Quote: "Kim Ward, of Stoughton, the mother of two of Brown's children, says Brown owes two months' support, or $11,000."

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/02/bo....ap/index.html

What idiot of a judge awarded twice the mean gross income level for child support?

It shouldn't matter how much someone makes. Caring for a child (or even three of them) does NOT cost $5,500 a month!

If the problem rests with legislation that stipulates a certain amount, then the legislators need to be taken to task, or replaced.

Comments?

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol. A human.

Whoever says "perception is reality" is daft. It's merely an abstraction, and often not a very good one.

Usually in these cases they say something like "the children (or wife) must continue to enjoy the quality of life to which they have become accustomed".

clop

While I agree that that is a really high amout (and would LOVE to get $5,500 per month) I think the courts also tend to look at the lifestyle of the kids in question. If they are in private schools and have been pampered all their lives, suddenly losing all of that and dropping down to even $1000 per month could be seen as a hardship for them.

For another perspective, look at Johnny Carson's alimony payments.
I once saw a cartoon where an aging, balding man was sitting in a restauarnt with a bimbette, telling her, "I'm sorry my dear, I can no longer philander you in the style in which you've become accustomed."

There are no level playing fields.

__________________
I'm not evil.
An evil person would do the things I think up.

Wow. That's roughly 16.22 times what I get a month, and some people consider my income (disability) a drain on the system.

That being said, if your kids are used to you spending roughly that amount on them a month (leaving aside considerations of whether you should or not!), I see no reason you should get away with spending less just because you and the other parent are divorced. I do, however, think that the amount spent during visitation should be factored in.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Now, I understand (and wholeheartedly support) child support payments. But what about spousal support? I just don't see the reasoning. If the two partners choose to divorce, why should one continue to support the other even after a (potentially) non-working partner in the marriage gets a job? If the couple has elected to sever ties, why aren't the ties severed?

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

Well quite. And I also wonder, if Whitney's income rises in the future, will Mr Brown still be required to pay the same amount as he was paying when she was earning less?

clop

Without wanting to sound inconsiderate, that's hardly a fair comparison.

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2008 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

When I see a woman pay alimony, I'll surrender my belief that its vindictive welfare.

Terrible the man should step up and pay

Most divorced woman want to be treated as equals, but not that equal.

__________________
Don of Borg - Cool, Calm, Collective.

"Within the next generation I believe that the world's leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

There are divorced women who pay alimony, guys. Perhaps not as many, but hey, women tend to earn less.

The main purpose of alimony that I can see is continuing to provide a stay-at-home parent for the kids. If it's desirable enough to both parties, pay away.

Other situations where I can see a point include, for example, if one spouse gave up getting an education to put the other spouse through school. In that case, it seems only fair to me that the educated (and presumably better equipped to earn) spouse return the favor, even if the marriage has split up. In that situation, however, I would expect alimony to cease once the education agreed upon is complete.

Originally, it was unthinkable for a woman of a certain class to have a job, and she probably wasn't educated for one anyway. In those days, alimony made sense. However, if we are indeed leveling the playing field as we keep saying we are, both parents should be, all other considerations being equal, equally likely to get a job regardless of gender. (Also, and I could be wrong about this, I think child support considered separate of alimony in all cases is a relatively recent development, and alimony used to by definition include money for keeping the kids fed and housed.)

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

My ex technically pays me child support, but the amount is very small and I let her keep it. In fact, I give her money to take of our kids, because she's great mother, just not a great wife (at least for me).

Can you expand on that just a bit? I'm curious as to what you mean...

__________________

Sure. And they shouldn't have to, either.

That's just it. If one parent decides to stay at home, why should the other be forced to subsidize it if he/she does not believe it to be in the best interest of the children? It amounts to the former spouse who opts to stay home getting more say in how to care for the children. While this may be acceptable in cases of single-custody, it destroys the concept of joint-custody.

I can see that being fair.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?

Well, I did say if it was agreeable to both parties. If one just decides to stay at home, that's not the decision of both. I don't think alimony is always or even usually fair, but if both parents agree that one or the other should be a stay-at-home parent even after the divorce, financial arrangements must be made.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Oh, sorry, I somehow missed that part. It seems that, at least from my point of view, we're in agreement.

__________________
Quaeso quousque humi defixa tua mens erit? Nonne aspicis, quae in templa veneris?