No. They are raising children for whom another person is partially responsible for. May as well ask if people who receive paychecks are moochers.
This is not always the case. Some are welfare queens who let the kid live with the other parent, so long as they get the child support payment, which they don't even use on the kid. It's often little more than one parent (the mom usually) bribing the other.
Are people who receive child support payments "moochers"?
Have you never met a teenager!?! :lol:How can a child be a moocher?
In spite of how we like to phrase the situation, children are also not the receivers of CS. Parents/guardians are. Some parents/guardians spend the money for the kids properly, some do not.How can a child be a moocher?
I have never heard of the non-custodial parent receiving child support.
Excellent post, and thank you for sharing.It totally depends on the situation. My mother never used the money for my benefit. We were often homeless (lived in our care or with friends/family temporarily) and dependent on church food. Her own income and the money my dad sent via the child support system typically went to her drug habit, her hair/make-up/nails, her "clubbing" attire, or (on rare occasion) to gas for her vehicle that was only occasionally used to pick me up from school (I typically rode the bus or my bike, depending on the weather). She even had the balls to tell me once that I couldn't go live w/my dad 'cause they'd allow him to stop sending her child support checks, and she deserved that money for putting up with me.
Conversely, I have a friend who, albeit TERRIBLE at budgeting money, really does apply all of the child support she receives to the care and comfort of her children. Whether it goes to rent, food, school field trip fees, or healthcare costs...she's never used that money on herself, and she wouldn't be able to survive w/o it unless she were forced to maintain a budget w/constant supervision....and even then she'd struggle.
I always thought it was funny that my dad got saddled w/child support AND the obligation to provide health insurance. He also usually ended up being the sole provider of clothing (that didn't come from charity, anyway), school supplies, toys/entertainment (he bought me two bikes while I lived w/my mom because the one I took to Michigan got stolen and she pawned the first replacement) and basic grooming costs (occasional haircuts, toiletries, etc). His required child support was $400 a month, but he probably spent almost $1,000 in total, since he was self employed and it's expensive to insure JUST children, especially when the child lives in a different state than you do.
It totally depends on the situation. My mother never used the money for my benefit. We were often homeless (lived in our care or with friends/family temporarily) and dependent on church food. Her own income and the money my dad sent via the child support system typically went to her drug habit, her hair/make-up/nails, her "clubbing" attire, or (on rare occasion) to gas for her vehicle that was only occasionally used to pick me up from school (I typically rode the bus or my bike, depending on the weather). She even had the balls to tell me once that I couldn't go live w/my dad 'cause they'd allow him to stop sending her child support checks, and she deserved that money for putting up with me.
Conversely, I have a friend who, albeit TERRIBLE at budgeting money, really does apply all of the child support she receives to the care and comfort of her children. Whether it goes to rent, food, school field trip fees, or healthcare costs...she's never used that money on herself, and she wouldn't be able to survive w/o it unless she were forced to maintain a budget w/constant supervision....and even then she'd struggle.
I always thought it was funny that my dad got saddled w/child support AND the obligation to provide health insurance. He also usually ended up being the sole provider of clothing (that didn't come from charity, anyway), school supplies, toys/entertainment (he bought me two bikes while I lived w/my mom because the one I took to Michigan got stolen and she pawned the first replacement) and basic grooming costs (occasional haircuts, toiletries, etc). His required child support was $400 a month, but he probably spent almost $1,000 in total, since he was self employed and it's expensive to insure JUST children, especially when the child lives in a different state than you do.
I have never heard of the non-custodial parent receiving child support.
That's because often times the parent raising the child isn't the court-appointed custodial parent in those situations.
One of my employees has a 17 year old daughter. The court issued primary custody to the mother almost 10 years ago, but the girl has lived with her dad for the last 5. He still pays child support to the woman, even though she only sees her daughter 1-2 times a month and doesn't provide for her basic needs. He can't afford to petition the court for a case review because the child support and legally required insurance coverage eat up any 'extra' money he might have had otherwise, and petitioning the court is rather expensive (upwards of $10k to review and revise custody). She'll graduate in May and turn 18 in August, so he'll be done paying out to the mother in a few months...but he's given her almost $500/month for the last 5 years, or almost $30k while she's not had physical custody or responsibility over the child.
How can a child be a moocher?
In spite of how we like to phrase the situation, children are also not the receivers of CS. Parents/guardians are. Some parents/guardians spend the money for the kids properly, some do not.
Sorry that you went thru that. It sounds identical to some of the cases I've seen and is a prime example of why reform is needed.
Receiving child support isn't the determinant of being a 'moocher'. That character flaw is defined by other characteristics.Are people who receive child support payments "moochers"?
Receiving child support isn't the determinant of being a 'moocher'. That character flaw is defined by other characteristics.
Once again, that has nothing to do with what I said. You're just a little random-comment-generator today.Child support is vested in the child... Domestic Law 101......