That is good to know, thank you! This is something I will be discussing with him during our mediation, I just didn't know if it was a legal requirement.
Not true. A court order of 50/50 with no CS ordered is exactly that, they don't have the authority to override a judge. Assistance can and will pursue CS in cases where there is no order, they cannot deny you assistance for not receiving CS. I know of a case where the kids are split one with dad and one with mom. Judge ordered zero CS and each parent provide medical on the child in their custody. For chronically unemployed mom that means Medicaid (and SNAP) even though Dad has insurance. The state collection agency has to follow/enforce the orders of the judge not the other way around. They can't touch dad because mom is ordered to medically provide for child in her care and an order for support was entered by a judge at $0.
Idk where you live, but when I got divorced in CT the agreement was 50/50 no support- and the judge took the time to explain that if either of us applied for public assistance for the child then the “no child support” would be redetermined.
Think of it this way- if the state child support calculator says parent A should pay $400/month why should that be waived so the tax payers can make up the difference and subsidize the child’s care while the parent doesn’t?
Also to add, if one parent is unemployed $400 a month still qualifies them for a maximum amount of state benefits. That other parent will be on full taxpayer aid wether or not they recieve $400 a month from the OP in the states I know of. States get fed subsidies for both child support collection and aid services. It doubles what the state can collect while forcing a parent to pull more than their own share of care for the child.
Why should one parent be responsible for the financial instability of the other? It should be on the parent not providing their portion of care for the child. A divorce is a split meaning one spouse is no longer bound to or responsible for the other parent and their choices.. I agree the tax payers shouldn't have to subsidize care but when 1 parent is pulling their weight and the other isn't, you punish the one who is by making them pay for the parent who is lacking? Emergency social funding should be just that but it becomes a lifetime income source for some. There truly is no easy answer as you can't legislate morality, punishing a parent for the inaction of the other, forcing them to pull more of the financial weight caring for the child isn't right either.
You can’t let your child be homeless or hungry half the time if you have the means to secure them housing and food just because their other parent isn’t working or making enough money for whatever reason. It’s about what’s best for the child. It should be as close to as if you guys were still together. If you were together, you wouldn’t let your kid be homeless or hungry when you had the money to fix it just because your partner wasn’t working. The goal is for the parents not being able to live together to affect the child as little as possible. We don’t want to let kids suffer just because parents don’t want to work together. And you can bet your ass that when the state has to step in and make sure your kid isn’t homeless or hungry when you have the funds to do that, they are coming to recoup because your child’s wellbeing is still *your* responsibility before it is the taxpayers’, even on the other parent’s parenting time.
So what exactly is the point of getting a divorce when you have children then? What you have written is no longer the stance that many states take. Each parent has a duty to care for the child. If EVERYONE was thinking about the best interest of the child, the parent more able to care for the child would take primary physical time, decline child support from the other party, and give the other parent a chance to get their feet under them instead of telling someone who separated from a partner for a reason that they have to carry dead financial weight. That shows the child what? One parent can completely neglect to provide for my needs but it's ok because the government will make the other pull double financial duty? A 50/50 custody order and even $700 in support still keeps an unemployed parent on taxpayer dole. The state is not recovering a thing for the care of the child, that is subsidized by the federal government in most cases. In fact, when applying for aid parents have the option to swear that for safety reasons they decline the pursuit of child support. I can't tell you how many parents I see live together and claim a protective exemption. I also have seen many cases where child support is set at $0 because time sharing is equal and the state is unable to pursue anything. It isn't about relieving tax payer burden for the care of the child, which continues even with support ordered (go take a peek at income limits). Caring for a child post separation isn't meant to a communist economy. It's about making sure each parent meets their portion of the needs of the child equally post separation. It was put in place particularly for parents not meeting the burden of care for their child. Change of lifestyle is inevitable in a divorce regardless of income level. We will just have to agree to disagree.
The whole point is that child support is not about “showing” anybody anything, it’s about materially supporting the child. That two adults cannot be mature enough to get their lives together and work together amicably is not something the court can ultimately change and a near infinite amount of state resources could be consumed in trying to do so for all of the messy parents that come through the door. What the court can do is say you guys need to make sure the kid gets taken care of even though you both wanna act like petty pieces of shit about it. And yes, if you’d rather your kid live in substandard conditions half the time than give your ex a dime, then you’re being just as much as a petty piece of shit as they are for purposely not working.
We don’t take people’s kids away because they’re poor. I think it should be obvious why. Maybe think on that for a minute before you suggest something like that again.
I don't think I will, thanks for the suggestion though. No one said anything about taking a child away, it's placing the child PRIMARILY in the environment most able to meet their needs. Is that not what you suggested? It's all about making sure the child is cared for no matter what no? Or that only applies to one party pulling all the financial weight? Your argument is ridiculous.
Do not let this ass get away without paying child support. These are his kids and yours, not the responsibility of everyone else. Take responsibility and make him do that too! Other than people who are truly disabled or have a temporary situation with loss of employment or crazy medical bills, it amazes me that people still think strangers, aka taxpayers, should pay for support of your children. I’m 100% supportive of temporary financial assistance. He’s working? Pay support. Can you work? Then do it.
I 100% agree! We both work full time and he makes at least 2.5k a month more than I do, hence him having to pay the support. I believe he wants to put it in the divorce decree to waive the child support, because we do 50/50 and he doesn't see a point to having to pay when the kids are with him half of the time. To me Child support is an income source to help the children and if we need assistance, it helps alleviate some of what the state is helping with.
You are correct.
You can't waive child support under any conditions. Child support money is basically the child’s money. No judge will allow you to waive child support.
As long as you receive benefits, he can not be taken off. You qualify for benefits, don't deny your children.
That is good to know, thank you! This is something I will be discussing with him during our mediation, I just didn't know if it was a legal requirement.
Not true. A court order of 50/50 with no CS ordered is exactly that, they don't have the authority to override a judge. Assistance can and will pursue CS in cases where there is no order, they cannot deny you assistance for not receiving CS. I know of a case where the kids are split one with dad and one with mom. Judge ordered zero CS and each parent provide medical on the child in their custody. For chronically unemployed mom that means Medicaid (and SNAP) even though Dad has insurance. The state collection agency has to follow/enforce the orders of the judge not the other way around. They can't touch dad because mom is ordered to medically provide for child in her care and an order for support was entered by a judge at $0.
Idk where you live, but when I got divorced in CT the agreement was 50/50 no support- and the judge took the time to explain that if either of us applied for public assistance for the child then the “no child support” would be redetermined. Think of it this way- if the state child support calculator says parent A should pay $400/month why should that be waived so the tax payers can make up the difference and subsidize the child’s care while the parent doesn’t?
Also to add, if one parent is unemployed $400 a month still qualifies them for a maximum amount of state benefits. That other parent will be on full taxpayer aid wether or not they recieve $400 a month from the OP in the states I know of. States get fed subsidies for both child support collection and aid services. It doubles what the state can collect while forcing a parent to pull more than their own share of care for the child.
Why should one parent be responsible for the financial instability of the other? It should be on the parent not providing their portion of care for the child. A divorce is a split meaning one spouse is no longer bound to or responsible for the other parent and their choices.. I agree the tax payers shouldn't have to subsidize care but when 1 parent is pulling their weight and the other isn't, you punish the one who is by making them pay for the parent who is lacking? Emergency social funding should be just that but it becomes a lifetime income source for some. There truly is no easy answer as you can't legislate morality, punishing a parent for the inaction of the other, forcing them to pull more of the financial weight caring for the child isn't right either.
You can’t let your child be homeless or hungry half the time if you have the means to secure them housing and food just because their other parent isn’t working or making enough money for whatever reason. It’s about what’s best for the child. It should be as close to as if you guys were still together. If you were together, you wouldn’t let your kid be homeless or hungry when you had the money to fix it just because your partner wasn’t working. The goal is for the parents not being able to live together to affect the child as little as possible. We don’t want to let kids suffer just because parents don’t want to work together. And you can bet your ass that when the state has to step in and make sure your kid isn’t homeless or hungry when you have the funds to do that, they are coming to recoup because your child’s wellbeing is still *your* responsibility before it is the taxpayers’, even on the other parent’s parenting time.
So what exactly is the point of getting a divorce when you have children then? What you have written is no longer the stance that many states take. Each parent has a duty to care for the child. If EVERYONE was thinking about the best interest of the child, the parent more able to care for the child would take primary physical time, decline child support from the other party, and give the other parent a chance to get their feet under them instead of telling someone who separated from a partner for a reason that they have to carry dead financial weight. That shows the child what? One parent can completely neglect to provide for my needs but it's ok because the government will make the other pull double financial duty? A 50/50 custody order and even $700 in support still keeps an unemployed parent on taxpayer dole. The state is not recovering a thing for the care of the child, that is subsidized by the federal government in most cases. In fact, when applying for aid parents have the option to swear that for safety reasons they decline the pursuit of child support. I can't tell you how many parents I see live together and claim a protective exemption. I also have seen many cases where child support is set at $0 because time sharing is equal and the state is unable to pursue anything. It isn't about relieving tax payer burden for the care of the child, which continues even with support ordered (go take a peek at income limits). Caring for a child post separation isn't meant to a communist economy. It's about making sure each parent meets their portion of the needs of the child equally post separation. It was put in place particularly for parents not meeting the burden of care for their child. Change of lifestyle is inevitable in a divorce regardless of income level. We will just have to agree to disagree.
The whole point is that child support is not about “showing” anybody anything, it’s about materially supporting the child. That two adults cannot be mature enough to get their lives together and work together amicably is not something the court can ultimately change and a near infinite amount of state resources could be consumed in trying to do so for all of the messy parents that come through the door. What the court can do is say you guys need to make sure the kid gets taken care of even though you both wanna act like petty pieces of shit about it. And yes, if you’d rather your kid live in substandard conditions half the time than give your ex a dime, then you’re being just as much as a petty piece of shit as they are for purposely not working. We don’t take people’s kids away because they’re poor. I think it should be obvious why. Maybe think on that for a minute before you suggest something like that again.
I don't think I will, thanks for the suggestion though. No one said anything about taking a child away, it's placing the child PRIMARILY in the environment most able to meet their needs. Is that not what you suggested? It's all about making sure the child is cared for no matter what no? Or that only applies to one party pulling all the financial weight? Your argument is ridiculous.
Do not let this ass get away without paying child support. These are his kids and yours, not the responsibility of everyone else. Take responsibility and make him do that too! Other than people who are truly disabled or have a temporary situation with loss of employment or crazy medical bills, it amazes me that people still think strangers, aka taxpayers, should pay for support of your children. I’m 100% supportive of temporary financial assistance. He’s working? Pay support. Can you work? Then do it.
I 100% agree! We both work full time and he makes at least 2.5k a month more than I do, hence him having to pay the support. I believe he wants to put it in the divorce decree to waive the child support, because we do 50/50 and he doesn't see a point to having to pay when the kids are with him half of the time. To me Child support is an income source to help the children and if we need assistance, it helps alleviate some of what the state is helping with.
You are correct. You can't waive child support under any conditions. Child support money is basically the child’s money. No judge will allow you to waive child support.
Wrong information. Seems to be rampant around here.
Not sure why you're being down voted, because you're right