When should child support end?

[Onaflag]

The question came to mind when I read in another thread that a guy married a woman who has two kids. He calls them "my boys" and obviously loves them and treats them as his own. For that I have great respect. It takes a huge heart I'm sure and he probably is and should be very proud.

That said, he talks about his income and his ability/limitations to reload, his wife's income, and the fact that the children's father pays a substantial amount in child support. That's what struck a chord.

The law is one thing and I don't want to talk about legalities. A parent's financial responsibility to his/her children in the event of a split is obvious.

However, when the spouse who has custody gets married again and a traditional family structure is once again realized and the person marrying into this situation considers the children his/her own, shouldn't this free the non custodial parent from any more regular financial obligation?

I'm not talking about holidays/birthdays/mall visits, etc, but rather regular substantial monthly payments.

Onaflag..........

[punkass]

[ QUOTE ]
However, when the spouse who has custody gets married again and a traditional family structure is once again realized and the person marrying into this situation considers the children his/her own, shouldn't this free the non custodial parent from any more regular financial obligation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ideally, this would be the rule. But then you will have the woman meet a new man and in all circumstances would make a perfect husband and wife, but will delay getting hitched because they don't want to miss out on the "free" money they are getting from baby-daddy.

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
Ideally, this would be the rule. But then you will have the woman meet a new man and in all circumstances would make a perfect husband and wife, but will delay getting hitched because they don't want to miss out on the "free" money they are getting from baby-daddy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Still happens anyway. I know a couple that have been living together for years (I think close to 10 years). He treats the kids as his own and they are, in all other respects, a traditional family. But they aren't married. The woman's ex-husband is fairly well off and a clause in the divorce decree eliminates alimony if she got remarried.

So they just live together and won't get married until the alimony runs out.

[NT!]

flag,

interesting idea. i would ask, however, if that man would have married the woman if she didn't receive child support? if getting married released the previous husband from child support, wouldn't it provide a disincentive to marry?

a similar situation arose in the mid-20th century when welfare agents would literally conduct bed checks to see if women had male guests; if they did, their family benefits would be gone.

if the man is married to the woman, filing taxes jointly and getting credit for her children, i think it's fair to consider a reduction in payments from the bio father. but i wouldn't think cutting them off entirely was the right solution.

[dcasper70]

I think alimony payments should stop, but not child support. Perhaps it should be reduced somewhat, but it you marry a chick with kids, the other guy shouldn't be completely released of his responsibility.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
I think alimony payments should stop, but not child support.

[/ QUOTE ]

i mean you can argue the merits of alimony all you want but this kind of goes against the whole point of making them.

let's put it this way. You and I start a pizza business together, and it becomes profitable. ten years later we decide to discontinue the partnership. I keep the business and have to pay you $X/year. two years later you start up another pizza business.. I can stop paying you now?

now obviously this is an extreme example and doesn't really care over well but as I understand it this is kind of the point of having to pay alimony.

[guids]

I dont undertand the point of alimony. Assume kids arent part of the equation, why should one party recieve any of the other parties money? because its a partnership? well obviously the partnership probabyl was ineffective so how can you justify that it is the reason there was money made?

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont undertand the point of alimony. Assume kids arent part of the equation, why should one party recieve any of the other parties money? because its a partnership? well obviously the partnership probabyl was ineffective so how can you justify that it is the reason there was money made?

[/ QUOTE ]

i think the basic idea is either

1. the non-breadwinning partner is 'accustomed' to a certain quality of life (not very compelling to me)

2. one partner may have sacrificed some of their earning potential towards raising the family, or one partner may have supported the other while they got training of some sort. for instance, if one put the other through medical school, and then they got divorced. (this seems reasonable to me).

[guids]

Aye, I guess, your point number 1 is BS imo, if they use that as a reason, number 2, if there are no kids or family involved, there should be no reason for the non-medical school partner (as an example), should get anything out of it. If there was a divorce, they couldnt have been doing that good of a job in supporting the other (unless of course, someone cheated, etc)

[MasterLJ]

No it should not.

I am a father. I pay child support. My ex is happily married to a man who loves my son dearly. My son is not his responsibility, he is mine.

It should end when the child is 18.