The legal definition of child support (according to Legal Dictionary) is funds ordered by the court for one parent to pay to the other to assist in the cost of raising their shared children. Support is, most often, determined by a standardized income table and factors in number of children, incomes of both parents, and the custody arrangement.
The intent of support is to offset the burden of child-related costs so that the parent with less income, or who has the children a greater amount of time, is able to maintain the children’s needs and so that the children’s standard of living between homes remains as consistent as possible.
As we all know, what is written in the law books and behind the intent of such rules is not always what is experienced in real life! Child support remains one of the most hotly-contested issues of divorce as many children go without the support that could be used to help take care of them. A tally of unpaid support in 1992 calculated that a staggering $27 billion in outstanding uncollected child support prevented children from having their needs met and that nearly 50% of child support payments were in default (in 1995), while only 3% of car loans were in the same state!
On the flipside, many who are ordered to pay support find themselves with such a large portion taken out of their pay that they have barely enough to survive. Others complain that the money is often misused by the other parent for their personal needs, rather than for the children. Laws are getting tougher in most states, even allowing for revocation of licenses (professional, driving, or recreational) as punishment for unpaid support, as well as holds put on passports and tax refunds.
Few would disagree that if support is ordered, it should be paid to help support the child.
Essentially, if a man and woman lie down together to make a child, then they are both responsible, through either time or financial support (preferably both) to contribute to the child’s upbringing.
Most would also surely agree that any ordered maintenance is child support, and not to be used for the parent who receives it to fund shopping sprees and treats for themselves!
Clearly, many “bugs” still need to be worked out in the system to make sure that amounts set are fair, adequately meet the children’s needs, are collected, and being used appropriately.
In the meantime, this is what IS and IS NOT child support:
Child support may be used on general household expenses such as food, rent or mortgage, utilities, and so on to maintain a safe and decent home for the child.
An appropriate use of child support is for school supplies, school fees, clothing, and trips.
Child support can help pay for sports, clubs, lessons, and extra-curricular activities.
Medical expenses, glasses, dental care, and other such needs are good uses of child support.
Child support can help to buy furnishings, books, toys, food, and other basic needs of the child.
Child support is child support; therefore, should not be used for:
Clothing, manicures, pedicures, hairstyling, and other salon services for the parent.
Money for the receiving parent for dining out or vacations without the child.
Child support should not be used to purchase alcohol, tobacco, tattoos, and other such things that are clearly not for the child.
If there is actually money left over in a given month, the money should simply be saved and applied to a future need of the child’s instead of treated as surplus money for the parent to use on themself.
In all cases, the parties should review their parenting agreement to clarify any other stipulations about which parent is responsible for what, and what else might be considered child support. In some cases, for example, carrying medical insurance may count toward or as child support. Your plan may still state that the parent who pays support is also liable to pay for a share of medical and other expenses (or not!).
Child support is not a “free pass” to get out of any other child-related expenses dictated in the plan.
Jessa, a mother of four, shared that she and her ex agreed to a support amount well under the state of Ohio’s standard amount, with the understanding that he would also carry the children’s health insurance and pay for half of all child-related expenses (e.g. sports fees, uniforms, school trips, and so on). Jessa is the residential parent, and was awarded child support because the children are in her home 60-70% of the time and her ex’s income is $30,000 higher than hers (they have 50/50 custody, but he is unavailable to take them his full time).
However, every time she presents her ex with his share of an expense, she is told that he pays child support; therefore will not pay for anything else!
Child support should also not be withheld for suspicion of misuse, nor access to the children denied for non-payment. While misappropriation of child support and refusal of contact are both serious offenses, the parties should not take these matters into their own hands. Instead, documentation of allegations should be maintained and presented to the court to act on.
While the courts and child support enforcement agencies continue to streamline and improve the process to be as efficient and fair as possible to all involved, the burden falls on parents to remember the purpose of child support. The money should not be handed over in anger because one’s ex will be able to use it, just as it should not be received with an attitude that it is excess money with which to treat oneself! The purpose of support is, and will always be, to meet the needs of the child: to keep the child safe, healthy, and secure. No matter what, the money is for the child, and the child comes first!
Child support arrears are now at over $115 BILLION dollars nationally, with over $30 billion of that owed back to the government for kids receiving TANF, EBT and medicaid who would not have needed or qualified for those subsidies IF the states were enforcing the court ordered child support. THIS is a national tragedy and must be addressed.
yes I agree, It must be addressed to stop bankrupting one parent to support the other parent. The amount some get in child support is off the chart and needs revamp so more can actually afford to pay it instead of loosing their house, cars and have to struggle for food them self. the cash cow needs to die! It needs to get with the times and be more reasonable and than people would not fight for cutting one parent out of the kids life as it would actually be in their best interest.
You are so right that child support, from all angles is out of control! And, not only does unpaid child support punish the child and the parent who has to struggle to make up the difference, but it creates an enormous burden on other citizens who pick up the slack through government assistance and other programs. How do we correct these issues?
Why is it deadbeat dads keep getting away with not paying their child support? It’s their responsibility! I take care of my kids and deadbeats should be made to pay period, no exceptions! They made the children as well! No wonder welfare is such a big debt…because us mothers have no choice when deadbeats don’t pay up! Please change this and help the children. Thank you.
why is the system so far out or wack, Why is the $ so are out of control. I would be willing to bet mothers would not fight so hard to get their kids to keep fathers out of their life if there was a cap on the money they would get. I know to many good gathers raped across the coals and pay way more than their fair share.
Why is it that the deadbeat parent keeps getting a pass and the burden lands on the parent with custody. The “system” is failing our children. All parents should be held responsible, not just the one who stepped up and is there for the child.
Maybe our national system wouldn’t be in such bad shape if child support wad enforced and enforced per the states worksheets. Parents who have insurance offered by employers should be required to insure their children. Instead, children are on Medicaid and other entitlement programs. Children need the system becuase the child support system failed them.
my experience is only 1 parent is supporting the child. the one who has full time and gets nothing or the other parent who does not get to see their kids and pays through the nose in support. I know I am that parent who pays for everything’s, I would be happy to take our kids 100% of the time and pay nothing as it would be cheaper and better for our kids.
Excellent points in the above. Great clarification. Thanks for this article
My family court judge needs to read this article.
Whenever I have asked for an accounting of how my voluntarily unemployed ex-wife spends my child support payment, I have been told that the courts ASSUME that the money is spent solely on the children.
My frustration is that child support is the only trust relationship that does not require the trustee to account for how money is spent to ensure that it is for the benefit of the recipients of the trust (the children).
The simplest solution that I have found would be to use a child support trust account in the form of a shared checking account that both parents deposit money into in order to pay for the children’s needs like this one (https://www.mediate.com/articles/if_they_can_do_parenting_plans.cfm), but getting the courts tor try something different is a …challenge. My family court judge describes this as an ‘interesting idea’, but lacks the ….political courage to do anything other than what has been done in the past.
I take issue with the concept that ‘child support’ should be used for income equalization in order to provide the same government mandated lifestyle for the children at both parent’s houses because income equalization results in significant amounts of hidden alimony.
It takes two people to create a child, therefore providing for the children’NEEDS should be a shared responsibility. That is why I favor using a child support trust account in the form of a shared checking account (https://www.mediate.com/articles/if_they_can_do_parenting_plans.cfm) that BOTH parent’s contribute to in order to provide for the children’s needs.
I’ve never had a problem with providing for my children. I do object to supporting my voluntarily unemployed ex-wife and her …paramour.
And yes, the contact information is fictitious. My family court judge is not happy with me because she had to order the local prosecutors office to recalculate my retroactive child support obligation using the 6-percent interest rate allowed by Federal law [42 US Code 654(21)(a)] and not the 12-percent interest rate that she had ordered me to pay.