So lets look at my situation. My dh and I both work full-time jobs and have lots of bills, as do most people with 4 kids. He gets no cs for his 3, and what I get for my 1 is laughable. Each month we do not get to put much into savings. So, we know that when our kids go to college we will be unable to contribute much. It would be great if their NCP's could pay for college, but seeing as we get little financial help from my ex and none from my dh's ex I doubt that they will be paying for college. In both of our custody agreements there is no privisions about college. So what would you suggest we do when college time comes for all 4 kids? We can not possibly pay for each of them to attend college.

I think you got the jist of it Martha. It's not irony, it's hypocrisy.

No, Ima and JNM, its not my hypocrisy. I am not the one saying SM rights, SM has to be able to decide this that and the other thing. But once you start saying that, then yes, I do think you have a responsiblity.

So, KKNY. I could afford to put my biochild through college on my income, but my dh could not put all 3 of his biochildren through college on his income. So, does that mean that I put my child through college. Or should we collectively pay a portion of all 4 childrens college?

ceph,

For much of the financial aid, you are considered a dependent if you are under 25 here, unless you have completed a four year degree. If you take a year off and work full-time, you're really up a creek, because they assume that half of it is available to go for tuition - the assumption is that you have been living with your parents and they have been fully supporting you for that year, while you banked all the money you earned. The value of your car is considered; some colleges even consider the value of your horse if you have one.

kkny, was i talking about paying for stepchildren? or bio? I thought we were talking about a father paying for his child to go to college, then you added that a step mother should also pay for the stepchild since their marriage makes them a partnership and therefore the stepmother's income is partnered with the father? Is that what you meant, because I don't want to misunderstand you.

It's hypocritical to say a stepmother has no rights in making any decisions regarding her stepchildren and has no legal rights or ties to the step child, yet when they need to go to college, she should pay or use her income to determine the father's share of obligation because she's married to their father.

Unfortunately, federal financial aid takes custodial stepparents' income into account, and many private colleges take even the noncustodial stepparents' income into account. Consequently, if the stepparent is wealthy, the child is not eligible for financial aid, no matter how poor his biological parents are. Whether this is fair or not is irrelevant - it is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Consequently, it is unfair for someone who is rich to marry someone who is poor with kids unless the rich one is willing to contribute to college. Such a marriage is doing the children a horrible disservice.

Ima and Mom2emall,

Personally I favor keeping money seperate in second marriages. But it seems that most of the SMs here go with the marriage is a partnership, we share, combine everything. But once you have decided to combine income and assets, I think it is hypocritical not to combine liabilities. And you never get over the problem TOS refers to, as to financial aid.

I think that if SPs consider SKs the same as their BKs (that's what most say) why when it comes to responsibilities and finances, they back off saying they do not have to contribute? So are SKs same as BKs or aren't they?

Finedreams:

I think the stepparents who live with the custodial parent are in a different situation than the stepparent that lives with the ncp. As a stepparent who lives with the CP I do have a part in all aspects of raising my skids, even the financial part. Whatever I do for my bk I do for my sk. If I notice my skids need new shoes or clothes I do not hesitate to buy them what they need, just as I do for my bk. When hot lunch forms come home I do not set it aside for my dh, I just fill it out and write the check. As far as education goes, I contribute equally to all the kids, bio and step. My dh's finances and mine are together. We have joint accounts.

I was being a smartie pants when I asked earlier whose education to pay for, all of my bk or part of my sk and bk.

Sometimes I think that on this forum people are just here to pick apart stepparents, instead of encourage them or give them advice. They badger instead and try to take words and twist them to make stepparents look bad.

I do know there have been a few posts where stepparents say some pretty nasty things about their situation or their skids, but the majority of us on here love our stepfamily.

I agree with mom2emall. My SD lives with us and I support her more than her own mom (who doesn't pay a penny in support). If she went to live with her mom, I no longer have any say in her life, so why should my income be used to increase the support her mom would get? and why should I pay child support for a child I have no legal rights to. I would certainly continue to buy things for her when she's with us (or even when she's not if it's something I want to do as a gift) but it does make a difference. If you were married to your BF and his daughters were minors, would you want to pay their mother more support using your income. The laws are very clear that step parents have limited or no legal rights and no legal obligation to support step children.

When you marry a man with children and he is paying support (as a NCP), it already affects the household. The new wife my already be contributing more to "their" household because of it. If he is a CP, then it's more than likely that the step parent is contributing to the step kids.

mom2email,
it is not the first time when I notice that you do treat your marriage as a team and it shows in your attitude towards your children, bk and sk. I do not think that everyone in here wants to portray SPs like bad guys. Not at all, i just see a lot of contradiction here.

I am not SM but am BM and am in a relationship with BF who has 2 grown DDs. Oh boy, I complain how hard they are and how they effect our relationship. But I do support BF paying for their education. If we stay together, I would continue supporting and contributing. I do not support him washing dishes after grown women or buying constant expensive gifts, but i do support him paying for school.

In fact his X as soon as they got divorced refused to contribute anything to SD's education. He continues feeling morally obligated. She does not think she is morally obligated to do this, but then I am not surprised. She didnot feel morally obligated for other things as well: for example morally obligated to not cheat left and right and do not lie and hide etc. So I think if one feels no moral obligation for children, they usually do not have too many moral obligations in regards to other stuff.

Child support is support for children not for ex-spouces. That's why it is called CS. I would object contributing to paying alimony but not child support. I would object contributing financially to my DH's X. But I would not object contributing to stepchildren, their everyday existance ord education. If I would object, I would not marry a man who has children. My BF pays for younger DD's college and all other stuff. I support him in that. If I would het married, part of my income probably would have to go towards that somehow, I would agree to that. Now, I would not want my money to go towards ridicilous stuff they want.

I join mom2 and Ima in saying this was more of a hypothetical. I do for my SD everything (and actually more!) that I do for our 2 DS. My income is the primary in our home, and it has never crossed my mind to battle over contributing to her college tuition - if you want to get technical *I* will contribute more than either of her bio parents as I alone make what they make combined. I have no gripe with this - if she is one of my kids she is one of my kids. Would I pay for a 4 year university education if she hadn't put forth the work and effort to warrant it? NO - but I wouldn't for our sons either. My DH was handed a 4 year university education, a car, spending money - the works. He did not value college and put minimum effort into it. I don't see bankrolling that as a good investment for ANYONE's money.

I will say this - if I was treated as TOS or KKNY would like to see and had no parenting partnership, no equality in raising our 3 kids and was treated as a 2nd wife rather than a parent I would not feel the same. Were I just a bank without a voice I'm guessing I would not feel a moral or any other obligation toward college. I don't question paying for anything from shoes to college because our family is a family - a team of parents and 3 kids. What's mine is truly ours, so really the amount I make vs. my husband or his ex is only important in making points like these. Otherwise it isn't even discussed.

I agree justnomartha. My point is that parents have responsibilties for their children and divorce and remarriage should nop end that responsibiltiy. If stepparents object to education being paid for then maybe marriage was not a good idea to begin with.
i totally disagree with the attitude that stepparents should be able to voice their opinion and make decisions (and of course they should) but then they shouln't contribute to children. You either both contribute and voice opinion or you neither voice opinion nor contribute. You are either a parent or you are not. Bio or step.

And what i completely disagree with iammommy is that if your spouse is NCP and children only visit, then stepparents should not help their spouses to support those children. So if you do not want to help children, then how can you inists on being able to make any decisions or even being called a stepparent. Then you should be called a woman that dad sleeps with. You are either a parent or you are not.

So if for whatever reason BM gets custody and SD comes to your house on the weekend, you don't think you should be helping? So do you stop being a stepparent because sk does not live in your household? But didn't you say before stepparenting is for life no matter what happens with kids! Now you think you should back off just because kid will not live with you. So which is it?

"Child support is support for children not for ex-spouces. That's why it is called CS. I would object contributing to paying alimony but not child support. I would object contributing financially to my DH's X. But I would not object contributing to stepchildren, their everyday existance ord education. If I would object, I would not marry a man who has children. My BF pays for younger DD's college and all other stuff. I support him in that. If I would het married, part of my income probably would have to go towards that somehow, I would agree to that. Now, I would not want my money to go towards ridicilous stuff they want."

How can you say this when you are dealing with a BF that has grown children? You can criticize me for my opinion on divorced parents but you can have an opinion on child support, when you are not in those shoes? More hypocrisy.

First, child support is paid to the custodial parent for the purpose of supporting the children. I will use my situation to demonstrate my opinion on this, and I realize it's probably different than most other situations. But, it is how I feel because it's what I am dealing with. I might feel different if the circumstances were different.

My DH and his ex were sharing 50/50 custody. When they broke up, his ex moved back with her mom. She lived there for seven years until she moved in with her current BF. She paid for NOTHING. Her mom paid the rent, utilities, groceries and often bought the kids (she has an older daughter from her first husband) clothes & stuff. She was getting child support (over $1200 mo) for her older daughter and has never worked more than a couple of months here and there (usually a summer job at the community pool's snack bar, which she did for the chance to hang out by the pool & work on her tan & meet guys). When we got married, she took him to court for child support & tried to get my income included (because I make slightly more than he does). Of course I was against it. When school started (this and last year), she bought nothing for her daughter.(In fact, last school year, she called us the day after our wedding when we were leaving on our honeymoon to insist that we go get SD's school stuff) I took her daughter shopping & bought everything for her (which she also complained about because I took her, instead of DH) When SD needs to see a doctor, she expects us to take her so she won't have to pay the co-pay. A month after school started, she moved away and left SD with us and her older daughter with her mom. Her mom is supporting her older daughter & she still collects the money for her older daughter. She has a brand new 2007 Silverado but doesn't send a dime to us for her daughter. She's ordered to pay half of medical bills, including counseling and owes for the past five months and has sent nothing.

I don't complain about using my income to pay for my step daughter while she lives here. If she went back to live with her mom, I don't think it would be fair for me to use my income to pay more support when her mom doesn't work at all. I might feel differently if she worked and contributed to her children's support. When everybody except her is supporting her kids (her first husband, her mom, my DH and me) and she's living a better life than we are, then of course I don't agree to improve her lifestyle. She has no living expenses. Right now, she's living with her new BF who works to pay for them and her only income (child support for her other daughter) pays for her truck and all the fun stuff she's able to do because she has no kids living with her and doesn't work so she has lots of free time.

If she were working, had the kids with her and still struggling and we were doing great, then sure, I would not want my SD to live in poverty and would be more willing to help. Every situation is different and while it is supposed to support the child, if the ex is irresponsible and using it for other purposes, then that changes things.

Normally, I would say that it's none of the NCP's business what the CP does with their support as long as the children are being taken care of, but it really bothers me that SD's mom left her older daughter with her 74 yr old mom (that is still working full time to support herself and SD's half sister). and the fact that SD's mom has never worked in her adult life (she's 35 yrs old).

But it really is none of your business what the CP does with the support as long as the children are being taken care of. Would you like it if suddenly the father of one of your children started paying support and his current wife wanted an accounting of how you spent it?

I don't know if my exH's current wife has expressed any opinions on my budgetary decisions, though I suspect she has, but my exH has told me that even though he realizes that the children can see better with contacts, I shouldn't get them for the children because of the cost, and that not only is HE unwilling to share in the cost of tuition, but that I shouldn't be paying for anything more expensive than a community college either. He has never accused me of spending the child support on myself, because that would be ridiculous when it has only been at most about seven dollars a day per child, but he seems to think that he can tell me how to budget. When child support is awarded, neither the NCP parent nor his or her spouse gets any input into how it is spent. You have mentioned before that after divorce, the ex-spouses' finances are supposed to be separate - if that is the case, it is irrelevant how you feel about the mother's budgetary decisions.

did you read my entire post? I wrote: "Normally, I would say that it's none of the NCP's business what the CP does with their support as long as the children are being taken care of" So, there we are in agreement.

But the question posed, which I was responding to had to do with using MY income to either determine child support (which would make it a larger amount) or using MY income to pay the child support. Like I said, my situation (with my SD's mom) is different because I think most custodial parents don't move back to their parents or live off someone else, but rather they work and pay rent or a mortgage. The law says children have a right to be supported by both parents and if one never works, then they are not supporting anyone, not even themselves. And my SD's mom is a non custodial parent that does not pay support.

In my case, I have been the sole support of my kids (the youngest is 17 1/2) and they have been provided for and are healthy. So, any support I might get at this point is for past support where it is to reimburse me for being the sole support. However, I don't think it would be my children's step parent's responsibility to pay the support that their father's are ordered to pay. I don't think a CP should have to explain how they spend it.

Are you defending a deadbeat NCP that collects CS for her daughter that doesn't live with her and doesn't work or pay CS for the SD that lives with us? Or do you just want to be in disagreement with me?

Your exH sounds like a jerk. I don't understand why you would still take him back and I guess you are the only person that can answer that. Of course, if a CP is taking care of the children, then there should never be a reason for a NCP to complain about how the money is spent. Just as I don't think a CP should be complaining about the amount they get, if it is ordered by a court based on true income/expense information.

If your H is now the CP, he can take her back to court, and, at least in my state, the court would order child support based on imputed income if she were not working, unless there were some reason the court thought she couldn't work. Of course some judges have some pretty weird ideas of plausible reasons for not working - my exH was told by the magistrate that he was too old to find a job. I thought that comment was particularly funny since the magistrate was old enough to be our grandfather. I think my exH was rather insulted.

If the children were being cared for, it really is none of your business HOW - if their mother is depending on her mother for support, that is between them.

If the husband's new wife earns a great deal more than he, and consequently his standard of living is higher than that of his child, the court CAN impute income to him. The same thing is true if he doesn't work at all, or if the new wife pays all the household expenses, in which case all of his money is disposable income.

Where I live, child support continues through college, although the amount is up to the judges discretion. I think that is more than fair; in each instance, a judge can decide how much, if any, child support should be paid for college purposes.

When the judge makes his ruling on over college support, he or she takes entire family income of both custodial parent and non custodial parent into consideration. College support is approtioned proportionately by family income, and may be ordered paid directly to the child, at the judges discretion, or to the custodial parent , if warranted.

The child is also expected to contribute toward their own education, via summer jobs, etc, and any available grants. Also, one of the factors the judge is allowed to consider is if the child maintains a relationship with the non custodial parent. If the parent and child dont get along, or if the child refuses to see the parent, then they are unlikely to get support for college. Parents who try to alienate their children from their other parent end up costing them college support.

Fact is, all resources available to the child are considered as income source...custodial parents AND his or her spouse, and non custodial parents AND his or her spouses.

Loans are based on the family income of both mom and dad. If you dont want to be paying for college costs for a child that is your step, the time to decide that is before you marry their father or mother. Since your income is included in loan calculation, its only right that it should be part of the negotiations for child support.

That being said, I like the idea of the judge ordering college support directly to the child, or directly to the school. It would save a lot of bad feelings.

IN our case, my husband makes a good income. I make no income. His ex wife makes a small income. Her new husband makes a huge income. All of that will be considered. The standard of living of both households is a factor.

My DH is going to take her to court for Child Support but it may be a waste of time. She doesn't pay the half of medical expenses that she is already ordered to pay, which her share is between $20-80 a month. I'm paying for all of it (between $40-160 a month) and the only option is to take her to court and she could be found in contempt. That would mean possible jail time. DH doesn't want to do that to his DD's mom. She already has SD convinced we are the bad guys for not letting SD go live with her, when she was the one that signed over custody. She has SD convinced that we are keeping her from seeing SD, when she is the one that is always late and cuts visits short. Her counselor believes (and we agree based on SD's behavior) that if we tell SD the truth, she will take her mom's side and be resentful of us. She gets very upset when anyone says anything about her mom. We are pretty sure she knows the truth about her mom and it's very sad for this little girl.

and in response to this:

"If the children were being cared for, it really is none of your business HOW - if their mother is depending on her mother for support, that is between them."

Their mother wasn't depending on her mother for support, she was getting $1200 a month in child support for her older daughter but using it to party, buy a new truck, cigarettes, taekwondo lessons, cell phones, etc. and her mom has been supporting all of them because she HAS to. She doesn't want her grandkids to suffer because their mom is irresponsible. Her mom has complained about it, when she was living there. And at this point, she has been collecting $1200 a month for the last five months while her daughter that she's getting the money for, still lives with grandma. SD says she hasn't seen her sister since Thanksgiving, so she isn't even visiting with that daughter. If SD went to live with her, DH absolutely should pay support, but I would disagree that MY income be used to determine the amount. They did impute income to her when we went to court last, which angered her. She was trying to get the court to use his income (which she tried to say he made almost twice what he actually makes) and include my income and get them to use zero income for her (she claimed to be a nursing student, working on her AA degree for the past 11 years)

The children should share the standard of living that was enjoyed by the children while the parents were married. If one has a higher standard of living after a remarriage, that is not a reason to increase child support (especially if the new spouse also has their own children to support). In cases where the new spouse is extremely wealthy and pays all the living expenses, then of course, the NCP can pay more out of his/her income, but that isn't the common scenario.

That would be like saying if a new spouse does not work and is being supported by the NCP, then child support should be decreased because now his disposable income is less for taking on the support of a spouse that doesn't work. That would never happen. It's also the same for children in a second marriage. Child support does not decrease for the children in the first family because he has children with a second. That would be wrong. The children from the first family were there when he decides to have children with the second wife so the courts don't consider that in changing support amount. (however, they may consider it if there is a hardship, such as serious medical condition with children of a second family)

"In cases where the new spouse is extremely wealthy and pays all the living expenses, then of course, the NCP can pay more out of his/her income, but that isn't the common scenario."

That scenario is actually very common - I have read of many, many men marrying sugarmammas - more than I ever dreamed possible. My exH is by no means the only example.

It IS more common than we'd think... but if you consider the wage differences between women and men of similar ages, the wage differences between women with children and women without, and the wage differences between women and men with the same education level...
The only way ~most~ men are going to find a woman who makes substantially more than he does is to find a woman a few years older than he is (but not too close to retirement), who has no children of her own, and is higher educated than he is.

Sure it happens, but there isn't exactly an abundance of middle-aged, childless, educated women sitting around, waiting for a divorced dad to support. :)

I think as you get older (I think TOS and I are both over 50) there are more and more divorced or widowed women 50+ whose children are in college or graduated, with nice homes, etc.

Then I guess it's too bad you aren't an old man looking for someone to support you - you'd have a whole sea of fish to choose from :)

I am not looking for someone to support me (that would be Xs GF) or to support someone.

I see your point kkny but then you also have that their children are grown and in college or graduated, with nice homes, etc. (at age 50+) and there aren't a lot of guys that age that still have to pay child support, since it would be more common that their children would also be grown, etc. I would think the majority of guys supporting kids would be from 20-45, with most guys 50+, they don't usually have minor children. I'm sure there are some, but not a majority. Of course, professional men (that waited until after college to marry and start their families) would fit into that category.

My dad has a friend that married in his late 50's and his wife (much younger) gave birth to triplets when he was 58. I don't know if he planned it that way, but like my dad said, if a guy reaches his 50's with no kids, it's because he couldn't or didn't want to have kids. It's pretty unfair to the kids when they grow up with parents that look like their grandparents. (and the chances are much greater that the parents won't live to see their children grown when they have children that late in life)

I know you aren't looking for someone to support you! It was a joke - that's why there was a smile at the end of it.
And just to clarify, I also know you also aren't an old man or a fish.

Ceph,

I know you were joking.

Ima, my X and I are both professionals. We had both been working, and he had finished grad school (I was going at night) when we married. He will be paying tuition after he hits 60. Well after.

*Child support does not decrease for the children in the first family because he has children with a second. That would be wrong. The children from the first family were there when he decides to have children with the second wife so the courts don't consider that in changing support amount.*

This actually is the case here. If you have child #1, pay support and have someone else's child #2, the amount of support you pay for #1 is decreased. The reverse is also true - when DH and I had our 2 sons his obligation in the support calculations went down with each one, thus causing his ex's obligation to go up. Makes no sense to me - isn't that just giving reason to keep having kids to lower their support obligation?!?

As my income is significantly more then DH's or BM's we do enjoy a little bit different of a lifestyle, but of the two I would say hers is more "fun." While we save or do home improvements with our "extra" money they take multiple vacations (like the upcoming cruise) but then can't afford gym shoes. To each their own, I guess.

The law here is like that too:
If you have a child from a previous relationship that you pay support to and now you have another child who you can show has a significantly lower standard of living than Child#1 because of the child support you pay to C#1, the court will reduce the CS to C#1 so that C#1 and C#2 have like standards of living.
I believe it also goes the other way too - if you are the CP of C#1 and you can show that your ex's C#2 has a significantly higher standard of living than your child, you can have the CS increased by the court so that both children have the same standard of living.

The law where I am is still first in time, first in line. Unless someone has substantial income, child # 2 will have a lower standard.

that doesn't sound fair and each state has it's own method of calculating & rules regarding what "net disposable income" is.

I would hope it wouldn't be thought of as an incentive to have more children (to lower support obligation) since raising more children costs more than paying more support to existing children. It makes no sense if that is someone's rationale.

kkny, I was responding to ceph

In my state, having more children is not justification for reducing child support, though it can be used as justification to avoid a requested increase in child support.

I know very few people who had kids before they were about 30. When one of babies was in a playgroup when I was 35, I was the youngest mother - and I was the only one for whom this was not their first child!

In contrast, almost everyone I know who has kids has them before age 35.
I think it has to do with the age group you're in, the area you live in, the type of career you have, your socioeconomic status, etc.

Me for example: I'm under 30, so most of my friends are under 30 and many are married and/or have children. Even though I live in the city, there are a lot of farms and small towns around me, where people tend to get married younger and have children sooner. I'm a grad student, so most of the people through work I know are under 35 and plenty of them have children. It's quite common here for a woman to marry during her PhD, have a baby while she writes and defends her thesis, then take a few months off before starting a postdoc, all before age 30. I'm from a blue collar background, so my extended family doesn't tend to delay childbearing for the sake of education. And so on.
Other people's categories are different and that changes the ratios of people they know.

PS - Anyone else reminded of the movie "Idiocracy" by all this? :)

TOS, if you want to argue with someone, Martha was looking for your input on a different thread.

I agree that it definitely has to do with where you live and socioeconomic status.

**chuckles**

according to our lawyer... (only because I just asked this question) child support is not based on "our" income only his... at least for our state. Which, was a big concern of mine when his ex started making comments about the money I receive for my daughter from her fathers death. But, I have always said I would have no problem helping her out if she would actually work for a living and was having difficulty. Working about three hours a day aprox two - three days a week is less than I worked in high school. I refuse to give any of my money that I work so hard for or the money I get for my daughter to a women that sits on her butt most of her life. More importantly.. not that I will ever tell her this because it is none of her business but I take a portion of that money every month and set it aside to be split between all four kids for college. I think college is important for kids and any help a parent can give they should... however I dont think it is or should be a requirment.

I think it is very wrong for there to be a state to require a contribution to college from a non custodial parent. A married couple is not required to pay college tuition for their children, it is their choice. It should also be a choice of a NCP to choose based on their financial situation and value system if they are able or willing to contribute to college.

Don't get me wrong college is vitally important and I plan to help my kids financially when that time comes. I would feel it a violation of my constitutional rights if someone were able to legally "force" me to, however.

"It should also be a choice of a NCP to choose based on their financial situation and value system if they are able or willing to contribute to college."

No more than it should be their choice how much to contribute to child support. A married couple is not required to contribute x percent of their income toward raising their children, either, as long as the kids are not going hungry, unsheltered, or unclothed. Would you advocate allowing the NCP to decide how much, or how little, he or she would pay in child support?

College costs and basic needs are two seperate things. If the custodial parent can decide they can not afford college costs the ncp should be able to make the same choice if they have been paying cs. I have seen many situations where the ncp pays most of the basic needs costs the childs whole life while the cp actually makes money off the deal. And then your going to tell the ncp that his/her pockets need to be even deeper? If the ncp has been a deadbeat and ditched out on cs, then I am all for forcing them to pay for college. But, I think that would be just as hard to enforce as cs.

Child support is supposed to cover more than the "basic needs" of food, clothing, and shelter. In most cases, the NCP is required to contribute to extracurricular activities, non-essential orthodontic work, etc. - and college is more important than any of these.

Statistically, children of divorce are MUCH less likely to receive parental support (especially from the NCP) than are children in intact families.

The reason college support is mandated is because an awful lot of NCPs are not willing to provide the money that they would have provided had the family still been intact. In many cases, the father's relationship with the children is primarily through the mother, and when his relationship with the mother dissolves, so does his relationship with his kids.

We have paid for stepdaughter's college TWICE now. She flunked out both times didn't ever tell us. We kept on sending her the cheques for school and board until we finally found out. Now she wants to go for a third time, I say kiddo you do it yourself this time. I am done you stupid child.

You asked me how can I say anything about CS when my BF doesn't pay any due to his kids' age (pays full tuition and cost of living though). But you do not pay CS either and your DH doesn't and yet you talk about CSt! You also do not pay for your children's college. But you participate in a discussion about college tuition, right? So what is the problem then? You talk about every topic here no matter if you are part of it or not, why can't others? BTW both I and SO have kids in college, full time, so are very much involved in the topic of this thread.

Actually child support continues if children are enrolled full time in college up until mid 20s or so. So, iammommy, you cannot possibly know if SO or I pay CS or support children etc. Both his and mine DDs are 19 and are college students, so they are not fully independent adults, so CS is very much relevant.

who am I supposed to pay child support for? All my kids live with me and I support them. I am owed child support by their father's and just started collecting a small amount this past year. I am the only one that has EVER supported them. My son-18, is in college and I am still supporting him. He works a part time job and contributes his income to school.

who is my DH supposed to pay support for? My DH was paying support for his DD when they had 50/50 custody and his ex sat on her butt, not working. He doesn't pay support now because his DD lives with us and we support her. We don't get a penny from her mom (and she is still sitting on her butt, not working), so I support her more than her own mom.

and there was a time when my son was young, that I had to pay support to his dad because I was the only one working in that situation and his dad sat on his butt, not working.

I don't know if you or DH suppose to pay child support. It was not my point. You said that since my BF doesn't pay child support, I am not supposed to express my opinion about CS. Then if i follow your logic, you can't talk about it either. I think we all can talk about whatever we want.

I was only making a point (meant with a touch of sarcasm) that in another thread you stated that I have never been divorced so I know nothing about divorced people. I think I know enough to have an opinion on how (divorced) people act by my experiences/education in dealing with divorced people, even though I'm not divorced.

We can all have opinions on any subject, and we do. But when I express my opinion about marriage and get told that I have no business discussing marriage because I haven't been married for 20+ years, or I am told that because I was never married to my children's fathers, I must have low expectations regarding their responsibility, or when I talk of divorced people, I must not know what I'm talking about because I am not divorced. Nobody here should have to defend their "credentials" to have an opinion. And that was my point.

You are not a step parent but you have a right to your opinions regarding it. If you become a step parent, those opinions may change, just as kkny or tos may change their mind set if they ever get married and see what it's like to wear the hat of a step mother. I appreciate and see value to everyone's opinions (I don't always agree and may say so) but my right to have an opinion seems to be attacked by having my past thrown into my face and it feels like I'm expected to hang my head in shame and not have an opinion.