neither...the custodial parent gets the money...child support isn't for the children, it's to help the custodial parent raise the children... and, depending on which state you live in, the govt will add extra to the bill to cover the cost of the additional work involved...

I think you mean "arrears". I beg to differ....the money is for the children, it just goes to the custodial parent to help pay for rent/food/clothes etc. If the custodial parent was ever the recipient of welfare/public assistance then a portion of that money will go back to the county basically paying them for the money they provided for her for the child. Child support money doesn't sit in "escrow"! And if he is having it withheld from his check then they don't take more out of his check than what was ordered.

well...since someone decided my answer wasn't helpful and said i didn't know what i was talking about, i will give you, word-for-word, parts of the ohio revised code, with references and links... "3115.01 Uniform interstate family support act definitions. (L) “Obligee” means any of the following: (1) An individual to whom a duty of support is or is alleged to be owed or in whose favor a support order has been issued or a judgment determining parentage has been rendered; (2) A state or political subdivision to which the rights under a duty of support or support order have been assigned or which has independent claims based on financial assistance provided to an individual obligee; (3) An individual seeking a judgment determining parentage of the individual’s child." http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3115.01 this means that the person who receives the child support, even if he/she lives out of state, even if he/she is not even a person, is NEVER the child... it can be a government, if there is no custodial parent, and the child is a ward of the state, or for the purposes of keeping the money in escrow until it is paid out for it's intended purpose... "A state or political subdivision to which the rights under a duty of support or support order have been assigned or which has independent claims based on financial assistance provided to an individual obligee..." orc/3115.01, see above... "in escrow; in the keeping of a third person for delivery to a given party upon the fulfillment of some condition." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/escrow as for the rest of angelame0826's answer, which was directed toward mine, they even admit in the orc that they sometimes do "take more out of his check than what was ordered"...here's the law... "3123.82 Obligor, overpaid child support defined. As used in sections 3123.82 to 3123.823 of the Revised Code: (B) “Overpaid child support” means amounts paid to an obligee under a child support order prior to termination of the child support order that exceed the amount required to be paid under the child support order, have not been impounded under section 3119.90 or 3119.92 of the Revised Code, and have not been repaid to the obligor under the child support order." http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3123.82 the state will even assist to get that money back, if they have paid it out already... "3123.821 Collecting overdue and overpaid support from refunds cooperation. The office of child support created in the department of job and family services under section 3125.02 of the Revised Code shall work with the tax commissioner to collect the following: (B) Overpaid child support from refunds of paid state income taxes under Chapter 5747. of the Revised Code that are payable to obligees." http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3123.821 between the time that they receive a payment, whether in person or through an employer, that money sits in a bank account until it is paid out to the obligee...that is called holding the money in escrow...and since mistakes happen so frequently that they require laws for dealing with them, then it is very possible for this to be true, "if you can prove that money is being taken from his taxes, then it is likely stuck in the system somewhere...bringing it to their attention may bring an accounting error or some other problem to light...", as i said to the person who asked this question... and since that is possible, so is this, "(if indeed there is money that has been paid and is sitting in escrow somewhere)"...i've already showed you under the definition of "obligee" that sometimes a second government entity is involved in collection and disbursements, "...or which has independent claims based on financial assistance provided to an individual obligee" (orc/3115.01, see above), which means they hold the money once they receive it until the paperwork is completely done...if they make a mistake and short a person by taking too much, they are obligated to come up with the money and cover that mistake themselves...you better hope to hell the agency makes sure it has money in escrow...or they risk spending money that isn't legally theirs to spend...that's not a minor infraction...these are state agencies we're talking about... and, this should reference my the rest of my previous answers..."once that money has been paid, aside from any govt. fees taken out, it should all belong to the custodial parent..." "3119.27 Processing charge for issuing or modifying an order. (A) A court that issues or modifies a court support order, or an administrative agency that issues or modifies an administrative child support order, shall impose on the obligor under the support order a processing charge that is the greater of two per cent of the support payment to be collected under a support order or one dollar per month. No court or agency may call the charge a poundage fee. (B) In each child support case that is a Title IV-D case, the department of job and family services shall annually claim twenty-five dollars from the processing charge described in division (A) of this section for federal reporting purposes if the obligee has never received assistance under Title IV-A and the department has collected at least five hundred dollars of child support for the obligee. The director of job and family services shall adopt rules under Chapter 119. of the Revised Code to implement this division, and the department shall implement this division not later than March 31, 2008." http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3119.27 now, let me ask you this, do you think i should have been docked for my previous answer...maybe you could just ask me next time, instead of insulting me...

i'm trying to help anyone who reads this and has a similar problem in this area...so, one more time (this is my third) i will answer the opinions and semantics of angelame0826, so that people will get the correct, legal answer, rather than an opinion...then i'm finished...i would think by now that anyone who wants an accurate, legal answer to this question would see that she is just giving opinions because she evidently has some kind of issues... all of my answers can be researched in the ohio revised code...so if you wish to beliece her opinions over the law, it's your choice...but here is where the laws for the state of ohio are found...if you were to go to court and use her opinions, you would be in for some unpleasant surprises... http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/31 if someone is in arrears on their support, the money, when paid, belongs to (is "for") the "obligee"...usually, that means "custodial parent", although there are circumstances where that can mean another person, a government entity, or even more than one (to offset money that has already been provided for support through an agency, for example)... the agency does NOT EVER pay the child/children...even the arrears, when the obligation is met, does NOT EVER go to the child/children either... IF IT WERE "FOR THE CHILDREN", WHEN THE CHILD/CHILDREN BECAME ADULTS, THE MONEY PAID WOULD LEGALLY BELONG TO THEM, AND BE PAID DIRECTLY TO THEM...it does NOT... ALL CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS GO TO THE OBLIGEE, EVEN IF THE CHILD IS AN ADULT WHILE THE ARREARS ARE BEING PAID...IT NEVER EVER GOES TO THE CHILD...therefore, legally, it never belongs to (is "for") the child, or else they could make a legal claim to said money...it's pretty damn simple, and it's the law, no matter how many times you say or type "it's for the children"... your opinion of this, or calling it something else, does NOT change the law...or make you right because you think it is, or should be, some other way...this is a legal question, not an opinion poll...the woman wanted to know where the money was...you can type "it's for the children" till your fingers cramp...it will still be an incorrect answer, and remain incorrect unless and until they ever change the law...period... THERE IS NOTHING FOR ANYONE TO ARGUE ABOUT HERE...IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, GO TO THE GOVERNMENT AND TELL THEM YOUR OPINION, AND SEE IF THEY WILL CHANGE THE LAW SO YOU CAN BE RIGHT... before the money is paid to the obligee, the child support agency has the money...that is called "escrow"... "a contract, deed, bond, or other written agreement deposited with a third person, by whom it is to be delivered to the grantee or promisee on the fulfillment of some condition." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/escrow) an order for child support is a court order ("contract...or other written agreement") for money to be paid to a third party (the child support agency), who oversees things, and disburses the correct amount to the obligee... if, for example, there is some reason for there to be more than one obligee (if a government entity helped the custodial parent through some assistance program, etc.), then the money cannot be disbursed to the "promisee" (which, in this case would be the custodial parent, or original obligee) UNTIL "the fulfillment of some condition", (which in our example, would be the reimbursement of funds to the agency that assisted)... that money is in escrow, no matter what you wish to call it... you can call your vagina, "miss piggy" if you wish, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still a vagina... this is family LAW, not family OPINION or family SEMANTICS... "obligee" means the person to whom the money is disbursed...NEVER does that mean children, even if they are adults when support payments are being made (which is the case when arrears are owed)... CHILDREN HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO THE MONEY, THE OBLIGEE DOES...PERIOD... therefore, ALL child support payments are "FOR" the OBLIGEE for the purpose of supporting children...if the custodial parent takes a vacation with that money instead, neither the obligor nor the children can do anything about it...which means that money is NOT LEGALLY "FOR" the children...otherwise, children could sue the obligee for that money back, if they did not consent to how it was spent... yes, ethically, it's for the purpose of raising the children...but, never do minor children have a legal claim to money that was made by a parent, whether they live with that parent or not...otherwise, you could even say that daddy and mommy's paychecks are "for" the children, even if they all live in the same household...there is no difference... if what you are saying were true, then materialistic children would be encouraging parents to get divorced...it would be a pretty lucrative business for a child, which is one reason why the money IS NEVER, AND CANNOT EVER BE, "FOR" THE CHILDREN... whine, call me names, brag about how you own a house that hasn't been foreclosed on, i don't give a damn, it doesn't make you right when the law says otherwise... case closed...

The money goes to the custodial parent. They are the ones who supported their children without the help of the non-custodial parent.