Reply #6: Depends on what the meaning of "needs" is. What does a "roof over one's head" constitute?... [View All]

[Hekate]

...The absolute minimum, or possibly staying in the house s/he's accustomed to, which might be considerably above the minimum? The house, btw, equals the school equals the neighbors equals the kids' friends. It's more than just a roof, by a long shot.

The fact that the custodial parent somehow benefits from these arrangements (i.e. by getting to live in a nice house along with the kids) shouldn't be too much of a consideration. Revenge against one's ex-spouse will in fact damage the kids, and they didn't create this mess.

By and large, after a divorce the standard of living of the ex-wife and kids plunges, while the ex-hubby's standard of living rises, even with child support.

I think legal guidelines are important in setting a certain standard, but there's also the case by case approach. Since wealth was the issue that began this thread, I would say that wealthy parents in intact families generally expect their kids to grow up in a certain social strata, and that depends on the neighborhood, the school, the college, and the ability, within reason, to keep up with those you live among. If the parents have the means, that shouldn't end when the marriage does. If the parents have been living above their means, that's a different story altogether.

I don't really care if someone thinks a child "needs" thousands of dollars a month, if the non-custodial parent is a CEO raking in millions of bucks a year he should not be pissing and moaning about what it takes to support the household his children live in. I'm sure his lawyer and her lawyer can work things out.

I'm far more concerned with what it takes to keep a middle-class family from sliding into poverty, or an already poor family from ending up on the streets. Those are the really scary stories.

Hekate