| Jlaff said: I know in Canada that needs are defined by income, and in my experience the child support amounts are even higher in the US. So if for instance you had two parents each making $100k, and they were meeting the needs of the child with $800 a month between them (excluding day care, sports, etc) but the obligation of the non-custodial parent was about $950 according to the tables (before day care, sports, etc.), they would not be able to get around that in any way by suggesting the needs were already met. The custodial parent can have the support enforced at $950, continue meeting the child's needs at $800, save the $150 over and above plus extinguish any financial responsibility for themselves (the previous $400 they were contributing for a net gain of $550 a month). Remember decisions are being made in the context of divorce or separation, so I'll leave you to decide whether these are generally amicable situations. |
I'm talking about a hypothetical reform. What would you like to see happen with child-support policies?
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
