Since 1960, the governmental department assigned to provide estimates of expenditures on children from birth through the age of 17 has been the United States Department of Agriculture.  Those expenditures consist of the following categories:  housing, food, transportation, clothing, health care, child care, education, and miscellaneous expenses.  I emphasize that the report only covers through the age of 17 because I believe that everyone will agree that parents do not stop supporting their children once they reach the age of 17.  In other words, people should expect that children will actually cost them more than what is set forth by the USDA. 

According to the report from the USDA entitled Expenditures on Children by Families, 2009, "In 2009, estimated annual average expenses on the younger child in two-child, husband-wife families increased as income level rose.  Depending on age of the child, annual expenses ranged from $8,330 to $9,450 for families with a before-tax income less than $56,670, from $11,650 to $13,530 for families with a before-tax income between $56,670 and $98,120, and from $19,380 to $23,180 for families with a before-tax income more than $98,120.  On average, households in the lowest income group spent 25 percent of their before-tax income on a child; those in the middle-income group, 16 percent; and those in the highest group, 12 percent.  The range regarding these percentages would be narrower if after-tax income were considered."  "Compared with expenditures on each child in a two-child, husband-wife family, expenditures by husband-wife households with one child average 25 percent more on the single child and expenditures by households with three or more children average 22 percent less on each child." 

Taking inflation into account, it is estimated that to raise a child born in 2009 to age 17 will cost the lowest income group $205,960, the middle income group $286,050, and the highest income group $475,680.00.  "For husband-wife families with one child, USDA estimates 27 percent of total family expenditures are spent on the child; for two children, 41 percent; and for three children, 48 percent."  "In 1960, average expenditures on a child in a middle-income, husband-wife family amounted to $25,229, or $182,857 in 2009 dollars.  By 2009, these estimated expenditures climbed 22 percent in real terms to $222,360 (assuming a family had child care and education expenses on a child)." 

"Cross-sectional evidence suggests that family size and income are negatively correlated" in that lower income families tend to have more children than do higher income families.  I do not want to get caught up on this inverse correlation and that those having most of the children can least afford it.  However, I do want to point out that those in the lowest income group are effectively keeping themselves in that group by having children they can ill afford to support.  How does one expect to improve their economic station if they burden themselves with expenses that prevent them from saving money and actually cause them to live beyond their economic means?  Rather than taking responsibility for poor financial decisions (having children they cannot afford), people tend to blame others for their circumstances.  Research shows that "a household not only chooses how many children to have, but also when to have them."  Clearly, this does not apply to all income groups because otherwise there would not be an inverse correlation between family size and income.  Nevertheless, for those who are interested in knowing how many children they can afford, if any, the United States Department of Agriculture has developed a "USDA Cost of Raising a Child Calculator".   

Parents almost always tell me that their children mean more to them than anything else.  Considering the cost of raising a child, I would certainly hope this statement to be true.  However, what parents seem to forget when they are divorcing or their relationship is ending is that children are expensive.  Since most parents never used the USDA Calculator, they never really thought about the cost of their children.  It is only when the relationship comes to an end that the parents have to deal with the issue of child support.  Child support is the payment by one parent to the other for the support of the child/children of their relationship.  Federal law requires that the amount of child support be determined in accordance with a guideline.  Child support calculations take into account the respective gross incomes of the parents, tax deductible expenses and the percentage of time that each parent has the children, among other things. 

Reflect upon the following example:  (1) father's gross monthly income is $4,500, (2) mother's gross monthly income is $3,500; (3) there are 3 minor children involved, ages 3, 5 and 7; (4) father has the children 25 percent of the time; (5) father files his taxes as single; (6) mother files as her taxes as head of household; and (7) mother spends $600 a month on child care.  For this example, no other factors exist for purposes of calculating guideline child support.  The father in this case would be ordered to pay the mother guideline child support in the sum of $1,310 per month and he would be left with net spendable income of only $2,019 per month.  After taking into account the child support she receives, the mother would have monthly net spendable income of $4,765. 

Invariably, father would complain that the laws are unfair and that he cannot afford to pay that amount of child support.  He may also be troubled by the fact that the mother is not obligated to account for her use of that money.  The father might refuse to purchase clothing and other basic necessities for the children because he is paying child support to the mother.  However, what the parents have not considered is that according to the USDA Calculator, the estimated annual cost of those 3 children is $29,492 and he is paying the mother $15,720 per year in child support, which is $13,772 less than the estimated annual cost of raising those children.  The child support that he pays to the mother basically equalizes the fact that she has the children 75 percent of the time and therefore incurs 75 percent of their cost.  Father still has the children 25 percent of the time and has costs associated with his time with them.  Both parents struggle to support the children, one thinking he is paying too much in support and the other that she is receiving too little in support.  In reality, the only reason the couple was able to afford the 3 children while still together (assuming that they could afford the 3 children) is because they only had one household to support. 

According to the USDA's report, "As a proportion of total child-rearing expenses, housing accounted for the largest share across income groups, comprising 31 to 35 percent of total expenses on a child in a two-child, husband-wife family.  For families in the middle-income group, child care/education (for those with the expense) and food were the next largest average expenditures on a child, accounting for 17 and 16 percent of child-rearing expenses, respectively."  In determining housing expenses, the USDA takes into account the average cost of additional bedrooms needed to accommodate the children. 

Considering the number of marriages that end in divorce, it might be a good idea if more couples considered the financial costs associated with children before actually having them.

If you have a child support issue, please contact Pasadena Family Law attorney Mark B. Baer, Esq. at Mark B. Baer, Inc. a Professional Law Corporation. 

In theory, it is best when parents with minor children are able to work out a custody and visitation arrangement on their own when they separate and/or divorce.  After all, the matter involves their children/family and wouldn't they know what is best for their particular situation?  Not always!

I was recently representing a father of three (3) minor children in a divorce case in which he and his wife entered into an Agreement under which he would see his children every other Friday from 7:00 p.m. to Sunday at 4:00 p.m.  He entered into this Agreement in Conciliation Court, which is the mediation program that parents are required to attend in Los Angeles County before going into court on a matter relating to child custody and visitation.  For those who are unaware, lawyers are not permitted to participate in Conciliation Court. 

Before my client 's Conciliation Court appointment,  I warned him against entering into a Custody and Parenting Agreement that he would not be able to live with for a long time.  As requested, my client contacted me as soon as he left the courthouse.  During that conversation, he informed me that he had entered into a Conciliation Court Custody Agreement and Parenting Plan.  As soon as he finished describing the terms of the Agreement, I asked him whether or not he realized that he would not see his children for twelve (12) days between each of his alternate weekend visits.  I commented that most, if not all, of his children's friends will see their fathers on a more frequent basis, regardless of marital status.  I explained to him that his children will most likely assume that he sees them less than other father's see their children because he loves them less and that this would most certainly negatively impact his relationship with them.  After our conversation, he agreed with me that his children would most likely perceive their relationship with him in the way in which I had described, especially since he resided in close proximity to them.  He then requested that I file an Objection to the Conciliation Court Agreement and Parenting Plan.  As discussed in my article from the September/October edition of the San Gabriel Valley Psychological Association Newsletter, I informed him that the Court might refuse to acknowledge the Objection to that Agreement. 

I immediately contacted his wife's attorney, who had not yet been informed of the fact that they had reached an Agreement regarding the custody issues.  I explained my concerns to him and he immediately acknowledged the problem and validated my concerns.  I requested that he see if we could modify the Agreement to include some visitation during the week.  He told me that he would discuss the matter with his client.  Meanwhile, I filed an Objection to the Conciliation Court Agreement and Parenting Plan.  As an additional complication, the hearing on this matter was scheduled for the next Court day and therefore it was virtually impossible to resolve the matter prior to that hearing.  As a result, I suggested that everyone arrive at the Courthouse at 7:00 a.m. the following morning (1 ¾ hours before the scheduled hearing) in order to try and resolve the matter without judicial intervention.  Everyone agreed to my proposal and we were able to settle the matter outside of Court.  With the assistance of their attorneys, the parents were able to work out a parenting plan that suited their particular situation and which was in the best interest of the children.    

After entering into that Agreement, which was signed off by the Court and made into an Order, I received a copy of the Conciliation Court Agreement and Parenting Plan which the Court also signed off on, even though we had subsequently resolved the matter differently and I had filed an Objection to that Agreement.  Under the circumstances, the fact that the Court signed off on the Conciliation Court Agreement and Parenting Plan in that case is of no significance.  However, it is indicative of the fact that courts tend to disregard Objections to such Agreements.  Although I knew and had previously written about such concerns, it bothered me that courts sign off on Agreements entered into by parents which most certainly are not in the best interest of the children and will negatively impact the children's relationship with one or both parents. 

Over the years, I have come across many situations in which parents enter into Custody and Visitation Agreements which are clearly detrimental to the children.  Nevertheless, the courts sign off on such Agreements because they are "Agreements."  On several occasions, I have seen parents with multiple children enter into Agreements whereby each parent would have 100% of the time with particular children of the relationship in order to "avoid conflict with the other parent and to protect the children from being exposed to such conflict."  In other words, rather than learning to co-parent, the parents decide that it is in the best interest of the children that they have a relationship with only one of the parents and that their relationship with their siblings in the other parent's custody be severed.  Such a parenting arrangement is by no means in the best interest of the children.  Under such circumstances, the children not only need to deal with their parent's divorce, but also with the loss of one parent and certain of their siblings.  Although courts would never make such orders, they do sign off on such Agreements, thereby making them binding Orders of the court. 

Thus, while it is best when parents with minor children are able to work out a custody and visitation arrangement on their own when they separate and/or divorce, some parents need assistance in determining what is in the best interest of the children.  Without such assistance, parents can do things that are very detrimental to their children, often without even realizing it.  Should Judge's just sign off on such Agreements, without even addressing the possible consequences?  Who protects the children from such parents?

If you have a child custody issue, please contact Pasadena Family Law attorney Mark B. Baer, Esq. at Mark B. Baer, Inc. a Professional Law Corporation.