Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Indiana Welfare
From: lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 14:58:45 PST
Distribution: na
Organization: Lebenty-Screech's Almanac, Nanaimo, B.C. CANADA

noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:

> In article <qyqZXB1w165w@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca> lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes
> >garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:

> >Does anyone HONESTLY believe that $432/month is enough for one adult
> >and one child to live on???  The other figures seem ridiculously,
> >unrealistically LOW, too!
> 
> First of all, child support is not supposed to cover the costs of
> adults to live.  Secondly, child support is supposed to reflect the
> actual costs of caring for children.  A recent study noted that people
> spend $XX per month on housing, not based on the number of people
> living in the house, but on how much money they have.  For example, a
> couple that makes $100k between them, but has no children, will spend
> in excess of $1000 per month on housing--some may spend as much as
> $4000 per month.  A couple with the same income, but having three
> children, would still spend the same amount on housing.  However, they
> would be buying a different kind of house.  The first couple would have
> a very nice house, but not necessarily big, the second couple would
> have a bigger house, but not necessarily as nice.  Income determines
> how much people spend on housing, not how many children they have.
> 
> I don't know the specifics of this study, it was explained to me by
> Brad Johnson, who said he was sending it to David Garrod.  If he did,
> indeed, send it to Dr. Garrod, I'm sure Dr. Garrod will be telling us
> about it soon.  Brad also sent it to Dr. Williams at the Denver Center
> for Policy Studies.  He said that Dr. Williams was seriously
> considering it.  I take it from my conversation with Brad, it was a
> study sponsored by the government.  The data does not surprise me.
> People spend what they have to spend.
> 
> While it is well-know that children increase costs, especially for
> food, clothing, utilities and entertainment, housing increases included
> in child support guidelines have not been based on reality--merely
> arbitrary numbers set by people such as Dr. Williams.  Child support
> guidelines have been inflated to reflect housing cost increases for
> children, when, in reality, what people spend on housing depends on how
> much money they make, not how many children they have.
>
I don't believe that I'd be spending more than half (maximum) of what I am
presently for rent, if I didn't have the children.  Of course, if I was
considerably more affluent, I may have a mortgage with payments of close to
what I currently pay for rent, but that's not the case and is only mere
speculation.

> Child support is supposed to provide for the NCP's share of expenses
> for the child, not the entire cost of raising a child.

Of course.

>The CP is also
> responsible for his/her share of the costs for the child.

Again Aaron, I agree 100%.

>Child support is not supposed to be de facto alimony.  It is not support
> intended for the CP.  

Absolutely no argument here either.
 
> >In B.C., Social Assistance ("Welfare") standard rates (maximum) for one adul
> >$525/month.  I don't know what the maximum rate is for one parent with two
> >children is now, but in 1990 it was $974/mo., (maximum allowance).  That two
> >year old figure is considerably more than Indiana's $580/mo. for a parent wi
> >two children...$396 more!  I can assure you that even in 1990, $974/mo. didn
> >go very far...
> 
> Again, child support is not supposed to be alimony, and is not intended
> to cover the costs of the adult.  In reality, as implemented in the US,
> as opposed to Canada, child support has become de fact alimony.

Although I don't know this, given that I haven't lived in the US since 1974,
I do get the impression from this and similar nets that what you're saying has
a substantial degree of validity.  I must bear in mind though, that I've
rarely seen posts on these nets from CPs, so I'm only really getting one side
of the story.

>For that reason, child support amounts are set at levels that reward CPs
> who would not otherwise be able to support their children with more
> money than they often need, while at the same time, virtually
                        ^^^^
> bankrupting NCPs.  Often the post-divorce households (I am not
> discussing single-mothers who are on AFDC) of CPs are better off then
> the households of NCPs.  Yet, the children may be spending significant
> time in the NCP household.
> 
"Need", as you've already illustrated, can be very relative to the income
and corresponding lifestyles of the people involved, in any given situation.
My ex says he "needs" a minimum of $900+ each month for entertainment and
clothes (and no, he's not a lawyer or business exec.).  The only person
filing bankruptcy here (literally!), is me.

Today in the local Family Court, I watched a young mother of two small
children crying on the stand because her hydro (heat & electric) had been
disconnected.  Her ex makes $16.80/hr., she makes $8.25/hr..  The order that
her ex pay $50 per child, per month, was upheld but will be reviewed in three
months time.  The separate incomes of the two parents in this case, have not
changed noticeably since their separation in September 1992.  Meanwhile, as her
ex was not able to obtain credit ( he is an alcoholic, and I gather that he had
a bad credit rating, possibly related to his past lifestyle?), the CP had
obtained two loans and a Visa card during the course of their 5 year
relationship. The CP has been left with those debts, as they were in her name
only, and is finding it very difficult to manage financially.

I am not suggesting that the CP shouldn't exercise more caution before applying
for credit cards or loans, under any similar circumstances in the future, I
merely wish to point out that the debts were for shared household expenditures,
the kids are both parents' responsibilities, and $100/mo. hardly seems an
adequate share for the NCP to be paying.  In other words Aaron, no alimony is
implied here, the CP is shouldering the debts from the relationship, and the
NCP, IMHO, ought to contribute more to the welfare of his children.  Even at
$148 per month per child, that wouldn't begin to cover a reasonable share of
the costs of food, clothes, daycare, school supplies, etcetera, for the
children.  Especially not when the NCP is netting more than twice what the CP
is, as he was while the relationship was still intact.

> >No wonder single parents who aren't getting child support and who are also "
> >the system" are screaming for enforcement of child support orders!  Come on.
> >All of you who are espousing that your own children should only get $148/mo.
> >in total (and/or plus Blue Cross) for all of their on-going needs, while
> >professing your love and dedication as a parent, ought to look at this a
> >little closer. $148/month???  Give me a break!
> 
> Break.  I can provide quite well for my children.  I make over 3 times
> what my ex- makes.  Why should I suffer and she reap great benefits
> because I make a decent living?  Where is the justice in my having to
> pay for her to live in a castle, while I live in a shack, then having
> her use that against me in limiting my exposure to my children ...
> "Your honor, his house sucks, so he shouldn' be able to see the
> children." Why do you think that I owe a woman who tried to destroy me
> a living?  I don't.

Neither do I.  The main question was, do you really feel that $148/mo. per
child will provide a "reasonable" standard of living for the children...
especially if you are in a position to contribute more than that while
maintaining a decent standard of living for yourself?  As I recall, David had
estimated that a reasonable estimate for the *total* cost of raising a child in
Indianna, was $148/mo..  I still feel that that figure is ridiculous.

Yes, people will survive somehow on whatever they can.  My concern is that that
should not compute to, "Well, she's managed to get by on $400/mo. for herself
and our children without any support from me, so I therefore deduce that she
is not legitimately in need of any child support from me...to pay it would
simply amount to alimony."

I'd just as soon never see or hear from my ex again.  Still, he's the kids'
dad, so I see him all the time.  If he had custody, I would want to contribute
whatever child support I could, within reason (depending on our incomes, etc..),
to ensure that he had an adequate income with which to provide a decent standard
of living for our children.

  I'm perfectly willing to support my children and
> am quite capable of doing so.  However, she isn't.  If it weren't for
> my child support, she would be destitute.

Right.  So maybe there's a legitimate need for child support here?

> Why is the court compelled
> to pull a switch and force me to give her all my disposable income,
> bankrupt me in the process, give me all the debts of the marriage, and
> tell me to pay 81% of the child support obligation based on inflated
> guidelines?  Why do you feel that I owe her $1250 per month?  That's
> what I am paying.
>
If that was/is the case in your situation, it certainly seems grossly unfair!
Of course, I am not familiar with the relevant details of your marital history
and household income during the marriage, etc..But we're not talking about
$1250/mo. here...we were discussing whether $148/mo, per child is  reasonable.
If for example, the CP is considerably better off than the NCP, then the NCP's
ordered share as $148/mo. may be quite reasonable.  But $148 for the overall
monthly expense of raising a child?  I don't think so.

> >I guess $148/mo. should be adequate for food costs.  But what about clothes,
> >school supplies, shelter, braces and (God forbid!) baseball gloves or birthd
> >Easter and Christmas gifts?  What about enough for the CP to pay for Life
> >Insurance so that there's something left to raise the kids on should the
> >unthinkable happen?  I just can't believe that anyone living in the real
> >world could honestly believe that $432/mo. is adequate for a parent and chil
>                                                               ^^^^^^
> >to live on.  How many of you live on that for just yourself, month after mon
> >and year after year? (Sure as hell won't pay your University tuition for lon
> >not everyone can get scholarships, you know).
> 
> Once again, it is child support, not alimony.  Maybe you can explain to
> all of us why you think a former spouse is responsible for your
> expenses.

$432 - $148 = $284 for the CP, in the equation offerred by David and Welfare.
Rather substandard, I'd say.  Regardless, that really wasn't my issue, Aaron.
The issue is, is $148/mo. a reasonable estimate of what it costs to raise a
child?

My former spouse is not now, nor has he been, responsible for MY expenses.  I
wouldn't have it...not now, not ever.  He is absolutely responsible for a
reasonable, proportionate share of the expenses incurred in raising OUR
children.

> >A "reasonable estimate"?  I'm appalled.
> 
> Nice to meet you, appalled.  My name's Aaron, but some of my friends
> call me, "incensed."
>
I know the feeling. :-)

Lisa

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lisa Lambeth                             lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca

Founder, P.E.R.C.S. (Parents for Enforcing Regular Child Support)
Vancouver Island, B.C., Canada // Courtesy of the old coot hisse'f!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: alt.child-support