Given the number of deadbeat dads, why don't you get wages garnished from the beginning?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$800/month...what ballpark income would a guy have for that to be the child support. It doesn't sound like it would cover half of childcare/food/clothes/activities/other costs for even a little kid.

Child support is based on income of the parents and each parent's portion isn't necessarily HALF. It depends on the breakdown of income. If he makes 55% of their combined income, then he is responsible for 55% of the cost of care. Likewise if he is making only 20%.

$800 a month is significant, when we are considering that it is ONE parent's financial contribution.

$800 is nominal, not significant. Typical before and after care in the DC area is close to $600 per month. Add in camp at an average of $300/week, and that comes out to $875/month in ONLY child care costs.

Then add in sports, tutoring, braces, a musical instrument— easily another $500/month.

And we haven’t even started the cost of housing, insurance, clothing.... sorry but $800 is pixie dust.

Child support is to help cover the costs of basics...that doesn't necessarily include extras such as sports, tutoring, musical instruments, etc (those are not required). I am the poster who said that $800 is significant; but regardless of how one feels about the amount, it doesn't change the fact that child support orders are based on the incomes of the parents.

A calculator is used and it does not take into account those 'extras' mentioned earlier. Parents can negotiate the costs of those on their own.

The calculator (at least for Maryland) doesn't take into account housing, but it does take into account insurance.

Some extras can be negotiated between the parents, others like Childcare and Health Insurance are MANDATORY additions to the amount of child support awarded.

It sounds like you are saying that child support is calculated and after that the costs of childcare and health insurance are added. That is not true for the State of Maryland, where the child support order already takes into account the costs of childcare and health insurance. But don't take my word for it...here is a link to the worksheet:

http://www.dhr.state.md.us/CSOCGuide/App/worksheetA.do

The VA worksheet is similar, but you can calculate the child support without childcare and write an obligation to split it proportionally into your divorce agreement. My lawyer recommended that as it eliminates the need to recalculate support payments overtime daycare costs change. My ex's lawyer had no problem with it, and neither did the judge who presided over the divorce proceedings. So I get $550 a month based on the number of days the kids stay with each of us, our incomes, and the fact that I pay health insurance for the kids in child support. Each month I send him the childcare payments and he mails me a check for his share plus the $550. This might not work for couple with contentious relationships, but it works well for us and eliminates the need to try to predict way in advance what our childcare needs are going to be over the years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$800/month...what ballpark income would a guy have for that to be the child support. It doesn't sound like it would cover half of childcare/food/clothes/activities/other costs for even a little kid.

Child support is based on income of the parents and each parent's portion isn't necessarily HALF. It depends on the breakdown of income. If he makes 55% of their combined income, then he is responsible for 55% of the cost of care. Likewise if he is making only 20%.

$800 a month is significant, when we are considering that it is ONE parent's financial contribution.

$800 is nominal, not significant. Typical before and after care in the DC area is close to $600 per month. Add in camp at an average of $300/week, and that comes out to $875/month in ONLY child care costs.

Then add in sports, tutoring, braces, a musical instrument— easily another $500/month.

And we haven’t even started the cost of housing, insurance, clothing.... sorry but $800 is pixie dust.

Child support is to help cover the costs of basics...that doesn't necessarily include extras such as sports, tutoring, musical instruments, etc (those are not required). I am the poster who said that $800 is significant; but regardless of how one feels about the amount, it doesn't change the fact that child support orders are based on the incomes of the parents.

A calculator is used and it does not take into account those 'extras' mentioned earlier. Parents can negotiate the costs of those on their own.

The calculator (at least for Maryland) doesn't take into account housing, but it does take into account insurance.

Some extras can be negotiated between the parents, others like Childcare and Health Insurance are MANDATORY additions to the amount of child support awarded.

It sounds like you are saying that child support is calculated and after that the costs of childcare and health insurance are added. That is not true for the State of Maryland, where the child support order already takes into account the costs of childcare and health insurance. But don't take my word for it...here is a link to the worksheet:

http://www.dhr.state.md.us/CSOCGuide/App/worksheetA.do

You're wrong. Even in MD.

https://www.peoples-law.org/calculating-child-support

The pertinent part, copy and pasted:

1. Figure out each parent's actual income.

2. Figure out each parent's adjusted actual income or imputed income.

3. Add up both parents' adjusted actual incomes or their imputed incomes. The combined amount is plugged into the Guidelines chart to determine the "basic child support obligation."

4. Factor in some additional expenses, including health insurance costs, daycare costs and extraordinary medical expenses. This generates the "total child support obligation."

5. The non-custodial parent is responsible for paying a percentage of the total child support obligation.

The BASE support amount is based on a percentage of income. The TOTAL support amount includes a calculation of what percentage of health insurance, medical costs, and childcare each parent is required to pay.

Some states order the child support percentage to be reimbursed directly by the non-custodial parent (this is what my order requires - it is from a state several hundred miles from here), some include the cost of childcare in the monthly ordered amount. I prefer the way my order handles it, because then we don't have to change the order every time the child care amount changes.

So...
1. I'm not wrong about the State of Maryland and how child support orders are calculated (and they include childcare and insurance)
2. You like the way your state handles it (and I agree that it is much easier to ADD that portion, since once the child is no longer in daycare, or insurance costs are switched among parents, a new calculation must be done)

got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that wages should only be garnished if the parent required to pay child support has shown an inability/unwillingness to pay on time/at all.

Not all dads are deadbeats...whether they are with their child(ren)'s mother or not. If mothers are going to be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to caring for the kids (until they prove otherwise) why does this not extend to dads?

Because missed payments can mean missed rent or not enough money to pay for food or utilities for some people. This is what happened to my sister. She didn't have his wages garnished because he "promised" to send child support. After months of missed payments, she finally had his wages garnished, and then he got really upset with her. I kept telling her to garnish his wages from the get go. They got a divorce because he was incredibly selfish and immature. That should've been red flag for her to garnish his wages, but she gave him the benefit of doubt.

I get that, but garnished wages from the paying parent could also result in missed rent, or not enough money for food or utilities. I guess I'm trying to say that it seems like there is the perception that child support paying parents are not to be trusted, but child support receiving parents are (as per the title of this thread).

Yes there are deadbeat dads out there. There are also deadbeat moms. Some people choose not to pay their child support or are deliberately unemployed or underemployed. Some people receive child support and choose not to spend it on their children. But this is not the case across the board and I disagree with automatically garnishing wages from a parent just because of the bad behavior of a few...not unless the same scrutiny will be applied to those receiving child support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a garnishee solves a few problems. There's always proof support was paid, for one thing. Take it off the cheque, deposit it in the other parent's account. The divorced parents don't need to discuss money. Ideally.

My ex was one who went with unemployed/underemployed. There is no fix for that.

I agree that it does remove the need to discuss money, but it is (in my opinion) unfair to the paying parent to have this level of interference without allowing that parent the opportunity to demonstrate that they can and will pay their child support on time. If garnishment becomes a requirement, then I think it is only fair that the receiving parent be required to document how they are spending the child support dollars--after all, why should they get the benefit of the doubt, but the child support paying parent doesn't?

I do agree that more should be done about parents who don't pay and those who are deliberately under/unemployed.

I don't see it as a punishment if it's how things are done for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$800/month...what ballpark income would a guy have for that to be the child support. It doesn't sound like it would cover half of childcare/food/clothes/activities/other costs for even a little kid.

Child support is based on income of the parents and each parent's portion isn't necessarily HALF. It depends on the breakdown of income. If he makes 55% of their combined income, then he is responsible for 55% of the cost of care. Likewise if he is making only 20%.

$800 a month is significant, when we are considering that it is ONE parent's financial contribution.

$800 is nominal, not significant. Typical before and after care in the DC area is close to $600 per month. Add in camp at an average of $300/week, and that comes out to $875/month in ONLY child care costs.

Then add in sports, tutoring, braces, a musical instrument— easily another $500/month.

And we haven’t even started the cost of housing, insurance, clothing.... sorry but $800 is pixie dust.

Child support is to help cover the costs of basics...that doesn't necessarily include extras such as sports, tutoring, musical instruments, etc (those are not required). I am the poster who said that $800 is significant; but regardless of how one feels about the amount, it doesn't change the fact that child support orders are based on the incomes of the parents.

A calculator is used and it does not take into account those 'extras' mentioned earlier. Parents can negotiate the costs of those on their own.

The calculator (at least for Maryland) doesn't take into account housing, but it does take into account insurance.

Some extras can be negotiated between the parents, others like Childcare and Health Insurance are MANDATORY additions to the amount of child support awarded.

It sounds like you are saying that child support is calculated and after that the costs of childcare and health insurance are added. That is not true for the State of Maryland, where the child support order already takes into account the costs of childcare and health insurance. But don't take my word for it...here is a link to the worksheet:

http://www.dhr.state.md.us/CSOCGuide/App/worksheetA.do

You're wrong. Even in MD.

https://www.peoples-law.org/calculating-child-support

The pertinent part, copy and pasted:

1. Figure out each parent's actual income.

2. Figure out each parent's adjusted actual income or imputed income.

3. Add up both parents' adjusted actual incomes or their imputed incomes. The combined amount is plugged into the Guidelines chart to determine the "basic child support obligation."

4. Factor in some additional expenses, including health insurance costs, daycare costs and extraordinary medical expenses. This generates the "total child support obligation."

5. The non-custodial parent is responsible for paying a percentage of the total child support obligation.

The BASE support amount is based on a percentage of income. The TOTAL support amount includes a calculation of what percentage of health insurance, medical costs, and childcare each parent is required to pay.

Some states order the child support percentage to be reimbursed directly by the non-custodial parent (this is what my order requires - it is from a state several hundred miles from here), some include the cost of childcare in the monthly ordered amount. I prefer the way my order handles it, because then we don't have to change the order every time the child care amount changes.

So...
1. I'm not wrong about the State of Maryland and how child support orders are calculated (and they include childcare and insurance)
2. You like the way your state handles it (and I agree that it is much easier to ADD that portion, since once the child is no longer in daycare, or insurance costs are switched among parents, a new calculation must be done)

got it.

You're wrong in the sense that a custodial parent is NOT expected to pay for childcare themselves with child support that is just based solely on a percentage of income with no extras. And I bet that in MD parents can agree to add child care paid proportionally by each parent, which is how MD adds child care to the BASE amount (which is basically a straight percentage of income).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$800/month...what ballpark income would a guy have for that to be the child support. It doesn't sound like it would cover half of childcare/food/clothes/activities/other costs for even a little kid.

Child support is based on income of the parents and each parent's portion isn't necessarily HALF. It depends on the breakdown of income. If he makes 55% of their combined income, then he is responsible for 55% of the cost of care. Likewise if he is making only 20%.

$800 a month is significant, when we are considering that it is ONE parent's financial contribution.

$800 is nominal, not significant. Typical before and after care in the DC area is close to $600 per month. Add in camp at an average of $300/week, and that comes out to $875/month in ONLY child care costs.

Then add in sports, tutoring, braces, a musical instrument— easily another $500/month.

And we haven’t even started the cost of housing, insurance, clothing.... sorry but $800 is pixie dust.

Child support is to help cover the costs of basics...that doesn't necessarily include extras such as sports, tutoring, musical instruments, etc (those are not required). I am the poster who said that $800 is significant; but regardless of how one feels about the amount, it doesn't change the fact that child support orders are based on the incomes of the parents.

A calculator is used and it does not take into account those 'extras' mentioned earlier. Parents can negotiate the costs of those on their own.

The calculator (at least for Maryland) doesn't take into account housing, but it does take into account insurance.

Some extras can be negotiated between the parents, others like Childcare and Health Insurance are MANDATORY additions to the amount of child support awarded.

It sounds like you are saying that child support is calculated and after that the costs of childcare and health insurance are added. That is not true for the State of Maryland, where the child support order already takes into account the costs of childcare and health insurance. But don't take my word for it...here is a link to the worksheet:

http://www.dhr.state.md.us/CSOCGuide/App/worksheetA.do

The VA worksheet is similar, but you can calculate the child support without childcare and write an obligation to split it proportionally into your divorce agreement. My lawyer recommended that as it eliminates the need to recalculate support payments overtime daycare costs change. My ex's lawyer had no problem with it, and neither did the judge who presided over the divorce proceedings. So I get $550 a month based on the number of days the kids stay with each of us, our incomes, and the fact that I pay health insurance for the kids in child support. Each month I send him the childcare payments and he mails me a check for his share plus the $550. This might not work for couple with contentious relationships, but it works well for us and eliminates the need to try to predict way in advance what our childcare needs are going to be over the years.

I concede that it is easier to add on the portion that is likely to change (child care) as opposed to revisiting the calculator; that makes sense.

Just goes to show that everyone's situation is different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$800/month...what ballpark income would a guy have for that to be the child support. It doesn't sound like it would cover half of childcare/food/clothes/activities/other costs for even a little kid.

Child support is based on income of the parents and each parent's portion isn't necessarily HALF. It depends on the breakdown of income. If he makes 55% of their combined income, then he is responsible for 55% of the cost of care. Likewise if he is making only 20%.

$800 a month is significant, when we are considering that it is ONE parent's financial contribution.

$800 is nominal, not significant. Typical before and after care in the DC area is close to $600 per month. Add in camp at an average of $300/week, and that comes out to $875/month in ONLY child care costs.

Then add in sports, tutoring, braces, a musical instrument— easily another $500/month.

And we haven’t even started the cost of housing, insurance, clothing.... sorry but $800 is pixie dust.

Child support is to help cover the costs of basics...that doesn't necessarily include extras such as sports, tutoring, musical instruments, etc (those are not required). I am the poster who said that $800 is significant; but regardless of how one feels about the amount, it doesn't change the fact that child support orders are based on the incomes of the parents.

A calculator is used and it does not take into account those 'extras' mentioned earlier. Parents can negotiate the costs of those on their own.

The calculator (at least for Maryland) doesn't take into account housing, but it does take into account insurance.

Some extras can be negotiated between the parents, others like Childcare and Health Insurance are MANDATORY additions to the amount of child support awarded.

It sounds like you are saying that child support is calculated and after that the costs of childcare and health insurance are added. That is not true for the State of Maryland, where the child support order already takes into account the costs of childcare and health insurance. But don't take my word for it...here is a link to the worksheet:

http://www.dhr.state.md.us/CSOCGuide/App/worksheetA.do

You're wrong. Even in MD.

https://www.peoples-law.org/calculating-child-support

The pertinent part, copy and pasted:

1. Figure out each parent's actual income.

2. Figure out each parent's adjusted actual income or imputed income.

3. Add up both parents' adjusted actual incomes or their imputed incomes. The combined amount is plugged into the Guidelines chart to determine the "basic child support obligation."

4. Factor in some additional expenses, including health insurance costs, daycare costs and extraordinary medical expenses. This generates the "total child support obligation."

5. The non-custodial parent is responsible for paying a percentage of the total child support obligation.

The BASE support amount is based on a percentage of income. The TOTAL support amount includes a calculation of what percentage of health insurance, medical costs, and childcare each parent is required to pay.

Some states order the child support percentage to be reimbursed directly by the non-custodial parent (this is what my order requires - it is from a state several hundred miles from here), some include the cost of childcare in the monthly ordered amount. I prefer the way my order handles it, because then we don't have to change the order every time the child care amount changes.

So...
1. I'm not wrong about the State of Maryland and how child support orders are calculated (and they include childcare and insurance)
2. You like the way your state handles it (and I agree that it is much easier to ADD that portion, since once the child is no longer in daycare, or insurance costs are switched among parents, a new calculation must be done)

got it.

You're wrong in the sense that a custodial parent is NOT expected to pay for childcare themselves with child support that is just based solely on a percentage of income with no extras. And I bet that in MD parents can agree to add child care paid proportionally by each parent, which is how MD adds child care to the BASE amount (which is basically a straight percentage of income).

I didn't say that the custodial parent was expected to pay for childcare themselves. I said that the child support order already accounts for childcare and insurance. The obligation of each parent is proportional to their income. Plug in the numbers and see for yourself.

However, it does look like (as the poster from VA pointed out) that parents can opt to have these expenses (childcare and insurance) as 'add ons' since it avoids recalculations in the future (though recalculations can occur anyway with increases in income)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a garnishee solves a few problems. There's always proof support was paid, for one thing. Take it off the cheque, deposit it in the other parent's account. The divorced parents don't need to discuss money. Ideally.

My ex was one who went with unemployed/underemployed. There is no fix for that.

I agree that it does remove the need to discuss money, but it is (in my opinion) unfair to the paying parent to have this level of interference without allowing that parent the opportunity to demonstrate that they can and will pay their child support on time. If garnishment becomes a requirement, then I think it is only fair that the receiving parent be required to document how they are spending the child support dollars--after all, why should they get the benefit of the doubt, but the child support paying parent doesn't?

I do agree that more should be done about parents who don't pay and those who are deliberately under/unemployed.

I don't see it as a punishment if it's how things are done for everyone.

Likewise, it shouldn't be considered a punishment if all child support receiving parents are required to account for how they spend that child support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a garnishee solves a few problems. There's always proof support was paid, for one thing. Take it off the cheque, deposit it in the other parent's account. The divorced parents don't need to discuss money. Ideally.

My ex was one who went with unemployed/underemployed. There is no fix for that.

I agree that it does remove the need to discuss money, but it is (in my opinion) unfair to the paying parent to have this level of interference without allowing that parent the opportunity to demonstrate that they can and will pay their child support on time. If garnishment becomes a requirement, then I think it is only fair that the receiving parent be required to document how they are spending the child support dollars--after all, why should they get the benefit of the doubt, but the child support paying parent doesn't?

I do agree that more should be done about parents who don't pay and those who are deliberately under/unemployed.

I don't see it as a punishment if it's how things are done for everyone.

Likewise, it shouldn't be considered a punishment if all child support receiving parents are required to account for how they spend that child support.

Courts have ruled a number of times that custodial parents do not have to account for the money because its used to provide a standard of living more comparable to a dual income family than a single income family. It's used for things like rent/mortgage, utilities, food, clothing, gas for the car, and forcing recipients to keep track of how every dollar is spent is overly burdensome.

There have been lawsuits over this, and courts have even said that a mother is not required to only use child support money on the child its meant for - for example a single mother with 2 children, by 2 different dads, one of whom pays and one of whom doesn't. The mother can use the child support she receives on BOTH children because forcing a mother to neglect one child because of their father's refusal to pay support is immoral and judicial overreaching.

As for garnishing wages, I have no problem with it from either side. My ex pays via wage garnishment, and it works well. It keeps BOTH parents honest. I, as the custodial parent, cannot go to court claiming that he never pays. And he can't go to court and claim that he did pay when he didn't. The state keeps track, so both parents are kept honest. It also means that I don't have to keep track - I know I receive it because it lands in my account regularly, but I don't have to keep records - that's being done by the state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a garnishee solves a few problems. There's always proof support was paid, for one thing. Take it off the cheque, deposit it in the other parent's account. The divorced parents don't need to discuss money. Ideally.

My ex was one who went with unemployed/underemployed. There is no fix for that.

I agree that it does remove the need to discuss money, but it is (in my opinion) unfair to the paying parent to have this level of interference without allowing that parent the opportunity to demonstrate that they can and will pay their child support on time. If garnishment becomes a requirement, then I think it is only fair that the receiving parent be required to document how they are spending the child support dollars--after all, why should they get the benefit of the doubt, but the child support paying parent doesn't?

I do agree that more should be done about parents who don't pay and those who are deliberately under/unemployed.

I don't see it as a punishment if it's how things are done for everyone.

Likewise, it shouldn't be considered a punishment if all child support receiving parents are required to account for how they spend that child support.

Courts have ruled a number of times that custodial parents do not have to account for the money because its used to provide a standard of living more comparable to a dual income family than a single income family. It's used for things like rent/mortgage, utilities, food, clothing, gas for the car, and forcing recipients to keep track of how every dollar is spent is overly burdensome.

There have been lawsuits over this, and courts have even said that a mother is not required to only use child support money on the child its meant for - for example a single mother with 2 children, by 2 different dads, one of whom pays and one of whom doesn't. The mother can use the child support she receives on BOTH children because forcing a mother to neglect one child because of their father's refusal to pay support is immoral and judicial overreaching.

As for garnishing wages, I have no problem with it from either side. My ex pays via wage garnishment, and it works well. It keeps BOTH parents honest. I, as the custodial parent, cannot go to court claiming that he never pays. And he can't go to court and claim that he did pay when he didn't. The state keeps track, so both parents are kept honest. It also means that I don't have to keep track - I know I receive it because it lands in my account regularly, but I don't have to keep records - that's being done by the state.

I don't disagree with you at all. But the purpose of this thread, from the title, makes it seem like garnishment should be automatic when it comes to child support. I simply disagree with that premise.

I think that for the most part, those receiving child support ARE using it as it was intended. I also think that for the most part, those required to pay child support ARE doing so, as required. I'm simply arguing that making garnishment the automatic 'go to' is another way of saying that we don't trust those who are supposed to pay child support to do so on their own. (which may be true in some cases). I'm stating that if that level of distrust exists for child support payers, why doesn't it exist for those who receive child support? How do we trust one and not the other?

I think the way the system works right now is sufficient; those who show they are unwilling or unable to pay as expected should have their wages garnished. Everyone else should be left alone.

[Anonymous]

Pick a better partner, problem solved. And if you can't do that then wait until you can support a child yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pick a better partner, problem solved. And if you can't do that then wait until you can support a child yourself.

yep. Totally agree!

[Anonymous]

There are plenty of cases where the mother doesn’t use the child support for what it is intended. Both sides can't be trusted I guess. If garnishment is made automatic, then so should accounting of the money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are plenty of cases where the mother doesn’t use the child support for what it is intended. Both sides can't be trusted I guess. If garnishment is made automatic, then so should accounting of the money.

Then what is child support for? Please enlighten those of us who receive support?

[Anonymous]

Also, what type of accounting would you like to see?