Child support is a virtually unresolvable issue because of who creates the stipulations and laws that govern it. In my opinion these statutes where put into place by individuals earning an income that places them in the middle to upper class brackets of life. By people who not only can afford to pay the bills and maintain a hefty savings account, but could do it without a spouse. In this situation the equations work out well with both custodial and non-custodial parents still efficiently capable of maintaining their own household. With this said think about, if you will, the adverse affect this scenario has on the obliger of the lower class income brackets. For example in Ohio as a non-custodial parent I maintained a nine dollar an hour job and had only one child to support but I had a support order for $385.00 each month for a five year old. Lets do the math here. hmmm, nine time eight equals seventy-two, times five equals $360.00, times four pay periods equals $1,440.00, less approximately 30% for single unmarried tax rates equals $1,008.00, less support equals $623.00 of monthly income. Now given these figures we are still supposed to be able to afford rent,utilities,insurance,auto maintenance,gasoline,food,and clothing. Just think what amount of income did these people base their mathematical equations in order for the support percentages to not dip the obliger into mere poverty. do you earn this much. And think for a moment on this, how much do you really need to spend to care for one child each month.
$350.00 to cover what? I don’t know. I currently have six children and have never in my wildest expenditures spent $350.00 in one month on one child, maybe all six but not one. The term is “child” support not child and mother support, which is in reality what it all boils down to. The custodial parents have no guide lines to follow as to how they should allocate and utilize these funds which subsequently causes the child to still go unsupported because the obligee used the support for rent or car payments or cell phones rather than for the direct needs of the child. custodial parents take advantage of the situation and forget that as a citizen of the united states of America they are with or without a child responsible to be a productive citizen.
The definition of a productive citizen as I understand it is to maintain a means of income and shelter for oneself at all times through honest efforts, otherwise insinuating that before a child is even considered one is still supposed to be able to secure a home complete with all utilities and to support themselves financially. This being said, why is it considered appropriate in the systems eyes for these funds to be used to indirectly benefit the children and more so to benefit the custodial parents needs. I do not appose child support enforcement but I do disagree with many of its methods and regulations. There should be set into place a system for monitoring and authorizing the use of support funds that keeps it directly benefiting the child and requiring that any surplus of the funds be held on account for the child. There are exceptions to indirect use such as daycare expenses and possibly even a once yearly emergency release of the funds for indirect use when times get tough. To set everything into perspective, the system with its many variables will never be perfect, but the reality is that the system is still so much further away from being perfect than we all know it could be!