California 50/50 Physical Custody and Child Support Laws

[robd]

My question involves child support in the State of: California

I currently have joint legal and physical custody of my two sons who are 7 and 9 years old. The kids stay with me 50% of the time.

I currently pay 1800/mo to their mother as well as health insurance and 50% of other medical expenses and 50% of day care. I make considerably more money than her and, as I understand it, the child support laws in California are based on a formula that distributes differences in income even if there are equal parenting responsibilities.

How can I get this reduced? I have many reasons for wanting a reduction, among them are:

Its hard to take that my children suffer because of my payment. Rather than going to benefit the children, the money gets spent on the mom's cosmetic surgery instead. The money I give to their mom could instead go to private school, or extra curricular activities, etc.

I would like to change careers at some point and there would be a reduction of my income while I did this. I can afford to care for my children while I do this, but not the payment to their mother as well.

It seriously 'feels unfair'. I'm a good father and take care of my boys well, but I feel punished by the state for having chosen their mother. I have paid for four career changes of their mother and our plans together included her self sufficiency and I always encouraged her to chose a career that was rewarding both economically and emotionally, but she chose a path that does not pay her much. Why do I have to be punished for her poor choices? I find that most people I talk to her are pretty surprised that there are payments made due to differences in income even though there is equal parenting. I use this as my own evidence of the 'unfairness'.

If I can't legally find a way to stop the kids mom from taking my money, I am interested in supporting efforts to reform our laws. Are there efforts to do this already? I am aware of Father's Rights, and a few other organizations, but it seems to me that they are tackling even more fundamental inequities in our laws that demonstrate bias against father's. While I am interested in supporting those efforts, I am also interested in my own cause of 'injustice'.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful comments and help.

[Lawrence084]

The only legal way to stop your kids mom from taking your money is to get 100% custody. Changing your career voluntary will still cause the courts to calculate your income base on what you are caple of earning. In other words no reduction and less paycheck, less money left for you.

In my research most Father Rights organizations are dealing with CS to children that they are not bio-father too. Not sure any of them are dealing with CS that not actually going to the children, because frankly that impossible to prove and it is actually part of CS. The household remaining at a level it was if married. That why it based on income and not a flat amount.

[robd]

Hey, thank you for the response..

The only legal way to stop your kids mom from taking your money is to get 100% custody.

I have read that judges can go against guidelines..is that not true? If they can, what is needed for them to be able to do that?

I am pretty sure that if my ex agreed to not take my money and we showed the courts that the kids needs are met, that the court would sign off on that. Is that right?

I have also read that after a certain point California judges have not forced income redistribution when it was demonstrated that the kids needs were sufficiently met, and this without parental cooperation (e.g. the receiving spouse was fighting to get money). But I didn't get the case(s) and I have no idea of the amounts or conditions.

Changing your career voluntary will still cause the courts to calculate your income base on what you are caple of earning. In other words no reduction and less paycheck, less money left for you.

You mean there are no exceptions? The courts never let someone change careers? If you have ever had a job with a good salary, then you HAVE to have a job with good salary? Or would my ex have to fight to impute my income?

In my research most Father Rights organizations are dealing with CS to children that they are not bio-father too. Not sure any of them are dealing with CS that not actually going to the children, because frankly that impossible to prove and it is actually part of CS. The household remaining at a level it was if married. That why it based on income and not a flat amount.

Ya, I can't think of a way to make it possible to enforce the money going to the children. Thats not my agenda, though it would be cool to see a way to address that that was practical.

I think the policy of redistributing income in equal parenting situations is wrong, unffair, harmful to the children, and families in general. Child support laws aren't supposed to account for marriage, right? Even unmarried spouses pay child support. Spousal support is about dealing with marital equity.

[robd]

Ok, I went to the California Family Code. Section 4057 discusses factors that may be considered when going against guidelines. One possibly relevent factor is:

According to section 4057(b)(3):
The parent being ordered to pay child support has an
extraordinarily high income and the amount determined under the
formula would exceed the needs of the children.

My question regarding this is: What is the definition of 'extraordinarily high income'? And how is it determined that the amount may or may not 'exceed the needs of the children'?