Multiparty child support

[Jcrew]

So KFed just obtained custody of his kids with Britney. I presume that he will be receiving considerable amounts of child support from her. He has kids from a prior relationship, which I assume that the amount of child support that he has to pay for those kids was determine at the time when he was not making all that much. Now does/should the income he receive from Britney factor in on how much child support that he has to pay for his previous kids?

[ElliotR]

Does: No
Should: No

Let's not confuse child support with spousal support/alimony.

[katyseagull]

I would think the new income he receives from Britney would factor into his child support to his first wife. I think it should. When he divorced his first wife he did not have much income. This will drastically change their entire lifestyle.

My understanding is that K-fed has partial custody of his kids from the first marriage but I'm not positive about that.

I think it's preferable that fathers have joint custody where they are not just funneling money to their ex-wives but are actively involved in the child-rearing. I've never understood the logic in saying to a man you don't get to have custody of your own kids but you need to pay your ex-wife thousands of dollars so she can live any way she wants. What man would be motivated to do this?

But getting back to OP's question, I think if a father's income goes way up the child support can be renegotiated can't it?

[ElliotR]

[ QUOTE ]
But getting back to OP's question, I think if a father's income goes way up the child support can be renegotiated can't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Child support is not income to the custodial parent. It is supposed to be spent for the benefit of the child. Indeed, in some states the paying parent can force an accounting to make sure that the money isn't being misspent. Now, of course there is abuse because the law has to allow indirect benefits to others. But the law certainly would not allow child support for the benefit of one kid to be used to pay for the custodial parent's own child suppport obligations.

[katyseagull]

Thanks for explaining that E.R. Pretty interesting given K-fed's circumstances. I mean the children from his second marriage will have tons of money available to them while those from the first will be limited. Say he wants to send his kids to a nice private school. He could only use Brit's money to send her kids there and not his other two? Or lets say he wants to hire nannies, the nannies would theoretically be for Brits kids but not the other two when they visit?

I could see this having weird effects on sibling relationships as they grow older. The young ones will grow up feeling privileged while the older 2 might grow up feeling resentful.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
I would think the new income he receives from Britney would factor into his child support to his first wife. I think it should. When he divorced his first wife he did not have much income. This will drastically change their entire lifestyle.

My understanding is that K-fed has partial custody of his kids from the first marriage but I'm not positive about that.

I think it's preferable that fathers have joint custody where they are not just funneling money to their ex-wives but are actively involved in the child-rearing. I've never understood the logic in saying to a man you don't get to have custody of your own kids but you need to pay your ex-wife thousands of dollars so she can live any way she wants. What man would be motivated to do this?

But getting back to OP's question, I think if a father's income goes way up the child support can be renegotiated can't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a terrible idea, katy, and kind of makes a mockery of existing concepts of alimony and child support. What about the idea of someone being enabled by hubby/dad's money to live "in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed?" I think that's an idea that's okay for kids, completely out of line for moms, but that you can't really separate the lifestyles of kids and moms without throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so you have to keep the mom sitting pretty too. But they are going to get the child support needed to live a normal life according to their present notions of one, not a free ticket to gamble with and redeem when necessary.

What happens if the father's income goes down? Are the kids/wife willing to cut down on the alimony and child support? Will the courts likely enforce their doing so? Of course not. If the father's income level post-divorce is a lottery ticket, why can only mommy and the kids redeem it, and keep redeeming it, over and over again as a man's income changes upward, but the father can't redeem it if his income diminishes even if it winds up in financial catastrophe for him? What if his income goes way up but then suddenly goes down, as in the fashion typical of artists, who may make big scores but then spend years before they get another big financial windfall? Does the guy who made a million in a year have to pay at that level during the years he is making nothing, completely ruining his chances to ever save a dime and make a life for himself?

It's gotta be something settled and clear. It's one thing to take care of your kids, but another thing to write your kids and/or wife an open-ended lottery ticket for the upside. Especially if when the husband hits a downside and comes knocking on the door, it's going to be lights out, nobody home.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for explaining that E.R. Pretty interesting given K-fed's circumstances. I mean the children from his second marriage will have tons of money available to them while those from the first will be limited. Say he wants to send his kids to a nice private school. He could only use Brit's money to send her kids there and not his other two? Or lets say he wants to hire nannies, the nannies would theoretically be for Brits kids but not the other two when they visit?

I could see this having weird effects on sibling relationships as they grow older. The young ones will grow up feeling privileged while the older 2 might grow up feeling resentful.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why you've got to do a better job of choosing your parents. Serves those kids right; maybe they'll make better decisions next time.

[katyseagull]

[ QUOTE ]

I think this is a terrible idea, katy, and kind of makes a mockery of existing concepts of alimony and child support. What about the idea of someone being enabled by hubby/dad's money to live "in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed?" I think that's an idea that's okay for kids, completely out of line for moms, but that you can't really separate the lifestyles of kids and moms without throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so you have to keep the mom sitting pretty too. But they are going to get the child support needed to live a normal life according to their present notions of one, not a free ticket to gamble with and redeem when necessary.



[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure which part of my post you were referring to. I definitely see your point that the father's income should not be seen as some type of lottery ticket for the ex-wife to play with. I agree.

I guess I was just thinking that there are probably many men and women who start off in life with really low salaries barely helping their exes out with child support, but later move up the ladder and are now making better salaries. Should their child support still remain ridiculously low? I really don't know. I admit I haven't given this a lot of thought.

But yeah I can see your point that fathers would get nowhere in life if they had to keep paying the ex a bigger and bigger chunk of their salary each year. I think the K-fed thing is a special case. I doubt the guy had much money to begin with. Now he lives like a millionaire and yet his child support to Char (or whatever her name is) might still be something like $300/month. That just seems weird to me.


I sort of think the whole child support thing is problematic. That's why I think it's better if both parents share 50/50 in the care and custody.

[Blarg]

I'm pretty confident that judges tend not to make child support ridiculously low in the first place, so no worries on that account. In fact, many judges really don't care what happens with the man and his life, and will leave him with very little money to live with. A friend of mine's son was left with a little over $400 a month to live on in L.A., so he had to move back in with her.