header
Survey ResultsAbout the SurveyAbout UsFor ParentsFor Sponsors

Return to Summary

Selected Comments

Question: In a divorce, how much money should each parent pay to support their children?

Answered: The parent who earns more should pay more

It's not fair to burden one person more.
If one of the parents doesn't have a lot then the other parent can make up for it.
If this parent has a higher income and more ability to pay for the child they should.
They both have the same percent of their money spent on kids so they can't argue about it.
If they have more money they should pay more.
Just as it would be in a situation where the parents are married. They should pay equal percentages of their income. Naturally, the parent raising the child always ends up paying a bit more, but it should be kept as generally even as possible.
I wanted to pick this one and the one where it says the one who doesn't have the kids because kids are expensive and eliminating that cost is like an extra income.
If the parent has more money and loves the kid then they should pay more since they have more.
That's the way that would be fair. If the person who wanted the divorce had a job at McDonald's, they shouldn't have to pay more than the person who works for Bill Gates or something. I think the salary of the couple should come into context, where they figure out a fair way to use the money, thinking about the wages.
It's not fair.
If you earn more you should pay more.
Each parent is able to provide more depending on their job situation. If they are able to provide more, they should.
The children need to be provided for and the parents should do so equally. But if one parent makes more they should pay more, taking the strain off the parent making less. The ones who can afford it should pay.
One parent could be having a harder time than the other ...
If one parent who maybe doesn't work has to pay the same as the one that does, it's unfair to that parent who doesn't pay.
He who makes the most $ should help the most.
This is the way it would work if the parents were together.
Parents more capable of taking care of the child should be more heavily relied. Like taxes, the cost should fit how much the parents could afford it.
If they have more money, more should go to the kid.
The other parent may not have a lot of money due to difficulties at work so the parent that earns more can pay for their child more.
It's not fair to have equal amounts, but it is fair to have equal percentages of salary.
It is only fair, for the other might be in the midst of financial debt.
It should be proportional to the pay. However they should not agree to only that and be unable to pay a little more or a little less.
When two parents are married, they share everything. "My house is your house." Same goes for money. "My money is your money." And the child, at least when the parents are still together, is used to being supported financially by the mother and father's income put together. If one of the parents makes twice as much as the other, then that child is used to being supported financially 66.66% by the parent that makes more and 33.33% by the parent that made less. When the parents split, the child should still have the same financial support; 66.66% from the parent that makes more and 33.33% from the parent that makes less.
It would be fair.
This was honestly hard to answer. If I was divorced and the kids lived with me I would be giving more time and money for the kids (which I wouldn't mind) because I'm the one that would be taking care the most for them. However, would it be fair if I was only making minimum wage, and the other parent was a millionaire and was paying hardly nothing for child support? It wouldn't be fair for me as the caretaker of the kids. But I guess it really just depends.
Each parent should pay an amount proportional to their income.
If they have more money, they have more money to give...
Think about it, it's logical.
If one parent makes more money than the other, it's not fair to put the other parent in a greater hardship. My mom was a stay-at-home mom. But then my parents got separated so she didn't have a job, she's looking for one, but its a rough economy and there aren't that many high paying jobs available. So it's not fair to her. My dad makes a lot of money and he should pay more.
More money should pay more.
I think the parent who earns more should pay more because most likely that's the parent who doesn't have kids and they have more money to spend anyway. So why not on your own kids?
If one parent is a doctor, and the other is a waitress, the doctor, who obviously earns more should take financial responsibility for their own children or risk the children having less food or clothing due to lack of financial support.
It's common sense. If you have more, you should pay more for bringing up your child.
This is the most helpful and clear choice. If both paid the same, the poorer one would have more difficulty.
More money earned = more money spent on kids, generally.
It's only fair.
That's the most realistic answer.
You shouldn't care about how much you spend on your child. You had a child therefore you are technically required (IF YOU ARE ABLE) to take care of it. So if one parent earns more than the other they should contribute all they can to the child's welfare.
They should share the responsibility of taking care of the kid equally.
Obviously the richer one should share the riches.
It makes sense. If parents love the kid they should contribute their fair share, in others the same proportion.
If one parent is struggling in making money, and the other parent is rolling in dough, then the one with a lot of money should pay more in helping their child, at least until the other parent can make enough money to help pay to help their kid.
If you have more you should pay more.
It just makes sense.
This is because they are better off and should support their children more.
They should pay justified amounts to support their kids.
Equal pay is fair, but if one parent is filthy rich and the other dirt poor, the richer one should pay more than the poor because they can afford it.


Return to Summary