Sorry for the crap you've been through - many of us have and it's not fun.

I'll try to provide some clarification, but I highly recommend following some of the links posted on this site to see for yourself exactly what will be changing with regard to shared custody and extracurricular activities.

Shared custody: Right now shared custody parents receive a 20% discount for caring for their child 1/2 the time. Personally, I think this is like a slap in the face.  In fact the documents and analysis done by users on this site suggested nearly 2 years ago that this should be closer to 75% credit.  As a result of the latest committee meetings a new method will be adopted for parents who don't agree to share direct expenses.  Do the child support worksheet.  The higher income earner is responsible for a higher child support amount, the lower income earner, a lower amount.  Take the high minus the low, and divide by 2.  This compensates the lower wage earner for the fact that one parent has worked their tail off to have a better life.  So, the more you make, the more you'll pay (no difference here).  But, if you're not agreeing to share expenses, then you'll pay either 13%, 15%, or 18% of the total child support value from the tables in addition.  This results in a 45% to nearly 80% adjustment for some cases, which is definitely getting closer to reality

Extracurricular: there is a new paragraph written about "extraordinary expenses" it calls for the higher income parent for every case to pay for 100% of all the high-cost activities, like premier sports.  I have no idea what the heck this means, and I can tell you from reading the public and attorney surveys submitted by Kansans, no one knows and it will likely be a VERY gray area.  I would fight this every step of the way.  If competitive sports has been "ordinary" for your child for the last many years, and kids in your income bracket do them, there's nothing "extraordinary" about it.  This section is actually rolled right into the "special needs" category, so I really don't know why this ended up getting passed, but it did.

So, in your case, you should pay the money for now, but after the 2012 guidelines become effective, find a change of circumstances (child age, different costs, different incomes, etc.) and file to change your CS.  Do not include sports or anything else.  Ask for the additional 2% reduction too because, trust me, you will be buying your own clothing at your house.  You should ask her to reimburse you for clothing for the next 6 months and document that she doesn't reimburse.  Then show the court that you've been buying your own stuff (keep receipts).  You'll then pay (high-low)/2 + 11% or 13% or 16% of the child support table number depending on your income.

Complicated and hard to explain - sorry

Well, sports and other extracurricular activities are already covered in the basic child support figure, so the HO did the right thing.

If you think about it, if you have your kid half the time, you should not get a 50% reduction, you should get a 100% reduction.  That's because both parents should be responsible for providing at their own home.  However, there are some expenses that don't go with the child, like school, sports, etc.  These costs should just be split up the middle.  These amount to about 20% of the total child support figure from the tables.  Just put it all on paper and you'll see what I mean.

Another common misconception is that Mom should be able to support the kids on the child support.  That's a bunch of crap.  Mom should have to dig in her pocket too to support the kids.  She gets upset when she has to do that and that's exactly why they file motions to increase support.

You and most other paying parents do the exact same thing with clothing.  You pay for them at Mom's, then you pay for them at your house too.  Not fair!  The new 2012 guidelines have a provision that if you are each providing your own clothing, you get a 2% adjustment.  Normally, higher incomes parents pay the other 18% of the total child support amount for "direct expenses."  But DE includes clothing right?  So if you are both providing your own clothing, there needs to be a further adjustment.  I fought the committee long and hard about this, and they finally agreed that, yes, there should be an additional 2% credit.  So then you'd pay 16% of the tabled value as DE.

I think we'll see extreme differences in opinion from those who pay CS vs. those who receive CS.  From my side of the fence though, I think that when you have two parents making dang near the same wage, both having the kids the same amount of time, and both being granted the same opportunities, there should be very little child support.  My kids are in public schools and I can tell you the costs to enroll them and for lunches are very small.

I always go back to the first post to make sure I keep on topic, so it seems dadoffour wants to know if the extracurricular activities are included in child support.  I guess I don't know that's even a question for us, but rather for those who know the math behind the guidelines.  I know Guru is well versed on this, but the child support committee is the ones who determine the numbers.  After searching around this site, I found a post from Guru which is a supreme court ruling that child support already accounts for extracurricular activity expenses.  So, dadoffour, I guess there's your answer.  I guess you should just print that and take it to court with you.  I personally tend to agree with this as well.  If this is already rolled into the CS numbers, why would we ask a paying parent to pay even more?  Just doesn't sound right to me.

KTM,

Your situation sounds somewhat balanced.  Speaking from my point of view, things have not been quite so balanced.  I don't agree that when there's conflict, just throw more money at the situation and give the child(ren) every opportunity under the sun.  That creates the exact scenario that has been and will be further discussed where kids of divorced homes have more opportunity than those from intact homes.  That is precisely the case and when that occurs, it is a complete failure of the guidelines.  Members on this forum has argued time and time again that over providing for a child is equally as detrimental as under providing.  However, coming from those who receive support, it's difficult to see both sides.

Logical position.  Something obviously needs to change.