I try not to get too political with anything that I post. I've learned over the years that discussing politics can be a pointless pursuit in today's age. Not that I discourage people from pursuing change in the system, as that is one of the rights in the first amendment (the right to question the government). However, I've never really enjoyed starting a public debate, as most people are not too easily swayed from their personal beliefs and it usually alienates people from each other.
That being said, I feel there is a group of citizens in this country that are virtually unprotected from abuse in "the system."
Divorced and/or "non-residential" fathers.
Simply put, real men who are paying child support diligently who cannot afford to be fairly represented in the legal system or in legislation.
For the sake of this post, I will be using Kansas (my state) as an example, because every state regulates support differently. But all in all, I've found that almost all are fairly identical.
In the state of Kansas, support is figured using the infamous "Kansas Calculator." This device, in a nutshell, takes the income of both parents, allows for adjustments for child care, health insurance, and other "fixed" expenses. The calculator will then "beep" and "boop" and spit out a figure of how much the couple would be spending together on the kids if they were still together. The personal responsibilities for each parent are then calculated using their individual income.
So, for easy math, we'll assume the following model is actual figures. But, it's really just to illustrate the state's approach to figuring totals and obligations.
Mother and father both make 50k/year.
Combined = $100,000
After fixed expenses, the Kansas calculator says, "If you were still together, you would be spending,on average, $1000 per child per month."
For two children, that equal $2000/ month.
And because each parent has the same income, that amount is split 50/50. And the non-resident parent is ordered to pay $1000/per month for the support of two children.
Seems fair, right?
And it would be if it wasn't based on "assumed spending."
If the mother receives $1000 every month from the father, it is assumed that she is spending $2000 a month on the children. But if, in actuality, she is only spending half ($1000) of that assumed amount, where is the protection for the father? Keep in mind, housing cost, utilities, car payment and such are not figured as "fixed expenses," because those are costs that the parent would have without custody of the children. I have never heard of a single mother saying to the father, "I got all this money from you last month, but I only used half of it...Here's the difference back to you."
The only expenses that child support is figured for is the direct costs of raising a child. (food, health, education, child care and mild entertainment.)
This begs the question: What could be done to ensure that the "proper" amount of support was being paid by the non-custodial parent? Also, what could be done to ensure the money being paid to the custodial parent is being spent properly on support?
I have two suggestions...
1. All support is paid through the state as it currently stands. Could the payment be offered onto a state issued card (similar to Kansas' EBT program) that would allow the state to monitor the spending habits of the custodial parent?
Yes. The payment received through the state by the non-custodial could be deposited onto a state-issued debit card (with a credit card logo for "credit" needs). It could look like a regular debit card. But it would allow the state to monitor and regulate on what the "support" is specifically being spent. The card could easily be restricted to prevent money that is supposed to be spent on the children from being used for clothes, entertainment, and other expenses for the custodial parent.
For example: If both parents make the same, and each are supposed to be spending the "same" amount on the children, how could the custodial parent be able to afford a cruise in Europe, while the non-custodial parent is barely able to scrape enough to drive to work to continue to make payments. If the custodial parent was contributing the same amount of the financial burden, they should both be in the same financial boat after all is said and done.
Let me pause here to make some things clear. I know that being a single parent is hard. I understand that have residential custody of children requires a lot of time-management and self-sacrifice. But nobody gets paid just for being a parent (unless you count the millions of dollars refunded to parents at tax time). I know a lot of non-custodial parents that would LOVE to share some more of that "parenting time." What we are talking about here is the financial obligation of the parents. Parenting time is outlined in a different hearing under the "family plan." Custody and support are two different conflicts.
So, by loading the money onto the card and restricting the use of the support money, we can now look at the second tier of this program.
2. If the "assumed" amount is not used to the maximum every month, the amount will be adjusted to an average of the last three months spending. But the only way that this can be accurately calculated is to have both parents pay their portion onto the card.
Let me explain this way, using the model from above:
The state calculator has figured that the "assumed" support amount for two children equals $2000. The amount is split between the parents equally. Obviously, whomever is paying for health insurance through their employer would have that discounted from their obligation. But everything else is paid out of their net pay, so both would contributed their share to the card.
NOTE: And to be clear, for any non-custodial parents that do not cover their children on their employers insurance: Make sure the "amount" for health insurance cost is figured using this formula.
."Family Coverage - Single coverage = Child's insurance cost / parental percentage of obligation" Ex. 350-175=175 175/2=$87.50
Every quarter, the amount required for support would be adjusted up or down based off the average amount spent every month.
Example: State declares $2000 support for two children based off both parents income. That leaves an obligation of $1000 per parent. Assuming that the mother deducts $125 for health insurance, the total amount deposited onto the card would be $1875 per month. During that quarter, the custodial parent only spends $1000 every month. The new total deposited on the card would be $1000. That would come out to be $625 for the father, who is not carrying insurance through the employer, and $375 for the mother.
On the flip side, if the total amount ($2000) is used to the max for all three months in that quarter, the amount would increase 25%. So, if after three months the amount is spent fully, the amount would be increased to $2500 total.
This is not about trying to "screw over" custodial parents. This is NOT about trying to "weasel out" of payments for the non-custodial parent. This is a way to make sure that the amount being PROMISED to be used on the children is actually being SPENT ON THE CHILDREN. Too often, custodial parents begin to "live off" of child support. How about letting the people for whom the support is being paid live off of it?
I also know that the custodial parent has to move money around sometimes while waiting for money to be deposited. A limited amount of cash withdrawl every month could also be available. (10%, maybe). Also, any out of pocket, non-included costs could be sent in to the state payment center if unable to be resolved between the parents.
Now, if you are a non-custodial parent, and you don't pay, or if you play the system, you deserve what's coming. Not paying child support is the same as not feeding, clothing, educating or tending to the medical needs of a child in your own home. You can and should be in jail.
Life happens, though. Even "intact" families go through periods of unemployment, medical illnesses, and other situations that prevent income. But again, this is a more real-ime approach to take all sides of the matter into consideration. If the custodial parent is getting too much, it will automatically be figured to adjust it down for fairness to the non-custodial parent. If not enough is being used, it will automatically be figured to adjust it up for the aide of the custodial parent.
But to all the men out there, who continually pay ridiculous amounts of their income to someone who turns around to spend that money on personal trips without the children, new furniture or fashion intended only for themselves, or their own personal technological gadgets and entertainment, keep doing what you do.
That being said, I feel there is a group of citizens in this country that are virtually unprotected from abuse in "the system."
Divorced and/or "non-residential" fathers.
Simply put, real men who are paying child support diligently who cannot afford to be fairly represented in the legal system or in legislation.
For the sake of this post, I will be using Kansas (my state) as an example, because every state regulates support differently. But all in all, I've found that almost all are fairly identical.
In the state of Kansas, support is figured using the infamous "Kansas Calculator." This device, in a nutshell, takes the income of both parents, allows for adjustments for child care, health insurance, and other "fixed" expenses. The calculator will then "beep" and "boop" and spit out a figure of how much the couple would be spending together on the kids if they were still together. The personal responsibilities for each parent are then calculated using their individual income.
So, for easy math, we'll assume the following model is actual figures. But, it's really just to illustrate the state's approach to figuring totals and obligations.
Mother and father both make 50k/year.
Combined = $100,000
After fixed expenses, the Kansas calculator says, "If you were still together, you would be spending,on average, $1000 per child per month."
For two children, that equal $2000/ month.
And because each parent has the same income, that amount is split 50/50. And the non-resident parent is ordered to pay $1000/per month for the support of two children.
Seems fair, right?
And it would be if it wasn't based on "assumed spending."
If the mother receives $1000 every month from the father, it is assumed that she is spending $2000 a month on the children. But if, in actuality, she is only spending half ($1000) of that assumed amount, where is the protection for the father? Keep in mind, housing cost, utilities, car payment and such are not figured as "fixed expenses," because those are costs that the parent would have without custody of the children. I have never heard of a single mother saying to the father, "I got all this money from you last month, but I only used half of it...Here's the difference back to you."
The only expenses that child support is figured for is the direct costs of raising a child. (food, health, education, child care and mild entertainment.)
This begs the question: What could be done to ensure that the "proper" amount of support was being paid by the non-custodial parent? Also, what could be done to ensure the money being paid to the custodial parent is being spent properly on support?
I have two suggestions...
1. All support is paid through the state as it currently stands. Could the payment be offered onto a state issued card (similar to Kansas' EBT program) that would allow the state to monitor the spending habits of the custodial parent?
Yes. The payment received through the state by the non-custodial could be deposited onto a state-issued debit card (with a credit card logo for "credit" needs). It could look like a regular debit card. But it would allow the state to monitor and regulate on what the "support" is specifically being spent. The card could easily be restricted to prevent money that is supposed to be spent on the children from being used for clothes, entertainment, and other expenses for the custodial parent.
For example: If both parents make the same, and each are supposed to be spending the "same" amount on the children, how could the custodial parent be able to afford a cruise in Europe, while the non-custodial parent is barely able to scrape enough to drive to work to continue to make payments. If the custodial parent was contributing the same amount of the financial burden, they should both be in the same financial boat after all is said and done.
Let me pause here to make some things clear. I know that being a single parent is hard. I understand that have residential custody of children requires a lot of time-management and self-sacrifice. But nobody gets paid just for being a parent (unless you count the millions of dollars refunded to parents at tax time). I know a lot of non-custodial parents that would LOVE to share some more of that "parenting time." What we are talking about here is the financial obligation of the parents. Parenting time is outlined in a different hearing under the "family plan." Custody and support are two different conflicts.
So, by loading the money onto the card and restricting the use of the support money, we can now look at the second tier of this program.
2. If the "assumed" amount is not used to the maximum every month, the amount will be adjusted to an average of the last three months spending. But the only way that this can be accurately calculated is to have both parents pay their portion onto the card.
Let me explain this way, using the model from above:
The state calculator has figured that the "assumed" support amount for two children equals $2000. The amount is split between the parents equally. Obviously, whomever is paying for health insurance through their employer would have that discounted from their obligation. But everything else is paid out of their net pay, so both would contributed their share to the card.
NOTE: And to be clear, for any non-custodial parents that do not cover their children on their employers insurance: Make sure the "amount" for health insurance cost is figured using this formula.
."Family Coverage - Single coverage = Child's insurance cost / parental percentage of obligation" Ex. 350-175=175 175/2=$87.50
Every quarter, the amount required for support would be adjusted up or down based off the average amount spent every month.
Example: State declares $2000 support for two children based off both parents income. That leaves an obligation of $1000 per parent. Assuming that the mother deducts $125 for health insurance, the total amount deposited onto the card would be $1875 per month. During that quarter, the custodial parent only spends $1000 every month. The new total deposited on the card would be $1000. That would come out to be $625 for the father, who is not carrying insurance through the employer, and $375 for the mother.
On the flip side, if the total amount ($2000) is used to the max for all three months in that quarter, the amount would increase 25%. So, if after three months the amount is spent fully, the amount would be increased to $2500 total.
This is not about trying to "screw over" custodial parents. This is NOT about trying to "weasel out" of payments for the non-custodial parent. This is a way to make sure that the amount being PROMISED to be used on the children is actually being SPENT ON THE CHILDREN. Too often, custodial parents begin to "live off" of child support. How about letting the people for whom the support is being paid live off of it?
I also know that the custodial parent has to move money around sometimes while waiting for money to be deposited. A limited amount of cash withdrawl every month could also be available. (10%, maybe). Also, any out of pocket, non-included costs could be sent in to the state payment center if unable to be resolved between the parents.
Now, if you are a non-custodial parent, and you don't pay, or if you play the system, you deserve what's coming. Not paying child support is the same as not feeding, clothing, educating or tending to the medical needs of a child in your own home. You can and should be in jail.
Life happens, though. Even "intact" families go through periods of unemployment, medical illnesses, and other situations that prevent income. But again, this is a more real-ime approach to take all sides of the matter into consideration. If the custodial parent is getting too much, it will automatically be figured to adjust it down for fairness to the non-custodial parent. If not enough is being used, it will automatically be figured to adjust it up for the aide of the custodial parent.
But to all the men out there, who continually pay ridiculous amounts of their income to someone who turns around to spend that money on personal trips without the children, new furniture or fashion intended only for themselves, or their own personal technological gadgets and entertainment, keep doing what you do.
No comments:
Post a Comment