My Child Support Proposal

[TheSollyLama]

carried over from another thread, in regards to the failure of the Child Support system in this country- I would like to bounce an idea off you folks, see if it seems workable. If it sounds decent, I will forward the concept on to my representitives here.


I think CS should be doled out like food stamps, since it is nothing but a form of welfare.

You should pay a fund- not him/her directly. That fund should be able to be auditted just like your tax return and see where that money is truly going. Perhaps issue a credit card like device to access that account- which could feed a registry with purchase information. Anything purchased outside of a very strictly controlled set of child related items or food should be identified and the recipient of CS fined for Contempt Of Court.

This would also establish a pattern so that if it was abused enough, you could take the other person to court and get custody based on negligence. As that parent isn't supporting the child.

It would also be a sure fire way to ensure the one owing money pays it. It would keep disputes of payment to a minimum, and keep the entire episode within the CS system without having to involve banks, or he said/ she said scenarios.

In all, it would be a tracking and accountability system where the current system is only concerned with whether CS is paid, not whether CS actually goes to support children.

The downside is that it'd be another system in place and it would cost money to administer. But in the longer term, it would serve many purposes.

-It would be a study on the spending habits of people receiving CS, and we'd know how much is really required for a CHILD- not the wants of that parent
-It would make accounting for both the parent paying and the parent receiving simpler, within a single system of each state.
-It would force recipients of CS to actually spend the money on their kids by restricting whether the purchase would be accepted at all. And punish those that spent the money on anything but the kid.
-It would be a quick access database to check who is not paying thier CS, and who is abusing the CS money they receive.
-It would avoid any privacy issue as the fund would be for the sole use of CS and would keep the gov't out of other financial matters not concerned with CS.
-It would eliminate the need to pay a lawyer a thousand dollars just to get say, $500 in back support owed. With this system, an automatic fine could be generated. Like a ticket from blowing off a toll booth is. And it would provide official documentation that no lawyer could argue against, reducing litigation.

Nothing is fool proof. And of course, installing any such system would cost some cash. However, considering the utter and abject failure of the child support program, virtually anything would be an improvement.
Also, over the long term, it would decrease costs associated with having to hire lawyers which often costs more than whatever is owed. It should also make the system more responsive, whereas now non-payment may take months or longer to get sorted out.

All I want is accountability and a reasonable award of CS as opposed to the deeply flawed system now that is worse than welfare in it's abuse.

points:
-reduce litigation
-automate a system that is currently bloated and intrusive
-account for payment of CS
-account for use of CS to actually support a child
-separate CS from private financial matters, keeping the gov't out of your bank
-allow for official and legal auditting
-catch people neglecting thier kids and spending the money on themselves
-make it almost impossible to cheat the system
-give confidence that the recipient will be paid, the payer is having his/her child actually supported, and that punishment for either is quickly and efficiently dealt with.
-serve to give a REALISTIC assessment of what it costs to raise a child. This could be applied to later divorce settlements and would bring a litle reality to a court system not known for it.

Your thoughts?

[GSXR750DJ]

That is the best I have seen ever. I was paying $750 a month for CS on one child. Yes, I said $750. I know for a fact that the money wasn't going all towards him but there was nothing I could do about it. I think you should het this started. i would support you on it. I really like the idea of a credit card to show what and how the money is being spent.


Also...I don't see "It would force recipients of CS to actually spend the money on their kids" as a downfall.

[ASCI_Blue]

Good ideas but I'm gonna try and punch a hole in something here from the experience of a friend.

A lady wants to buy the house I'm currently living in, she can afford her son and herself on her current pay (which is pretty low anyway). To pay for the house she planned on using the money from child support (kid's dad is loaded and it's a reasonable amount to my understanding in CS). In your system this would be unacceptable however in multiple ways having a house (this one moreso) would be beneficial to the kid. First the kid could have a pet, namely a dog and every boy ought to have a dog. Two he's got a fenced in back yard and a good sized one to boot, he could have his pals over to play and do it outside in a secured area. The rest is really up in the air aside having a nice sized room and the like.

In this particular situation it's beneficial to everyone, mom lives closer to her job, kid lives closer (I think) to school, etc etc etc.

[GSXR750DJ]

Well...in that case she will be providing it for the child, then yes. What I am not for is a mother or father using the money to buy themself something and not spend it on something that the child is going to beifit from. But I see nothing wrong in this one since it gives the child a home to live in.

[Jammin_Johnny]

Originally Posted by ASCI_Blue

Good ideas but I'm gonna try and punch a hole in something here from the experience of a friend.

A lady wants to buy the house I'm currently living in, she can afford her son and herself on her current pay (which is pretty low anyway). To pay for the house she planned on using the money from child support (kid's dad is loaded and it's a reasonable amount to my understanding in CS). In your system this would be unacceptable however in multiple ways having a house (this one moreso) would be beneficial to the kid. First the kid could have a pet, namely a dog and every boy ought to have a dog. Two he's got a fenced in back yard and a good sized one to boot, he could have his pals over to play and do it outside in a secured area. The rest is really up in the air aside having a nice sized room and the like.

In this particular situation it's beneficial to everyone, mom lives closer to her job, kid lives closer (I think) to school, etc etc etc.

Disagree..............It would benefit the mother much, much more.

The child would have a roof over his/her head, but a rental house or apartment would do the same. Once the child becomes an adult and leaves his mother as one should. Why should the mother be able to PROFIT on the child?

[TheSollyLama]

I don't believe in paying rent for someone else. Sorry, can't afford a house on your own, you shouldn't have one.

Not because I don't see the benefit. But because that is a huge slipperly slope. Theoretically, you could make almost ANYTHING appear to benefit a kid. And then the abuses begin.

People should live within their own means. Child support is already a method by which people live above their means by using a child as a meal ticket.

If you cannot afford the place you live in or want to live- then you are not responsible enough to support a child.
Personal experience- my ex moved into a huge apartment that costs more than most mortages a month. It gives my kid a large basement to play in and a nice large room- benefits.
However, there is what is 'beneficial' and there is what is 'required' to support a kid. A giant playroom in a basement is not a requirement. A trip to Disneyland is beneficial for a kid- but why force me to pay my ex to take her when I could take her myself if I didn't have to shell out to the ex?!

Child support is to provide the basic living standards for a kid- not cater to their whims and wants. Nor should it be a legal requirement to do so. If you want to do something beneficial for a kid, then do it yourself. I don't see the logic in forcing me to pay someone else to maybe do that.

What happens if the payer loses a job, or dies? That extra income is lost and suddenly the parent can't afford that big old place. Living above one's means thru artificial income is irresponsible.

Basic living arrangements should be up to the INDIVIDUAL. CS should in no way go to support that except in extreme cases, which could be made available by making allowences for that particular CS account, and allow that parent to use the CS 'credit card' to pay for a portion of the housing.
Another benefit of my concept is that you could make it possible to tailor these accounts some, being all electronic.

For example- someone with a 10 year old has no need for diapers (hopefully) so that account should decline any purchase of diapers. This would eliminate people using CS from one parent to pay for other children the recipient may have from other relationships.
My money should go to MY kid. And MY kid only.

[pillion_slut]

edit

[TheSollyLama]

Pillion,
I disagree. But only because of what child support is SUPPOSED to be for. That is the basic living standard of a child as defined by the state. It is not for whims or wants, but rather needs.
Discretionary spending is always going to be a private matter.

One example I can see is if the child decides to spend the money on something the paying parent disagrees with. Eevn if my ex let my daughter buy lingerie, should I be forced to pay for it when I would never allow her to do so myself?

Allowances and spending money are an issue between individual parents and thier kids. I don't see where it would fit in a CS scenario or where it would be enforceable or accountable. The receiving parent could simply take that money themselves or coerce a kid into purchases that benefit the parent.

[hybrid]

I agree with solly but can see the point from others.

A portion of your child support should go to living arrangement if and only if there is no dual custody.

The solly proposed system would be the way to track and monitor the way the money was in fact spent, why should the other be paying into a car or whatever. Child support is allowed on most loan forms and that is bull shit. If you cant afford to have the roof over your head and a reliable car, why should you have custody of the child? Isnt the best interest for the child in question anyways? So you pay her (his) rent and or car payment so they get continue to have the best side of a childs well being? Not in my book. If I was in that situation and I had the means to own the house and car then the kid should be with me. She should pay the support for food and clothes and other necessities.

The current system is set up to allow the female (in most cases) to keep the child and live above her means because she can assume that you will infact pay X amount of dollars to her.

[kdk1899]

Solly, you have put into words, what i have thought about the CS system for a long time. I dated a girl that was recieving CS and she tried to buy me things with that money!! I flat out told her if she wanted to pay for anything for or with me, she better get a job and spend her own money. I dont like that system as i also do not like the welfare system either. good post Solly

[pillion_slut]

edit

[Rascus]

Like the system you proposed Solly but unfortantely like any system there will be those that exploit it. Even with the imposed restrictions people would still slip past. Adding more restrictions would just bring out the ACLU claiming some BS about it.

I wish there was an account like that. I've thought of getting the ex a bank "cash card" and I get the statements for it.

There have been numerous times she's called and asked where the CS is because she has to pay the car bill or pay rent, etc.

What about out-of-pocket medical expenses that insurance doesnt cover. Would the CS pay towards that or would you make that a 50/50 case.

[hybrid]

The insurance thing is touchy I know cause my buddy was forced to provide the coverage so if he provides the coverage shouldnt she pay the co payments? I would bet it cost more than 50 bucks to provide the insurance


Yeah solly's system could be abused somehow but it would definetly make changes happen in the court system that are desperately needed.