Thursday, April 05, 2007
I don't get it.
I just read a little blurb about the great Spears divorce and she is paying baby daddy 25k a month until each kid is 18 in child support. Here's the part I don't understand... They are splitting custody (although he gets them 4 days and she gets 3 days a week which I find 'interesting.'). Why does she have to pay child support? I can understand it if one parent has primary custody and the other parent just does little visitations, but when the custody is split almost 50/50 why should one parent pay the other one anything? Ok and in some respect I can see this in the Spears situation. The kids are going to be used to a certain lifestyle with her blah blah blah, but I know it happens in regular people's lives too and that's where I don't really get it. Aren't both parents responsible for the financial well being of their kids?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Granted that is California, which has substantially different custody and community property laws than Washington State, but the gist is the same for child support.
Child support is based roughly on the following formula.
Calculate each party's income (that includes bonuses and non-recurring income if it can be considered frequently acquired). Then combine them as a pool of income.
In Washington, a table lookup is used based on the combined party's income, to determine how much the child is expected to need (e.g. lifestyle expenses). However, the table tops out at about 80k or something IIRC. Judges can decide to use a projection of the table expense value if need is determined. In other words, a child might get $1500/month for someone who makes 80k, but there is no table value for 800k. So a judge could extrapolate to $15000/month of whatever. Granted, the table also includes the age of the children. Infants get more than toddlers. Toddlers get more than pre-teens. Pre-teens get more than teens. And finally, siblings and multiples also have a lookup value.
Finally, and this is key, child support is roughly based on the idea that you are paying the other parent to take care of the child while you are non-custodial. So for example, if one parent has full-custody, the other parent is paying the custodial parent to take care of the child 100% of the time, and consequently the non-custodial parent pays 100% of the child support.
Now if it is shared custody (and btw, shared custody can technically mean one parent gets 1 day a year, and the other parent gets 364 days)...
Then each parent essentially divides their individual income out of the combined income. So if both spouses make equal income, its a wash at this point. If one parent makes all the income, then the other parent either has 0 income or imputed income (e.g. an income they COULD make if they chose to work).
Anyway, if one parent makes twice as much as the other, then their support is roughly twice the other ~ or two-thirds of the child support payment per month.
But the final component is the number of days with each parent.
So if one parent has the child two days a week, then they pay the other parent roughly 5/7s of the child support payment. And here's where it's wierd, the other parent has to pay the first parent for 2/7s of the child support payment.
But rather than make two payments in both directions, the smaller payment is subtracted from the larger payment and the different is paid by the parent who has less time.
So in this particular case, Spears made a huge amount of money, Federland made minimal. So Federland probably had some imputed income (based on past work or whatever), and Spears had a huge income. Therefore the combined child support payment was probably huge, and since Federland had minimal income and has the children more of the time (even though only slightly), she has to pay him the difference.
The only way no transfer payment happens is if custody is 50/50 exactly and they both make exactly the same income. That is rare, but certainly possible.
I don't know about California law so I could be full of it. But that's the gist for Washington. In my case, I'm paying child support based on having Benjamin for one day a week, which isn't what really happens, but that was roughly the schedule when the child support payment was calculated.
Also, you can optionally decide to review the child support payments every three years (nearly automatic) or when a substantial lifestyle change has occurred (must be approved by judge). An example would be schedule changes over the years, or substantial income changes as the years progress.
btw - in Washington, it's purely formula based, so there's no emotional/court fighting. You just calculate it and move on with life. However, two parties can agree to any other solution they want (e.g. settlement) if a judge will sign it.
Honestly, I think it's safe to say Britney sabotaged herself with her behavior over the last few months. She clearly behaved (publicly) in a way which had zero consideration for her children. If she had taken care of her children [publicly] I expect this whole thing would have turned out differently.
Why she sabotaged herself, I have no idea, and wouldn't want to speculate.
I figured it wasn't really about the child support but more about getting rid the ex without a protracted divorce negotiation.
Post a Comment