Problems and Misconceptions about child support
KEEP IN MIND THAT MANY OF THE
FOLLOWING ARGUMENTS ON THIS PAGE ARE FOR A 50/50 CUSTODY SITUATION.
1. Child support is to support
the children.
This is so blatantly false it should never be repeated. "Child support" is
actually more like parental/child alimony. In Minnesota where I live, there is no
law or rule that forces a recipient parent of child support to spend the money on the
children. This is for real. That parent can stuff that money away and never
share it with the kids if he/she chooses to. That parent can spend that money on
anything they choose; new jewelry or clothing for themselves, gambling money,
cigarettes. It doesn't matter. There is no law that forces the parent to spend
the money ON THE CHILDREN AT ALL.
Furthurmore, in a 50/50 or similar support case, any money exchanged is almost purely for
the purpose of "ensuring the childs standard of living is persevered".
This is not money exchanged to meet a childs basic needs. This is alimony for
the children disguised under the title of 'Child Support'.
2. MN law states that a child
is ENTITLED to child support. The parents can't even agree to not pay it at all if
they want.
How is it that the children automatically become entitled to the parents money when the
parents split up, but they ARE NOT entitled to the parents money when the parents are a
couple? As a parent of a child the only obligation you have is to feed, house, and
clothe them. Any other money that you have can be spent on anything you please that
doesn't benefit the child. You can stuff all your money away, never to share it with
your children and IT'S PERFECTLY LEGAL. You don't even have to share it with them
when you die. So why is it that if the childrens parents split up, they somehow
become entitled to their parents money?
3. MN Statute 518A.29(f) Gross
income does not include the income of the obligor's spouse and the obligee's spouse.
At first glance, this seems appropriate but it actually isn't once
you look at it closer. This applies to live-in boyfriends and girlfriends as well.
Consider both parents of a child split and live single lives for a period of
time. Child support is determined based on each parents income and isn't so
inappropriate since each SINGLE parent has to 'hold their own', in other words, support
themselves. They each have to hold an appropriately paying job to provide income for
themselves and the support of their child. In a case where one of the parents
becomes married (or just has a live-in boy/girlfriend), the new spouse (or friend) can
earn enough money to help support both of them that that parent may not need to work as
much any more or at all. Unfortunately, due to the current child support laws, the
other parents child support obligation will rise because it's based on the
difference between the two parents incomes. A parent should not have to pay more
support because the other parent became married or cohabitates with a friend.
4. A parent shouldn't be 'doomed' to forever work where they currently work.
A lot of parents in the past tried to get around child support obligations by quitting
their jobs and taking on lower paying jobs. The laws have been adjusted now to try
to prevent that by taking into account a parents education level. If a parent takes
a job that doesn't take full advantage of their educational degree(s), then their support
is determined off of what they 'could' be making. Although I can see that this is an
attempt to stop dead beat parents from not paying support, it's also an 18-year sentence
to work where you may no longer desire to work. A person should be able to change
careers or jobs as they desire. Are we trying to remove our right to "the
pursuit of Happiness"? Declaration of Independence Now you might argue
that according to current laws that a person CAN change jobs if it's a bonafide career
change but the problem with this is that it's up to the COURT to decide whether or not you
can make that change. Doesn't that qualify as involuntary servitude? which was
outlawed by the 13th Amendment.
Furthurmore, in a lot of cases where parents live together, one parent (typically the
father) plays the role of the breadwinner (i.e. obtains a higher education and
higher-paying job) while the other parent (typically the mother) stays at home or just
works a low paying job because it's either not necessary to work as much or they are
spending their time with the children. Although there's nothing wrong with this
setup as a couple, if the parents split, the breadwinner automatically becomes 'doomed' to
pay higher support because of the higher education level (and this is often regardless of
the percentage of custody).
If one of the parents isn't required to obtain a higher education, then the other parent
shouldn't have to either. Don't we believe in this country "that all men are
created equal"? Declaration of Independence
Back to top |
Laws