HomeChild SupportShould child support be paid directly to the custodial parent?
Posted in Child Support on 14th April 2011

Should child support be paid directly to the custodial parent?
How about allowing the parent who has been ordered to pay to save and provide receipts for items paid for or on the child’s behalf?

In the case of food for example, how is it “better for the child” that the mother receives $ 50 rather than $ 50 worth of food. Or how about utilities, how is it “what’s best for the child” for the man to hand the woman $ 50 for a $ 50 heating bill instead of just paying the heating bill?

A “high priestess” of the cult/religion known as feminism recently responded this way in protest of such an idea;

“Who is going to check those receipts? You would not believe the court time it would take to do this. An entire layer of public employees would have to be hired. Does the custodial parent (cp) have to measure the child’s food, utilities, gas for the car, etc.? What if the CP buys steak instead of hamburger? What if the cp buys a $ 40 shirt instead of a $ 12? How many loads of laundry can the cp do per week? How many pairs of socks is it okay to buy? Does the ncp have a right to be consulted on the house the cp buys? What if it costs more than the ncp pays to do the accounting?”

Why couldnt’ the same entity who orders and enforces payment of child support “check the reciepts”? You can bet they “check” if that woman complains she did not get her money!

As for all that “accounting and measuring” that’s what would take place when any responsible adult prepares a family or personal budget, it seems unfair to assume a woman would be incapable of such responsible financial / logistical planning. The way it works now is the court just orders the man to give over a certain % of his pay but what if that % of his pay is more than what is required to “support the child”?

OR

An even easier way would be for the recipient of “child support” to save and produce receipts themselves. This way it could be determined if the money is being spent in a manner that is “in the best interest of the child”.

Best answer(s):

Answer by Rebecca W
I have to agree that this would cause a lot of headaches for everyone, including the non-custodial parent. I mean think the mess they already make of anything to do with family law and imagine sitting in a line for hours once a week waiting for some underpaid, snotty county clerk to tot up your reciepts.

Nope I aver and continually spout, joint custody is in the best interests of the child and child support would then be moot. Only in the most extreme cases should joint custody not be ordered.

Answer by 4 Leaf Clover
What baffles me is that these two individuals had a baby together. Where is the trust and the maturity that both parents are going to do what is in the best interests of the child? Grow the hell up is what I say. It is not about control or money or the mother or the father–it is about the child plain and simple.

Answer by Gaijin
Sure have to agree with you.Too many times the support does not go where it should.Non custodial father has money taken straight from pay with no regard on whether he can afford to live.Would live to see custodial mother prove expenses rather than just get what she wants when ever she wants.This lopsided system needs to be fixed.

Case in point,father can only modify support once in three years,mother can modify every month if she wishes.Can’t tell you how p*ssed I get paying for ex’s European vacations 4 times a year but I can’t afford medical bills.

Answer by Chrissy_Lynn
I think it would be a good idea for the parent paying child support to spend the money directly on the child such as buying them food, clothes, etc. To many people out there get child support and instead of spending it on the child they spend it on themselves.

My dad paid my half brothers mom child support for 15 years, not a cent ever went on him. She would buy stuff for her and her husband and her other two kids, my brother would come over in clothing/shoes to small for him and that were all stained up with holes in them and she never got his hair cut. Our dad would give him allowance and his mom would take it or our grandparents would give him money and his mom would take it. Our grandparents bought us all segas one year and he got to take his home, the next weekend he came back and our dad asked how he was enjoying it and he said his mom and her husband took it for themselves.

At the age of 15 the case worker ended our dads child support payments because my dad provided proof that none of the money was going on my brother and the mom was spending it on herself, her husband and other kids. The sad thing about it all is my brother is now 26 and hates our dad but loves his mom to death because she has fed him so many BS lies over the years and he believes her

For anyone who is caught spending child support on something other then the child they normally get a warning and if caught again they loose the child support payments but they honestly should be faced with some type of charges

Answer by Heimerdinger
Nobody’s going to argue that child support isn’t often squandered on stupid things, especially here in California where there is no accountability requirement whatsoever.

However, the official point of child support is to simply raise the single parent’s household income, hoping that this in turn provides a better life for the child.

I consider this a pretty stupid legal philosophy, and I think we need strict requirements for accountability, to make sure that everything is spent on the child itself rather than just making a more comfortable life for that household

But, in the current system’s defense, it’d be pretty hard to have one parent buy exactly one-half of everything needed, value wise…especially considering you are no longer married to the other person and probably don’t want to communicate with them anymore.

Answer by slither
i don’t believe in child support…but for those who do i firmly believe that BOTH PARENTS have a say in how the CHILD’S money is spent and on what….if the payee parent questions and can prove that the parent receiving the money is not TAKING CARE OF THE CHILD PROPERLY then there needs to be accountability…..here in texas we have the debit card system and the payee can go online and check to see how the money is spent….and remember the most important part that the payee is STILL THE PARENT OF THE CHILD AND PLAYING THIS STUPID GAME THAT SO MANY FEEBLE FEMALES PLAY IT’S MY CHILD CAN GO OUT THE DOOR….

Answer by Army of One
The problem with your idea is that the person who knows best what the money needs to go toward is the custodial parent. Some needs stay the same from month to month, but sometimes they vary- as do the times when important things come up. If dad, for example, spends a certain amount on toys, that money is gone, when it might have been best used toward the child’s housing, food, school fees, or emergencies.
I swear I don’t know why some guys complain…the one paying the support is getting the better deal. The custodial parent is paying the bulk of expenses.

It kind of irritates me to see these guys whine about having to contribute a token amount to the financial well being of their own kids.

Just being honest .

Answer by George McCasland
It would be utterly stupid as anything provided is consider a gift and not child support, so the mother can still ask for retroactive support, up to 18 years worth.
http://Child_Support.Dads-House.org

Federal Child Support Enforcement Handbook for Non-Custodial Parents
http://ChildSupportRights.org

http://Child_Support_Quiz.dads-house.org
http://Poll-StatesDefraudingFeds.childsupportrights.org

Related Post for Maple Bear Pioneers ‘Computational Pondering’ Program for Preschoolers

Disciplining your Preschooler – Attend knowledgeable session !!
Love In direction of Books Begins with Preschool
Should know elements to implement Daycare Profit to your firm
Ipsaa begins a brand new heart in Bangalore at Status Poseidon
Maple Bear Pioneers ‘Computational Pondering’ Program for Preschoolers