Author Topic: Changes to the parenting time adjustment  (Read 12679 times)

Rick

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Changes to the parenting time adjustment
« Reply #15 on: April 26, 2014, 10:30:04 AM »
Here's my problem with child support.  I gross 98,000 a year but with my work truck that I work off of and tools equipment, I only (net) 59,000 a year.  Subtract taxes ever time I buy something (sales tax) . Then you have property taxes. . Then you have a man that needs to live . If you back a Animal in a corner it well fight. These laws dont add up . These laws make criminals . Im a married man with a step son whos father is in prison I dont spend but about 450 a mouth on him . His 13 and we pay for school lunch to . We dont get help for that child nor do we want state money . I have only one son ,with my only x wife (his 11 ) . I have him 48% of the time . I just went to court on child support over a year ago . I was ordered to pay 1350.00 a mouth i appealed it . It cost me 6000.00 to appeal it . I won the appeal . Thats 6000 dollars that could of went to my family . I had to go back to court again . My x wife said she was a stay at home mom with no income (remind you my sons 11 his in school) . She has no other kids . They set my child support at 1015.00 a mouth . . I cant pay that . But trust me when i say my son has everthing he has ever wanted. Im a loveing father. No with a judgment on me i cant get a loan to make ends met . On these path in the next year i see me my wife my step son and son not doing so will . Im going back to court agian becouse we found out my x wife was running a daycare . But under the her income calculations . It doesn't add up for me to fight it in court.  This is a fact if you give to people that haven't worked hard for it . They have no ethics to what it takes to get it . But they want always more . Just like kids . I dont mind paying, but there needs to be a cap . I well not go back to school or fight for a higher payed job nor well i go into buisness for my self becouse of these laws . When me and my xwife were married .we both togther gross only 39000 in 2003 . She cant prove of any Other needs for the child . She just was told this is want you can get for free ..

maverick8550

  • Silver Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8
Re: Changes to the parenting time adjustment
« Reply #16 on: May 09, 2014, 03:00:46 PM »
I am completely torn on this because everyone has a valid point here with substantial reasoning to back it up.  KTM and I have debated this point from either side to the point that emotions tend to get involved and the loss of objectivity moots the entire debate. 

A job isn't an entitlement.  Thats very clear right now since businesses are paying less and/or they are cutting back on the labor force.  That in and of itself really does defeat many arguments/complaints by non-custodial parents, but that doesn't mean the custodian should be allowed to receive unemployment for years to make a living, instead they need to be held accountable. 

The point of child support is to ensure that the child is taken care of and laws like this are welcomed and I agree whole heartedly with them as they enforce the responsibility onto the parents.  The issue though is that while this is happening there is parental accountability.  To say that one parent has the ability to not perform the way they want to just because the other parent is providing so much money is very poorly designed.  While child support is a necessity there should be additions to the guidelines that measure a parents ability to parent their child without aid from the other parent, and if this is not the case than the parent needs to be held responsible for that.  My point is, we are all adults and whether we think something is fair or not, we made a choice to do it with the other so the responsibility falls on both.  If you require something from one side then you MUST require something of equal value from the other. 

If a couple is splitting a child 50/50, the assumption should be that each parent provides at home expenses for their side on their own, BUT each side splits extra expenses outside for school, sports, etc.  No one can fairly argue that making only one side pay is fair, each person and circumstance is different.  In my scenario for example, if I didn’t have to pay child support on top of tuition then my household could afford a second car that we need.  So having to pay for half of the tuition at school and a second payment to my ex for child support does in fact, affect my family because we have had only one vehicle for the last 3 years.

Granted, this complaint/suggestion was created from my specific scenario.  Bottom line in my opinion is this, if I am being held to a standard than she needs to be regardless of the circumstance and if she is not able to meet or exceed her responsibilities then the courts should evaluate using objectivity what house would be in the best interest for the child.  Accountability needs to go both ways, and that is an argument that many people cannot not win.  For example, Dad makes 90k a year and the Mom doesn’t care about doing anything more than being a cashier at Walmart because the c/s check is so big.  That example should never happen but does all of the time because the way that the guidelines are written.  The Mom is care about being ambitious and goal oriented to have a successful life which will translate to the child many negative things, but the Dad could be the custodian because his values would impact the child positively (Granted not everyone circumstance is like this, this is just an example).

KTM

  • Expert Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 215
Re: Changes to the parenting time adjustment
« Reply #17 on: May 09, 2014, 08:05:58 PM »
Maverick,

If the state of Kansas determines that the most important contributing factor and value to a child's success in life is determined to be a custodial parents financial achievement success than your statements would be true.

What do you consider equally valuable, to your child, as a parents earned income?

It is your choice to send your child(ten) to a school that requires tuition payments. Many families that choose to do that sacrifice and do not get new cars.

that doesn't mean the custodian should be allowed to receive unemployment for years to make a living, instead they need to be held accountable. 

The point of child support is to ensure that the child is taken care of and laws like this are welcomed and I agree whole heartedly with them as they enforce the responsibility onto the parents.  The issue though is that while this is happening there is parental accountability.  To say that one parent has the ability to not perform the way they want to just because the other parent is providing so much money is very poorly designed.  While child support is a necessity there should be additions to the guidelines that measure a parents ability to parent their child without aid from the other parent, and if this is not the case than the parent needs to be held responsible for that.  My point is, we are all adults and whether we think something is fair or not, we made a choice to do it with the other so the responsibility falls on both.  If you require something from one side then you MUST require something of equal value from the other. 

If a couple is splitting a child 50/50, the assumption should be that each parent provides at home expenses for their side on their own, BUT each side splits extra expenses outside for school, sports, etc.  No one can fairly argue that making only one side pay is fair, each person and circumstance is different.  In my scenario for example, if I didn’t have to pay child support on top of tuition then my household could afford a second car that we need.  So having to pay for half of the tuition at school and a second payment to my ex for child support does in fact, affect my family because we have had only one vehicle for the last 3 years.

Granted, this complaint/suggestion was created from my specific scenario.  Bottom line in my opinion is this, if I am being held to a standard than she needs to be regardless of the circumstance and if she is not able to meet or exceed her responsibilities then the courts should evaluate using objectivity what house would be in the best interest for the child. Accountability needs to go both ways, and that is an argument that many people cannot not win.  For example, Dad makes 90k a year and the Mom doesn’t care about doing anything more than being a cashier at Walmart because the c/s check is so big.  That example should never happen but does all of the time because the way that the guidelines are written.  The Mom is care about being ambitious and goal oriented to have a successful life which will translate to the child many negative things, but the Dad could be the custodian because his values would impact the child positively (Granted not everyone circumstance is like this, this is just an example).

maverick8550

  • Silver Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8
Re: Changes to the parenting time adjustment
« Reply #18 on: May 09, 2014, 08:44:41 PM »
KTM,

My son goes to a public school. In Kansas, the state only pays for half-day kindergarten school not full day so the rest of the day we have to pay for. Yes I discuss money a lot because no matter what anyone's intentions are or values everything has a cost.  Observing someone's financial well being is very important and in fact one of THE most important aspects of raising a child because you always have to plan for things, and pay for a multitude of items.  On top of that there are many lessons that can be taught from the parent that is better off financially. Someone doesn't have to be rich to be a great parent they just have to be able to make enough to afford raising a child.  If the custodial parent can't afford to raise a child then how is the parent supposed to provide clothes, a home, school supplies, etc?  Each parent needs to be viewed separately and evaluated to determine who is best suited to provide stability, education, and values on their own. If one parent can only provide values and education and the other is better at providing all three then the more stable parent should be custodian regardless of gender. 

Financial achievement and responsibility go hand in hand.  As adults this should be considered prior to conception, and if it wasn't then each person needs to be mature enough to take responsibility for their actions and strive to succeed so they can provide for everything independently from the other parent. Child support is supposed to provide for the child, but does all of the money go towards the child's well being? Sometimes yes and sometimes no.  You have to have money to take care of a child plain and simple. 

KTM

  • Expert Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 215
Re: Changes to the parenting time adjustment
« Reply #19 on: May 10, 2014, 02:59:32 PM »
Maverick -
Thankfully the Courts have a broader understanding of parental rights than you express here and thankfully you are not creating the laws of our Country or State. What values to you propose the Courts should deem mandatory for someone to have to be given the right to be a parent?
 
Your statement that financial achievement and responsibility go hand in hand flies in the face of reality. There are many people who have been financially successful who have been convicted of crimes. There is no direct correlation between the two.

Adults can make responsible choices but do not always do so. Children can get pregnant. Do you propose that parents with (planned) or unplanned children should loose their parental rights if they can not meet your financial standards?

Couples that plan pregnancies are not doing so based upon their financial equivalency with each other.

My son goes to a public school. In Kansas, the state only pays for half-day kindergarten school not full day so the rest of the day we have to pay for. Yes I discuss money a lot because no matter what anyone's intentions are or values everything has a cost.  Observing someone's financial well being is very important and in fact one of THE most important aspects of raising a child because you always have to plan for things, and pay for a multitude of items.  On top of that there are many lessons that can be taught from the parent that is better off financially. Someone doesn't have to be rich to be a great parent they just have to be able to make enough to afford raising a child.  If the custodial parent can't afford to raise a child then how is the parent supposed to provide clothes, a home, school supplies, etc?  Each parent needs to be viewed separately and evaluated to determine who is best suited to provide stability, education, and values on their own. If one parent can only provide values and education and the other is better at providing all three then the more stable parent should be custodian regardless of gender. 

Financial achievement and responsibility go hand in hand.  As adults this should be considered prior to conception, and if it wasn't then each person needs to be mature enough to take responsibility for their actions and strive to succeed so they can provide for everything independently from the other parent. Child support is supposed to provide for the child, but does all of the money go towards the child's well being? Sometimes yes and sometimes no.  You have to have money to take care of a child plain and simple.

maverick8550

  • Silver Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8
Re: Changes to the parenting time adjustment
« Reply #20 on: May 12, 2014, 11:59:30 PM »
KTM,

My main point to all of this is that the custodian should be financially responsible enough to take care of the child without the non-custodial's support.  You neglect to answer that or even respond to that point.  Please don't try to attack me but rather think about what I am saying.  I pay what I am suppose to and don't cause any issues for her, but if something were to happen to me then she would more than likely lose the house she has right now.  If that happens that your tax dollars will help her survive along with others assistance.  Is that fair? No. 

My son wasn't planned but when I found out I knew I needed to work hard, get promoted, and make darn sure that he was taken care of no matter what.  In my opinion families should not be supported by government assistance, etc.  I am making a point to say that on top of everything else, the custodian needs to be able to pay for the basic necessities required. 

KTM

  • Expert Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 215
Re: Changes to the parenting time adjustment
« Reply #21 on: May 14, 2014, 07:39:27 AM »
Maverick - let me attempt to address your specific question regarding the parents economic status.

I do not believe a persons economic status should be the determining factor as to which parent is considered to be the "Custodial" parent nor a the determining factor as to a persons right to be a parent.

Economic status is a fragile entity. The rug gets pulled out from underneath peoples feet as our economy cycles and changes. The best laid plans can lead to loss of everything. Unplanned emergencies & disasters can lead to complete loss of property & prosperity. The one stable thing a child can have is the relationship with the parents. Even that can be torn away by accident, addiction or illness.

As I understand it, Federal tax law states that the parent with whom the child resides 183 nights or more receives the legal designation of "Custodial" parent and the right to all Federal tax deductions and credits for the child.

As I understand it Kansas considers the parent who receives Child Support payments to have certain legal financial responsibilities for the provision of the child's basic needs as a part of the contract for receiving the support payments or other forms of public welfare. The designation of "custodial" parent would again be a legal term.