Child support

[asoctoberfalls]

PDQ

I received the child support calculations from the lawyer, and I must say, they make NO sense to me.  The lawyer said they use the same calculations the courts do in my state (Ohio), so she's positive it's accurate.

H and I share custody 60 (me)/40 (him) of our one child.  Last year, H made 11k more than me (93k vs. 82k).  The calculations mostly make sense to me - the total support figure is $15,218, his portion of it is $9151 and my portion is $6067 because I pay for health insurance... that all makes sense.  However, when they calculate the final figure, they don't consider my portion at all - only his.  So, he owes me $9151 / 12 = $762.58 per month.

I don't understand.  That number is WAY higher than what I expected and, quite frankly, way higher than what I believe is fair.  (Although H is trying to screw me over with the pension, so maybe I just shouldn't care).  I don't understand why the child support amount isn't ($9151 - $6067) / 12 = $257 per month, which sounds much more like what I was expecting.

Also, the shared parenting plan has us each paying for half of medical bills, daycare, school fees, etc. 

I have an email in to my lawyer, but I will say that I questioned the amount at our meeting and was assured several times that it was correct.  I just don't understand how.  It makes no sense why my obligation would just disappear.  It makes no sense why he would owe me so much when we make about the same and share parenting.

I know it's incredibly state and situation specific, but... help?  LOL

[1confused1]

Why would you question what the court calculated? Take it and, if he has an issue, let him fight it.

[statlerwaldorf]

I'm also in Ohio. The way it was explained to me is that as the custodial parent it is assumed you will spend the first number of your own money on care for the kids and he has to pay his share of the second number to the kids as well.

I think the issue is more of your custody arrangement and I honestly don't know how they adjust for him having the kids 40 percent of the time versus the standard rule 19 where the custodial parent would spend more on the daily needs for the kids.

Eta: I took out the amounts.

[asoctoberfalls]

May 22, 2016 23:06:26 GMT -5 statlerwaldorf said:

I'm also in Ohio. The way it was explained to me is that as the custodial parent it is assumed you will spend the first number of your own money on care for the kids and he has to pay his share of the second number to the kids as well.

I think the issue is more of your custody arrangement and I honestly don't know how they adjust for him having the kids 40 percent of the time versus the standard rule 19 where the custodial parent would spend more on the daily needs for the kids.

Eta: I took out the amounts.

Yeah, I asked that question. The lawyer said there was no adjustment in child support for shared parenting, which also makes no sense to me. I thought ohio was pro-shared parenting, but many of the rules seem to go along with the old standard every other weekend, and a few hours on a Wednesday.

i guess my big fear is that the lawyer made a mistake. She told me that it's the same number a judge would come up with, but I just don't see how. It makes no logical sense. But, it is the government, so...

[asoctoberfalls]

May 22, 2016 22:53:32 GMT -5 1confused1 said:

Why would you question what the court calculated? Take it and, if he has an issue, let him fight it.

My lawyer calculated it and I thought maybe she made a mistake. I guess I'm just stuck thinking that if it doesn't make sense to me, there must be something I'm missing. In reality, it could just be that it doesn't make sense, but that's just the way it is.

[Mushe]

Hi! We don't do those in my state, but it's as Statler said - your portion is presumed to be paid by you, and is not deducted from the total they assume it costs to support the child.

[abcdefu]

I just want to say that that money is for your child. While you might feel bad that the number is so high, just remember that money could pay for your child's extra curricular activities, summer camp ect. Also if you were only expecting $300 +/- per month, maybe take that out and put the rest in a 529 account for your child's education.


ETA: the child suppose number is always higher when there is only one child. If you had 2 children, the amount wouldn't double. It's more expensive for one child because you need electricity, shelter, food, etc. if there were two children, you would still only have one electric bill. In a way, the courts give the obligor a discount for having more children. Plus, if you had to submit current pay stubs, maybe he has earned more than you so far this year,  not based upon last years incomes. 

This is is not legal advice! 

[Deleted]

Uh it' makes perfect sense to me. The total cost is X to raise a child. And then you split it. What you cover isn't deducted from his portion. If it was then you would be covering 80%  and he would be covering 20%. Does that seem fair to you?

Right now how the court is calculating, 40/60. If you want it to seem "fair" then add in the cost of medical insurance. I'm sure it will even it out a bit.

ETA: Deleted numbers and used percentages. Sorry.


"It makes no sense why my obligation would just disappear.
"

ETA: Total cost is $10 to raise a child. So they calculate that you cover 4 dollars and your XH covers 6 dollars. If you try to do your math of his obligation minus your obligation then he would be paying 2 dollars (6-4=2) and you would be paying 4 dollars. But 4+2=6 and you need 10. 
If you went out to dinner and tried to do your "math" and pay a restaurant only 6 bucks, they would make you do dishes.

You need to step back and look at the math. 

This is baffling me.

[glynn]

My state add daycare into that figure also then we split medical 50/50.

[dancelnow]

But if you're also splitting costs like daycare, school and medical that CS figure should be adjusted for it.

[jwright]

I read it like @lemonlover, at first also. He pays you and then you turn around and use that money to pay for the child. Of course it makes sense. But then it occurred to me that you assume you will each pay your share directly to the source and then he pays you the extra to make it 60/40. I guess it could also work that way?

[tevagirl]

My state has an online calculator that anyone can use to estimate child support. But my support is calculated in much the same way, although MN does make adjustments for parenting time. I pay daycare in full, so he's required to contribute to that via child support, he pays about 1/3, because I take the tax deduction for child care. DD'S medical plan has no out of pocket costs. But we would split 50/50 if there were. He's required to insure her if she is no longer eligible for the state coverage she is currently on.

[thedutchgirl]

If he only paid $257 a month, he would be paying $3,084 a year. And you would pay $6,067. So the total support figure would be $9,151. To get to $15,218, he has to pay $762 a month. Then you spend the additional (in theory), and the total is $15,218.

[sweetchix]

May 23, 2016 10:19:16 GMT -5 @lemonlover said:

Uh it' makes perfect sense to me. The total cost is X to raise a child. And then you split it. What you cover isn't deducted from his portion. If it was then you would be covering 80%  and he would be covering 20%. Does that seem fair to you?

Right now how the court is calculating, 40/60. If you want it to seem "fair" then add in the cost of medical insurance. I'm sure it will even it out a bit.

ETA: Deleted numbers and used percentages. Sorry.


"It makes no sense why my obligation would just disappear.
"

ETA: Total cost is $10 to raise a child. So they calculate that you cover 4 dollars and your XH covers 6 dollars. If you try to do your math of his obligation minus your obligation then he would be paying 2 dollars (6-4=2) and you would be paying 4 dollars. But 4+2=6 and you need 10. 
If you went out to dinner and tried to do your "math" and pay a restaurant only 6 bucks, they would make you do dishes.

You need to step back and look at the math. 

This is baffling me.

This is a great explanation. I have wondered exactly how it worked as well. XH and I are currently reevaluating his CS payments and reading this really made sense to me.

[formerlyak]

May 23, 2016 10:19:16 GMT -5 @lemonlover said:

Uh it' makes perfect sense to me. The total cost is X to raise a child. And then you split it. What you cover isn't deducted from his portion. If it was then you would be covering 80%  and he would be covering 20%. Does that seem fair to you?

Right now how the court is calculating, 40/60. If you want it to seem "fair" then add in the cost of medical insurance. I'm sure it will even it out a bit.

ETA: Deleted numbers and used percentages. Sorry.


"It makes no sense why my obligation would just disappear.
"

ETA: Total cost is $10 to raise a child. So they calculate that you cover 4 dollars and your XH covers 6 dollars. If you try to do your math of his obligation minus your obligation then he would be paying 2 dollars (6-4=2) and you would be paying 4 dollars. But 4+2=6 and you need 10. 
If you went out to dinner and tried to do your "math" and pay a restaurant only 6 bucks, they would make you do dishes.

You need to step back and look at the math. 

This is baffling me.

I think I get where the OP is confused. If the ex has the kid 40% of the time, it can be assumed that during that 40% of the time, ex will incur expenses related to the child - food, water, shelter, electricity, etc. So using the numbers above for simplicity. It costs $10 to raise child. OP has child 60% of the time, but is only responsible for 40% of the costs based on income calculations, so $4. Ex has child 40% of the time but is responsible for 60% of the costs, or $6. If each 10% of time costs $1 to raise the kid (for food, shelter, clothing, etc.), OP should have $6 to spend during her parenting time and ex should have $4 to spend during his parenting time. But since Ex is responsible for $6 of the total child costs, he has to give her $2 of those dollars so she has the $6 to spend during her parenting time.

The math can be worked several ways.

[asoctoberfalls]

formerlyak , you nailed the way I was looking at this.

In the end, I did feel the numbers were unfair and I asked to have them lowered despite my lawyer's objections and against the advice of everyone I know. I probably shouldn't have done that, because instead of being grateful, my H just went on a rant about how "the system" is unfair to men. Whatever.

In the end, I feel that my decision is fair and equitable, which is what I was struggling with. So I think I made the right decision for myself.

I appreciate all the BTDT advice.

[Mrs.Rad888]

Jun 4, 2016 13:58:48 GMT -5 asoctoberfalls said:

formerlyak , you nailed the way I was looking at this.

In the end, I did feel the numbers were unfair and I asked to have them lowered despite my lawyer's objections and against the advice of everyone I know. I probably shouldn't have done that, because instead of being grateful, my H just went on a rant about how "the system" is unfair to men. Whatever.

In the end, I feel that my decision is fair and equitable, which is what I was struggling with. So I think I made the right decision for myself.

I appreciate all the BTDT advice.

You need to do what works for you. 
But now, you have some leverage over your STBXH. If he starts acting like a dick at any point, you can just tell him that maybe you'll call your lawyer and have them bump CS back up the recommended amounts. Whether you actually do it is totally up to you!