Should child support awards account for growing expenses?
Child support is typically awarded to the parent who does not have primary custody of a couple’s children. Child support is supposed to represent the amount of money that will be necessary to pay for the expenses related to caring for the child. Such expenses include the cost of housing, food and clothing.
Typically, once a child support award is set, then the amount stays the same, regardless of additional expenses that arise subsequent to a divorce. Unfortunately, circumstances often change after divorce, so it is important to consider the future when determining child support arrangements.
Failing to recognize that small children will one day turn into teenagers who will require additional money to feed them and meet their financial needs can leave the child and custodial parent with inadequate funds, or in the alternative, with the child support bearing parent spending more money than was required by the court.
In many cases, parents may simply agree to divide additional expenses that were not originally contemplated, such as those for sports or tuition. When things do not go smoothly, however, one or both parents, may petition the court to attempt to modify the court order. Child support modifications can be particularly helpful when circumstances have changed such that the original award is no longer appropriate.
Things tend to get even more confusing when a parent remarries. New step-parents may not understand the terms of the child support arrangement or the way additional expenses had historically been handled between the divorced parents.
Clear communication among adults can go a long way in helping to meet the financial needs of children. Respecting that Wisconsin child support awards are necessary for the children’s welfare, and that as kids turn into teenagers they cost more, can put a child support award in its proper perspective.
Source: The Pioneer Press, “Ex-Etiquette: Discuss money issues with parents, not kids,” Jann Blackstone-Ford and Sharyl Jupe, 29 June 2011
