Here's another way to think about this issue. And this is coming from a custodial father who receives child support... And who was temporarily paying child support when the mother had temporary custody. *We have to remember that the non-custodial parent is not an ATM machine with an endless source of money. An intact family makes financial decisions for the parents and the children based on what they can afford. That is normal human behavior. But family court issues child support orders where spending is mandated, forcing spending on a child that a normal family would not spend if they could not afford it. I am not talking about basic food and clothing, but everything on top of that. We know that raising a child can cost anywhere between $5,000 to $10,000 a year, excluding medical premiums, babysitting, and private tuition. When the Basic child support orders exceed that amount, we know that a profit is being made on child support, and we know that 1 parent is being absolved of any financial responsibility for that child, while the other parent pays >100% of the cost. *Therefore, in any case, the parents must do the actual math and financial analysis to make sure that the amounts are fair and appropriate. If you don't do that, then you will only breed contempt from the other party who realizes that you are ripping them off. And most family court practitioners are incompetent at this financial analysis (I have witnessed this). So we cannot rely on the arbitrary numbers of family court practitioners. *Finally, we have to recognize the bigoted presumption that says the non-custodial parent (dad) never spends money on the child and only the custodial parent pays for the child's expenses. Countless non-custodial parents want to spend money directly on their children, but they cannot afford to because so much of their money is automatically given to the custodial parent. Obviously, some non-custodial parents don't want to spend money on their children, but it's wrong to assume that 100% of non-custodial parents fall into that category. *Therefore, each parent must honestly analyze how much money is allocated for the custodial parent's parenting time...and is there enough money left over for the non-custodial parent to spend on their parenting time. I found that family court practitioners don't have the ability to correctly analyze the situation this way. But reasonable parents need to do this. Problem Solving 101.
Your post was so thoughtful that I said: "This person must have a UA-cam channel on this topic." You gained a new subscriber. I look forward to viewing your content. I want to home in on one of your statements: "We know that raising a child can cost anywhere between $5,000 to $10,000 a year, excluding medical premiums, babysitting, and private tuition." As strange as it sounds for a lawyer to say this, I do not typically encounter a lot of detailed discussion between the parties about the actual cost of raising a child. The discussion tends to be focused on one party extracting as much money from the other party as possible, and one party uses a particular cost (e.g., day care) as a tool to accomplish that goal. If the parties really had an understanding of the cost involved in raising a child, then the child support issue could be less contentious than it currently is.
@@damonmoorepage Thank you. And, yes, my goal is to make content that is the best content on child custody available anywhere....to really help dads that are caught in the family court grinder. I agree with your comment that most people don't discuss the actual cost of raising a child during their settlement discussions. And part of the reason they don't is because the court itself actively ignores that concept, and simply applies a catch-all percentage of your income, which is often an inflated cost. I have a master's degree in finance, so I can do all of this analysis in my sleep. The Dept of Agriculture publishes estimates of the cost of raising a child....and it's a flat dollar amount, not a percentage of your income (which is an absurd formula). When I was going through the system, I recognized how incompetent the court analysis was when it came to anything related to financial planning for our child. If I remained the non-custodial parent, I would be bankrupt now, and we would have no chance of college savings for our son. But because I was made the custodial parent, she pays some minimal child support, I am not bankrupt, and I can save something for our son’s college.
Here's another way to think about this issue. And this is coming from a custodial father who receives child support... And who was temporarily paying child support when the mother had temporary custody.
*We have to remember that the non-custodial parent is not an ATM machine with an endless source of money. An intact family makes financial decisions for the parents and the children based on what they can afford. That is normal human behavior. But family court issues child support orders where spending is mandated, forcing spending on a child that a normal family would not spend if they could not afford it. I am not talking about basic food and clothing, but everything on top of that.
We know that raising a child can cost anywhere between $5,000 to $10,000 a year, excluding medical premiums, babysitting, and private tuition. When the Basic child support orders exceed that amount, we know that a profit is being made on child support, and we know that 1 parent is being absolved of any financial responsibility for that child, while the other parent pays >100% of the cost.
*Therefore, in any case, the parents must do the actual math and financial analysis to make sure that the amounts are fair and appropriate. If you don't do that, then you will only breed contempt from the other party who realizes that you are ripping them off. And most family court practitioners are incompetent at this financial analysis (I have witnessed this). So we cannot rely on the arbitrary numbers of family court practitioners.
*Finally, we have to recognize the bigoted presumption that says the non-custodial parent (dad) never spends money on the child and only the custodial parent pays for the child's expenses. Countless non-custodial parents want to spend money directly on their children, but they cannot afford to because so much of their money is automatically given to the custodial parent. Obviously, some non-custodial parents don't want to spend money on their children, but it's wrong to assume that 100% of non-custodial parents fall into that category.
*Therefore, each parent must honestly analyze how much money is allocated for the custodial parent's parenting time...and is there enough money left over for the non-custodial parent to spend on their parenting time. I found that family court practitioners don't have the ability to correctly analyze the situation this way. But reasonable parents need to do this. Problem Solving 101.
Your post was so thoughtful that I said: "This person must have a UA-cam channel on this topic." You gained a new subscriber. I look forward to viewing your content.
I want to home in on one of your statements: "We know that raising a child can cost anywhere between $5,000 to $10,000 a year, excluding medical premiums, babysitting, and private tuition." As strange as it sounds for a lawyer to say this, I do not typically encounter a lot of detailed discussion between the parties about the actual cost of raising a child. The discussion tends to be focused on one party extracting as much money from the other party as possible, and one party uses a particular cost (e.g., day care) as a tool to accomplish that goal. If the parties really had an understanding of the cost involved in raising a child, then the child support issue could be less contentious than it currently is.
@@damonmoorepage Thank you. And, yes, my goal is to make content that is the best content on child custody available anywhere....to really help dads that are caught in the family court grinder.
I agree with your comment that most people don't discuss the actual cost of raising a child during their settlement discussions. And part of the reason they don't is because the court itself actively ignores that concept, and simply applies a catch-all percentage of your income, which is often an inflated cost. I have a master's degree in finance, so I can do all of this analysis in my sleep. The Dept of Agriculture publishes estimates of the cost of raising a child....and it's a flat dollar amount, not a percentage of your income (which is an absurd formula).
When I was going through the system, I recognized how incompetent the court analysis was when it came to anything related to financial planning for our child. If I remained the non-custodial parent, I would be bankrupt now, and we would have no chance of college savings for our son. But because I was made the custodial parent, she pays some minimal child support, I am not bankrupt, and I can save something for our son’s college.
Diabolical 😂