Hello all.  I am writing this as a way to vent.  I am curious if anyone else out there feels the same way I do. 

My situation with child support already has me borderline in the poor house.  Now, depending on her new income, I could potentially pay a lot more. 

Here is my story.

I have 2 children who my ex-wife has residential custody of.  I have custody of my oldest son from a different mother.  My fiance, 17 year old son and I live in a regular middle class community in Lenexa, KS in a house built in 1968.  She lives in a house in the Shawnee Heights area in Topeka that is roughly 3-4 years old with her new husband and their child together and my 2 children, ages 9 and almost 11.  My relationship with my kids has become more strained recently as the ex-wife slowly and methodically drives a wedge between my kids and I.  She constantly keeps them from me and limits any communication with them.  All the while, she gets paid every 2 weeks with my hard earned money.  In no way am I saying that I shouldn't be paying child support.  I truly think that every parent has a financial obligation to their children.  My issue with my support is that shouldn't support laws be more reflective of a modern day family?

The ex-wife lives very comfortably with her new husband. She drives a 2 year old Cadillac Escalade, lives in a less than 5 year old house as the first owners, and recently went to Hawaii, Florida, Colorado, Washington and New York on separate vacations. She carries around her designer coach purses, diamonds, hair-dos, nails and all the other pampered type things that a materialistic person has or does.  Me? I drive a Ford Fusion, albeit a 2011 but in no way a fancy car. My biggest luxury is my smartphone that I get at a discount rate as an employee of a large telecommunications company.  I have a few other toys but nothing fancy.  I love going to Royals games and if it weren't for the $40 discount coupon book, I wouldn't go to any games.  My only vacation in the past 3 years was a weekend trip to St Louis and a 4 day trip to Chicago.  We drove to both places.  I have purchased one new pair of shoes in the past 3 years and own a total of 3 pair of jeans without holes.  Every other weekend, IF the ex allows me to get my children, I make the drive on I-70 to pick them up, bring them to Lenexa for one night and then drive them home. She shares in none of the driving and I get zero credit for footing the entire gas bill of roughly $120 a month in gas and toll. Of course, this doesn't include the wear and tear on my car and the increased amount of maintenance involved.  I usually have around 20-30 in my checking account by the time I get paid again. 

She has recently taken me to court for more child support and to reduce my visitation from what is supposed to be Friday through Sunday to Saturday through Sunday every other weekend.  Shouldn't child support laws be more reflective of a modern family? She lives a very nice lifestyle. I don't think her husband should pay for my children's food, clothes and activities but she pays no bills.  He pays for her car, the house and all the bills.  Since he is an air force pilot, they also get many discounted items.  It seems as though my 1000 plus would be plenty to feed and clothe both children along with having some left over for a few activities. And remember that she also has a financial obligation so the little bit of water and electricity the children use can be paid with her share of the support. The court says that a child deserves to live the same lifestyle in divorce that they would in marriage.  However, that does not apply for a non-custodial parent.  Shouldn't children also be afforded that right when they are at the residence with the non-custodial parent?  The formula has to be changed.  It should be more indicative of a full household income and not just one parent.  The way it is now, my ex wife's husband could be a millionaire and I'd still have to pay a bunch of money and live a less than meager lifestyle.  If my support is raised, while she lives in her fancy world, I will have to sell our house, and move to an unsavory part of Kansas City.  I get a small credit for having a son here with me.  The silly thing is that while the court says my non-residential children cost 500 plus each to raise, I only get a $220 credit to raise my residential son. I get no say in any activities or anything else that has to do with my children. She would like nothing more than for me to give up my rights and me to have nothing to do with my kids. 

Sometimes I wonder who is writing these guidelines and if they have kids or any common sense.  Have they ever been a non-custodial parent?  Do they get input from all angles?  Are the people writing these formulas a bunch of jaded people who were slighted out of child support by an ex?  I just don't understand how such educated people can think these formulas are fair. 

What do you all think?  Am I wrong in my way of thinking?  Is there a way to lobby or get a bill introduced to have these laws changed?

The real shame in all this is that the money you are paying is after taxes.  This means that the money costs you about 1.5 times what she gets.  If this money was pretax things would be much more equitable and her taxes would reflect her financial situations not yours.  This is done with alimoney whay is it niot done with Child Support?

I understand what the law says I am suggesting [gasp] that maybe it should be changed. 

Paying with pre-tax dollars is how Alimony is paid.  Changing CS to work the same way would address so many fairness issues that get posted here....it is a simple solution to help fix what many consider a broken system. 

This exact same question has come into debate on this site on at least two other threads.
Refer to these links below for more on this question:

Suggested Changes / Re: Tax Treatment
« on: August 03, 2013, 10:52:35 PM »
Re-Post of Related Modified Thread

General Discussions / Re: Recieved My First letter from DCF
« on: August 17, 2012, 09:16:22 AM »

It would appear that Federal and State taxes need to be paid on income. I presume that in order to prevent double taxation on the same earnings there are laws in place (Federal?) with regard to Child Support which dictate who pays the tax, payor or recipient. I also presume that the team put in place to construct the Kansas Child Support Guidelines is aware of the laws and considers them in the determination of total amount of money to be paid or received in Child Support. In other words, the tax point is mute (silent) and it does not matter. Federal tax law states that the income is not taxable to the recipient. If it were taxable to the recipient than it would be tax deductible to the payor.

Kansas can not change the Federal Tax Laws. It must consider them when making it's decisions.

Additionally. THIS IS NOT AN CONSIDERATION BETWEEN MOM's AND DAD's. IT is an issue of two parents or any party responsible for raising a child in the United States of America. It does not matter what sex the payor is or what sex the recipient is. This is Federal Law.

So, I also presume that if the tax responsibility shifted than the % of income due by the payor would also change. i.e. The if the payor gets to deduct the amount of Child Support paid from a Federal Tax return than the % of income paid to the recipient would increase to cover the estimated tax burden by the recipient.

The current Federal laws make for much simpler calculations by the states because there is no need to estimate the Federal tax burden in the equation. This is because the State's goal is to create a net result where the amount of income to each party raising children to a level above what would qualify them for support benefits paid by the State of Federal Government for housing, food stamps and health care. Thus reducing the tax burden of it's residential population and businesses.