I feel that CS should go towards living expenses, necessities like: food, shelter, clothing, etc....

Sports and medical should be split. Or in our case, we pay for softball, BM pays for soccer.

School lunch money - CS

New school clothes - CS

BM used to call and ask for extra money because electric was about to be turned off. DH gave her money to help her out ONCE - one day later, she's sitting at the bar. Next month, same thing. She called BUT this time I instructed DH to have the skids stay here with us if electric gets turned off and they can go back after electric gets turned back on. Lo and behold - electric was turned off for one day/night with skids with her, but she got it turned back on the very next day. She's NEVER asked again.

Personally I have both sides of the fence n it used to chap my butt in the beginning when BM recorded more in support than we pay in our mortgage!! But now that DH is making more money n we r expecting our second child together n I am now a SAHM...I don't complain as much bc truth b told-she could easily take him back to court n actually receive MORE money-which is ridiculous to me!! Especially considering that her mom pays for everything n boyfriend/reason for the divorce has his house n truck paid off-so afterschool daycare, utilities, her car n HIS CS r their ONLY bills...

On the other hand my oldest is about to b 10 n I have never even dreamt about going after CS bc $200 a month in exchange for that SOB actually seeing my child was never worth it...plus he wouldn't actually pay it n would not have been a stable part of his life...

So it depends on the circumstances-but it is always easier to judge when u r an outsider looking in...I personally stopped doing that n just focused on how happy I am now in MY situation n things continually to get better.

MIXED FEELINGS

In a way I think cs is good, because if it were not for an agreed amount, the BM would keep calling for more $ every other day...Dont get me wrong, Im the new wife with 2 new kids with dh...so im all for money coming into our house. but the other kids do need some support from thier dad....

BUT they should also edit the amount of cs being paid if dh has other kids, because how are we suppose to take care of them if dh does not bring enough money home.

I know that we can go and ask for an adjustment, but we are afraid to because they just may raise her cs because he has started earning more $ since they split years ago.

My dh no longer lives in an apartment like he did with BM. he moved into my house with me yep I said HOUSE which means mortgage, property and school taxes and landscaping. I have a good job too but I had a better job back then in the financial field, but when the economy went bad it was hard for me to hit my mandatory goals, i was at the top in my field so that not only meant my base pay but bonuses as well after every sale I made.

So I was taking care of my own business before dh came along but then we got married and had two kids...and he is now also responsible for where he lays his head and worry how to feed and dress the new kids as well as the other two.

I believe it is to provide for the needs of a child. ANd that includes the mother having a car to get him places and a place to live. I am probably the only sm in the world who does not argue about CS. I don't think that children should suffer because their parents divorced/never married or because one of them may be a complete douche. We get no child support from ss's mom. It disgusts me that a parent could just forget that they have responsibilities regardless of whether they are the mother or the father. We paid bm every week, on time. Sometimes early if she asked. Yet she pays us nothing. She also gets nothing from the father of her other child, which makes me just as angry even though I dislike her.

If you don't want to be financially and emotionally responsible then don't have children or marry someone that does. As much as I may hate some of the things ss does, in the grand scheme of things it is not his fault. It is how he was raised before he came to me, and I could have gotten out. I would most certainly expect dh to supoort OUR child if something were ever to happen between us.

I have two bio kids and know how much it costs to provide them with a nice house, a reliable vehicle and healthy food to eat. I also know how much child care costs (even though BM gets subsidy) for children. We pay BM $650 a month for SS. I believe that money should partially go towards daycare (that he is no longer in), food, shelter, clothes...the NECESSITIES! It should not be an "equal" between both houses. DH shouldn't be punished for BM's failures. BM in my case doesn't do anything for SS. Ok, he has a house and she has a car. His clothes will fit my DS1 (SS4) so she isn't buying new clothes. His shoes (flip flops and sneakers) are both 2 sizes to big so he can "grow" into them. He had the same pair of sneakers for 2 years! He never gets hair cuts, even his winter jackets are too small. Then when we bought a new one, she complained bc I guess it wasn't good enough for her so she put him back in the one too sizes too small. She says she can't afford all these things for SS but she takes him to the movies, on 2 vacations this summer, day trips, etc. Child support is the MOST ridiculous thing ever.

I think support should be set based on the parties' incomes. Clearly wealthy parents will live a different lifestyle than parents at poverty level.
CS should cover all the basics for the kids. Extras, like medical, should be split 50/50. My CO says BD pays 72% of many expenses (medical, dental, childcare, ECs) and the ONLY thing I requested reimbursement for was braces, and THAT I "waived" everything over 50%. Actually, he paid less than half and I agreed to it.
I think CS should be ordered in some cases. If one parent hardly sees the kids, they should pay. If they have shared time, then they shouldn't.
I don't think CS should be awarded in 50/50 situations at all.

I think that food, housing and clothing should be a wash b/c each parent has to provide these things in THEIR home for their kid. mean each parent HAS to provide for their kid while their have their kid right. I also think that each parent HAS to work either part time or full time. But I don't think that one or the other parent should be penalized just b/c one parent refuses to work or goes to school.

I raised my kids on NO CS and I never took him back to get more b/c I felt like that IF he wanted to be a father that he needed some way to take care of them. I mean he had to have a 3 bed room just like I did, he had to feed them just like I did, he had to provide the things they needed just like I did when he had them.

I do understand why CS came about for the ones that run off and aren't a father to their kids. But at the same time if he doesn't want to be a dad I think the kids are better off with out that man b/c if you push CS they will think well if I have to pay I better either go for custody or see the kid and he could;d resent their kid and still not be a good dad. I would be very concerned for my kids if they were with their father that didn't want to be a dad but was forced to b/c of money.

It seems to me that CS rarely works the way it is supposed to, unfortunately.

I agree with Purple in that I understand WHY CS was instituted. It's a decent idea, and the intent is logical enough. The application though usually benefits lazy mothers and does little to crack down on the real dead-beat fathers.

The appropriate amount per month depends on the parents' incomes and the local cost of living. While most divorce agreements also include stipulations that parents "share" medical costs, I think where this is NOT specifically stated CS should also cover medical problems a child may have from birth (i.e. disabilities that require special care, medications, physical therapy, etc.).

CS should cover basic needs: food, clothing, and (when not 'shared') medical care.

I think that the intent of CS is to make sure that children have these BASIC needs. The intent is to prevent parents from having children and then running off and leaving them with no basic provisions. You cannot have a kid and then get off scott free, leaving the other parent to pick up your slack and do everything.

The intent is NOT to prop up a lazy ass parent who wants to remain a SAHM/SAHD despite the change in circumstances. The intent is NOT to pay someone's utilities. If a parent cannot afford utilities, then they should 1) move to a more affordable place, 2) not have custody. The intent is NOT to keep the standard of living up to pre-divorce levels. Life changes. Sometimes you are lucky enough to afford a few extras, sometimes not. Suck it up when you cannot.

The intent of CS is also NOT to take the place of time with your child. Paying money does not make you a good parent. It makes you at least do your part in basic provisions. This is expected, not extra credit.

I saw my mom struggle with being a single parent, working two jobs, and rarely receiving a dime from my father. He had court-ordered CS, but when they tried to garnish his wages he quit his job and worked under the table. She was a hard worker and I did not lack in basic provisions, but if her family had not helped us there are times we would have gone without. On the other hand, FDH's ex continues to live in the 3 bedroom house she cannot afford, works at home as a hairdresser or daycare provider under the table, and still asks for more despite FDH paying CS every month on time. The kids never go without, and get a lot extra in my opinion. Her CS goes straight to her rent. She should have moved to a more affordable place so she could pay her rent and use the CS for the kids.

I think that every divorcing woman with children should be prepared financially to support those children on her own.

My ex was a deadbeat dad, and I received basically nothing. It was not worth it to go to court constantly, deal with his drama, etc.
I worked hard and supported my two entirely on my own until I met DH. I think women need to be prepared for the possibility of NOT getting child support, as it happens all too often.

Also, I must say that ex-H was court ordered to pay, and I never pursued it. If he sent the money, great-it was a court order, after all-but if he wasn't interested in seeing or helping to financially support his children, then it went against my sense of pride to have this loser involved with my kids at all.

I never received any CS for my daughter from her dad. He lost his mind, lost his money and it would have been a lost cause to go after him. Had the situation been different, I probably would have felt differently. Had he been "normal", made decent money, and supported new children, I probably would have felt that our daughter deserved for him to contribute as well.
I know of women that have no problem going after their ex for all they have; I have read here about women who have no problem with their husbands supporting their ( the woman's) children from a previous relationship, but god forbid he help his own out too. Both are wrong in my opinion.
i did fine for 7 years raising my own alone. Dh and I both work, he helped me with mine and never had a problem with it; I never had a problem with his helping out his own kids- and we are not well off. Once we got together and BM already was living with her SO, my Dh stopped giving her money ( the kids were 50 50) because there were 2 families and each should be able to support themselves; she complained very shortly then accepted it. I never, ever said a thing when he chipped in for dentist, doctor or whatnot. He is not a gulity daddy at all. He also never resented a dollar spent on my daughter and he preferred it that we asked nothing of bio dad, because having that nut get involved would have only been detrimental to my daughter.

I agree with CS to a certain point, but I also agree that it doesn't work the way it's supposed to. It DOES benefit lazy BM's who have custody and who refuse to work. I think CS should "supplement" the BM's income, not "BE" BM's income.

SD6's mom does not work... she lives in the house that she "stole" from her first husband, which by the way, is 700 square feet bigger than mine... she has her mom live with her so her mom can help her pay the bills and BM's only source of monthly income is the CS she gets from her first DH and my DH...

BUT! She's going on a cruise to the BAHAMAS this weekend with her 3 kids and her mom... CS!!!! What a great idea!!!! This woman has been to Brazil, Greece, Las Vegas a few times, etc. etc. all for sitting on her ASS without a job and spreading her legs to random men who have some money and are willing to take her places and spend it on her. As far as I'm concerned... that makes her a prostitute!

Meanwhile... I work my ASS off at a job I don't like so that I can help my DH provide for SD6. And I don't get to travel at all!

CS is a good idea in theory, but it isn't executed properly. My SD6 also never has clothes or shoes that fit her, but BM always has a new hair color and her nails are always freshly manicured.

Wouldn't it be nice if CS was kind of like a shared account with a debit card that you couldn't withdraw cash from?

Let me explain:
In this case, the parent paying CS could see every transaction made with the CS money because the parent receiving CS money could only use it as a card/check, and every transaction would be documented. Then the CS giver would be able to file legal action if the money were being mismanaged. I think food stamps work a little like this.

Would be nice.

Personally, I think CS would be more effective if the BM were to be made accountable for how it was spent. I think if BM's have the right to ask for more money, then fathers should have the right to have a BM "audited" every now and then to ensure that the money is going to the children and not to BM's new ride.

We give BM over $1600/month and the skids are constantly wearing old clothes with holes in them, eating nothing but Hot Pockets, never have new shoes, always come over dressed inappropriately for the weather, etc. But you better believe BM has a brand new car she didn't need. And you better believe she gets her hair and nails done all the damn time. So when BM comes to DH and tells him he needs to pay her more money, it's all I can do to not slap her silly and tell her she needs to live within her means like the rest of America.

Again, it is not only poor BM's not getting money from evil fathers. We get not one penny from the BM. SS is here FT, and by that I mean he has spent 2 weekends with her total in the last 2 YEARS. In addition, she had claimed him on her taxes before we had a chance to file. She said instead of re-filing she would just give us the difference. We have never seen a penny of that money. It will NOT happen again this year. DH and I take him to dr, orthodontist and counseling appoints. DH and I go to the school every time he gets in trouble. DH and I bought every single thing he needed for school every year. We paid her regularly when she had him in addition to covering health insurance, buying schools supplies, clothes, taking him for hair cuts. We had him every weekend and a minimum of 1 night each week. We could absolutely use CS since I have been out of work since April and he is 15 and eats a small fortune per day. In general, I think it is shiity for ANY parent to not support their child.