Child Support and Child Custody

I do not know what it is like in the UK (where many of our members are from), but I do know the system in the US is in need of reform.

Here is an idea that I had: all child support would go into a trust fund that would not be available until the child completed a 4 year degree from an accredited university or turned 25: whichever occurred first.

If the child died before either of those two events occurred, then the money would be split between both parents or other children.

Discuss the current problems with the child custody/support and my solution.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I do not know what it is like in the UK (where many of our members are from), but I do know the system in the US is in need of reform.

Here is an idea that I had: all child support would go into a trust fund that would not be available until the child completed a 4 year degree from an accredited university or turned 25: whichever occurred first.

If the child died before either of those two events occurred, then the money would be split between both parents or other children.

Discuss the current problems with the child custody/support and my solution.

So the (baby momma)kid wouldn't be able to actively use the money: gosh I'm such a jerk sometimes. I do like the concept of providing children a trust fund and keeping it away from the free-loading parent but I still feel like the money should be actively use during the kid's childhood.

With that said I do agree the child custody and child support system should be reformed in 'Murica. For child custody in particular I guess the child should go with whoever is able to financially support it even though that could cause problems too I guess.

Originally posted by wakkawakkawakka
I do like the concept of providing children a trust fund and keeping it away from the free-loading parent but I still feel like the money should be actively use during the kid's childhood.

some state auto debit system like for unemployment would work well imho. percentage of the payment to the parent with custody and a percentage debited to a trust fund.

but thats just more big gub'ment.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I do not know what it is like in the UK (where many of our members are from), but I do know the system in the US is in need of reform.

Here is an idea that I had: all child support would go into a trust fund that would not be available until the child completed a 4 year degree from an accredited university or turned 25: whichever occurred first.

If the child died before either of those two events occurred, then the money would be split between both parents or other children.

Discuss the current problems with the child custody/support and my solution.

A child trust fund is an intriguing idea but in cases where the child needs the money asap otherwise they are gonna suffer I would like to think they could get it.

The notion of splitting it between giving it to the child directly and putting it in a trust fund sounds like the better idea to me.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I do not know what it is like in the UK (where many of our members are from), but I do know the system in the US is in need of reform.

Here is an idea that I had: all child support would go into a trust fund that would not be available until the child completed a 4 year degree from an accredited university or turned 25: whichever occurred first.

If the child died before either of those two events occurred, then the money would be split between both parents or other children.

Discuss the current problems with the child custody/support and my solution.

How would that make sense? Why should the children have to jump through hoops to get the support they needed when they were young. Additionally if they are monetarily underprivileged the chances of them being able to complete a four year degree drops significantly (as an aside).

Tbh, I think making sure that children are raised properly, that is, not in poverty and with a minimum standard of education, regardless of the parents socioeconomic standing, is something a community (in most cases through a government imo) should ensure.

I have some issue with the requirement for one party to pay for their children, if they want to disassociate themselves from them. I believe they should have the option to give up their rights and responsibilities to a child, even if the other parent wants to keep theirs (as in, not give it up for adoption). The caretaker (who I don't consider a free-loader as they provide a service to society) and the child, if in need, should however be supported by taxpayer money, or anyone with a mutual interest in the rights and responsibilities of parenthood.

I am becoming more and more communist.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I do not know what it is like in the UK (where many of our members are from), but I do know the system in the US is in need of reform.

Here is an idea that I had: all child support would go into a trust fund that would not be available until the child completed a 4 year degree from an accredited university or turned 25: whichever occurred first.

If the child died before either of those two events occurred, then the money would be split between both parents or other children.

Discuss the current problems with the child custody/support and my solution.

That wouldn't be child support, that would be future adult support.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
some state auto debit system like for unemployment would work well imho. percentage of the payment to the parent with custody and a percentage debited to a trust fund.

but thats just more big gub'ment.

That's actually a great compromise to my obviously sweeping solution.

Originally posted by Newjak
And in the mean time while that child and single parent are struggling to make ends meat I guess they will just have to deal.

A child trust fund is an intriguing idea but in cases where the child needs the money asap otherwise they are gonna suffer I would like to think they could get it.

The notion of splitting it between giving it to the child directly and putting it in a trust fund sounds like the better idea to me.

I think we agree, actually. That last point (splitting it up) is a great idea.

Originally posted by Bardock42
How would that make sense? Why should the children have to jump through hoops to get the support they needed when they were young. Additionally if they are monetarily underprivileged the chances of them being able to complete a four year degree drops significantly (as an aside).

Tbh, I think making sure that children are raised properly, that is, not in poverty and with a minimum standard of education, regardless of the parents socioeconomic standing, is something a community (in most cases through a government imo) should ensure.

I have some issue with the requirement for one party to pay for their children, if they want to disassociate themselves from them. I believe they should have the option to give up their rights and responsibilities to a child, even if the other parent wants to keep theirs (as in, not give it up for adoption). The caretaker (who I don't consider a free-loader as they provide a service to society) and the child, if in need, should however be supported by taxpayer money, or anyone with a mutual interest in the rights and responsibilities of parenthood.

I am becoming more and more communist.

My solution is much more informed that it superficially seems. It is a very nuanced solution.

Lemme find some stuff when I am not busy and you'll see why I concluded what I did.

Though I do agree that the splitting it up idea is an even better one.

Originally posted by Robtard
That wouldn't be child support, that would be future adult support.

Child support seems more like alimony, not child support. That's why we have to make it to where the child is definitively getting the money and not a dishonest, money grubbing, parent.

Here's a case:

http://www.examiner.com/article/state-incentive-to-collect-child-support-bigger-piece-of-federal-funds-pie

I do believe the mother wrote that story. She follows up her story with a more direct comment regarding her situation:

"Yup. CSSD collects child support from the parent who "is not worthy" (words taken from pleading of Timothy Lynn, granted sole legal and physical custody of our child and $5,300 per month to be collected by CSSD for him). California then receives a bigger share of the $483,000,000+ tax-dollar pie disbursed to reward states for collecting from deadbeats...like me... who can not possibly pay the ludicrous child support ordered, and who are denied any access to their own children with no trial by jury or legal representation."

I think, as long as a parent is not deemed unfit, the parent that can pay the most money in child support should get the most custody. mwhahahaha

With the employment trend shifting in favor of women (but is closer to even, now), that might not be such a good idea because such a system would still favor one parent over the other (in this case, the trending looks like it would favor women).

Do some parents abuse the money that the other parent gives to better the child's living conditions? Sure, it happens.That's no reason to lock the money away though when the child probably needs it during adolescence.

I have no problem of the parent being held accountable for mismanaging funds meant for their child.

Originally posted by Robtard
Do some parents abuse the money that the other parent gives to better the child's living conditions? Sure, it happens.That's no reason to lock the money away though when the child probably needs it during adolescence.

I have no problem of the parent being held accountable for mismanaging funds meant for their child.

Here's the problem with your objection:

"Children who come from single parent homes:

• 63 percent of suicides nationwide are individuals from single-parent families.

• 75 percent of children in chemical dependency hospitals are from single-parent families.

• More than half of all youths incarcerated in the U.S. lived in one-parent families as a child."

"Thirty-seven percent of families led by single mothers nationwide live in poverty. Comparatively, only 6.8 percent of families with married parents live in poverty, according to data from 2009 compiled by the Heritage Foundation."

"Boys who witness domestic violence as children are twice as likely to abuse their own partners and children when they become adults. Thirty to 60 percent of perpetrators of domestic violence also abuse the children in the home, according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence."

http://www.news-leader.com/article/20121125/NEWS01/311250054/single-parents-Ozarks-poverty

No thanks to your idea of keeping this system.

Obviously, this system is not working and the child support is not even close to working. It makes the other parent poor and the custodial parent live a bit better IFF the non custodial parent pays the child support.

The children still need the money.

The results show that only 41.2% of custodial parents received their full child support. That means a majority of custodial parents are not getting all of their child support, each year. A majority...

To put it into better perspective, only 61% of child support was paid in 2009 (that includes partial payments and full payments).

http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-240.pdf

It is not being paid, well enough. Part of this is due to the hardship child support and the child custody problems put on both parents.

I say that the laws show be changed to force a 50-50 split in custody, when possible, and make 0 child support due by either parent. The only circumstance in which a different ratio would be given is if one of the parents is at least partially unfit to be a full-time parent. This would have to be proven in a court. On the unfit to be a majority parent, I think a minimum of 3 different professionals should be required to evaluate the fitness of the parents before sweeping statements like that are made and custody decided.

But, we need to switch the system up a bit to discourage child custody wars and especially child support wars. I suggested a system that would give children all of what is due to them and then much more (because of the interest that would accrue).

I think the system should be setup to give some leeway where no child support is paid. Maybe up t 65-35 custody splits. Meaning, no one pays child support unless the split on custody is more than 65-35.

What I would like to see is more of the money put into the children's actual benefit and less in the greedy parent's hands. Yes, that means getting a hire payout rate from dead beat parents (it is not just dead beat dads: there are dead beat moms, too). At least part of the money could be put into the child's benefit if the other parent knew that it would definitely for sure go to the child and not the parent. But I have no idea how much money that would be.

Basically, we want the same thing: children to be taken care of. Too many single parent homes live in poverty.

The best solution is my fascist idea of making it impossible to reproduce children unless you get a license from the government. 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

IIRC, child support is when one parent is forced to give or willingly gives money to the parent the child lives with to assist in caring/raising said child. eg parents divorce, mother gets custody, father pays X amount of dollars per month to help care for the child.

Not sure a single parent pays child support to themselves in order to then assist in raising the child. That's just being the parent with custody and raising the child.

So there is no problem with my objection, since my objection is that your initial solution wasn't child support at all, it os future adult support, we can call it 'FAS' for short.

Originally posted by Robtard
IIRC, child support is when one parent is forced to give or willingly gives money to the parent the child lives with to assist in caring/raising said child. eg parents divorce, mother gets custody, father pays X amount of dollars per month to help care for the child.

Not sure a single parent pays child support to themselves in order to then assist in raising the child. That's just being the parent with custody and raising the child.

So there is no problem with my objection, since my objection is that your initial solution wasn't child support at all, it os future adult support, we can call it 'FAS' for short.

Nope: it's still child support. The funds are given when they are children. They just can't use the funds until they are adults and stop receiving it when they are no longer children. 🙂

They can also get access to their funds, under my idea, many years before they are an adult: they just gotta do that college thing.

But, if your issue is really a label, just pretend it says what you want it to say. In your case, get rid of CS and call it FAS.

As the data show, a significant portion of the children are not getting the funds they need (still in poverty) and much of the court ordered CS is not being paid in full.

On top of this, CS recipients have a higher standard of living, on average, than the non-custodial parents indicating that there really is not symmetry/fairness in the current system.

And it happens to both genders.

1. What are your objections to my solutions? I listed 3:

a) Change the system to offer join custody far more often than not.
b) Change the system to not force one parent or the other to pay out CS unless it exceeds a certain custody ratio.
c) Come up with a blended system where some money goes to the children and some goes to a trust fund that requires an adult age or a college degree to access.

2. If you do have objections, what are you solutions that will not increase the amount of legislation and litigation regarding CS and CC.

3. If you have no solutions, do you think the current system is great? If you think it is great and little to no improvement, why?

Nope, it's Future Adult Support. As the person would only benefit from the money after they've reached adulthood.

IMO, if both parents want custody, then it should be automatic that joint custody is given, barring an abusive or unable to care for the child scenario. Neither would pay the other CS, they would care for the child on their 'on days' and split medical bills and such going forward.

If one parent absolutely wants nothing to do with the child, then he/she shouldn't be forced to pay CS, but he/she should be made to sign all his/her rights away to the child. He/she would legally cease to be that child's parent.

Originally posted by Robtard
Nope, it's Future Adult Support. As the person would only benefit from the money after they've reached adulthood.

AHA! This is where you are wrong. Because of the conditions for the money, they would benefit throughout their childhood. 🙂

Originally posted by Robtard
IMO, if both parents want custody, then it should be automatic that joint custody is given, barring an abusive or unable to care for the child scenario. Neither would pay the other CS, they would care for the child on their 'on days' and split medical bills and such going forward.

Sounds good and reasonable.

Originally posted by Robtard
If one parent absolutely wants nothing to do with the child, then he/she shouldn't be forced to pay CS, but he/she should be made to sign all his/her rights away to the child. He/she would legally cease to be that child's parent.

lol

While I really really like this idea, it obviously could not work. Any parent that did not get their way may be tempted to take this route and put the whole load on the other parent. But, then again, if the parent actually cares about their children, it would be tough to do. Maybe this is actually a good idea.