Illinois’s new child support model: Shared Income? or Shared Scam?

September 10th, 2012 | Posted by mitcheli in Calendar

As written to us by one of our members who tracks the workings of the Child Support Advisory Committee pretty closely, this committee will be having a meeting today in Springfield and Chicago, if you have the opportunity to attend and to voice concerns, please feel free to do so.

Let’s keep the pressure on. They need to know that we are not going away; and we are not accepting crap legislation that drains one parent of finances to the point that the parent has little funds to engage in activities that require funds. A child has the right to be able to enjoy activities that cost money when the child is with either parent. Treating Non-custodial parents as ATMs for the Custodial Parent does not serve the child well. And yes, I am aware there are numerous activities that do not cost money, or that costs little; but why should that requirement forced upon the child when the child is with the Non-Custodial parent.

Why is the Non-Custodial parent given no credit for buying school supplies, passes to museums, maintaining a bedroom for the child, buying clothes, toys, bicycles, etc? And when I hear a Non-Custodial parent bring this up, they are hammered with the usual crap, “That is part of being a parent; you do it out of love.” Absolutely, we do. But the burden needs to be shared. Presently, Non-custodial parents are contributing partially to these things when the child is with the Custodial parent. This contribution is in the form of child support. And when the child is with the Non-Custodial parent, the Non-Custodial parent is contributing 100%. Simple math here. And I’ll say it right now, based on what I have seen of family court judges and HFS, the average 3rd grader has a better understanding of math than these individuals. Imputed income is crap; and anything multiplied by zero is zero (except in family court).

Now do not be fooled with talk of “shared income” when you hear CSAC speak it. Yes, they will be looking at both incomes; but they will not be giving credit to the Non-Custodial parent. They can call it “shared income” or whatever they want, but it is nothing more than a label and false advertising. Shared income means that the parents share the obligation. The “shared income” model being proposed does not do that. Simple test, if both parents earn the same amount and each has 50% time with the child, if the “shared income” model is truly shared, then no money would be exchanged between the two (absent insurance, taxes, purchasing items that are truly shared with the child). Question the Dr. Jayne Venohr model. Ask for the algorithms behind the charts (You’re not going to get them.) Ask about the 50/50 cases. Ask about the high income and low income earner cases. Ask about the 40% cliff. Make them think.

Here are the details for the meeting. Hope to see you there. Pass on the word.

Monday, Sept 10, 2012 at 1:30 – 3:30 PM


401 South Clinton
7th floor, Video Conference Room
Chicago, IL 60601

and

509 South 6th Street
5th Floor Video Conference Room
Springfield, IL 62701

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 You can leave a response, or trackback.

5 Responses

  • dadoffour says:

    The shared parenting model being considered is very similar to other shared income states and is much better then the current system for NCP. This is especially true with dual income families and NCP with more then 40% parenting time (the later we should seek to change). Let us work to improve but not loose sight that sinking this legislation could be worst possible outcome for fathers.

  • Rebecca R. Bibbs says:

    I’ve read e recommendations and think they are crap, too. I’m a woman, and I am a non-custodial parent. But my case is in Indiana, and I was the custodial parent until two years ago, so I have an advantage. My boyfriend and I live in Oak Park. He has three daughters 43 percent of the time. Adding insult to injury, his ex earns 20 percent more than he does. I agree: It costs the non-custodial parent to maintain a space for the child and for meals and snacks, clothing and all the other things. And you’re right: It’s not fair when an ex can go out to dinner every night and a father can’t afford to take a child out for her birthday. My boyfriend recently won part of an appeal on improperly computed net income at appeal — and the ex has the nerve to want him to pay for the expense of her lawyer and computing a proper net income. But all of this starts at custody. The ex committed felony child abduction and still was named the primary parent. Sexism at work. With my older son’s father, we were never married. He and I ever once stepped in a courtroom. We shared the responsibility for raising our son — practically and financially. All I had to do was say, “Our son needs X,” and he asked when I needed the money. That’s how this should be done.

  • Rebecca R. Bibbs says:

    Dadoffour, I don’t advocate sinking the legislation. However, it will be four more years before the next changes are made. Many families can’t and shouldn’t have to wait for that. Non-custodial parents should work to get as much as they can now. And this is an opportunity to educate the public, the legislature and the judiciary. Personally, I still have a problem with the proposal that a noncustodial parent could get credit against child support starting with the 76th overnight. Ridiculous. It’s better to calculate the number of hours the parents are responsible in the course of a year or two. Overnight calculations don’t work when a parent has them from after school until right before they go to bed. The most expensive hours are spent with the non-custodial parent, but the custodial parent get credit for the day? The best thing to do is to have each parent pay the other the guideline percentage according to the amount of time each has the child. That works out fairly because the parent who earns more will pay more, even if he or she has to pay to the other parent. For instance, my boyfriend has the kids 43 percent of the time and a 32 percent obligation. Let’s say his net income is $2,000 a month and hers is $1,000. That means he gets to keep 43 percent of his $640 child support obligation and must give her 57 percent. Conversely, his ex would have to pay him 43 percent of her $340 child support obligation. In the end, he would pay $364.80 and keep $275.20. She would keep $193.80, and give her ex $146.42. In the end, she would have $558.60, or $218.60 more than her overall obligation. He would have $421.62. THAT would be fair. Right now, the whole situation pretty much violates the equal protection clause of the 14 amendment.

  • Sally says:

    I am not a parent seeking, nor paying child support but I do live with a non-custodial parent who only makes $10,000 a yr. If you add my $10,000 a yr income, which you shouldn’t cause we aren’t married, our household brings in $20,000 a yr. He has two kids with his ex, she is now married to a CDL Class A over-the-road trucker who makes at least $40,000 a yr! My boyfriend is ordered to pay almost $400 a month for his kids, I totally believe in paying for your children but you multiply $400x12mo you get $4800, that is almost half of his yearly income! Granted it doesn’t seem like much but you take into consederation that he has them about 35-40% of the time, and is paying almost half his yearly salary to the custodial parent, she has 3x the amount of income he has, it is quite a bit of money. Honestly after we pay our rent, utilities and his child support we have nothing left to do things with the kids or buy things that they need when they are with us, my income just isn’t enough to help him. Also what if I wasn’t with him, I pay the rent and utilities, he wouldn’t even be able to have a home for his kids to come visit him at he would be homeless cause he would only have about just under $500 left a month to pay his bills outside of child support. So in conclusion I totally think that the way they decide child support needs to be evaluated, the other parents household income should be brought into account because like I said what if he was single and I wasn’t with him, what would happen? Think about it…….

    • mitcheli says:

      This is EXACTLY the reason we need a FAIR shared income model that takes into consideration the needs and incomes of both parents and ensures that the children have the resources they need at BOTH houses.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


8 × = forty

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>