I think the current kansas child support guidelines are actually setup for one parent to "win" in my opinion. One parent is supposed to "provide" for the child and the other simply does nothing???  Each parent actually does provide for the children, but the kids sure as heck don't know this.  They grow up thinking that Mom (or Dad) provided everything while they were growing up.  I think both parents should be given the chance to provide.

B

Based on the KS guidelines research, somewhere between 25% and 33% is where KS says noncustodial (NCP'S) parents actually start contributing.  The current guidelines in KS, however, do not allow any credit until 35%.  Even then the credit is only 5% so don't hold your breath.  I think if the NCP is allowed more credit, they will spend more time with the kids.  Right now the NCP will find it very difficult to balance two families, financially.

Our kids (my husband's) ask us all the time why we don't take them shopping like mom does. "Mom bought me these $80 shoes" "Mom got me a new ipod" etc.... Now and then, I remind them that their dad paid for half of whatever they are bragging about... they know that mom gets child support so I just say "remember, dad sent that money to mom to help her buy that for you."

My husband's last paycheck was $339 while the garnishment that went to "mom" was $598.  I have been laid off for a year and just now got a job that pays once a month.... so we have to find a way to live on $339 for two weeks. My husband had to tell the ex that he can't come get the kids this coming weekend because we can't put gas in the car or buy groceries for the three extra kids. (we have two babies of our own)... so now we get to hear about what a loser he is that he doesn't care enough to come get the kids..

This issue is very complex as are most family law issues. So, all I can share is how Child Support has benefited my two (2) children?

The children of elementary school age were parties to the termination of an abusive marriage for which the repeatedly stated objective was to eliminate mom and hire a nanny to take her place.

There were prescription drug abuse and addiction issues on the part of the abuser which were given no consideration by the Court or the Custody evaluator because the drugs were obtained by at least one (many) Dr.'s prescription and purchased legally.

Both parents are college educated and each have earned benefits & salaries above $100,000.00 per year.

Child Support payments withdrawn directly from payroll and significant financial sacrifices allowed the mother to keep the marital residence without cohabitation or remarriage. BENEFIT #1 = The children were able to remain in the same home, school and neighborhood and remain there today, five years after separation. Stability. Were it not for the option, the mother would be only able to earn a wage allowing for a one bedroom apartment for her & the children and it is likely they would have become latch key kids on her parenting days.

Due to the death of their first child, the parents made a choice when attempting to conceive the children that one parent would stay home to raise them. Although Mom was earning more money than dad at the time of their second child's birth, Mom gave up a 10 year career to stay home because Dad's long term earning potential was higher and her job required travel out of town which Dad refused to help with infant child care while she was gone.

In the two years prior to separation Dad did not like the financial responsibility of being the sole provider for the family and instead of encouraging mom to find employment he began abusive behaviors in front of the children which excluded her from normal parenting declaring that the now school aged children did not need a mom because he could do it all and better than she did. Benefit #2 = The children have two parents who can both contribute to the process of their coming independence without either one being forced out completely.

Benefit #3 = The children are not penalized or put into potentially dangerous circumstances because the mother who had not worked for eight ( years is forced to sacrifice what used to be their time and now must first be given to survival and an employer paying a much lower wage and less flexibility in work hours than she earned when she left the workforce. Child Support allows for options.

Benefit #4 = The children's after school care and summer supervision has been given by the parents or grandparents.

Benefit #5 = The children have had the opportunity to participate in activities that Dad was not willing to support or pay for like weekly music lessons, Cub Scouts, Summer Camps, Swim Team, Gifted Education opportunities which have been paid for directly through Child Support payments. In other words.... the same opportunities they would have had if the family had remained in tact with Dad as sole financial provider. they have also been able to do all the things that Dad wants to do with his earnings. Travel, Cruises, expensive electronic gadgets, Golf...etc.

I recognize that my children are financially blessed. The Child Support I receive also pays for their school registration & fees which are about $500 each per year. The lunch fees of $150 per month. Clothing I buy them from Target, JCP or the Goodwill stores. The Child Support allows me to help them and encourage them to do things they would like to do that Dad is not willing to support because they do not benefit him. Benefit #6 = The children also benefit emotionally from the decreased disparity in incomes between the two divorcing parents because without it they see the disparity in spending and feel guilty about needing & wanting things that one parent can no longer provide.

I have just tapped the surface here. But, I think the person paying support can choose either to resent the situation or look at it as a debt to be paid like any other financial commitment made. The creditor here is your children. The parent receiving support is simply the children's banker.

This is a process and it takes time to make decisions, sacrifices and adjustments in lifestyle. My hope is to minimize the sacrifices my children need to make because of my mistakes. My values, hopes and dreams  have not changed just because the man I chose to marry decided he no longer wanted me as his life partner. However, my sacrificial choices and current responsibilities to the children we worked to give birth to have changed my options.

Bob,

it is in the best interest of the children for someone to be given legal responsibility to provide necessities. It is my observation that in the past each Court has had different interpretations as to what those obligations were. This may be why the 2012 rules are more specific.

I can not speak to what it would be like to be paying an amount in Child Support that would prevent someone from having enough money to buy things for their child. There is nothing to prevent you from buying whatever you would like for your child. The costs that are mandatory are things that would normally be invisible to the child as to who pays unless a parent has told them. School fees, bus fees, school lunches, healthcare costs.

I made the decision early in the process to give the children full ownership of everything that was for them. This prevented property disputes over toys, musical instruments, air hockey, ping pong, etc. So, whatever they get can go back & forth as they desire. Dad is a bit more restrictive because he does not want me to resale for money things they have grown out of or no longer use. I have resold and traded for used clothing in bigger sizes ever since the children were born.

As a support recipient, I have been required to provide clothing for Dad's home based upon a list he would request from me. I simply told the children I received money from dad to buy the clothing they would need while at his home. that is how things worked when we were married anyway. He never bought them clothing. he got tired of giving me a list of what he needed and did not like that I bought things at Goodwill stores. So, that changed when my daughter entered middle school. Now he takes her shopping whenever he wants, she gets designer clothing and expensive shoes. My son get stuff from Target and is happy. So, with the new guidelines I will take a 2% decrease in support at the next modification. That will amount to about $500 - $1,000 per year less in support. But, she will get nicer clothes than I can afford to buy her because he is spending 4x that much in designer clothing. I will keep shopping at Goodwill, Target & JCP.

Don't be disheartened. No Court will ever tell you not to be generous in providing for your child/ren.

I have not observed any situation which would lead me to believe that Child Support psychologically trains children to favor one parent over another. Nor have I seen any objective source material on that topic. So, I would have to say that more likely to be a perception vs. an established fact.

Although the new Child Support worksheet allows for extraordinary expenses to be considered going forward there is no way to know how the Courts will rule and decide on this subject. I suspect that the Courts will consider and include expenses that have been a part of the child/ren(s) life prior to Separation/Divorce, were already agreed to by the parties and are presumed to continue.

Income disparity, lifestyle related to income disparity and parenting time imbalance does in fact engender favoritism in the children. Isn't this where the term "Disneyland Dad" comes from? I have never heard mom's referred to as an ATM machine or a cash cow.

I am not an expert on the technicalities of where the expenditures will be placed on the CS spreadsheet, how the inclusion of the expenditures will effect the other line items on the worksheet or the proportionate share of the expenditure attributed to each party. However, the Courts do have full discretion on the matter and have many many years of expertise in the execution of Divorces in Kansas. So, I expect they will rule fairly and consistently. Most of the Judges are also parents.

If the parents have an agreement the Courts will honor it. If the parents can not agree than it is in the child's best interest to have one parent be legally responsible for the basic necessities. Shopping for clothing & school supplies are chores and responsibilities not fun vacations.

As to my example below.... I get the same amount of $ whether I spend it on the kids activities or cheetos. The children & I live on about 1/8th of Dad's gross income. If money creates a bias in the children toward the parent with the most $$$ than in my case, even with all I provide for my children, Dad has the clear advantage. But, I have found the opposite to be true. The kids resent the income disparity and appreciate the sacrifices I make of my own needs on their behalf. Possibly because I use money as a tool and not for power and control.

Hope that answers your question GURU.