Take a look at this article in the New York Times. I wouldn't want to be in a position of having to ask the court to modify child support due to the loss of a job. Then again, I wouldn't want to be in the position of a custodial parent who will be affected by the loss of sorely needed child support either.
In the article Peter Passidomo, chief of New York State's 125 support magristates says, “We see everything, High income, low income, across the board. It’s just like in an intact family where the income earner has lost the job.”
I can't say that I agree that a reduction in child support relates in anyway to an intact family if a parent loses a job. Imagine the reaction of the court if a married couple went before a judge and ask that their financial obligation to their children be reduced because they lost a job?
The obligation parents in intact families have toward their children are not subject to a court order. It is expected that children will be taken care of whether the family is suffering financially or not.
Once we divorce the courts determine to what degree we are financially obligated to our children and if needed whether we can afford that obligation. I fully understand the need for this and the need for a modification in child support if a parent loses a job.
What I don't understand is why any parent feels a roof over their head and food on their table is more important than the same for their children. Isn't a child's lifestyle more important than the lifestyle of the parent paying child support?
I'm a non-custodial parent. For years I've worked two jobs. At one time I was working three jobs just so I could provide for my two children. And, I was receiving child support. When I read articles like this I can't help but put myself in the shoes of the custodial parent.
For instance, the mother who is raising three teenagers and has now had the child support she receives reduced from $686 a month to $50. Yes, non-custodial parents who have lost a job need a break but, where does that mother go for assistance.
Her obligation hasn't changed and whether she loses a job or not she still has three teenagers to provide for. Is there a court somewhere that will modify the responsibility she has to her children?