First, I'd still love to see anyone go in front of the judge and try to explain why the CS is "their" money and that not %100 has to go to the child. If %25 is enough for the child's basic needs, then the other %75 surely belongs entirely to the custodial parent. I think the problem is the courts don't really understand this point of view as if they did, then there'd be nothing for the "Ex" that's paying to bitch about.

Speaking as one of them "young men" here, though not really understanding why a woman is born with this knowledge somehow that we don't have, and speaking from both sides of the CS issue, for me it's merely IMHO and what I see as best for my child. One of the things that directly and indirectly has hurt my child the most was the Ex taking 0 interest in the child beyond what was "required" by the court. Hell, she didn't care if the kid was taking care of or not.

I'd hope that any responsible parent would be interested in the child's welfare. As "adults" (which I guess no amount of "growing up" helps) that we can eventually find some "adult" way to communicate with the other parent over matters of the child's well being, finances, medical, etc. It's the other parents child as well and for the kids sake, and hopefully the wish to be, are fully involved at some level in the child's life. This isn't to say some parents are incapable of being reasonable and have to wave court papers in front of each other instead of actually communicating, but sadly, sometimes parents can't get over "it's my rights, see this court papers?!?!" long enough to even consider working towards a better life of the child.

This constant fighting and bickering surrounding our children only harms them. If the other parent doesn't "understand" the realities of the situation, perhaps actually communicating with them (even thru mediation) could achieve a better outcome for the child? If it's too much CS then maybe trimming it down will have a more positive experience for the child while visiting the non-custodial parent, maybe if the other parent "understood" what it costs and given and honest chance they'd be willing to help out more? Again, sadly most parents would rather ignore the child's interests completely and continue to do nothing more than fight with each other.

While there may be worse things out there, a parent that uses the child as nothing more than an extra "check". To "feed and clothe" the child is as cheap as a matter as possible so "you" get extra money yerself is horribly wrong to do to any child. The question isn't child's basic needs, as that's sometimes not even met with CS in place and being paid, but that CS is Child Suppourt meaning Suppourt for the Child, not for the parent. The entire idea that the "left over" CS is the parents money and not to be used in any way for the child is horrible. If that were true all you would have to do is leave the child nothing more than 2 changes of clothes, a pack of Ramen Noddles for dinner every night, and then the custodial parent could claim the basic needs are met and simply go off partying on the money that's supposed to be for the child.

It's not about "rights" our "court papers", it's supposed to be about the child, not the parents. Each situation is unique, some CS payers would be willing to pay more, they just would like to know why, of course though some CS payers don't pay a dime. Simply put, ANY parent that's not working towards the best interest of the child and is putting their own "needs" or "rights" before the child could be considered a complete dead beat and should be taken back to court. Just because you "can" legally get away with something is not the same thing as providing your child with the care they deserve.

Of course, if %100 of the CS is going to the child (as the custodial parent see's fit) and the CS isn't being spent on anything other than the child, then everyone's in agreement. If that's the way it should be, but it's not happening, then everyone should be able to agree that a parents concern about the child being neglected are valid and deserves to be looked into. It's really as simple as that.

Not to say that this give the other parent a right to harass another, but if there's concern, then it should be addressed. If it's nothing more than harassment, then the courts will figure that out real quick on thier own anyways. I only wish my Ex would take some kind of interest in the child's life, any at all would be great for my daughter.

How does anyone else know that any child is not being neglected anyways? If there's signs of neglect, say the kid is in trashed, old worn out clothes, yet the custodial parent is always walking around in $500 outfits, isn't that a sign of neglect? At worst, even if it's petty bickering, shouldn't the custodial parent be willing to work with the courts or other legal state officials to show that proper care is being provided? Outside of using the child to attack the other parent in one way or another - What exactly is the problem with seeing something out of place that could be child neglect and making sure one's child is not being neglected? What's so wrong about that?

-Gil

I have one reply to a comment about "younger people" need to live a while longer to understand. This is completely off topic but wtf, it's my thread, LOL. Now, let me put it this way, if people that are 20 years are so much more experienced in life let's do this. With what you've learned from experiences in life do this....

Tell the inner city teenager how to live on the streets, tell the starving child in a third world country how to survive disease and hunger, and tell the abused child how to not feel like a victim.

Now all these people are even younger than I am so surely you know more about what they are experiencing than they do right? cuz you've been there and done that????

EVERY single situation is different. Just cause you been alive longer doesn't mean you've experienced more. I know there are some people much younger than I am that have experienced things in their life that I never will, I won't know what it's like. The difference between me and people that think they know more because they are older is that I'm willing to except that everyone is different. I don't prejudge anyone based on age, race, gender, or sexuality. I'm sure it's different in the South.......

correction to my last post, I meant to write 20 years older than me, Thnx

*****
Age discrimination
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia-

Some people consider that teenagers and youth (around 15-25 years old) are victims of adultism, age discrimination framed as a paternalistic form of protection.

Adultism-

In his seminal 1978 article, Flasher explained that adultism is born of the belief that children are inferior, professing that adultism can be manifested as excessive nurturing, possessiveness, or over-restrictiveness, all of which are consciously or unconsciously geared toward excessive control of a child.
*****

Age shouldn't be a deciding factor in ones ability to accomplish simple matters of economics, math, and parenting. I've seen teenagers be more caring, loving, and responsible than great grandparents ever were. Just sayin.

-Gil

brandon you started this threat seeking support, when the first person didnt parrot what you wanted to hear you attacked them. contrary to what you think i do know what you are going through. you keep going on about how i have never paid child suppor and you are right, I have not, but i have had a very long term relationship with a man that paid childsupport, every week he paid, and he bought food when she visited and he bought all school supplies and everything for christmas and every gift giving holiday and every stitch on her back, and i even helped him with it because we were far from rich, you know why? because it was his child and his responsibility to take care of her, her mom used the cs to make her house payements, didnt care much about that BUT the child lied in that house too. he would bitch and moan and groan about it all the time, and i told him just like i tell everyone, if you dont like what the court order says take it back to court, but until then pay your cs and do whatever you can for your child. i never said it was fair, i said it is just the way things are. when i was single and raising two girls on my own and i accidently got cs was i sppose to spend every cent on them, when cs came no more then once every 2 or 3 months? heck no, as long as they had every thing they needed, and they did, i spent that money on whatever i wanted to if it was on me, then so what, since i was rarely able to spend money on myself because every dime i got from working was spent on supporting my girls. oh, one more thing, get me in front of a judge and i will explain to them EXACTLY why the cs is my money and why i dont have to explain what it is spent on so fast your head would spend, because judges know that when they order child support they are not ordering enough for the custodial parent and children to live a life of luxury, i would do it today over the cs we get from ss biomom, real fast i would tell the judge how that big fat $75 w week goes on whatever i want it to go on because it is chump change compared to what it costs to take care of him, it IS blow money, nothing more and he wants for nothing, not a single thing.

Hope ya don't live in one of the following states -

***
Eleven states have statutes that allow the court to demand an accounting from the custodial parent of how child support is spent and one state that has allowed such accounting via caselaw. Here is a list, along with the relevant sections:

* Colorado: Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. 14-10-115(3)(b)(III) (1999);
* Delaware: Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, 518 (1994);
* Florida: Fla. Stat. Ann. 61.13(a)(1) (Supp. 2000);
* Indiana: Ind. Code Ann. 31-16-9-6 (1997);
* Kansas: Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1616(f) (1995);
* Louisiana: La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 9:312 (Supp. 1999);
* Missori: Mo. Rev. Stat. 452.342 (1997);
* Nebraska: Neb. Rev. Stat. 42-364(6) (1999);
* Oklahoma: Okla. Stat. tit. 43, 118(B)(21) (Supp. 1999);
* Oregon: Or. Rev. Stat. 107.105(1)(c) (Supp. 1998);
* Washington: Wash. Rev. Code Ann. 26.23.050(2)(a)(ii) (Supp. 1999).
* Alabama: (Alabama authorizes accounting under specific facts as outlined in McDuffie v. Holland, 690 So. 2d 386 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996)

In Oregon -

107.105 Provisions of judgment.
(c) For the support of the children of the marriage by the parties. In ordering child support, the formula established under ORS 25.275 shall apply. The court may at any time require an accounting from the custodial parent with reference to the use of the money received as child support.

107.106 Provisions of order or judgment providing for custody, parenting time, visitation or support of child.
The terms of child support and parenting time (visitation) are designed for the childs benefit and not the parents benefit.
***

For myself, beyond it being a morally right thing to make sure funds designate for my daughter goes to my daughter, there's also a slight legal issue with misusing CS funds. Even if I felt like any CS I receive should go to me, the last thing I'd want to do is risk endangering the custody of my child by risking any violation in CS law.

Again, this is all just my opinion as a "young male parrot" lol. I would simply never take anything away from my daughter to benefit myself, nor would doing so seem very legal in my state.

Brandon, do you by any chance live in one of those states listed? If so (or even if not) here's a few things ya could probably reference to an attorney and have them look into.

-Gil

Thanks Gil..... want a cracker? LOL

I knew there might be some statute about accountability for what the child support is spent on, and yes I live in Missouri. I would like to be in that court room when cila tells a judge it's her money, because we all know that it's not, it's CHILD SUPPORT and any judge will tell you that it is for the benefit of the child, not you. If $75 a week was all I paid, I would have more to spend on him, KNOWING it's for him and not her. I could provide for him what I know she doesn't when she's not working. Cila, we have very different situations. I have an outstanding little boy that is very healthy and happy and has no special requirements. Her staying at home with him and not working is not what's best for him at this stage in his life. If he was infant, sure...... actually she did stay at home with him while he was an infant and a toddler while I worked hard to support all of us. Being with someone who pays cs is not the same as paying cs. You have never paid cs for YOUR children wondering if it is being used to better your children's lives or better your ex's life. You and I are on different sides of this. From what I can see it is within my right to ask what the support is being spent on. I'm not going to do that since she is working now (part time), he rarely stays with a sitter and when he does, it's only a couple of hours or with grandparents. So my situation is getting better, thanks for asking.... If she stops working, you're damn right I'm gonna ask the court what she's spending my kid's support on. If that day comes and she has the audacity to tell a judge it's "her money," well........ I have a feeling that won't work so well for her. I really do commend you for providing your stepson's care, I'm sure it's demanding. You seem offended by me wanting to know that my son is receiving %100 of the benefit from cs. I didn't mean to offend you or any one else. You gave your advice to me to pay my support and "grow up." And I gave my advice to single mothers to not use their child as a paycheck. FYI, I don't ask what the money is being spent on, if I do have concerns I will take it to the court. My concerns ended when she finally started getting an income to provide for herself and not live off the child support.

I came for support and I was attacked.

Priscila... you wrote the following in Reply #9 (I've shortened it for this post, go back and read for the full reply)
"why are you complaining? you do not get to dictate what child support is spent on. whats the problem? so what she isnt working.. this smells like someone complaining about paying childsupport, nothing more. "

It smells like I'm complaining? what's the problem? so what? Nothing but attitude and conflict from you since that reply.

do this,
half of all household expenses, thats what you say, she should pay for half of the childs needs, i never said she dhouldnt, but i would love to be in the courtroom when you have a judge make her show what childsupport is spent on, and I pray to God she is smart enough to show half the electric, water, heating, cooling, transportation (car payment, maint. fule, half is for child to get to places child needs to go, dr. appt. dentist, playdates, ect.) half of any childcare while she works, half of food, ause no judge will expect her to by food seperate, household supplies, cleaning products, furniture, just half, of everything that is used to make sure child lives a good life. i would love to be there to see the look on your face when you watch the judge do the math and then raise your support to cover YOUR half of meeting the childs needs. be very, very careful of what you wish for, you are not understanding any of this. all some of us are trying to tell you is that unless you are paying a huge amount of childsupport the support is in no way covering half the expence of supporting a child, you keep saying we dont know because we have never paid, well you dont know because you have never had cusotdy...it goes both ways. you should be grateful she doesnt take you back to court with all that information and have it raised to cover half of everything, you would be living in your car if she did.

I understand how much it costs to raise a child, we divorced less than a year ago and he is 6. I know the costs, I paid the bills for all 3 of us more than 5 years. So, I know what the expenses are. You still have never paid cs to someone you don't trust. I've been in front of the judge and he was given a detailed list of what the cs would be spent on. The thing is she lied about having an income! If she's not providing the income that she told the court she was providing, she's using the cs as her income and not using it on my kid. And I wouldn't have been living in my car because I could not afford my car payment anymore and I didn't have one. As I stated before, I nearly wound up at the shelter with no way to get to work. I struggled as did she, and things have improved, thanks again for asking!

So, anyone that agrees is still not understanding? I'm lost at this point, figured it'd be a simple matter of if we all agreed then we agreed. Not sure why (or what the point is) that's being argued over lol.

***
If that day comes and she has the audacity to tell a judge it's "her money," well........
***

To me, that would say not all the CS goes to the child...

***
I pray to God she is smart enough to show half the electric, water, heating, cooling, transportation (car payment, maint. fule, half is for child to get to places child needs to go, dr. appt. dentist, playdates, ect.) half of any childcare while she works, half of food
***

That is not spending a dime of CS on the parent. That is not in any way what the OP is talking about. That is an agreement of where the CS should go. No one is arguing that point of view at all. It's not about CS not being enough, or it being spent on the child. What's there is how it should be. There is no mention in any of that of anything being spent on the parent. This is the exact opposite of spending CS on the parent actually. It's kinda surprising we're at 100+ reply's and have yet to firmly establish the difference between "spending CS on a child" and "CS being for the parent".

What the OP is talking about is if she went to the judge and said the money was hers, not the child. So, why explaining to a judge about how %100 of the CS is going to the judge has anything to do with this conversation at all is a bit beyond me. Other than her lying to the judge of course and knowing what she has done (and continues to do) is wrong. That's not really the point, as it's not the point of whether or not CS is even being paid. The point is whether or not CS is going to the child, if it is, then great, if not, then there's a problem.

I try not to think that people just to argue to argue, and I also understand that on sites like these there's very personal feelings and opinions on subjects that over ride one's reasoning when looking or considering another situation or point of view. The problem is things have drastically gone from "It's the parents money" to "Lie to the courts to prove it's being spent on the child". If you believe that the CS is your money, but lie to the judge to show it all goes for the child, well... that's lying plain and simple. If it's your money, tell that to the judge, don't hide on lies and deceit if you know yer in the "right". That kinda thing always irritates me, but people do what they will. A pattern of lying to state officials does not strike me as a good parental role model IMHO.

If the Ex says it's %100 to the child (whether or not it's true), then there's nothing much that can be done for that. There's plenty of "expenses" that won't have receipts. If she is does believe it's her money and is willing to tell that to the judge and stand up for her "rights" for what she knows is true, then it's up to the judge to explain things to her a bit more clearly. There's really only 2 ways this can go if the court asks for an accounting, she either lies or she get's caught with documentation/pictures/etc showing her current income is not matching with her personal expenses and the child's expenses are actually lower than the CS payments. As "right" as some people seem to see themselves in spending CS on themselves, I can't ever imagine then being honest enough to tell that to a judge directly.

-Gil

gilanon: that made no sense at all, what i said was when he takes her to court to make her show what she spends the cs on she needs to bring in all the child expenses and show the judge EVERYTHING that is spent on the child, which will not add up to what little cs she gets, read the words, all of them, not just the ones you want to read, and i stand by my statement that i would not hesitate to tell a judge that childsupport is MT money if i am the one raising the child and supporting the child and taking care of the childs every need.

Ok. Talk about beating a dead horse with a stick. CS is a portion of what it takes to raise a child. The CS is not to pay for 1/2 of all expenses. If your car payment is 300. a month CS is not to pay 1/2. If you buy your child shoes everyother week CS is not to cover that. If you go to walt disney 3 times a year CS is not to cover 1/2 each time. If you pay 30. for a child to get a hair cut everyother month CS is not ment to cover 1/2. The bottom line is that CS is not to keep the x living well. If you have 4 people in your house and your x is only paying for one child than your bills are split to 1/4 not 1/2. So your x is paying for his child not the others. Also every site I look at says they go by both parents income to determine CS. I ALSO CAN NOT FIND A LAW THAT SAYS THE X CAN STAY HOME IF SHE/HE WANTS TO AND NOT PUT IN TO IT. IF THE PERSON PAYING DESIDED TO DO THAT THEY WOULD BE IN JAIL. I needed to put in caps because the small letters dont seem to be getting through. Having custody does not mean you make your own laws.

AMEN GSCH!!!!! Beating a dead horse is right!!! holy hell...3 threads of this isn't enough???

kidsintowe03 the problem is everyone is not going to agree. People have gotten so far off the OP's post.