|
doggydaddy
|
 |
« on: May 08, 2008, 10:31:52 am GMT+5 » |
|
I am prepared to sue my state over ... I don't know. Perhaps, "equal protection under the law." ... I refer to the disturbingly out of whack application of child support laws.
We recently had a child custody evaluation ... and the evaluator awarded me 45% custody. He just couldn't bring himself to go that 50% mark. If it were 50% - I'd pay nothing. At 45%, I pay $400/month -- despite making less money than her, and she has a new spouse - and she gets the child tax credits.
As a result, his decision costs me $5000/year. ... I have written him the following letter, laying out my position more clearly.
Meanwhile, I reach out to this community to ask whether I could sue the state in order to get them to alter their child support formulas to make them more fair. And if so, any advice on how.
IF YOU MAKE 40% of the TOTAL INCOME, and HAVE 45% CUSTODY - You should PAY NOTHING. This just seems logical - but the formula is .... WHACKED (no better word).
Here's the letter:
======
May 5, 2008
Now that the dust is settled from our custody evaluation and settlement, after six months, I wanted to share with you some information. This will not benefit me, but I hope you find it useful in future evaluations.
During the course of our discussions, you suggested that my desire to achieve 50/50 custody was one of ego. I denied that and suggested that – in addition to 50/50 simply being fair, and in addition to wanting to see my children as much as can be – there were also very practical considerations. You questioned what those practical considerations might be, and I didn’t have a good answer at the time.
At the time, my attorney recommended that I not mention the financial ramifications of your decision. The unfortunate reality – of which my attorney is well aware – is that by discussing this topic, it makes the father (or the non-primary custodian) look as if the issue is only about money. This is an unfair characterization. After all, the same thing could be said about the mother (or primary custodian). But it’s an understandable concern on his part.
Putting that aside, I want to address this issue more freely now, and demonstrate why quibbling over 6/14 days, and 7/14 days, is not trivial.
Clearly stated: The state of xxxx's calculations for determining child support payments are not logically applied. More specifically, the system is not equipped to handle the kind of precise calculations necessary when it comes to a non-primary custodian who nevertheless has a significant amount of custody time. The system is set up more for fathers who make significantly more money than the mother, and/or the father that doesn’t have very much custody time.
The system determines a total dollar figure per month based upon the two parents’ incomes. The percentage of the non-custodial parent’s income is the percentage of that dollar figure paid by the non-custodial parent each month.
The fundamental flaw is that this system fails to take into consideration (or, at least, severely under-weights) the amount of time the non-custodial parent will spend with the children. During that time, it is necessary for the non-custodial parent (i.e. father) to dress, feed, entertain, and otherwise take care of the children – in addition to paying all of the money per month to the custodial parent.
At 30 percent custody time, the non-custodial parent starts to receive a discount – which helps some but does not nearly make up the difference. Even at 49% custody time, the non-custodial parent would still be paying a significant amount of money to the custodial parent, even if – as in my case – the custodial parent makes more money (not to mention the second income from the new spouse).
The upshot is that, despite having 45% custody of my children – while making 40% of the total income – I will still have to pay the custodial parent $400/month. Yet, in addition, I pay for food, clothes, entertainment, etc…, and all of the necessary household utilities while the children are in my care.
It also fails to factor in the child tax credit, which goes entirely to the custodial parent and is worth a significant amount of money annually.
If you think about it, the system actually discourages the father from seeking more time with the children. It penalizes the father financially to spend more time. UNLESS it’s exactly 50/50. And the system, therefore, creates more of an adversarial position than is necessary, with both sides secretly fighting over finances in addition to the children – even if that’s not expressly admitted by either party.
Some may dismiss this as whining – so be it – but it’s a logical reality of life that money is necessary to live and provide a decent home for your children. The system is not equipped to handle this situation. It’s meant for a situation where the father is making much more money than the mother, while the mother takes care of the children far more often. That’s the scenario of the past – where fathers were relegated to the sidelines of their children’s lives. Nowadays, fathers fight for custody – but doing so, comes with a financial price. That’s a crazy situation.
As a result, your decision to recommend 6/14 days instead of 7/14 days cost me $5000/year. I’m not pointing this out to cast blame – but rather so you see what is meant by “practical considerations.” For one day every other week, comes at a cost of $5000 – which is a lot of money when I’m struggling to get by and provide for the kids on my own.
I ultimately decided that it wasn’t worth fighting your decision in court. a) it carries a lot of emotional anxiety; b) It would’ve cost me money to fight it; and c) I could’ve lost anyway
That doesn’t take away from the fact that the cost is disproportionate to reality.
I hope I have clarified and demonstrated what I believe to be a serious flaw in the system. Parties will always be reluctant to address this issue, out of fear of being labeled selfish. I hope I have demonstrated how that’s not the case, and that this information is useful in the future.
|
