Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: $5,500 Monthly Child Support???

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    14,315

    $5,500 Monthly Child Support???

    Quote: "Kim Ward, of Stoughton, the mother of two of Brown's children, says Brown owes two months' support, or $11,000."

    Source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/02/bo....ap/index.html

    What idiot of a judge awarded twice the mean gross income level for child support?

    It shouldn't matter how much someone makes. Caring for a child (or even three of them) does NOT cost $5,500 a month!

    If the problem rests with legislation that stipulates a certain amount, then the legislators need to be taken to task, or replaced.

    Comments?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,358
    Usually in these cases they say something like "the children (or wife) must continue to enjoy the quality of life to which they have become accustomed".

    clop

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Northern Utah
    Posts
    6,213
    While I agree that that is a really high amout (and would LOVE to get $5,500 per month) I think the courts also tend to look at the lifestyle of the kids in question. If they are in private schools and have been pampered all their lives, suddenly losing all of that and dropping down to even $1000 per month could be seen as a hardship for them.

    For another perspective, look at Johnny Carson's alimony payments.
    His third wife, Joanna, with whom he broke up after ten years in 1984, claimed $220,000 a month in alimony. She finally settled for a mere $35,000 a month, which Carson, earning about $8 million a year at the time, could easily afford.
    I once saw a cartoon where an aging, balding man was sitting in a restauarnt with a bimbette, telling her, "I'm sorry my dear, I can no longer philander you in the style in which you've become accustomed."

    There are no level playing fields.
    I'm Not Evil.
    An evil person would do the things that pop into my head.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    32,095
    Wow. That's roughly 16.22 times what I get a month, and some people consider my income (disability) a drain on the system.

    That being said, if your kids are used to you spending roughly that amount on them a month (leaving aside considerations of whether you should or not!), I see no reason you should get away with spending less just because you and the other parent are divorced. I do, however, think that the amount spent during visitation should be factored in.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,626
    Now, I understand (and wholeheartedly support) child support payments. But what about spousal support? I just don't see the reasoning. If the two partners choose to divorce, why should one continue to support the other even after a (potentially) non-working partner in the marriage gets a job? If the couple has elected to sever ties, why aren't the ties severed?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,358
    Quote Originally Posted by The Supreme Canuck View Post
    Now, I understand (and wholeheartedly support) child support payments. But what about spousal support? I just don't see the reasoning. If the two partners choose to divorce, why should one continue to support the other even after a (potentially) non-working partner in the marriage gets a job? If the couple has elected to sever ties, why aren't the ties severed?
    Well quite. And I also wonder, if Whitney's income rises in the future, will Mr Brown still be required to pay the same amount as he was paying when she was earning less?

    clop

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Posts
    9,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    That's roughly 16.22 times what I get a month, and some people consider my income (disability) a drain on the system.
    Without wanting to sound inconsiderate, that's hardly a fair comparison.
    Sometimes you win, sometimes you learn

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,448
    Quote Originally Posted by The Supreme Canuck View Post
    Now, I understand (and wholeheartedly support) child support payments. But what about spousal support? I just don't see the reasoning. If the two partners choose to divorce, why should one continue to support the other even after a (potentially) non-working partner in the marriage gets a job? If the couple has elected to sever ties, why aren't the ties severed?
    When I see a woman pay alimony, I'll surrender my belief that its vindictive welfare.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    122
    Terrible the man should step up and pay

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    3,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Doodler View Post
    When I see a woman pay alimony, . . .
    Most divorced woman want to be treated as equals, but not that equal.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    32,095
    There are divorced women who pay alimony, guys. Perhaps not as many, but hey, women tend to earn less.

    The main purpose of alimony that I can see is continuing to provide a stay-at-home parent for the kids. If it's desirable enough to both parties, pay away.

    Other situations where I can see a point include, for example, if one spouse gave up getting an education to put the other spouse through school. In that case, it seems only fair to me that the educated (and presumably better equipped to earn) spouse return the favor, even if the marriage has split up. In that situation, however, I would expect alimony to cease once the education agreed upon is complete.

    Originally, it was unthinkable for a woman of a certain class to have a job, and she probably wasn't educated for one anyway. In those days, alimony made sense. However, if we are indeed leveling the playing field as we keep saying we are, both parents should be, all other considerations being equal, equally likely to get a job regardless of gender. (Also, and I could be wrong about this, I think child support considered separate of alimony in all cases is a relatively recent development, and alimony used to by definition include money for keeping the kids fed and housed.)
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Nassau Bay, Texas
    Posts
    3,194
    Quote Originally Posted by Doodler View Post
    When I see a woman pay alimony, I'll surrender my belief that its vindictive welfare.
    My ex technically pays me child support, but the amount is very small and I let her keep it. In fact, I give her money to take of our kids, because she's great mother, just not a great wife (at least for me).

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,771
    Quote Originally Posted by SeanF View Post
    Without wanting to sound inconsiderate, that's hardly a fair comparison.
    Can you expand on that just a bit? I'm curious as to what you mean...

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,626
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    There are divorced women who pay alimony, guys. Perhaps not as many, but hey, women tend to earn less.
    Sure. And they shouldn't have to, either.

    The main purpose of alimony that I can see is continuing to provide a stay-at-home parent for the kids. If it's desirable enough to both parties, pay away.
    That's just it. If one parent decides to stay at home, why should the other be forced to subsidize it if he/she does not believe it to be in the best interest of the children? It amounts to the former spouse who opts to stay home getting more say in how to care for the children. While this may be acceptable in cases of single-custody, it destroys the concept of joint-custody.

    Other situations where I can see a point include, for example, if one spouse gave up getting an education to put the other spouse through school. In that case, it seems only fair to me that the educated (and presumably better equipped to earn) spouse return the favor, even if the marriage has split up. In that situation, however, I would expect alimony to cease once the education agreed upon is complete.
    I can see that being fair.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    32,095
    Quote Originally Posted by The Supreme Canuck View Post
    That's just it. If one parent decides to stay at home, why should the other be forced to subsidize it if he/she does not believe it to be in the best interest of the children? It amounts to the former spouse who opts to stay home getting more say in how to care for the children. While this may be acceptable in cases of single-custody, it destroys the concept of joint-custody.
    Well, I did say if it was agreeable to both parties. If one just decides to stay at home, that's not the decision of both. I don't think alimony is always or even usually fair, but if both parents agree that one or the other should be a stay-at-home parent even after the divorce, financial arrangements must be made.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,626
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren
    Well, I did say if it was agreeable to both parties.
    Oh, sorry, I somehow missed that part. It seems that, at least from my point of view, we're in agreement.

Similar Threads

  1. Binocular Astronomy - Monthly Sky Lights
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2008-Apr-22, 07:30 PM
  2. How you support to your child for sleeping
    By suntrack2 in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2006-Sep-09, 10:53 AM
  3. Monthly publications
    By Charlie in Dayton in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2004-Mar-22, 06:20 AM
  4. Tito's Monthly Planet Question
    By Tito_Muerte in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2004-Feb-11, 05:41 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •