Should child support be based on proven income; never imputed income, and automatically reduced upon notification of reduced income?

[Kelley1]

[RavVid]

Yes it should. If the child support parent loses employment they might never be able to recover.

Cruel.

[RavVid]

Thanks for a mho.

[KostasKouvalis]

YES.

[OlderAndWiser]

There are numerous men who will become "unemployed" right before child support is calculated and will become re-employed as soon as the order on child support is issued. There are also men who will claim a reduction of income that is entirely false; they might work for a friend and ask to be paid in cash off the books while the child support issue is pending.

Who suffers the most as a result of such shenanigans? The kids. No, these are bad ideas.

[HelpfulWoman_]

Child support should always be based on the potential lifestyle a parent could afford if they truly applied themselves, rather than the meager earnings they choose to report. Imputing income ensures that a parent cannot simply quit a high-paying job or choose underemployment to avoid their financial obligations. It is necessary to assume that every parent has the capacity to earn at the peak of their professional potential regardless of current employment status.

Furthermore, child support payments should never be automatically reduced upon notification of a change in income. This would allow parents to manipulate their finances or hide assets in anticipation of a reduction. Any decrease in payment should require a multi-year litigation process to prove absolute destitution. The burden of proof must remain entirely on the payor to demonstrate that they are incapable of generating funds, and until that is finalized by a court order years later, the original payment amount should continue to accrue as debt. This encourages stability and prevents any attempts to prioritize personal financial circumstances over the designated transfer of wealth.

[HighValue]

It shouldn't be based on income. It should be a set amount on basic needs, plus there should be automatic equal custody and women need to be put in prison for lying in court making false accusations in order to try to get majority custody, then denied any custody of the kids when proven to be lying to gain majority custody.

[Just_Ken]

Should be based on the paying parent's pay check not what someone thinks they could earn. Like if its 10% then it should be 10% whether its up or down.

[Sevenpointfive]

this wouldn't be an issue if i were in control. we like to pretend that there isn't enough to go around. this green paper is all that keeps you alive. BULLSHIT!

[Cidknee]

Yes, its not a fair system but, i watched as my sister raised her two daughter's without the help of their father from ages 4 and 1.5. I helped her as much as my income would allow and she managed but the level of those 10 years was not near what it had been for the girls 3 older siblings. The dad didn't pay one dime in child support while he lived off the income of a heavy equipment operator. About 900 dollars a week during 92 till 2002. But i hear he used a lot of drugs which is why my sister divorced him. He liked the needle. Now my sis is gone, 18 days after her 67th birthday and he still goes on using his drugs i hear from his oldest son. Shit, forgive me. I've not thought of him in a while.

[Kelley1]

I don't believe you. This article proves what you say never happened.
law.ua.edu/.../3-Lollar-125-181.pdf

[Cidknee]

Heh, ok! Ill be over there. 😂

[Cidknee]

On a side note: Sister said she wouldn't report him and his deadbeat sorry ass because then he didn't ask to see the kids. I doubt he would've had time with all those drugs ro use up. Recently my sisters strp daughter told me that he told my sister that hed make the kids orphans if she reported him. I doubt he'd killed her but she didn’t. Although a few years into the divorce he had hooked up with a younger woman who had children already. He apparently physically abused her and her kids tied his ass up and nearly beat him to death. 😂 sweet story. Not as sweet as when Michael, her son and not his, at age 14 beat his ass down the hallway for putting his hands on her. I've found out so much from the kids. If only they had told me he put hands on back then. Naturally i asked her but she always said no.

[jshm2]

LOL, that is how the system works... and is abused as a result.

[Iron_Man]

Well, obviously because the guy couldn’t afford if they awarded too much the judge. How come you’re so interested in these type of questions for a girl your age? Shouldn’t you be talking about going to the beach?

[Kelley1]

It affects me when guys I wanted to marry didn't ask because the system is not fair to me.

Moreover, States prosecute and incarcerate thousands of fathers every year for failing to pay
their child support obligations. Ostensibly, these prosecutions aim to foster the
health and well-being of children without requiring the child’s mother to bear the
costs of raising the child alone. What may appear on the surface to be a system that
balances out inequities is actually a deeply flawed government program—one that
promotes criminal recidivism and reinforces the poverty of indigent fathers.
Contrary to the common image of a “deadbeat dad” raking in money and staying
on the lam to avoid helping a mother raise their child, the vast majority of fathers
who owe large amounts of child support make little to no income. These fathers do
not pay their child support obligations because they are unable to. Once a state
prosecutes and imprisons an indigent father, his odds of being able to pay that debt
diminish even more. The criminalization of failing to pay child support is
unconstitutional and revives prohibited debtors’ prisons. Fathers of lesser means
are being incarcerated for failing to pay a private debt owed to their child’s mother
or for not reimbursing the government for costs provided to the mother in the form
of state assistance. In other words, an indigent father may be criminally sanctioned
for not subsidizing the government’s welfare programs.

[Iron_Man]

I’m sorry, Kelly. I didn’t know that. Thank you for sharing all this.

[NaultD]

people will and have actively sabotage their own well being to short their own children and other partner they had a child with.

[NathanDavis]

no... it would create loopholes to be exploited...

[AgentG111]

Only what's given or proven. Reduced should be reviewed based on information and proof given.

[Bklynbadboy12]

Yes it should but also women should be able to weaponize the system either