#163 - Is $200 Per Child Enough for Child Support?

Summary

---

Coparent Academy Podcast – Episode #163: Is $200 Per Child Enough for Child Support?

Hosts: Linda VanValkenburg and Ron Gore
Date: June 9, 2025

---

Episode Overview

This episode centers on a common concern in co-parenting: Is $200 per child per month adequate child support, and what exactly is child support intended to cover? Drawing on a real-world Reddit post, hosts Linda and Ron discuss misconceptions, emotional pitfalls, statutory obligations, and practical approaches that separated or divorced parents often encounter regarding child support.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Real-World Scenario: The Reddit Post (00:00–01:02)

• The episode opens with a Reddit post from a mother questioning how child support should be used.
  • She receives $200/month per child from her ex and uses it mainly for essentials like food, rent, and clothing.
  • When her kids need snow boots (essential in their climate), she asks her ex to split the cost, but he refuses, saying child support covers everything.
  • The ex tells the kids, “I already paid for the boots because I pay child support.”
  • The mother wonders if she’s misunderstanding child support’s purpose.

2. The Harm in Involving Children in Child Support Issues (01:13–01:56)

• Linda emphasizes that parents should avoid discussing child support details with children:
  • “Quit talking to your children about child support. Exactly. No matter which side of the fence.” (Linda, 01:41)
• Comparing cases where children are told by one parent about the other’s (non)payments, which impacts children emotionally.

3. What Is Child Support For? Legal and Practical Perspective (01:56–05:15)

• Ron breaks down the legal and ethical framework:
  • Both parents are obligated to provide for children, whether time is shared equally or not.
  • When custody is close to 50/50, both parents share direct expenses, but sometimes there is still an order for support to equalize things.
  • “Child support is the obligation of both parents…both have a statutory and ethical obligation to care for their kids.” (Ron, 02:22)
• The idea of “equalizing” living environments is discussed—while ideal, it’s not always possible.
• Ron answers the mother’s question about spending priorities:
  • “You take care of your rent and your food first and then for the clothing you have options…if he can’t or won’t contribute extra and there’s no court order…then you hit the goodwill.” (Ron, 04:46)

4. Control and Transparency: Who Gets to Decide? (05:15–07:30)

• Linda describes frequent complaints (often from paying fathers) about lack of control over how child support is spent.
• Ron is explicit:
  • “Once it’s out of your account, into hers or into his, it’s none of your business anymore.” (Ron, 05:57)
  • Money is fungible: “Each dollar is not specifically allocated for a certain thing.”
• The question of demanding receipts or itemizations is addressed:
  • Only in rare cases would a court entertain such requests, usually when additional support is sought.
  • Otherwise: “It’s not a good look…to be exerting control over the finances of their ex…that gets us straight into the Duluth power and control wheel.” (Ron, 07:17)

5. Parental Narratives and Throwing Each Other “Under the Bus” (07:30–08:23)

• Linda observes children’s perspectives often reflect parental narratives:
  • “It is rather obvious if your child states to someone like myself, it’s just not fair that mom’s spending this much money…because obviously that has come from dad or the kids.” (Linda, 07:30)
• Ron and Linda note both parents sometimes use child support—or the lack thereof—to explain why children do or don’t get certain things, which isn’t healthy for the kids.
• Notable humor and empathy surface when discussing social media spying and exotic purchases, but the hosts reiterate: It’s easy but damaging for parents to blame the other for material shortfalls.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “Quit talking to your children about child support. Exactly. No matter which side of the fence.”
  — Linda, 01:41

• “Child support is the obligation of both parents…both have a statutory and ethical obligation to care for their kids.”
  — Ron, 02:22

• “You take care of your rent and your food first and then for the clothing you have options…if he can’t or won’t contribute extra and there’s no court order…then you hit the goodwill.”
  — Ron, 04:46

• “Once it’s out of your account, into hers or into his, it’s none of your business anymore.”
  — Ron, 05:57

• “It’s not a good look…to be exerting control over the finances of their ex…that gets us straight into the Duluth power and control wheel.”
  — Ron, 07:17

• “It is rather obvious if your child states to someone like myself, it’s just not fair that mom’s spending this much money…”
  — Linda, 07:30

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:00–01:02 — Case Study: The Reddit Post
• 01:13–01:56 — The damage of involving kids in child support topics
• 01:56–05:15 — Legal and practical understanding of child support obligation
• 05:15–07:30 — Who controls/supports? Money, transparency, and boundaries
• 07:30–08:23 — Children’s perspectives & the consequences of parental narratives

---

Tone and Takeaways

The conversation is forthright and empathetic but occasionally humorous, reflecting real frustrations from both custodial and noncustodial parents. The episode strongly advocates for insulating children from parental conflict about finances and emphasizes that once child support is paid, the recipient decides how to use those resources. Parents are reminded that ongoing financial disputes or transparency battles are not only unproductive but can deeply affect their children’s wellbeing.

Bottom Line:
Child support is intended to help both parents meet their children’s needs—not to be tracked or weaponized in parental disputes, and children should be kept out of adult conversations about money.

---

Transcript

[A]

Read a post in which mom is asking, what is child support for now.

[B]

She says, my ex, he pays child support around 200amonth for each of her kids. I use that money for food and rent and for other things. Our kids need snow booths as when we live in a part of the world where you just have to have snow boots. I asked my ex to pitch in 50% of the cost because he be in the snow boots when he has the kids and well, it is a necessity. He refused. He told me he pays child support and I have to take it out of that money. He told the kids he already paid me for the boots because he pays child support. Am I looking at child support wrong? When we got divorced, my attorney told me I can use the money for things the kids need, things like housing and food and clothing. I'm the only parent who buys clothing and in the end I only have like X amount of dollars. But should I be buying all of their clothing first and then rent and.

[A]

Food and that is her Reddit post. So, Linda, you run into this a lot, don't you?

[C]

Just about every case. And a lot of the cases I see, the father is estranged and so he has quit paying child support a while ago. And so it. And the children have been told, usually in that case by the mother, that he's not paying and that's why she can't afford to get them the really expensive tennis shoes they want or something like that. But the the child of this case or the children in this case has been told by father that he's already paid for the boots and probably anything else they wanted because he pays child support. And I think that is the big takeaway from this is quit talking to your children about child support. Exactly. No matter which side of the fence.

[A]

You'Re like, I was trying to visualize how that exchange occurred. The kids come in and say, dad, I need boots for the winter. Mom says, you won't get them for us. So that's probably how that conversation started. The question of what child support is for. I think it's the same I've practiced in Virginia and Oklahoma, and it was the same in two very disparate states. The two states are very different, or one's a commonwealth. Sorry, Virginia. And the issue is that child support is the obligation of both parents. So both parents have a statutory obligation, not to mention an ethical obligation, to care for their kids. And when you have a situation in which the parents are equally having parenting time with the kids, then they're both providing for the Same set of essential basic necessities for the kids in terms of housing and food on probably roughly equal levels. When you have one parent who has primary custody and the other parent has very limited time, like every other weekend, then the parent with primary custody is supporting their children financially because they have them, they're feeding them, they're housing them, and the parent who has the visitation is doing less of that. And so they make up for some of that lack of support by providing direct financial compensation to the parent who has the children more. So it's both parents obligation in this case. I think you were looking through the comments and did you find out their parenting time?

[C]

Yes. I was curious about how many children there were since she used the word each to describe the children. That, you know, obviously is implies at least two, but I think maybe more than two. But she said they do have about really close to about half time. Maybe she has a little bit more by the end of the year. And then she also volunteered that she, at the point of the divorce was making more money than he did by a little bit. So I don't know if she's minimizing the differences there either way or whether that was true. But she said now she does it.

[A]

So this sounds like a situation with roughly 50, 50 physical custody and incomes that are probably fairly close. And he's still paying child support. So I think the answer is what is child support for? To provide financially for your children, to keep them in as best a situation as you can. And if you can, it's nice to have their living environments not be so totally different. To go from lap of luxury on one occasion and then you're going to a small apartment in a rough part of town for weekends or whatever. But that doesn't always work out clearly because you can't equalize it totally. So the answer in terms of she asks, should I be buying all of the clothing first and then rent and food? No, you just have to watch a basic survival show. You need. What do you need? Your water, your shelter and your food and a bikini sometimes. That's true. I like a tankini myself just because of the way my body works. But so yeah, you take care of your rent and your food first and then for the clothing you have options. She doesn't have the cash. And if he can't or won't contribute extra and there's no court order requiring them to, then you hit the goodwill.

[C]

I hear the most, especially, I think from the fathers because they're traditionally more the ones to pay child support, don't you think? Okay, I agree. They will say that they feel like there's no control. They have no control over what the child support is used for. And I think that's where this post originally started, that they feel like they're just paying for mom's brand new sports car or something.

[A]

And they may be. And it's none of their business. You know what I tell my clients is if you're paying child support, you pay what's ordered. And once it's out of your account, into hers or into his, it's none of your business anymore because she has other payments. You have a bank account and money comes in and money goes out. And each dollar is not specifically allocated for a certain thing. So the child support that a person receives is just adding to the overall pool of resources they have to meet the needs that they have for themselves and for their children. And it's not the business of the parent paying child support to keep track or receive an itemization of how each dollar of child support was spent. It's just none of their business. Now, if you have a parent who keeps coming back who's receiving child support and is perennially saying, my children are destitute because I can't provide for them or whatever, and they try to seek additional child support, if a court were to entertain that, which most courts wouldn't, because typically, to my understanding of the jurisdictions I've been in, there are statutorily presumptive amounts of child support based on incomes.

[B]

Sure.

[A]

But if that were an issue, then I think that would open it up to, okay, then where's the money going? But typically it's just not anybody's business and you're not together anymore. And it's not a good look, especially for a guy to try to be exerting control over the finances of their ex, that gets us straight into the Duluth power and control wheel, which is not a good idea to be trying to focus on how she spends her money and to think that you have anything to say about how she handles her household.

[C]

And it is rather obvious if your child states to someone like myself, it's just not fair that mom's spending this much money doing such and such, because obviously that has come from dad or the kids.

[A]

Gotten on her Facebook account. Oh my. And saw her down at the casino here or on her beach trip with the girls.

[C]

Yes, I was just thinking that.

[A]

I know. And that's a word otherwise for my moms. Dads are quick to say, I've already paid my child support. I don't need to pay anything else. Moms are quick to throw dads under the bus or whoever. Vice versa. If it's alternative, I could get you this if only their parent would pay child support. It's just too easy to throw the X under the bus to. Not when you're not giving your kid something that they want, which doesn't help anybody.

[C]

Thanks for listening. If you'd like to leave questions, comments or concerns, please email [e-mail] and please remember to rate, review and subscribe to Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you listen.