Yet if there was a circumstance where the mom didn't make enough money to pay utilities and groceries then I'm totally fine if some of that money was used on those necessities.

lbonga1 · September 2016

I agree what others have said. I have not dealt with this personally, but I think if the money is going to something that directly affects the child, then it makes sense. Kids need to be housed, clothed, fed, transported, and entertained. The child support amount to cover those things is usually agreed up, or set by a judge for a reason.

julieanne912 · September 2016

I don't have children but yeah, I think it's fine to use for anything that the child uses/needs, whether that be school fees, sports stuff, utilities for the home they live in, or food.

I think this really depends on the individual parent's financials though. I have a friend who didn't work for a long time because 2 of her 3 kids have a lot of health issues and were in the hospital a lot etc. She ended up getting divorced (he had a girlfriend on the side driving a Range Rover that he was paying for while she was hauling their kids around in a 15 year old minivan that they bought used, but I digress) and she used the child support she got from him, and the SSI money she receives for one of the kids, and lived off of that until she ended up remarrying. It wasn't like they were living a glamorous lifestyle off of that child support, she still drove the same minivan, they rented a modest house, and she didn't buy or do anything for herself, pretty much ever.

Now, I also have single mom friends who make a decent income... ie enough to pay rent/mortgage, buy food, etc. They tend to use their child support for just the kids' stuff, like you mention.... sports fees, clothes, etc.

LillibetteV · September 2016

julieanne912 said:

I don't have children but yeah, I think it's fine to use for anything that the child uses/needs, whether that be school fees, sports stuff, utilities for the home they live in, or food.

I think this really depends on the individual parent's financials though. I have a friend who didn't work for a long time because 2 of her 3 kids have a lot of health issues and were in the hospital a lot etc. She ended up getting divorced (he had a girlfriend on the side driving a Range Rover that he was paying for while she was hauling their kids around in a 15 year old minivan that they bought used, but I digress) and she used the child support she got from him, and the SSI money she receives for one of the kids, and lived off of that until she ended up remarrying. It wasn't like they were living a glamorous lifestyle off of that child support, she still drove the same minivan, they rented a modest house, and she didn't buy or do anything for herself, pretty much ever.

Now, I also have single mom friends who make a decent income... ie enough to pay rent/mortgage, buy food, etc. They tend to use their child support for just the kids' stuff, like you mention.... sports fees, clothes, etc.

I think that's very different because if she worked she'd be paying for a home nurse to handle those health issues instead. In that case of COURSE she uses the money to keep the entire household afloat. Again, that money is being used to support the children because what sick children need is their mother at home taking care of them.

julieanne912 · September 2016

LillibetteV said:

julieanne912 said:

I don't have children but yeah, I think it's fine to use for anything that the child uses/needs, whether that be school fees, sports stuff, utilities for the home they live in, or food.

I think this really depends on the individual parent's financials though. I have a friend who didn't work for a long time because 2 of her 3 kids have a lot of health issues and were in the hospital a lot etc. She ended up getting divorced (he had a girlfriend on the side driving a Range Rover that he was paying for while she was hauling their kids around in a 15 year old minivan that they bought used, but I digress) and she used the child support she got from him, and the SSI money she receives for one of the kids, and lived off of that until she ended up remarrying. It wasn't like they were living a glamorous lifestyle off of that child support, she still drove the same minivan, they rented a modest house, and she didn't buy or do anything for herself, pretty much ever.

Now, I also have single mom friends who make a decent income... ie enough to pay rent/mortgage, buy food, etc. They tend to use their child support for just the kids' stuff, like you mention.... sports fees, clothes, etc.

I think that's very different because if she worked she'd be paying for a home nurse to handle those health issues instead. In that case of COURSE she uses the money to keep the entire household afloat. Again, that money is being used to support the children because what sick children need is their mother at home taking care of them.

Yup and a home nurse couldn't help them when they needed to go the hospital, which was an hour away.

I honestly don't know how she did it on her own without having a total mental breakdown.

cbee817 · September 2016

My mother received child support for 18 years. It was used to take care of me... that meant groceries, clothing, activities, but some years it also meant utility bills and rent. She would get $75/week from my father whom I did not have any contact or relationship with until I was 16 when he decided to find us. If he had actually been a father, we would have been in much better shape.

hoffse · September 2016

Child support payments aren't taxable income but alimony is. I guess for budgeting purposes I would include it.

Even though money is fungible, I personally think child support should be treated as though it's held in trust. A trust would have some language limiting the use of funds for the "health, maintenance, and support of the child." Practically, that would include basic living necessities like food, shelter, etc. It would also include education expenses and reasonable extracurricular expenses. It would not remodeling the house or taking junior on an around-the-world trip at age 3 before s/he can remember anything.

Mom's purse obsession and home decor changes should be supported by alimony, which is taxable income to her.

The fact that most states do not require child support to be held in trust is outrageous IMO.

jtmh2012 · September 2016

hoffse said:

The fact that most states do not require child support to be held in trust is outrageous IMO.

I was actually just getting ready to ask why this wasn't required.

mmabe · September 2016

jtmh2012 said:

hoffse said:

The fact that most states do not require child support to be held in trust is outrageous IMO.

I was actually just getting ready to ask why this wasn't required.

I believe it would be cost prohibitive in most cases to hold the money in a trust. I would rather see the money go to the care of a child than to a trustee. It would also put the custodial parent's finances under scrutiny that the non-custodial parent or any other person would not be subject to. You would have to categorize every dollar a custodial parent receives from income and child support and then assign an arbitrary percent to determine what percentage of an expense can be attributed to a child. It seems like a very cumbersome, expensive and arbitrary process

hoffse · September 2016

jtmh2012 said:

hoffse said:

The fact that most states do not require child support to be held in trust is outrageous IMO.

I was actually just getting ready to ask why this wasn't required.

Has to do with 1) accessing funds and 2) figuring out who the trustee would be. Fairest thing to do would be to have an impartial, institutional trustee in charge of funds, but that gets expensive. However, if custodial parent is trustee then that's no better than just giving the money directly to him/her. If noncustodial parent is trustee then they could restrict funds for legitimate expenses.

I still wish most states required it though. Practically, states figure that courts do their job in determining what child support is going to be, so as long as the noncustodial parent provides that amount the kid will be fine. Then the state doesn't have to constantly be reviewing it on a monthly or expense-by-expense basis. Unfortunately, courts can rarely keep up with the realities of what individual families need.

julieanne912 · September 2016

Costs aside, a lot of child support recipients aren't exactly bringing in hoards of money. Like cbee mentioned, her mom received $75/week. Is $300/month really worth setting up a trust over?

AprilZ81 · September 2016

From a practical perspective, how exactly is someone supposed to prove that the Child Support doesn't go to purses?

All of the money that comes into our house (granted we are married with joint finances) goes into one place and goes out of one place. I don't know if the mortgage was paid with "my" paycheck or "his" paycheck.

Even a single parent would have trouble proving that the child support went only to support the child(ren). As long as the kids are fed, dressed, and have a warm/cool safe home that is all that matters. If the child support stretches to pay for dance class or basketball fees, great!

Plus, if child support goes to help pay rent or utilities that does benefit the child along with anyone else living in the house. There are just a lot of blurred lines.

blondie42107 · September 2016

hoffse said:

jtmh2012 said:

hoffse said:

The fact that most states do not require child support to be held in trust is outrageous IMO.

I was actually just getting ready to ask why this wasn't required.

Has to do with 1) accessing funds and 2) figuring out who the trustee would be. Fairest thing to do would be to have an impartial, institutional trustee in charge of funds, but that gets expensive. However, if custodial parent is trustee then that's no better than just giving the money directly to him/her. If noncustodial parent is trustee then they could restrict funds for legitimate expenses.

I still wish most states required it though. Practically, states figure that courts do their job in determining what child support is going to be, so as long as the noncustodial parent provides that amount the kid will be fine. Then the state doesn't have to constantly be reviewing it on a monthly or expense-by-expense basis. Unfortunately, courts can rarely keep up with the realities of what individual families need.

SITB

Yes it would probably be nice to have some "checks and balances" with how child support is spent, but I prefer the focus be on child support getting paid. I know this isn't every situation but I know two people who are fighting to get child support money. A friend of high school, he ex hasn't paid child support in over six months. The court in her county is very slow. My coworker's son is now 22 but her ex owes over $30,000 in child support. If the courts don't have the time or money to keep up with these things, I'm not sure how they would keep up with trusts.

hoffse · September 2016

I would actually prefer an institutional trustee like a bank. Then the parents don't have to talk to each other, noncustodial parent pays the bank, custodial parent withdraws from the trust, and the bank is the trustee. Then when noncustodial parent doesn't pay, the bank goes after him/her (maybe they file a lien - they do hundreds each day). When custodial parent tries to pull a fast one, somebody auditing the account catches it.

Unfortunately there is chronic misbehavior going both directions, and ultimately the people who get screwed are the kids. It would be great to have some objective oversight.

The thing that makes me ragey about this is people always excuse the courts as being too busy to perform. Yes, they are extremely busy and generally underfunded across the board. But our probate courts manage to review an accounting for every estate for every person who dies. Our bankruptcy courts review an accounting of every person who files for bankruptcy. Why? Because when people die we all know that the assets have to be collected, reviewed, and then some institution needs to provide oversight when the heirs begin lining up. And with bankruptcy, we figure that if somebody is filing then they are in a financial crisis and there needs to be objective oversight of both the assets and the creditors.

Why do we assume that child support should be any different? There needs to be both enforcement of the payment and a periodic accounting for how the money is spent to make sure the kids are protected - yes, even if it's $75/week. Just my opinion though.

**Stepping off my soapbox now**

EDIT: To clarify, I know there is not a perfect answer. It's a bit of a soap box issue for me. I just think there needs to be more oversight and more resources devoted to it.

cbee817 · September 2016

@hoffse - I think it's hard for you to put a human side to this because you grew up how every child should... with 2 parents that wanted you to be born, have stable jobs, and a home for you to live in. However, I will say it look my mother 3+ years to get to $75/week with the courts. She found out he was a stockbroker in one of the wealthiest towns in the United States so she petitioned the courts for more money and that's all she was given. He abandoned us when I was 3 days old (still in the hospital with severe jaundice and born 4.5 weeks early) and made no contact with us until I was 16- they were not married and just graduated from college.
They are actually married now but the scars and the emptiness will always be there. No matter what my mother spent the $75/week on, she could never fill that void. She did her best to make sure we would survive and I learned that I never would want to be in the situation she was in and I would never want my children to be in the situation I was in.
MM wise- She did put herself through pharmacy school and has been a pharmacist for 23 years now. She bought our first home for the 2 of us when I was 12. We never used food stamps, medicaid, or any other assistance. She always worked and went to school at night. We did live with my grandparents until I was 6, but they did not watch me during the day.. I went to a babysitter down the road.
Also, she did pay for 50% of my undergrad for me. I had a scholarship for the other 50%. So she did her best- even if that $75/week was used to help pay bills like electricity/heat/groceries/rent/etc when I was young.

LillibetteV · September 2016

hoffse said:

I would actually prefer an institutional trustee like a bank. Then the parents don't have to talk to each other, noncustodial parent pays the bank, custodial parent withdraws from the trust, and the bank is the trustee. Then when noncustodial parent doesn't pay, the bank goes after him/her (maybe they file a lien - they do hundreds each day). When custodial parent tries to pull a fast one, somebody auditing the account catches it.

Unfortunately there is chronic misbehavior going both directions, and ultimately the people who get screwed are the kids. It would be great to have some objective oversight.

The thing that makes me ragey about this is people always excuse the courts as being too busy to perform. Yes, they are extremely busy and generally underfunded across the board. But our probate courts manage to review an accounting for every estate for every person who dies. Our bankruptcy courts review an accounting of every person who files for bankruptcy. Why? Because when people die we all know that the assets have to be collected, reviewed, and then some institution needs to provide oversight when the heirs begin lining up. And with bankruptcy, we figure that if somebody is filing then they are in a financial crisis and there needs to be objective oversight of both the assets and the creditors.

Why do we assume that child support should be any different? There needs to be both enforcement of the payment and a periodic accounting for how the money is spent to make sure the kids are protected - yes, even if it's $75/week. Just my opinion though.

**Stepping off my soapbox now**

EDIT: To clarify, I know there is not a perfect answer. It's a bit of a soap box issue for me. I just think there needs to be more oversight and more resources devoted to it.

Yes but people only die once and hopefully only file for bankruptcy once. A person getting child support payments would need oversight every week for up to 18 years - having the courts oversee that would be a tremendous burden comparatively.

KAdams767 · September 2016

In an ideal world, even when parents separate, each parent could afford necessities and a bit of indulgence for themselves and their kids. But as we all know, this is not an ideal world and the idea of specifically trying to separately earmark child support to be sure that every dollar goes directly for the child is crazy. Subjecting the finances of a parent receiving child support to an institutional bank's scrutiny is inherently biased and unfair. This suggestion is sounding an awful lot like folks who want to legislate that people on food stamps can't buy expensive foods like lobsters and steak.

smerka · September 2016

Kids are effing expensive. I doubt that most child support payments are being misused. I'm sure there's some, but probably more like the rare, mythical welfare queen. There usually just isn't enough money to live high on the hog. I think it's way more common for the noncustodial parent to stop working so they don't have to pay child support. Or they only work at jobs they are paid in cash so they don't have to report it. I'd rather see the courts focus on getting the payments made than nitpicking how the money is spent. You could get into a situation where Apartment A is disallowed because Apartment B is cheaper. But Apt A is closer to work or the preferred school. It's a slippery slope.

mmabe · September 2016

Estates and bankruptcy are so different because the court only monitors the estate until it closes. The heirs and legatees are not scrutinized after they receive their distribution. It would be extremely costly to audit a custodial parent's finances for 18 to 21 years depending on the terms of the agreement. A lot of parents make what others would consider unwise financial decisions. However, their finances are not subject to scrutiny of the courts. It does not make sense that a custodial parents would be subjected to such rigid scrutiny. If anyone's finances are examined, the non-custodial parent's should be to ensure that they are properly paying the statutory amount, not just the statutory amount at the time of the agreement. I would want to ensure that the payments are modified as the non-custodial parent's income increases and that they are properly reporting all income.

jtmh2012 · September 2016

I guess I'll toss in my side of this. 13 yrs ago, I moved in across from a nice older man who had two kids with his ex-wife. One day she up and decided she was done and moved out. One kid stayed with him, the other went with the wife. Court had him paying child support and he worked hard to make sure the payments were made. Several years later, he met another woman and she moved into his house which had been their house before the ex moved out.

About a year before the child support payments would have ended, she took him to court to have the child support raised because he had another woman in "their" house. He didn't fight it only because there were literally 12 payments left and the lawyer would have cost more than the payments. She would drop the kid off at the bottom of the driveway and have her pick up the check.

SHe's then go out and spend it on herself according to the daughter.

Child Support

Re: Child Support

Choose Another Board

Search Boards