References to Parenting Time and Financial Matters would be most helpful if they were in alignment and remained in alignment with the Federal Tax Code.

References to Parenting Time and Financial Matters (within any Kansas guidelines, laws or proposed changes) would be most helpful if they were in alignment and remained in alignment with the Federal Tax Code.

Search on the IRS website for "Child and Dependent Care Information". IRS publication 929 (2011) tax rules for Children & Dependents, 503 (2010) Child & Dependent Care Expenses, 4694 (Rev 12-2011) Grandparents raising children, http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=258326,00.html Same Sex Partners, 972 (2011) Child Tax Credit, Topic 602 - Child and Dependent Care Credit, Earned Income Credit Qualifying Child Rules.

Using the same definitions and terminology as the IRS would be helpful.

Why can't there be changes that support two parents who share the child 50/50? Where I am going with this is that I share my son with his mother fifty percent of the time,but I still pay a certain amount every month.  Is this really necessary? I don't believe so since parents split the responsibility when they are together.

Currently, I pay his mom to be able to add extra income to her new family.  This has enabled the step-dad to work part time and go back to school while the mom has a masters degree but chooses not to get a career that pays the amount she should be making. What this does to me and my life is force me to buy things for him over here at my place, like his clothes, books, toys, etc. and buy the same things over there.  This is kind of an old way of thinking when the courts make one parent pay while the other can just sit back and relax. Not every bodies situation is like mine but this should be addressed.

Mr. Mull,

If you would like to pass a law that would require the state of Kansas to provide a guaranteed job with a level of income commensurate with experience and education of the Child Support recipient I applaud and support your efforts. Ok. I jest. I do not support Socialism.

The real job market/Free market does not work that way. It is prejudicial and ignorant to state that child support recipients must be forced to work and do not do so by choice. As if the majority are leeches. Unfortunately the free market economy does discriminate against women who have obligations to children and childcare. Job choices and options are limited and tend to be lower paying. Take some time to research the statistics.

It is my understanding that a change in Federal Law would be required to change the Child Support basis from the parents burden to family units responsibility. It gets really really messy when you make second or third marriage partners financially responsible for their step children after they divorce the child's biological/adoptive parent. This has been discussed previously on this site in other threads.

KTM,

I agree with your statement, but in regards to my comment it would have been more objective to inquire what I meant if it wasn't clear to you.  The mother graduated from college with a Masters, took her test for her license and failed.  Since then, which was two years ago, she has not tried to reapply for the test so she could become eligible for the job that she had to get her degree for.  Its pure laziness to not try again nor have the ambition to better yourself.  There is no excuse to try once, then quit.  We are both adults and as adults we should be able to take care of our children on our own since having one was a choice, but just because one parent doesn't have the drive to succeed means that the other has to make up for it.  Thats ridiculous and utterly irresponsible, and to sit here and blame others for the problems is almost embarrassing.

What is a bit of a skewed view is the child support system.  Society has changed quite a bit since the creation of the system that it needs to be reformed to take into account all of the changes in our society.  Her and I take great care of him, and we have setup our own system outside of the courts since that whole system is a mess, and I pay what I owe.  Im very happy to do it because I do need to make sure he is taken care of, but there are parts of this system that are very one sided to begin with.  She works full time and I work full time, but my check to her every month has enhanced her life and her husbands life.  Her husband was able to go to a part time position so that way he could go back to school, and based off of everything they purchase for my son I know that she receives way more than she needs. Please tell me why this system is correct and why I shouldn't feel the way I do.  My son may cost them at most 100 bucks a month outside of school tuition, since I pay for health insurance that covers everything he needs with an FSA to take care of everything else, but I still have to provide EXTRA for what? His college is already taken care of since I set that up for him, money is already there for a 4 year degree.  What else is there?  Let me just put this into perspective for everyone to further solidify my point.  If I lost my job, the mother and stepfather are so dependent on my money that she and her new husband along with there child (not mine) would lose their house.  Is that really what the system was intended for, no but it is geared for that.

Modern society is still not perfect but a system should be in place for those that although are not together still create a great environment.  Her and I talk freely, meet up for baseball games, consistent rules and parenting at both households, and really have a decent relationship.  I admit, its a shame that it didn't work between her and I but this is the life we have so we do our best to make it perfect. 

All I am looking for is a bit of fairness towards this given our situation.  If the circumstances are identical to mine setup then in my opinion everything inside of each parents household like food, bedding, clothes, etc. is the responsibility of that parent, but school tuition, sports, extracurricular items are up to both parents to provide for.  That in and of itself is very fair and does not make one side co-dependent on the other.

Mr. Mull,

It is unfortunate that you view my postings as antagonistic toward you. My intent is not to antagonize you. But, is to post things that will challenge readers to seek more information, consult with an attorney and consider more than one side, gain perspective, on debated issues.

This site allows for an open forum discussing opposing opinions of the issues raised on this website and sharing experiences. So, it is natural that I will challenge your statements or anyone else's when presenting an opposing view. I do not have a problem with anyone posting their views or holding a specific point of view that differs from mine. Nor do I have a problem with someone challenging my opinions.

If you want to complain that you feel Child Support and the current system is unfair than state the chain is about complaining about the unfairness of Child Support. I understand this forum to be about discussing issues and questions related to Child Support. Speech & Debate 101 may help.

djmlaw,

Your statement about the CP, or what I call the PRP (Primary Residential Parent), montly income having very little effect on child support is spot on.  In fact if the NPRP (non-primary) has 45% parenting time and both parents make the same wage, there's very little difference if the PRP makes minimum wage.  I believe this to be a real issue with the parenting time adjustment.  The shared residency provisions more accurately account for the income of the NPRP.

As you are aware, both direct and indirect expenese are involved.  It's a fiarly common question to people with shared residency why they pay child support at all.  Nearly every shared residential parent I've talked to questions why they are required to pay if they care for their kids equally.  As you know that all boils down to how much money everyone makes and the NPRP sharing money with the PRP just as if they were still married even though they may not have ever been married.

But maverick's question, as I understood it, was why was his ex's massively discounted living costs not accounted for in the child support award.  Marriage and subsequent sharing of expenses is not accounted for in the guidelines at this time.  So, as it stands right now, either party may remain unemployed if married.

One other minor detail I'll mention about your post is the term "needs of the child."  This has nothing to do with your post, but rather a splinter in my mind on this subject.  I understand what you are saying, but we need to be clear that the guidelines do not only provide for the "need" of the child, they provide for the typical regional monthly "expenditures" on children.  To me there is a very large difference between typical expenditure and need.  Expenditures include voluntary spending while need is exactly that - need.  Children do not need an Xbox, but higher income categories allow for the Xbox because higher income families "typically" have one.  However, children of divorced families don't have just one, they have two (one at each home).  That is something that is not accounted for.