Blended Families

Not to hijack a thread- regarding CS

Okay, I was reading Lu's thread and realized I was about to comment on something that wasn't in her OP, and that's not fair.
I was hoping for some SM opinion's about CS.

My XH's GF makes it a point to tell people that he pay's "too much" for CS, that I don't use it on our DD, and that overall I am just "using him" for money. Our CS amount is based on both of the birth parent's income, I make slightly more, and I "pay" 52% of my DD's costs, while he pays 48%. She uses the fact that I get hand me down clothes, use generic diapers, and am taking hand me down toys for my DD. She also states that I should send along enough stuff for my XH's weekends, which I don't.

Here is my question, as I see it a lot on here, NOT pin-pointing Lu. In no way is she alone in this, Why does it matter HOW the BM spends the CS as long as the LO's are dressed in appropiate sized clothing, are feed, have a shelter, etc?

And the question I wonder the most- If you knew how much CS your DH was paying when you married him, why would you be annoyed about it now? If your DH has had a change in life (loss of job, loss of income due to salary reduction) I can totally see the request for modification. Heck, I gave my XH a pass for three months on paying his half of the daycare until he got a new job, and got a couple paychecks- that makes sense. But if I find a way based on my income to work part time, go on vacation, etc, it's really my business, isn't it? I promise I am not trying to be snarky, I am seriously wondering what part I am not getting, and I come here to get both sides of the story.

«1

Re: Not to hijack a thread- regarding CS

  • imageAnnplus1:

    Okay, I was reading Lu's thread and realized I was about to comment on something that wasn't in her OP, and that's not fair.
    I was hoping for some SM opinion's about CS.

    My XH's GF makes it a point to tell people that he pay's "too much" for CS, that I don't use it on our DD, and that overall I am just "using him" for money. Our CS amount is based on both of the birth parent's income, I make slightly more, and I "pay" 52% of my DD's costs, while he pays 48%. She uses the fact that I get hand me down clothes, use generic diapers, and am taking hand me down toys for my DD. She also states that I should send along enough stuff for my XH's weekends, which I don't.

    Here is my question, as I see it a lot on here, NOT pin-pointing Lu. In no way is she alone in this, Why does it matter HOW the BM spends the CS as long as the LO's are dressed in appropiate sized clothing, are feed, have a shelter, etc?

    And the question I wonder the most- If you knew how much CS your DH was paying when you married him, why would you be annoyed about it now? If your DH has had a change in life (loss of job, loss of income due to salary reduction) I can totally see the request for modification. Heck, I gave my XH a pass for three months on paying his half of the daycare until he got a new job, and got a couple paychecks- that makes sense. But if I find a way based on my income to work part time, go on vacation, etc, it's really my business, isn't it? I promise I am not trying to be snarky, I am seriously wondering what part I am not getting, and I come here to get both sides of the story.

    I just wanted to say that I don't tell anyone about my thoughts on DH cs (1st time was here). I also know for a fact, she is quite pleased with herself that she is getting more money than she should. I didn't know if you were implying that or if you were just curious. I just wanted to clarify just in case. 

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • bebe11bebe11 member

    I'll be the first to say that my husband pays BM2 (6 yo SD's mom) way too much child support.  BUT.... I do not blame BM one bit, she gets what the state says she should get. However, CS was based on calculations made when she wasn't working and my H was making about $20,000 more back then.  My husband chooses to not go back to court to modify child support (out of pure lazyness), and he also chooses to not request more time with SD.  In California CS is based on both parents incomes, and the amount of time spent with each parent.  In the current CO it states that he spends a whooping 7% of time with SD (and in all honesty it is probably less than that).

    I am also a BM and if my Ex-husband told me how to spend the child support I receive from him, I'd tell him where to shove it.  My DD is taken care of, she has clothes, a roof over her head and everything an 11 year old needs.

     

  • Loading the player...
  • That was very well put pegleg.

    I'm not sure how much weight anyone should really give my thoughts on this one as we neither pay nor receive CS.

    I think that as long as things are 'even' between the CP and the child as far as clothes and such are concerned that shouldn't matter. I would be PO'd about anyone who only has hand me downs for their kids but wears designer clothing, has a constant manicure etc.

    As far as being able to work part time, I think that you should be able to provide entirely on your salary without CS to only work part time. I don't think that CS should be considered part of your income. You aren't a couple where one works and the other takes care of the house and you call it even.

    I don't think anyone should hold vacations and other fun things against anyone, the kids deserve to be able to do those things.

    And the ever touchy new baby situation. Of course you shouldn't have more kids if you can't afford them. But affording to have more kids doesn't exactly mean that you continue to do the exact same with your money otherwise. Our older kids got less new clothes at the start of last school year than usual, and we did without things that we wanted because we had to buy baby things, it doesn't mean that we can't afford the baby, it just means that we cut back a little in some areas.

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imagePegleg715:

    I am a SM. I DO think DH pays too much in child support. However, this has nothing to do with BM. I think she gets what she is owed according to the state, and with that money she gets to make whatever decisions she wants. If she manages to find second hand clothes so that she and her family can use more of DH's child support money on their mortgage than they would have otherwise then good for her for spending wisely and making the money go as far as it can.

    Do I think that some states don't give BM's enough money? Yes.
    Do I think that some states give BM's too much money? Yes.

    But I do not think that this should be something on BM EVER! She's doing what she can (in a healthy stable parenting situation) to raise her child/ren the best way she knows how. I will never say BM gets too much money. DH fathered a child, and is responsible for that child. Do I wish we had more money? Of course, but it is in no way BM's fault.

    ^^  All of this.  I think the only time I've ever complained about the amount my husband pays in CS is when she tries to modify the amount because she just doesn't want to work.  Thankfully we live in a State where if one parent (CP or NCP) is deliberately earning less than they are capable of, then an amount is determined as their earnings (usually full-time work at minimum wage).  Other than that, I raised my 2 kids on my own for 5 years before getting engaged to my husband and my XH hasn't paid me a penny of CS.  I know how much those checks each month would have helped, so I don't fault BM's receiving what the State determines is "fair".  Again, I'm only annoyed when there are BM's who are deliberately refusing to work, receiving welfare and food stamps all while getting CS based on their $0 income.

    image

    Created by MyFitnessPal - Free Weight Loss Tools



  • I think every situation is different and I also think that there are a lot of people who *** who don't have any legitimate complaints. 

    Then again, I have a hard time not being pissed when I know someone is paying a ton in CS and the money may not be used in the child's best interest, because of what we went through with my H's ex. I don't have time to tell that story now, but when someone pays no utility, mortgage, insurance, cell phone, medical, gets food stamps and cash assistance AND gets over 40k in a year in cash from a former spouse and they can't buy their kid shoes that fit or put $10 in a lunch account, damn right I am going to be pissed at how she is spending her "support".  

  • imageKaeldrasmommy:

    That was very well put pegleg.

    I'm not sure how much weight anyone should really give my thoughts on this one as we neither pay nor receive CS.

    I think that as long as things are 'even' between the CP and the child as far as clothes and such are concerned that shouldn't matter. I would be PO'd about anyone who only has hand me downs for their kids but wears designer clothing, has a constant manicure etc.

    As far as being able to work part time, I think that you should be able to provide entirely on your salary without CS to only work part time. I don't think that CS should be considered part of your income. You aren't a couple where one works and the other takes care of the house and you call it even.

    I don't think anyone should hold vacations and other fun things against anyone, the kids deserve to be able to do those things.

    And the ever touchy new baby situation. Of course you shouldn't have more kids if you can't afford them. But affording to have more kids doesn't exactly mean that you continue to do the exact same with your money otherwise. Our older kids got less new clothes at the start of last school year than usual, and we did without things that we wanted because we had to buy baby things, it doesn't mean that we can't afford the baby, it just means that we cut back a little in some areas.

    Double Yes to the bolded.  If a CP is only working part-time, then I hope that part-time income is enough to cover all their expenses.  I'm sure there are plenty of times where a CS check was late or didn't show up one month for some people.  If you're relying on that check to make ends meet then you need to re-evaluate your budget.  The few times I've received XH tax returns I considered them a bonus.  I made my budget for me and my children based on my income, not my income plus what I should receive in CS.

    Regarding the new baby:  This issue angers me so much.  As a BM: when my XH had a new baby he tried to argue that he shouldn't be paying so much in CS because now he has another chlid to support.  First of all: you're already not paying me so shut it.  Secondly: if you can't provide for the chldren you have then don't have more (isn't that the same argument we use on people receiving state assistance?).  There's this lovely thing called birth control, use it.  As a SM: when my husband and I decided to try to have a baby, we never even considered asking to modify his CS for K.  We looked at his income and subtracted the CS amount, and discussed we wanted to cut out to save for the baby.  There wasn't much we were really willing/able to cut out, so I decided to go back to work part-time.  That's just what grown-ups do.  You want something, you figure out a way to afford it or you do without it. 

    image

    Created by MyFitnessPal - Free Weight Loss Tools



  • I totally agree with being curious. Heck, I am fairly nosy. Don't be the neighbor with your shades open at night when we are taking our walk. I will stare at your house. I can't help it. :)

    As for the cutting back because you had more children, I get that. I really do . I will end up contributing less of what I "pay" for my portion of CS if I have another child- I never thought of that until now. Which is why I am here!  As for the working part time, if I am getting my portion of CS based on what I would make full time, how many hours I chose to work is my business. In real life I work about 50 hours a week, so that doesn't apply to me.

    I get frustrated by the amount of crap I get from XH's GF, and am annoyed I can't find a way to keep her from talking to me without going to jail Stick out tongue, and I NEVER respond, never take the bait and always pretend she isn't talking.  Then I see it here on occasion and started to wonder if it was just me.

  • OH! And Lu, I totally wasn't saying you were telling people how annoyed about your DH's child support. At no point was I "calling you out". :)
  • I'm a SM and I can tell you that MH is paying too much in child support, the AG calculated his CS based on him working full time and getting paid more than he was. He was just a kid at the time and had no idea how the AG calculated CS and by the time he spoke to an attny several years later he was making close to what they calculated 4 yrs before. 

    Now, 3 years ago he lost his job, we have been trying to get his CS modified based on his new salary but our state has been dragging its feet about it, and we can't afford an attny right now; he now pays well over 50% of his income in CS, we now only get a couple hundred dollars each paycheck. But I do not, nor have I ever blamed BM for that. It isn't her fault that our state is dragging its feet on the issue, and SD is always fed, always has clothes, and a roof over her head and that's what matters.  

    TTC 6 years three m/c during that time 5/11 Ruptured Ectopic - Lost left tube and a normal baby boy 2/12 IVF #1 BFN - Very poor egg quality... :( 5/12 IVF #2 Hoping for the best! Est ET 5/11-5/18 BFN Decided to move on to adoption to complete our family!
  • imagepiffle42:

    I think it is a bit unfair that every state has their own rules regarding CS, visitation, ect.  A child shouldn't be punished just because of the state they live in.  There was a story in the news recently about a guy that has 30 kids and was complaining he couldn't pay his CS!  At that point maybe someone should step in and cut off his d!ck...

    One of my friend's dads used to send letters to her mom demanding to know what she was spending the CS on.  The kids were clothed, fed, had shelter, ect.  If you actually break down what your costs are I'm guessing it's pretty fair in most situations.  If the kids clothing, food needs, ect, are clearly not being met, then that's a whole other story.

    Indiana holds our jurisdiction for CS and CO and BF is imputed as if he works a minimum wage job, even though he has a college degree and basically just refuses to work.  He graduated 3 years ago in the same field that DH works in so I know roughly what his earning potential should be.  Unfortunately since he has never worked they can't impute him for anything other than minimum wage.  My lawyer said that if he keeps this up for about 5 years (only 2 more to go) he'd be willing to try to modify and have the judge use approximate costs that his parents are "providing" for his rent, food, ect, and have the judge impute that as income in addition to the minimum wage requirement (apparently he's had success with this before).  BF sees DS about once a year and the only thing he has to provide for those visits are toiletries (I send clothes, shoes, ect) and any activities or toys.  He also doesn't provide any insurance help, even though he should.  I get about $250/month (if he bothers to pay, which is usually only around the time he sees DS).  If I'm lucky I can cover airfare for visits with it.  I'm sure BF's wife doesn't like that he's ordered to pay CS, but since he rarely pays and they live with his parents, I'm guessing she's an idiot.

    Hahahaha, my XH's wife flat out told me that he shouldn't be paying me any CS since I work full-time, have a degree and have remarried.  They were living in XH's mother's basement for about 2 years and have finally started renting a place (why would anyone be willing to live in someone's basement?!).  I told her to let me know if she still feels the same way when they divorce and he doesn't pay CS for their son.

    image

    Created by MyFitnessPal - Free Weight Loss Tools



  • imageAnnplus1:

    I get frustrated by the amount of crap I get from XH's GF, and am annoyed I can't find a way to keep her from talking to me without going to jail Stick out tongue, and I NEVER respond, never take the bait and always pretend she isn't talking.  Then I see it here on occasion and started to wonder if it was just me.

    I guess you could take the high road and not say anything, but I would be REAL tempted to say "you're only a girlfriend, it's none of your business."

  • I think in general it is hard to financially provide for a child you didn't create and have very little say on how they're raised because let's be real families/couples combine incomes. That's why some SMs get picky about CS. Philosophically there are some things I want all my kids (that includes SKs) to have- a car at 16, a head start on college savings, trendier clothing and some things I do not care about- a phone at 10, season water park passes, music lessons. But what I want means nothing even though I work just as much as BM (actually way more since she doesn't work) and Dh to put clothing on their child's back and to make sure their child gets every opportunity he can. I get told "you can't come to doctors appointments" "you can't help choose what school he goes to" "you can't decide on x,y,z" that's why CS is a sore spot. SMs usually get told put up or shut up which would not sit well with most anyone if the positions were reversed
    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • wwnbwwwnbw member
    I think BM get's too much but I don't complain IRL about it. I don't care how she spends it I just wish she got less. If I left DH he would be SOL and couldn't even afford a place to live if we both got the full amount of what we should get according to the state. I don't think it's done fair where I live.
    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • imageAnnplus1:
    OH! And Lu, I totally wasn't saying you were telling people how annoyed about your DH's child support. At no point was I "calling you out". :)

    I got ya!! :) 

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imagetifanico:
    imagejobalchak:

      I told her to let me know if she still feels the same way when they divorce and he doesn't pay CS for their son.

    Priceless! 

    Yep! Love it.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imagetifanico:
    imagejobalchak:

      I told her to let me know if she still feels the same way when they divorce and he doesn't pay CS for their son.

    Priceless! 

    Yes

  • imagejobalchak:
    imageKaeldrasmommy:

    That was very well put pegleg.

    I'm not sure how much weight anyone should really give my thoughts on this one as we neither pay nor receive CS.

    I think that as long as things are 'even' between the CP and the child as far as clothes and such are concerned that shouldn't matter. I would be PO'd about anyone who only has hand me downs for their kids but wears designer clothing, has a constant manicure etc.

    As far as being able to work part time, I think that you should be able to provide entirely on your salary without CS to only work part time. I don't think that CS should be considered part of your income. You aren't a couple where one works and the other takes care of the house and you call it even.

    I don't think anyone should hold vacations and other fun things against anyone, the kids deserve to be able to do those things.

    And the ever touchy new baby situation. Of course you shouldn't have more kids if you can't afford them. But affording to have more kids doesn't exactly mean that you continue to do the exact same with your money otherwise. Our older kids got less new clothes at the start of last school year than usual, and we did without things that we wanted because we had to buy baby things, it doesn't mean that we can't afford the baby, it just means that we cut back a little in some areas.

    Double Yes to the bolded.  If a CP is only working part-time, then I hope that part-time income is enough to cover all their expenses.  I'm sure there are plenty of times where a CS check was late or didn't show up one month for some people.  If you're relying on that check to make ends meet then you need to re-evaluate your budget.  The few times I've received XH tax returns I considered them a bonus.  I made my budget for me and my children based on my income, not my income plus what I should receive in CS.

    Regarding the new baby:  This issue angers me so much.  As a BM: when my XH had a new baby he tried to argue that he shouldn't be paying so much in CS because now he has another chlid to support.  First of all: you're already not paying me so shut it.  Secondly: if you can't provide for the chldren you have then don't have more (isn't that the same argument we use on people receiving state assistance?).  There's this lovely thing called birth control, use it.  As a SM: when my husband and I decided to try to have a baby, we never even considered asking to modify his CS for K.  We looked at his income and subtracted the CS amount, and discussed we wanted to cut out to save for the baby.  There wasn't much we were really willing/able to cut out, so I decided to go back to work part-time.  That's just what grown-ups do.  You want something, you figure out a way to afford it or you do without it. 

    I have heard this before from BM`s on this board but this statement makes me angry. Why should I not be able to have a child with my husband simply because he had a child before we met. He is not trying to stop paying support, just requesting a modification based on the fact that now his money has to stretch further. This happens in intact families as well. When you are an only child you may get a bit spoiled and when another child comes along parents may need to scale back a bit. 

    No one else will ever know the strength of my love for you. After all, you are the only one who knows what my heart sounds like from the inside.
    image






  • imagecole2144:
    imagejobalchak:
    imageKaeldrasmommy:

    That was very well put pegleg.

    I'm not sure how much weight anyone should really give my thoughts on this one as we neither pay nor receive CS.

    I think that as long as things are 'even' between the CP and the child as far as clothes and such are concerned that shouldn't matter. I would be PO'd about anyone who only has hand me downs for their kids but wears designer clothing, has a constant manicure etc.

    As far as being able to work part time, I think that you should be able to provide entirely on your salary without CS to only work part time. I don't think that CS should be considered part of your income. You aren't a couple where one works and the other takes care of the house and you call it even.

    I don't think anyone should hold vacations and other fun things against anyone, the kids deserve to be able to do those things.

    And the ever touchy new baby situation. Of course you shouldn't have more kids if you can't afford them. But affording to have more kids doesn't exactly mean that you continue to do the exact same with your money otherwise. Our older kids got less new clothes at the start of last school year than usual, and we did without things that we wanted because we had to buy baby things, it doesn't mean that we can't afford the baby, it just means that we cut back a little in some areas.

    Double Yes to the bolded.  If a CP is only working part-time, then I hope that part-time income is enough to cover all their expenses.  I'm sure there are plenty of times where a CS check was late or didn't show up one month for some people.  If you're relying on that check to make ends meet then you need to re-evaluate your budget.  The few times I've received XH tax returns I considered them a bonus.  I made my budget for me and my children based on my income, not my income plus what I should receive in CS.

    Regarding the new baby:  This issue angers me so much.  As a BM: when my XH had a new baby he tried to argue that he shouldn't be paying so much in CS because now he has another chlid to support.  First of all: you're already not paying me so shut it.  Secondly: if you can't provide for the chldren you have then don't have more (isn't that the same argument we use on people receiving state assistance?).  There's this lovely thing called birth control, use it.  As a SM: when my husband and I decided to try to have a baby, we never even considered asking to modify his CS for K.  We looked at his income and subtracted the CS amount, and discussed we wanted to cut out to save for the baby.  There wasn't much we were really willing/able to cut out, so I decided to go back to work part-time.  That's just what grown-ups do.  You want something, you figure out a way to afford it or you do without it. 

    I have heard this before from BM`s on this board but this statement makes me angry. Why should I not be able to have a child with my husband simply because he had a child before we met. He is not trying to stop paying support, just requesting a modification based on the fact that now his money has to stretch further. This happens in intact families as well. When you are an only child you may get a bit spoiled and when another child comes along parents may need to scale back a bit. 

    But mine and my husband's decision to have a baby shouldn't impact K's standard of living at BM's. Our decision shouldn't effect BM. Do I think she should be doing more to support K and not need as much CS? Yes. But I knew my husband had a child to support well before I married him, so I have no room to complain. That's why I went back to work so that we can afford this new baby. And remember, I'm a BM as well as a SM. 

    Try flipping the situation: if BM and her new husband decide to have a baby, should she be entitled to more CS? Her financial burden would be changing as well, so does she get a modification?  

    image

    Created by MyFitnessPal - Free Weight Loss Tools



  • imagejobalchak:
    imagecole2144:
    imagejobalchak:
    imageKaeldrasmommy:

    That was very well put pegleg.

    I'm not sure how much weight anyone should really give my thoughts on this one as we neither pay nor receive CS.

    I think that as long as things are 'even' between the CP and the child as far as clothes and such are concerned that shouldn't matter. I would be PO'd about anyone who only has hand me downs for their kids but wears designer clothing, has a constant manicure etc.

    As far as being able to work part time, I think that you should be able to provide entirely on your salary without CS to only work part time. I don't think that CS should be considered part of your income. You aren't a couple where one works and the other takes care of the house and you call it even.

    I don't think anyone should hold vacations and other fun things against anyone, the kids deserve to be able to do those things.

    And the ever touchy new baby situation. Of course you shouldn't have more kids if you can't afford them. But affording to have more kids doesn't exactly mean that you continue to do the exact same with your money otherwise. Our older kids got less new clothes at the start of last school year than usual, and we did without things that we wanted because we had to buy baby things, it doesn't mean that we can't afford the baby, it just means that we cut back a little in some areas.

    Double Yes to the bolded.  If a CP is only working part-time, then I hope that part-time income is enough to cover all their expenses.  I'm sure there are plenty of times where a CS check was late or didn't show up one month for some people.  If you're relying on that check to make ends meet then you need to re-evaluate your budget.  The few times I've received XH tax returns I considered them a bonus.  I made my budget for me and my children based on my income, not my income plus what I should receive in CS.

    Regarding the new baby:  This issue angers me so much.  As a BM: when my XH had a new baby he tried to argue that he shouldn't be paying so much in CS because now he has another chlid to support.  First of all: you're already not paying me so shut it.  Secondly: if you can't provide for the chldren you have then don't have more (isn't that the same argument we use on people receiving state assistance?).  There's this lovely thing called birth control, use it.  As a SM: when my husband and I decided to try to have a baby, we never even considered asking to modify his CS for K.  We looked at his income and subtracted the CS amount, and discussed we wanted to cut out to save for the baby.  There wasn't much we were really willing/able to cut out, so I decided to go back to work part-time.  That's just what grown-ups do.  You want something, you figure out a way to afford it or you do without it. 

    I have heard this before from BM`s on this board but this statement makes me angry. Why should I not be able to have a child with my husband simply because he had a child before we met. He is not trying to stop paying support, just requesting a modification based on the fact that now his money has to stretch further. This happens in intact families as well. When you are an only child you may get a bit spoiled and when another child comes along parents may need to scale back a bit. 

    But mine and my husband's decision to have a baby shouldn't impact K's standard of living at BM's. Our decision shouldn't effect BM. Do I think she should be doing more to support K and not need as much CS? Yes. But I knew my husband had a child to support well before I married him, so I have no room to complain. That's why I went back to work so that we can afford this new baby. And remember, I'm a BM as well as a SM. 

    Try flipping the situation: if BM and her new husband decide to have a baby, should she be entitled to more CS? Her financial burden would be changing as well, so does she get a modification?  

    In our state, yes she would be entitled to a modification. It works both ways in my state. I know we are not asking for anything besides what our state has deemed fair. 

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imageMrsLuWho:

    In our state, yes she would be entitled to a modification. It works both ways in my state. I know we are not asking for anything besides what our state has deemed fair. 

    I'm sorry, but that's really crappy.  Why should your husband be responsible to help BM and her new spouse afford their new child (just like having BM's CS lowered to help your husband afford his new child)?  I'm really glad in my State new children don't get factored into the CS calculation.

    image

    Created by MyFitnessPal - Free Weight Loss Tools



  • imagejobalchak:
    imagecole2144:
    imagejobalchak:
    imageKaeldrasmommy:

    That was very well put pegleg.

    I'm not sure how much weight anyone should really give my thoughts on this one as we neither pay nor receive CS.

    I think that as long as things are 'even' between the CP and the child as far as clothes and such are concerned that shouldn't matter. I would be PO'd about anyone who only has hand me downs for their kids but wears designer clothing, has a constant manicure etc.

    As far as being able to work part time, I think that you should be able to provide entirely on your salary without CS to only work part time. I don't think that CS should be considered part of your income. You aren't a couple where one works and the other takes care of the house and you call it even.

    I don't think anyone should hold vacations and other fun things against anyone, the kids deserve to be able to do those things.

    And the ever touchy new baby situation. Of course you shouldn't have more kids if you can't afford them. But affording to have more kids doesn't exactly mean that you continue to do the exact same with your money otherwise. Our older kids got less new clothes at the start of last school year than usual, and we did without things that we wanted because we had to buy baby things, it doesn't mean that we can't afford the baby, it just means that we cut back a little in some areas.

    Double Yes to the bolded.  If a CP is only working part-time, then I hope that part-time income is enough to cover all their expenses.  I'm sure there are plenty of times where a CS check was late or didn't show up one month for some people.  If you're relying on that check to make ends meet then you need to re-evaluate your budget.  The few times I've received XH tax returns I considered them a bonus.  I made my budget for me and my children based on my income, not my income plus what I should receive in CS.

    Regarding the new baby:  This issue angers me so much.  As a BM: when my XH had a new baby he tried to argue that he shouldn't be paying so much in CS because now he has another chlid to support.  First of all: you're already not paying me so shut it.  Secondly: if you can't provide for the chldren you have then don't have more (isn't that the same argument we use on people receiving state assistance?).  There's this lovely thing called birth control, use it.  As a SM: when my husband and I decided to try to have a baby, we never even considered asking to modify his CS for K.  We looked at his income and subtracted the CS amount, and discussed we wanted to cut out to save for the baby.  There wasn't much we were really willing/able to cut out, so I decided to go back to work part-time.  That's just what grown-ups do.  You want something, you figure out a way to afford it or you do without it. 

    I have heard this before from BM`s on this board but this statement makes me angry. Why should I not be able to have a child with my husband simply because he had a child before we met. He is not trying to stop paying support, just requesting a modification based on the fact that now his money has to stretch further. This happens in intact families as well. When you are an only child you may get a bit spoiled and when another child comes along parents may need to scale back a bit. 

    But mine and my husband's decision to have a baby shouldn't impact K's standard of living at BM's. Our decision shouldn't effect BM. Do I think she should be doing more to support K and not need as much CS? Yes. But I knew my husband had a child to support well before I married him, so I have no room to complain. That's why I went back to work so that we can afford this new baby. And remember, I'm a BM as well as a SM. 

    Try flipping the situation: if BM and her new husband decide to have a baby, should she be entitled to more CS? Her financial burden would be changing as well, so does she get a modification?  

    Like I said sometimes you have to scale back when you add another child to the mix, blended family or not. If we have a third baby both of our kids will be getting a little bit less because salary does not go up just because your family size does. We supply everything for SD while she is in our care, she shows up with just the clothes on her back in addition to child support so if BM needs to pay a bit more for SD`s needs while she is with her so be it. Like I said nothing of SD`s goes between houses except the outfit she has on when she gets here. If BM has another baby she would need to adjust her standard of living accordingly.

    No one else will ever know the strength of my love for you. After all, you are the only one who knows what my heart sounds like from the inside.
    image






  • imagecole2144:
    imagejobalchak:
    imagecole2144:
    imagejobalchak:
    imageKaeldrasmommy:

    That was very well put pegleg.

    I'm not sure how much weight anyone should really give my thoughts on this one as we neither pay nor receive CS.

    I think that as long as things are 'even' between the CP and the child as far as clothes and such are concerned that shouldn't matter. I would be PO'd about anyone who only has hand me downs for their kids but wears designer clothing, has a constant manicure etc.

    As far as being able to work part time, I think that you should be able to provide entirely on your salary without CS to only work part time. I don't think that CS should be considered part of your income. You aren't a couple where one works and the other takes care of the house and you call it even.

    I don't think anyone should hold vacations and other fun things against anyone, the kids deserve to be able to do those things.

    And the ever touchy new baby situation. Of course you shouldn't have more kids if you can't afford them. But affording to have more kids doesn't exactly mean that you continue to do the exact same with your money otherwise. Our older kids got less new clothes at the start of last school year than usual, and we did without things that we wanted because we had to buy baby things, it doesn't mean that we can't afford the baby, it just means that we cut back a little in some areas.

    Double Yes to the bolded.  If a CP is only working part-time, then I hope that part-time income is enough to cover all their expenses.  I'm sure there are plenty of times where a CS check was late or didn't show up one month for some people.  If you're relying on that check to make ends meet then you need to re-evaluate your budget.  The few times I've received XH tax returns I considered them a bonus.  I made my budget for me and my children based on my income, not my income plus what I should receive in CS.

    Regarding the new baby:  This issue angers me so much.  As a BM: when my XH had a new baby he tried to argue that he shouldn't be paying so much in CS because now he has another chlid to support.  First of all: you're already not paying me so shut it.  Secondly: if you can't provide for the chldren you have then don't have more (isn't that the same argument we use on people receiving state assistance?).  There's this lovely thing called birth control, use it.  As a SM: when my husband and I decided to try to have a baby, we never even considered asking to modify his CS for K.  We looked at his income and subtracted the CS amount, and discussed we wanted to cut out to save for the baby.  There wasn't much we were really willing/able to cut out, so I decided to go back to work part-time.  That's just what grown-ups do.  You want something, you figure out a way to afford it or you do without it. 

    I have heard this before from BM`s on this board but this statement makes me angry. Why should I not be able to have a child with my husband simply because he had a child before we met. He is not trying to stop paying support, just requesting a modification based on the fact that now his money has to stretch further. This happens in intact families as well. When you are an only child you may get a bit spoiled and when another child comes along parents may need to scale back a bit. 

    But mine and my husband's decision to have a baby shouldn't impact K's standard of living at BM's. Our decision shouldn't effect BM. Do I think she should be doing more to support K and not need as much CS? Yes. But I knew my husband had a child to support well before I married him, so I have no room to complain. That's why I went back to work so that we can afford this new baby. And remember, I'm a BM as well as a SM. 

    Try flipping the situation: if BM and her new husband decide to have a baby, should she be entitled to more CS? Her financial burden would be changing as well, so does she get a modification?  

    Like I said sometimes you have to scale back when you add another child to the mix, blended family or not. If we have a third baby both of our kids will be getting a little bit less because salary does not go up just because your family size does. We supply everything for SD while she is in our care, she shows up with just the clothes on her back in addition to child support so if BM needs to pay a bit more for SD`s needs while she is with her so be it. Like I said nothing of SD`s goes between houses except the outfit she has on when she gets here. If BM has another baby she would need to adjust her standard of living accordingly.

    I get what you're saying.  However, the household bringing the new baby in needs to scale back their spending, not the other household.  My husband pays CS and we maintain our own wardrobe and toiletries for K when she's here.  No clothes go back and forth either.  But if you're saying that your husband should be able to have his CS payments reduced a bit because he has another child, then you have to also say that BM should be able to have her CS increased because she decides to have another child. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    image

    Created by MyFitnessPal - Free Weight Loss Tools



  • All I can say in our situation unfortunetly his children go to school (seen with my own eyes & pics) disheveled, in clothes that do not fit or they (children) are unclean. This makes me upset. Not my children but i care about them so much. BM never cuts their finger or toenails & I understand they sure do grow fast but ticks me off since I can take the time out of my day to do it, why can't she? Their car seats are unsafe for their age & weight & like I said just ticks me off doesn't need to be top of the line but at least safe! Do we have an issue with the amount? Somewhat since the mentioned needs are not met & do to the fact she gets a nice chunk of change, her & her live in boyfriend do not work & she generally has a new Ipad, Kindle, Nook, laptop-I could go on. I do not think it is necessary for ex's GF to tell people this. I have shared this with my close family. Of course, that is my personal opinion.  

     

    Pregnancy Ticker
  • imagejobalchak:
    imagecole2144:
    imagejobalchak:
    imagecole2144:
    imagejobalchak:
    imageKaeldrasmommy:

    That was very well put pegleg.

    I'm not sure how much weight anyone should really give my thoughts on this one as we neither pay nor receive CS.

    I think that as long as things are 'even' between the CP and the child as far as clothes and such are concerned that shouldn't matter. I would be PO'd about anyone who only has hand me downs for their kids but wears designer clothing, has a constant manicure etc.

    As far as being able to work part time, I think that you should be able to provide entirely on your salary without CS to only work part time. I don't think that CS should be considered part of your income. You aren't a couple where one works and the other takes care of the house and you call it even.

    I don't think anyone should hold vacations and other fun things against anyone, the kids deserve to be able to do those things.

    And the ever touchy new baby situation. Of course you shouldn't have more kids if you can't afford them. But affording to have more kids doesn't exactly mean that you continue to do the exact same with your money otherwise. Our older kids got less new clothes at the start of last school year than usual, and we did without things that we wanted because we had to buy baby things, it doesn't mean that we can't afford the baby, it just means that we cut back a little in some areas.

    Double Yes to the bolded.  If a CP is only working part-time, then I hope that part-time income is enough to cover all their expenses.  I'm sure there are plenty of times where a CS check was late or didn't show up one month for some people.  If you're relying on that check to make ends meet then you need to re-evaluate your budget.  The few times I've received XH tax returns I considered them a bonus.  I made my budget for me and my children based on my income, not my income plus what I should receive in CS.

    Regarding the new baby:  This issue angers me so much.  As a BM: when my XH had a new baby he tried to argue that he shouldn't be paying so much in CS because now he has another chlid to support.  First of all: you're already not paying me so shut it.  Secondly: if you can't provide for the chldren you have then don't have more (isn't that the same argument we use on people receiving state assistance?).  There's this lovely thing called birth control, use it.  As a SM: when my husband and I decided to try to have a baby, we never even considered asking to modify his CS for K.  We looked at his income and subtracted the CS amount, and discussed we wanted to cut out to save for the baby.  There wasn't much we were really willing/able to cut out, so I decided to go back to work part-time.  That's just what grown-ups do.  You want something, you figure out a way to afford it or you do without it. 

    I have heard this before from BM`s on this board but this statement makes me angry. Why should I not be able to have a child with my husband simply because he had a child before we met. He is not trying to stop paying support, just requesting a modification based on the fact that now his money has to stretch further. This happens in intact families as well. When you are an only child you may get a bit spoiled and when another child comes along parents may need to scale back a bit. 

    But mine and my husband's decision to have a baby shouldn't impact K's standard of living at BM's. Our decision shouldn't effect BM. Do I think she should be doing more to support K and not need as much CS? Yes. But I knew my husband had a child to support well before I married him, so I have no room to complain. That's why I went back to work so that we can afford this new baby. And remember, I'm a BM as well as a SM. 

    Try flipping the situation: if BM and her new husband decide to have a baby, should she be entitled to more CS? Her financial burden would be changing as well, so does she get a modification?  

    Like I said sometimes you have to scale back when you add another child to the mix, blended family or not. If we have a third baby both of our kids will be getting a little bit less because salary does not go up just because your family size does. We supply everything for SD while she is in our care, she shows up with just the clothes on her back in addition to child support so if BM needs to pay a bit more for SD`s needs while she is with her so be it. Like I said nothing of SD`s goes between houses except the outfit she has on when she gets here. If BM has another baby she would need to adjust her standard of living accordingly.

    I get what you're saying.  However, the household bringing the new baby in needs to scale back their spending, not the other household.  My husband pays CS and we maintain our own wardrobe and toiletries for K when she's here.  No clothes go back and forth either.  But if you're saying that your husband should be able to have his CS payments reduced a bit because he has another child, then you have to also say that BM should be able to have her CS increased because she decides to have another child. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    Well then by that token BM should financially provide for my child as I help do for hers?

    No one else will ever know the strength of my love for you. After all, you are the only one who knows what my heart sounds like from the inside.
    image






  • imagecole2144:
    imagejobalchak:
    imagecole2144:
    imagejobalchak:
    imagecole2144:
    imagejobalchak:
    imageKaeldrasmommy:

    That was very well put pegleg.

    I'm not sure how much weight anyone should really give my thoughts on this one as we neither pay nor receive CS.

    I think that as long as things are 'even' between the CP and the child as far as clothes and such are concerned that shouldn't matter. I would be PO'd about anyone who only has hand me downs for their kids but wears designer clothing, has a constant manicure etc.

    As far as being able to work part time, I think that you should be able to provide entirely on your salary without CS to only work part time. I don't think that CS should be considered part of your income. You aren't a couple where one works and the other takes care of the house and you call it even.

    I don't think anyone should hold vacations and other fun things against anyone, the kids deserve to be able to do those things.

    And the ever touchy new baby situation. Of course you shouldn't have more kids if you can't afford them. But affording to have more kids doesn't exactly mean that you continue to do the exact same with your money otherwise. Our older kids got less new clothes at the start of last school year than usual, and we did without things that we wanted because we had to buy baby things, it doesn't mean that we can't afford the baby, it just means that we cut back a little in some areas.

    Double Yes to the bolded.  If a CP is only working part-time, then I hope that part-time income is enough to cover all their expenses.  I'm sure there are plenty of times where a CS check was late or didn't show up one month for some people.  If you're relying on that check to make ends meet then you need to re-evaluate your budget.  The few times I've received XH tax returns I considered them a bonus.  I made my budget for me and my children based on my income, not my income plus what I should receive in CS.

    Regarding the new baby:  This issue angers me so much.  As a BM: when my XH had a new baby he tried to argue that he shouldn't be paying so much in CS because now he has another chlid to support.  First of all: you're already not paying me so shut it.  Secondly: if you can't provide for the chldren you have then don't have more (isn't that the same argument we use on people receiving state assistance?).  There's this lovely thing called birth control, use it.  As a SM: when my husband and I decided to try to have a baby, we never even considered asking to modify his CS for K.  We looked at his income and subtracted the CS amount, and discussed we wanted to cut out to save for the baby.  There wasn't much we were really willing/able to cut out, so I decided to go back to work part-time.  That's just what grown-ups do.  You want something, you figure out a way to afford it or you do without it. 

    I have heard this before from BM`s on this board but this statement makes me angry. Why should I not be able to have a child with my husband simply because he had a child before we met. He is not trying to stop paying support, just requesting a modification based on the fact that now his money has to stretch further. This happens in intact families as well. When you are an only child you may get a bit spoiled and when another child comes along parents may need to scale back a bit. 

    But mine and my husband's decision to have a baby shouldn't impact K's standard of living at BM's. Our decision shouldn't effect BM. Do I think she should be doing more to support K and not need as much CS? Yes. But I knew my husband had a child to support well before I married him, so I have no room to complain. That's why I went back to work so that we can afford this new baby. And remember, I'm a BM as well as a SM. 

    Try flipping the situation: if BM and her new husband decide to have a baby, should she be entitled to more CS? Her financial burden would be changing as well, so does she get a modification?  

    Like I said sometimes you have to scale back when you add another child to the mix, blended family or not. If we have a third baby both of our kids will be getting a little bit less because salary does not go up just because your family size does. We supply everything for SD while she is in our care, she shows up with just the clothes on her back in addition to child support so if BM needs to pay a bit more for SD`s needs while she is with her so be it. Like I said nothing of SD`s goes between houses except the outfit she has on when she gets here. If BM has another baby she would need to adjust her standard of living accordingly.

    I get what you're saying.  However, the household bringing the new baby in needs to scale back their spending, not the other household.  My husband pays CS and we maintain our own wardrobe and toiletries for K when she's here.  No clothes go back and forth either.  But if you're saying that your husband should be able to have his CS payments reduced a bit because he has another child, then you have to also say that BM should be able to have her CS increased because she decides to have another child. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    Well then by that token BM should financially provide for my child as I help do for hers?

    I think its fair to say that ALL CHILDREN THAT ARE BEING SUPPORTED BY ANY OF THE PARTIES SHOULD BE ACCOUNTED FOR. No matter in what order they came.  

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imagecole2144:
    imagejobalchak:
    imagecole2144:
    imagejobalchak:
    imagecole2144:
    imagejobalchak:
    imageKaeldrasmommy:

    That was very well put pegleg.

    I'm not sure how much weight anyone should really give my thoughts on this one as we neither pay nor receive CS.

    I think that as long as things are 'even' between the CP and the child as far as clothes and such are concerned that shouldn't matter. I would be PO'd about anyone who only has hand me downs for their kids but wears designer clothing, has a constant manicure etc.

    As far as being able to work part time, I think that you should be able to provide entirely on your salary without CS to only work part time. I don't think that CS should be considered part of your income. You aren't a couple where one works and the other takes care of the house and you call it even.

    I don't think anyone should hold vacations and other fun things against anyone, the kids deserve to be able to do those things.

    And the ever touchy new baby situation. Of course you shouldn't have more kids if you can't afford them. But affording to have more kids doesn't exactly mean that you continue to do the exact same with your money otherwise. Our older kids got less new clothes at the start of last school year than usual, and we did without things that we wanted because we had to buy baby things, it doesn't mean that we can't afford the baby, it just means that we cut back a little in some areas.

    Double Yes to the bolded.  If a CP is only working part-time, then I hope that part-time income is enough to cover all their expenses.  I'm sure there are plenty of times where a CS check was late or didn't show up one month for some people.  If you're relying on that check to make ends meet then you need to re-evaluate your budget.  The few times I've received XH tax returns I considered them a bonus.  I made my budget for me and my children based on my income, not my income plus what I should receive in CS.

    Regarding the new baby:  This issue angers me so much.  As a BM: when my XH had a new baby he tried to argue that he shouldn't be paying so much in CS because now he has another chlid to support.  First of all: you're already not paying me so shut it.  Secondly: if you can't provide for the chldren you have then don't have more (isn't that the same argument we use on people receiving state assistance?).  There's this lovely thing called birth control, use it.  As a SM: when my husband and I decided to try to have a baby, we never even considered asking to modify his CS for K.  We looked at his income and subtracted the CS amount, and discussed we wanted to cut out to save for the baby.  There wasn't much we were really willing/able to cut out, so I decided to go back to work part-time.  That's just what grown-ups do.  You want something, you figure out a way to afford it or you do without it. 

    I have heard this before from BM`s on this board but this statement makes me angry. Why should I not be able to have a child with my husband simply because he had a child before we met. He is not trying to stop paying support, just requesting a modification based on the fact that now his money has to stretch further. This happens in intact families as well. When you are an only child you may get a bit spoiled and when another child comes along parents may need to scale back a bit. 

    But mine and my husband's decision to have a baby shouldn't impact K's standard of living at BM's. Our decision shouldn't effect BM. Do I think she should be doing more to support K and not need as much CS? Yes. But I knew my husband had a child to support well before I married him, so I have no room to complain. That's why I went back to work so that we can afford this new baby. And remember, I'm a BM as well as a SM. 

    Try flipping the situation: if BM and her new husband decide to have a baby, should she be entitled to more CS? Her financial burden would be changing as well, so does she get a modification?  

    Like I said sometimes you have to scale back when you add another child to the mix, blended family or not. If we have a third baby both of our kids will be getting a little bit less because salary does not go up just because your family size does. We supply everything for SD while she is in our care, she shows up with just the clothes on her back in addition to child support so if BM needs to pay a bit more for SD`s needs while she is with her so be it. Like I said nothing of SD`s goes between houses except the outfit she has on when she gets here. If BM has another baby she would need to adjust her standard of living accordingly.

    I get what you're saying.  However, the household bringing the new baby in needs to scale back their spending, not the other household.  My husband pays CS and we maintain our own wardrobe and toiletries for K when she's here.  No clothes go back and forth either.  But if you're saying that your husband should be able to have his CS payments reduced a bit because he has another child, then you have to also say that BM should be able to have her CS increased because she decides to have another child. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    Well then by that token BM should financially provide for my child as I help do for hers?

    I help provide for K, and my husband provides for my children as well.  That's what you sign up for in a blended family.  I would never expect my XH should have to pay me more CS since my husband and I decided to have a baby, just like I wouldn't expect BM to get less CS since my husband and I decided to have a baby.  What happens in our home by our own choices shouldn't impact other people's financial position.

    image

    Created by MyFitnessPal - Free Weight Loss Tools



  • imagejobalchak:
    imagecole2144:
    imagejobalchak:
    imageKaeldrasmommy:

    That was very well put pegleg.

    I'm not sure how much weight anyone should really give my thoughts on this one as we neither pay nor receive CS.

    I think that as long as things are 'even' between the CP and the child as far as clothes and such are concerned that shouldn't matter. I would be PO'd about anyone who only has hand me downs for their kids but wears designer clothing, has a constant manicure etc.

    As far as being able to work part time, I think that you should be able to provide entirely on your salary without CS to only work part time. I don't think that CS should be considered part of your income. You aren't a couple where one works and the other takes care of the house and you call it even.

    I don't think anyone should hold vacations and other fun things against anyone, the kids deserve to be able to do those things.

    And the ever touchy new baby situation. Of course you shouldn't have more kids if you can't afford them. But affording to have more kids doesn't exactly mean that you continue to do the exact same with your money otherwise. Our older kids got less new clothes at the start of last school year than usual, and we did without things that we wanted because we had to buy baby things, it doesn't mean that we can't afford the baby, it just means that we cut back a little in some areas.

    Double Yes to the bolded.  If a CP is only working part-time, then I hope that part-time income is enough to cover all their expenses.  I'm sure there are plenty of times where a CS check was late or didn't show up one month for some people.  If you're relying on that check to make ends meet then you need to re-evaluate your budget.  The few times I've received XH tax returns I considered them a bonus.  I made my budget for me and my children based on my income, not my income plus what I should receive in CS.

    Regarding the new baby:  This issue angers me so much.  As a BM: when my XH had a new baby he tried to argue that he shouldn't be paying so much in CS because now he has another chlid to support.  First of all: you're already not paying me so shut it.  Secondly: if you can't provide for the chldren you have then don't have more (isn't that the same argument we use on people receiving state assistance?).  There's this lovely thing called birth control, use it.  As a SM: when my husband and I decided to try to have a baby, we never even considered asking to modify his CS for K.  We looked at his income and subtracted the CS amount, and discussed we wanted to cut out to save for the baby.  There wasn't much we were really willing/able to cut out, so I decided to go back to work part-time.  That's just what grown-ups do.  You want something, you figure out a way to afford it or you do without it. 

    I have heard this before from BM`s on this board but this statement makes me angry. Why should I not be able to have a child with my husband simply because he had a child before we met. He is not trying to stop paying support, just requesting a modification based on the fact that now his money has to stretch further. This happens in intact families as well. When you are an only child you may get a bit spoiled and when another child comes along parents may need to scale back a bit. 

    But mine and my husband's decision to have a baby shouldn't impact K's standard of living at BM's. Our decision shouldn't effect BM. Do I think she should be doing more to support K and not need as much CS? Yes. But I knew my husband had a child to support well before I married him, so I have no room to complain. That's why I went back to work so that we can afford this new baby. And remember, I'm a BM as well as a SM. 

    Try flipping the situation: if BM and her new husband decide to have a baby, should she be entitled to more CS? Her financial burden would be changing as well, so does she get a modification?  

    I think you may have misuderstood my original point. Another child does impact everyone's standard of living. Honestly, I don't think it really matters if the ex's life is effected, but that may simply be the b!tch in me.

    For example, jobal, isn't your family effected by you having another child? Surely so, but K shouldn't be? It just seems that if fair is the goal, then a stepchild may do without a little extra just like everyone else.

    And no, BM wouldn't be entitled to more, that is unrelated to your DH.

    I think that cole has very good points here, and I have to say that I agree. But I'm sure that all of these hypothetical situations would be far too complex for a court system to work out.

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imagejobalchak:
    imagecole2144:
    imagejobalchak:
    imagecole2144:
    imagejobalchak:
    imagecole2144:
    imagejobalchak:
    imageKaeldrasmommy:

    That was very well put pegleg.

    I'm not sure how much weight anyone should really give my thoughts on this one as we neither pay nor receive CS.

    I think that as long as things are 'even' between the CP and the child as far as clothes and such are concerned that shouldn't matter. I would be PO'd about anyone who only has hand me downs for their kids but wears designer clothing, has a constant manicure etc.

    As far as being able to work part time, I think that you should be able to provide entirely on your salary without CS to only work part time. I don't think that CS should be considered part of your income. You aren't a couple where one works and the other takes care of the house and you call it even.

    I don't think anyone should hold vacations and other fun things against anyone, the kids deserve to be able to do those things.

    And the ever touchy new baby situation. Of course you shouldn't have more kids if you can't afford them. But affording to have more kids doesn't exactly mean that you continue to do the exact same with your money otherwise. Our older kids got less new clothes at the start of last school year than usual, and we did without things that we wanted because we had to buy baby things, it doesn't mean that we can't afford the baby, it just means that we cut back a little in some areas.

    Double Yes to the bolded.  If a CP is only working part-time, then I hope that part-time income is enough to cover all their expenses.  I'm sure there are plenty of times where a CS check was late or didn't show up one month for some people.  If you're relying on that check to make ends meet then you need to re-evaluate your budget.  The few times I've received XH tax returns I considered them a bonus.  I made my budget for me and my children based on my income, not my income plus what I should receive in CS.

    Regarding the new baby:  This issue angers me so much.  As a BM: when my XH had a new baby he tried to argue that he shouldn't be paying so much in CS because now he has another chlid to support.  First of all: you're already not paying me so shut it.  Secondly: if you can't provide for the chldren you have then don't have more (isn't that the same argument we use on people receiving state assistance?).  There's this lovely thing called birth control, use it.  As a SM: when my husband and I decided to try to have a baby, we never even considered asking to modify his CS for K.  We looked at his income and subtracted the CS amount, and discussed we wanted to cut out to save for the baby.  There wasn't much we were really willing/able to cut out, so I decided to go back to work part-time.  That's just what grown-ups do.  You want something, you figure out a way to afford it or you do without it. 

    I have heard this before from BM`s on this board but this statement makes me angry. Why should I not be able to have a child with my husband simply because he had a child before we met. He is not trying to stop paying support, just requesting a modification based on the fact that now his money has to stretch further. This happens in intact families as well. When you are an only child you may get a bit spoiled and when another child comes along parents may need to scale back a bit. 

    But mine and my husband's decision to have a baby shouldn't impact K's standard of living at BM's. Our decision shouldn't effect BM. Do I think she should be doing more to support K and not need as much CS? Yes. But I knew my husband had a child to support well before I married him, so I have no room to complain. That's why I went back to work so that we can afford this new baby. And remember, I'm a BM as well as a SM. 

    Try flipping the situation: if BM and her new husband decide to have a baby, should she be entitled to more CS? Her financial burden would be changing as well, so does she get a modification?  

    Like I said sometimes you have to scale back when you add another child to the mix, blended family or not. If we have a third baby both of our kids will be getting a little bit less because salary does not go up just because your family size does. We supply everything for SD while she is in our care, she shows up with just the clothes on her back in addition to child support so if BM needs to pay a bit more for SD`s needs while she is with her so be it. Like I said nothing of SD`s goes between houses except the outfit she has on when she gets here. If BM has another baby she would need to adjust her standard of living accordingly.

    I get what you're saying.  However, the household bringing the new baby in needs to scale back their spending, not the other household.  My husband pays CS and we maintain our own wardrobe and toiletries for K when she's here.  No clothes go back and forth either.  But if you're saying that your husband should be able to have his CS payments reduced a bit because he has another child, then you have to also say that BM should be able to have her CS increased because she decides to have another child. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    Well then by that token BM should financially provide for my child as I help do for hers?

    I help provide for K, and my husband provides for my children as well.  That's what you sign up for in a blended family.  I would never expect my XH should have to pay me more CS since my husband and I decided to have a baby, just like I wouldn't expect BM to get less CS since my husband and I decided to have a baby.  What happens in our home by our own choices shouldn't impact other people's financial position.

    Well it does not work like that does it, since a BM`s decisions about work and other issues determine how much child support you pay, therefore her choices impact the other household. Both of our children are provided for by us to the same standard of care which in my opinion is fair.

    No one else will ever know the strength of my love for you. After all, you are the only one who knows what my heart sounds like from the inside.
    image






  • imageKaeldrasmommy:
    imagejobalchak:
    imagecole2144:
    imagejobalchak:
    imageKaeldrasmommy:

    That was very well put pegleg.

    I'm not sure how much weight anyone should really give my thoughts on this one as we neither pay nor receive CS.

    I think that as long as things are 'even' between the CP and the child as far as clothes and such are concerned that shouldn't matter. I would be PO'd about anyone who only has hand me downs for their kids but wears designer clothing, has a constant manicure etc.

    As far as being able to work part time, I think that you should be able to provide entirely on your salary without CS to only work part time. I don't think that CS should be considered part of your income. You aren't a couple where one works and the other takes care of the house and you call it even.

    I don't think anyone should hold vacations and other fun things against anyone, the kids deserve to be able to do those things.

    And the ever touchy new baby situation. Of course you shouldn't have more kids if you can't afford them. But affording to have more kids doesn't exactly mean that you continue to do the exact same with your money otherwise. Our older kids got less new clothes at the start of last school year than usual, and we did without things that we wanted because we had to buy baby things, it doesn't mean that we can't afford the baby, it just means that we cut back a little in some areas.

    Double Yes to the bolded.  If a CP is only working part-time, then I hope that part-time income is enough to cover all their expenses.  I'm sure there are plenty of times where a CS check was late or didn't show up one month for some people.  If you're relying on that check to make ends meet then you need to re-evaluate your budget.  The few times I've received XH tax returns I considered them a bonus.  I made my budget for me and my children based on my income, not my income plus what I should receive in CS.

    Regarding the new baby:  This issue angers me so much.  As a BM: when my XH had a new baby he tried to argue that he shouldn't be paying so much in CS because now he has another chlid to support.  First of all: you're already not paying me so shut it.  Secondly: if you can't provide for the chldren you have then don't have more (isn't that the same argument we use on people receiving state assistance?).  There's this lovely thing called birth control, use it.  As a SM: when my husband and I decided to try to have a baby, we never even considered asking to modify his CS for K.  We looked at his income and subtracted the CS amount, and discussed we wanted to cut out to save for the baby.  There wasn't much we were really willing/able to cut out, so I decided to go back to work part-time.  That's just what grown-ups do.  You want something, you figure out a way to afford it or you do without it. 

    I have heard this before from BM`s on this board but this statement makes me angry. Why should I not be able to have a child with my husband simply because he had a child before we met. He is not trying to stop paying support, just requesting a modification based on the fact that now his money has to stretch further. This happens in intact families as well. When you are an only child you may get a bit spoiled and when another child comes along parents may need to scale back a bit. 

    But mine and my husband's decision to have a baby shouldn't impact K's standard of living at BM's. Our decision shouldn't effect BM. Do I think she should be doing more to support K and not need as much CS? Yes. But I knew my husband had a child to support well before I married him, so I have no room to complain. That's why I went back to work so that we can afford this new baby. And remember, I'm a BM as well as a SM. 

    Try flipping the situation: if BM and her new husband decide to have a baby, should she be entitled to more CS? Her financial burden would be changing as well, so does she get a modification?  

    I think you may have misuderstood my original point. Another child does impact everyone's standard of living. Honestly, I don't think it really matters if the ex's life is effected, but that may simply be the b!tch in me.

    For example, jobal, isn't your family effected by you having another child? Surely so, but K shouldn't be? It just seems that if fair is the goal, then a stepchild may do without a little extra just like everyone else.

    And no, BM wouldn't be entitled to more, that is unrelated to your DH.

    I think that cole has very good points here, and I have to say that I agree. But I'm sure that all of these hypothetical situations would be far too complex for a court system to work out.

    This, exactly!

    No one else will ever know the strength of my love for you. After all, you are the only one who knows what my heart sounds like from the inside.
    image






  • imageKaeldrasmommy:
    imagejobalchak:
    imagecole2144:
    imagejobalchak:
    imageKaeldrasmommy:

    That was very well put pegleg.

    I'm not sure how much weight anyone should really give my thoughts on this one as we neither pay nor receive CS.

    I think that as long as things are 'even' between the CP and the child as far as clothes and such are concerned that shouldn't matter. I would be PO'd about anyone who only has hand me downs for their kids but wears designer clothing, has a constant manicure etc.

    As far as being able to work part time, I think that you should be able to provide entirely on your salary without CS to only work part time. I don't think that CS should be considered part of your income. You aren't a couple where one works and the other takes care of the house and you call it even.

    I don't think anyone should hold vacations and other fun things against anyone, the kids deserve to be able to do those things.

    And the ever touchy new baby situation. Of course you shouldn't have more kids if you can't afford them. But affording to have more kids doesn't exactly mean that you continue to do the exact same with your money otherwise. Our older kids got less new clothes at the start of last school year than usual, and we did without things that we wanted because we had to buy baby things, it doesn't mean that we can't afford the baby, it just means that we cut back a little in some areas.

    Double Yes to the bolded.  If a CP is only working part-time, then I hope that part-time income is enough to cover all their expenses.  I'm sure there are plenty of times where a CS check was late or didn't show up one month for some people.  If you're relying on that check to make ends meet then you need to re-evaluate your budget.  The few times I've received XH tax returns I considered them a bonus.  I made my budget for me and my children based on my income, not my income plus what I should receive in CS.

    Regarding the new baby:  This issue angers me so much.  As a BM: when my XH had a new baby he tried to argue that he shouldn't be paying so much in CS because now he has another chlid to support.  First of all: you're already not paying me so shut it.  Secondly: if you can't provide for the chldren you have then don't have more (isn't that the same argument we use on people receiving state assistance?).  There's this lovely thing called birth control, use it.  As a SM: when my husband and I decided to try to have a baby, we never even considered asking to modify his CS for K.  We looked at his income and subtracted the CS amount, and discussed we wanted to cut out to save for the baby.  There wasn't much we were really willing/able to cut out, so I decided to go back to work part-time.  That's just what grown-ups do.  You want something, you figure out a way to afford it or you do without it. 

    I have heard this before from BM`s on this board but this statement makes me angry. Why should I not be able to have a child with my husband simply because he had a child before we met. He is not trying to stop paying support, just requesting a modification based on the fact that now his money has to stretch further. This happens in intact families as well. When you are an only child you may get a bit spoiled and when another child comes along parents may need to scale back a bit. 

    But mine and my husband's decision to have a baby shouldn't impact K's standard of living at BM's. Our decision shouldn't effect BM. Do I think she should be doing more to support K and not need as much CS? Yes. But I knew my husband had a child to support well before I married him, so I have no room to complain. That's why I went back to work so that we can afford this new baby. And remember, I'm a BM as well as a SM. 

    Try flipping the situation: if BM and her new husband decide to have a baby, should she be entitled to more CS? Her financial burden would be changing as well, so does she get a modification?  

    I think you may have misuderstood my original point. Another child does impact everyone's standard of living. Honestly, I don't think it really matters if the ex's life is effected, but that may simply be the b!tch in me.

    For example, jobal, isn't your family effected by you having another child? Surely so, but K shouldn't be? It just seems that if fair is the goal, then a stepchild may do without a little extra just like everyone else.

    And no, BM wouldn't be entitled to more, that is unrelated to your DH.

    I think that cole has very good points here, and I have to say that I agree. But I'm sure that all of these hypothetical situations would be far too complex for a court system to work out.

    And K would do with a little less: in our home.  Just as my 2 children would do with a little less.  But why should K do with less at BM's?  It wasn't BM's decision for my husband and I to have another child.  Therefore it's up to me and my husband to make sure that everyone is provided for as best we can, hence why I went back to work.

    And to say that BM wouldn't be entitled to more CS since it's "unrelated" to my husband, doesn't the same go for him?  Again, it wasn't BM's decision for my husband and I to have a baby, so why should her CS be reduced?  The needs at BM's residence haven't gone down.  That's basically telling BMs that they need to work more because their exes decided to have another kid.  And some BMs probably should work more, but what about the BMs (like I was) that work full-time to support their children?  Now they need to work overtime?  That doesn't seem quite right. 

    Maybe I'm the minority among the BMs and SMs with my opinion here.  And I'm ok with that.  I just feel that my husband having a child shouldn't impact the amount of CS that BM receives.

    image

    Created by MyFitnessPal - Free Weight Loss Tools



  • imagejobalchak:
    imageKaeldrasmommy:
    imagejobalchak:
    imagecole2144:
    imagejobalchak:
    imageKaeldrasmommy:

    That was very well put pegleg.

    I'm not sure how much weight anyone should really give my thoughts on this one as we neither pay nor receive CS.

    I think that as long as things are 'even' between the CP and the child as far as clothes and such are concerned that shouldn't matter. I would be PO'd about anyone who only has hand me downs for their kids but wears designer clothing, has a constant manicure etc.

    As far as being able to work part time, I think that you should be able to provide entirely on your salary without CS to only work part time. I don't think that CS should be considered part of your income. You aren't a couple where one works and the other takes care of the house and you call it even.

    I don't think anyone should hold vacations and other fun things against anyone, the kids deserve to be able to do those things.

    And the ever touchy new baby situation. Of course you shouldn't have more kids if you can't afford them. But affording to have more kids doesn't exactly mean that you continue to do the exact same with your money otherwise. Our older kids got less new clothes at the start of last school year than usual, and we did without things that we wanted because we had to buy baby things, it doesn't mean that we can't afford the baby, it just means that we cut back a little in some areas.

    Double Yes to the bolded.  If a CP is only working part-time, then I hope that part-time income is enough to cover all their expenses.  I'm sure there are plenty of times where a CS check was late or didn't show up one month for some people.  If you're relying on that check to make ends meet then you need to re-evaluate your budget.  The few times I've received XH tax returns I considered them a bonus.  I made my budget for me and my children based on my income, not my income plus what I should receive in CS.

    Regarding the new baby:  This issue angers me so much.  As a BM: when my XH had a new baby he tried to argue that he shouldn't be paying so much in CS because now he has another chlid to support.  First of all: you're already not paying me so shut it.  Secondly: if you can't provide for the chldren you have then don't have more (isn't that the same argument we use on people receiving state assistance?).  There's this lovely thing called birth control, use it.  As a SM: when my husband and I decided to try to have a baby, we never even considered asking to modify his CS for K.  We looked at his income and subtracted the CS amount, and discussed we wanted to cut out to save for the baby.  There wasn't much we were really willing/able to cut out, so I decided to go back to work part-time.  That's just what grown-ups do.  You want something, you figure out a way to afford it or you do without it. 

    I have heard this before from BM`s on this board but this statement makes me angry. Why should I not be able to have a child with my husband simply because he had a child before we met. He is not trying to stop paying support, just requesting a modification based on the fact that now his money has to stretch further. This happens in intact families as well. When you are an only child you may get a bit spoiled and when another child comes along parents may need to scale back a bit. 

    But mine and my husband's decision to have a baby shouldn't impact K's standard of living at BM's. Our decision shouldn't effect BM. Do I think she should be doing more to support K and not need as much CS? Yes. But I knew my husband had a child to support well before I married him, so I have no room to complain. That's why I went back to work so that we can afford this new baby. And remember, I'm a BM as well as a SM. 

    Try flipping the situation: if BM and her new husband decide to have a baby, should she be entitled to more CS? Her financial burden would be changing as well, so does she get a modification?  

    I think you may have misuderstood my original point. Another child does impact everyone's standard of living. Honestly, I don't think it really matters if the ex's life is effected, but that may simply be the b!tch in me.

    For example, jobal, isn't your family effected by you having another child? Surely so, but K shouldn't be? It just seems that if fair is the goal, then a stepchild may do without a little extra just like everyone else.

    And no, BM wouldn't be entitled to more, that is unrelated to your DH.

    I think that cole has very good points here, and I have to say that I agree. But I'm sure that all of these hypothetical situations would be far too complex for a court system to work out.

    And K would do with a little less: in our home.  Just as my 2 children would do with a little less.  But why should K do with less at BM's?  It wasn't BM's decision for my husband and I to have another child.  Therefore it's up to me and my husband to make sure that everyone is provided for as best we can, hence why I went back to work.

    And to say that BM wouldn't be entitled to more CS since it's "unrelated" to my husband, doesn't the same go for him?  Again, it wasn't BM's decision for my husband and I to have a baby, so why should her CS be reduced?  The needs at BM's residence haven't gone down.  That's basically telling BMs that they need to work more because their exes decided to have another kid.  And some BMs probably should work more, but what about the BMs (like I was) that work full-time to support their children?  Now they need to work overtime?  That doesn't seem quite right. 

    Maybe I'm the minority among the BMs and SMs with my opinion here.  And I'm ok with that.  I just feel that my husband having a child shouldn't impact the amount of CS that BM receives.

    DH has a responsibility to both his children, it does not matter which order they came in. BM does not get the monopoly on children just because she came first. SD is by no means going without but if she cannot for example, have name brand shoes because she has a sibling so be it, my DC will not be rockin them either.

    No one else will ever know the strength of my love for you. After all, you are the only one who knows what my heart sounds like from the inside.
    image






  • imagejobalchak:
    imageKaeldrasmommy:
    imagejobalchak:
    imagecole2144:
    imagejobalchak:
    imageKaeldrasmommy:

    That was very well put pegleg.

    I'm not sure how much weight anyone should really give my thoughts on this one as we neither pay nor receive CS.

    I think that as long as things are 'even' between the CP and the child as far as clothes and such are concerned that shouldn't matter. I would be PO'd about anyone who only has hand me downs for their kids but wears designer clothing, has a constant manicure etc.

    As far as being able to work part time, I think that you should be able to provide entirely on your salary without CS to only work part time. I don't think that CS should be considered part of your income. You aren't a couple where one works and the other takes care of the house and you call it even.

    I don't think anyone should hold vacations and other fun things against anyone, the kids deserve to be able to do those things.

    And the ever touchy new baby situation. Of course you shouldn't have more kids if you can't afford them. But affording to have more kids doesn't exactly mean that you continue to do the exact same with your money otherwise. Our older kids got less new clothes at the start of last school year than usual, and we did without things that we wanted because we had to buy baby things, it doesn't mean that we can't afford the baby, it just means that we cut back a little in some areas.

    Double Yes to the bolded.  If a CP is only working part-time, then I hope that part-time income is enough to cover all their expenses.  I'm sure there are plenty of times where a CS check was late or didn't show up one month for some people.  If you're relying on that check to make ends meet then you need to re-evaluate your budget.  The few times I've received XH tax returns I considered them a bonus.  I made my budget for me and my children based on my income, not my income plus what I should receive in CS.

    Regarding the new baby:  This issue angers me so much.  As a BM: when my XH had a new baby he tried to argue that he shouldn't be paying so much in CS because now he has another chlid to support.  First of all: you're already not paying me so shut it.  Secondly: if you can't provide for the chldren you have then don't have more (isn't that the same argument we use on people receiving state assistance?).  There's this lovely thing called birth control, use it.  As a SM: when my husband and I decided to try to have a baby, we never even considered asking to modify his CS for K.  We looked at his income and subtracted the CS amount, and discussed we wanted to cut out to save for the baby.  There wasn't much we were really willing/able to cut out, so I decided to go back to work part-time.  That's just what grown-ups do.  You want something, you figure out a way to afford it or you do without it. 

    I have heard this before from BM`s on this board but this statement makes me angry. Why should I not be able to have a child with my husband simply because he had a child before we met. He is not trying to stop paying support, just requesting a modification based on the fact that now his money has to stretch further. This happens in intact families as well. When you are an only child you may get a bit spoiled and when another child comes along parents may need to scale back a bit. 

    But mine and my husband's decision to have a baby shouldn't impact K's standard of living at BM's. Our decision shouldn't effect BM. Do I think she should be doing more to support K and not need as much CS? Yes. But I knew my husband had a child to support well before I married him, so I have no room to complain. That's why I went back to work so that we can afford this new baby. And remember, I'm a BM as well as a SM. 

    Try flipping the situation: if BM and her new husband decide to have a baby, should she be entitled to more CS? Her financial burden would be changing as well, so does she get a modification?  

    I think you may have misuderstood my original point. Another child does impact everyone's standard of living. Honestly, I don't think it really matters if the ex's life is effected, but that may simply be the b!tch in me.

    For example, jobal, isn't your family effected by you having another child? Surely so, but K shouldn't be? It just seems that if fair is the goal, then a stepchild may do without a little extra just like everyone else.

    And no, BM wouldn't be entitled to more, that is unrelated to your DH.

    I think that cole has very good points here, and I have to say that I agree. But I'm sure that all of these hypothetical situations would be far too complex for a court system to work out.

    And K would do with a little less: in our home.  Just as my 2 children would do with a little less.  But why should K do with less at BM's?  It wasn't BM's decision for my husband and I to have another child.  Therefore it's up to me and my husband to make sure that everyone is provided for as best we can, hence why I went back to work.

    And to say that BM wouldn't be entitled to more CS since it's "unrelated" to my husband, doesn't the same go for him?  Again, it wasn't BM's decision for my husband and I to have a baby, so why should her CS be reduced?  The needs at BM's residence haven't gone down.  That's basically telling BMs that they need to work more because their exes decided to have another kid.  And some BMs probably should work more, but what about the BMs (like I was) that work full-time to support their children?  Now they need to work overtime?  That doesn't seem quite right. 

    Maybe I'm the minority among the BMs and SMs with my opinion here.  And I'm ok with that.  I just feel that my husband having a child shouldn't impact the amount of CS that BM receives.

    I suppose it would depend on how much time the child spends in each place. For example, it's hard to say that they would be able to do with less in that home if they were only there twice a year.

    I guess it goes both ways. You said 'if you're relying on that check to make ends meet you need to re-evaluate your budget'. And that is very true, and if someone needs to reduce CS to have another child then they probably can't afford that child. I think I just have a hard time seeing that any change in CS would be so large as to make a BM work much more. I also can't see why it would be enough to be worth going after a modification. But as I said, CS doesn't enter into our life at all, so I'm sure I don't have that great an understanding of it. It probably all boils down to if everyone was responsible and did things right, none of this would even need to be debated.

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imagecole2144:
    imagejobalchak:
    imageKaeldrasmommy:

    That was very well put pegleg.

    I'm not sure how much weight anyone should really give my thoughts on this one as we neither pay nor receive CS.

    I think that as long as things are 'even' between the CP and the child as far as clothes and such are concerned that shouldn't matter. I would be PO'd about anyone who only has hand me downs for their kids but wears designer clothing, has a constant manicure etc.

    As far as being able to work part time, I think that you should be able to provide entirely on your salary without CS to only work part time. I don't think that CS should be considered part of your income. You aren't a couple where one works and the other takes care of the house and you call it even.

    I don't think anyone should hold vacations and other fun things against anyone, the kids deserve to be able to do those things.

    And the ever touchy new baby situation. Of course you shouldn't have more kids if you can't afford them. But affording to have more kids doesn't exactly mean that you continue to do the exact same with your money otherwise. Our older kids got less new clothes at the start of last school year than usual, and we did without things that we wanted because we had to buy baby things, it doesn't mean that we can't afford the baby, it just means that we cut back a little in some areas.

    Double Yes to the bolded.  If a CP is only working part-time, then I hope that part-time income is enough to cover all their expenses.  I'm sure there are plenty of times where a CS check was late or didn't show up one month for some people.  If you're relying on that check to make ends meet then you need to re-evaluate your budget.  The few times I've received XH tax returns I considered them a bonus.  I made my budget for me and my children based on my income, not my income plus what I should receive in CS.

    Regarding the new baby:  This issue angers me so much.  As a BM: when my XH had a new baby he tried to argue that he shouldn't be paying so much in CS because now he has another chlid to support.  First of all: you're already not paying me so shut it.  Secondly: if you can't provide for the chldren you have then don't have more (isn't that the same argument we use on people receiving state assistance?).  There's this lovely thing called birth control, use it.  As a SM: when my husband and I decided to try to have a baby, we never even considered asking to modify his CS for K.  We looked at his income and subtracted the CS amount, and discussed we wanted to cut out to save for the baby.  There wasn't much we were really willing/able to cut out, so I decided to go back to work part-time.  That's just what grown-ups do.  You want something, you figure out a way to afford it or you do without it. 

    I have heard this before from BM`s on this board but this statement makes me angry. Why should I not be able to have a child with my husband simply because he had a child before we met. He is not trying to stop paying support, just requesting a modification based on the fact that now his money has to stretch further. This happens in intact families as well. When you are an only child you may get a bit spoiled and when another child comes along parents may need to scale back a bit. 

    the difference is that in an non-bf you have two adults who are going to be deciding if cutting back on expenditures in order to have another child is something they are willing to do. In a BF there are two separate households that are greatly effected by that decision, yet one does not get a choice. It's not the same as a non-bf and to think that it is, is extremely naive and possibly selfish (not always but sometimes). 
  •  I think that my DD won't "get" less because my XH decided to have another kid. So my percentage of CS that I "pay" or contribute to my DD will go up if his % goes down. So isn't that like me supporting his responsibility to our DD because he chose to have another kid? 
  • imagexmaryrickx:
    imagecole2144:
    imagejobalchak:
    imageKaeldrasmommy:

    That was very well put pegleg.

    I'm not sure how much weight anyone should really give my thoughts on this one as we neither pay nor receive CS.

    I think that as long as things are 'even' between the CP and the child as far as clothes and such are concerned that shouldn't matter. I would be PO'd about anyone who only has hand me downs for their kids but wears designer clothing, has a constant manicure etc.

    As far as being able to work part time, I think that you should be able to provide entirely on your salary without CS to only work part time. I don't think that CS should be considered part of your income. You aren't a couple where one works and the other takes care of the house and you call it even.

    I don't think anyone should hold vacations and other fun things against anyone, the kids deserve to be able to do those things.

    And the ever touchy new baby situation. Of course you shouldn't have more kids if you can't afford them. But affording to have more kids doesn't exactly mean that you continue to do the exact same with your money otherwise. Our older kids got less new clothes at the start of last school year than usual, and we did without things that we wanted because we had to buy baby things, it doesn't mean that we can't afford the baby, it just means that we cut back a little in some areas.

    Double Yes to the bolded.  If a CP is only working part-time, then I hope that part-time income is enough to cover all their expenses.  I'm sure there are plenty of times where a CS check was late or didn't show up one month for some people.  If you're relying on that check to make ends meet then you need to re-evaluate your budget.  The few times I've received XH tax returns I considered them a bonus.  I made my budget for me and my children based on my income, not my income plus what I should receive in CS.

    Regarding the new baby:  This issue angers me so much.  As a BM: when my XH had a new baby he tried to argue that he shouldn't be paying so much in CS because now he has another chlid to support.  First of all: you're already not paying me so shut it.  Secondly: if you can't provide for the chldren you have then don't have more (isn't that the same argument we use on people receiving state assistance?).  There's this lovely thing called birth control, use it.  As a SM: when my husband and I decided to try to have a baby, we never even considered asking to modify his CS for K.  We looked at his income and subtracted the CS amount, and discussed we wanted to cut out to save for the baby.  There wasn't much we were really willing/able to cut out, so I decided to go back to work part-time.  That's just what grown-ups do.  You want something, you figure out a way to afford it or you do without it. 

    I have heard this before from BM`s on this board but this statement makes me angry. Why should I not be able to have a child with my husband simply because he had a child before we met. He is not trying to stop paying support, just requesting a modification based on the fact that now his money has to stretch further. This happens in intact families as well. When you are an only child you may get a bit spoiled and when another child comes along parents may need to scale back a bit. 

    the difference is that in an non-bf you have two adults who are going to be deciding if cutting back on expenditures in order to have another child is something they are willing to do. In a BF there are two separate households that are greatly effected by that decision, yet one does not get a choice. It's not the same as a non-bf and to think that it is, is extremely naive and possibly selfish (not always but sometimes). 

    I am not talking about an extreme difference in child support payments but if they need to be scaled back a bit to pay for both children then so be it. BM was not greatly effected by the birth of our son. We do not have a CO yet, we are in the process) but we continued to pay her the agreed upon amount even after the birth of our child and never tried to decrease it. But like I said the money only goes so far and as long as the kids needs are met, they may have to scale back on a few of thier wants and that includes SD. SD is supported by 2, two parent households so she does not want for much of anything while DS only has 2 parents to support him. SD and DS are both DH`s responsibility and I do not believe that SD should get more simply because she came first.

    No one else will ever know the strength of my love for you. After all, you are the only one who knows what my heart sounds like from the inside.
    image






  • imageAnnplus1:
     I think that my DD won't "get" less because my XH decided to have another kid. So my percentage of CS that I "pay" or contribute to my DD will go up if his % goes down. So isn't that like me supporting his responsibility to our DD because he chose to have another kid? 

    How often does your ex see your child and what percentage is he responsible for as of this moment?

    No one else will ever know the strength of my love for you. After all, you are the only one who knows what my heart sounds like from the inside.
    image






  • Less than 10% of the month. And the part about how your SD has 2- two parent households supporting her, while your DS only has one, that doesn't factor in my case. I have one income, my XH has two. But either way, my state doesn't take GF's income into consideration (and wouldn't if they were married) so her income doesn't matter. Nor would any BF or DH I had. 
  • imagecole2144:
    imagexmaryrickx:
    imagecole2144:
    imagejobalchak:
    imageKaeldrasmommy:

    That was very well put pegleg.

    I'm not sure how much weight anyone should really give my thoughts on this one as we neither pay nor receive CS.

    I think that as long as things are 'even' between the CP and the child as far as clothes and such are concerned that shouldn't matter. I would be PO'd about anyone who only has hand me downs for their kids but wears designer clothing, has a constant manicure etc.

    As far as being able to work part time, I think that you should be able to provide entirely on your salary without CS to only work part time. I don't think that CS should be considered part of your income. You aren't a couple where one works and the other takes care of the house and you call it even.

    I don't think anyone should hold vacations and other fun things against anyone, the kids deserve to be able to do those things.

    And the ever touchy new baby situation. Of course you shouldn't have more kids if you can't afford them. But affording to have more kids doesn't exactly mean that you continue to do the exact same with your money otherwise. Our older kids got less new clothes at the start of last school year than usual, and we did without things that we wanted because we had to buy baby things, it doesn't mean that we can't afford the baby, it just means that we cut back a little in some areas.

    Double Yes to the bolded.  If a CP is only working part-time, then I hope that part-time income is enough to cover all their expenses.  I'm sure there are plenty of times where a CS check was late or didn't show up one month for some people.  If you're relying on that check to make ends meet then you need to re-evaluate your budget.  The few times I've received XH tax returns I considered them a bonus.  I made my budget for me and my children based on my income, not my income plus what I should receive in CS.

    Regarding the new baby:  This issue angers me so much.  As a BM: when my XH had a new baby he tried to argue that he shouldn't be paying so much in CS because now he has another chlid to support.  First of all: you're already not paying me so shut it.  Secondly: if you can't provide for the chldren you have then don't have more (isn't that the same argument we use on people receiving state assistance?).  There's this lovely thing called birth control, use it.  As a SM: when my husband and I decided to try to have a baby, we never even considered asking to modify his CS for K.  We looked at his income and subtracted the CS amount, and discussed we wanted to cut out to save for the baby.  There wasn't much we were really willing/able to cut out, so I decided to go back to work part-time.  That's just what grown-ups do.  You want something, you figure out a way to afford it or you do without it. 

    I have heard this before from BM`s on this board but this statement makes me angry. Why should I not be able to have a child with my husband simply because he had a child before we met. He is not trying to stop paying support, just requesting a modification based on the fact that now his money has to stretch further. This happens in intact families as well. When you are an only child you may get a bit spoiled and when another child comes along parents may need to scale back a bit. 

    the difference is that in an non-bf you have two adults who are going to be deciding if cutting back on expenditures in order to have another child is something they are willing to do. In a BF there are two separate households that are greatly effected by that decision, yet one does not get a choice. It's not the same as a non-bf and to think that it is, is extremely naive and possibly selfish (not always but sometimes). 

    I am not talking about an extreme difference in child support payments but if they need to be scaled back a bit to pay for both children then so be it. BM was not greatly effected by the birth of our son. We do not have a CO yet, we are in the process) but we continued to pay her the agreed upon amount even after the birth of our child and never tried to decrease it. But like I said the money only goes so far and as long as the kids needs are met, they may have to scale back on a few of thier wants and that includes SD. SD is supported by 2, two parent households so she does not want for much of anything while DS only has 2 parents to support him. SD and DS are both DH`s responsibility and I do not believe that SD should get more simply because she came first.

    Situations like yours where the child is supported by 2 two parent households is also a very good point. Thanks for an excellent debate ladies! Lots of good points on this one.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imagepiffle42:
    imagewendilea:

    I think it is a bit unfair that every state has their own rules regarding CS, visitation, ect.  A child shouldn't be punished just because of the state they live in. 

    Sorry, but this comment stuck out for me.

    First, federalism is important.  Its in our constitution and does affect (bad AND GOOD) both the individual state's and our national standing.  Hell, even socialist countries like France and Germany legislate on a regional level - for a reason.

    Second part - even if we got rid of STATE's we would have to work within regional and COLA parameters.  You could not, in anyway have a national Child Support Calculator.  Even if you just tried to impose a national % of salary, it wouldnt work. 

    30% of a salary in California (with its better social programs, better weather, better access to jobs, etc) wont work in say, Texas. 

    Instead of making yet another national program that wont be managed properly, why not work on making the processes within the States work better.

    file:///Users/Ilumine/Desktop/Family%20Portrait%20for%20gift.jpg
  • imagejobalchak:
    imageKaeldrasmommy:
    imagejobalchak:
    imagecole2144:
    imagejobalchak:
    imageKaeldrasmommy:

    That was very well put pegleg.

    I'm not sure how much weight anyone should really give my thoughts on this one as we neither pay nor receive CS.

    I think that as long as things are 'even' between the CP and the child as far as clothes and such are concerned that shouldn't matter. I would be PO'd about anyone who only has hand me downs for their kids but wears designer clothing, has a constant manicure etc.

    As far as being able to work part time, I think that you should be able to provide entirely on your salary without CS to only work part time. I don't think that CS should be considered part of your income. You aren't a couple where one works and the other takes care of the house and you call it even.

    I don't think anyone should hold vacations and other fun things against anyone, the kids deserve to be able to do those things.

    And the ever touchy new baby situation. Of course you shouldn't have more kids if you can't afford them. But affording to have more kids doesn't exactly mean that you continue to do the exact same with your money otherwise. Our older kids got less new clothes at the start of last school year than usual, and we did without things that we wanted because we had to buy baby things, it doesn't mean that we can't afford the baby, it just means that we cut back a little in some areas.

    Double Yes to the bolded.  If a CP is only working part-time, then I hope that part-time income is enough to cover all their expenses.  I'm sure there are plenty of times where a CS check was late or didn't show up one month for some people.  If you're relying on that check to make ends meet then you need to re-evaluate your budget.  The few times I've received XH tax returns I considered them a bonus.  I made my budget for me and my children based on my income, not my income plus what I should receive in CS.

    Regarding the new baby:  This issue angers me so much.  As a BM: when my XH had a new baby he tried to argue that he shouldn't be paying so much in CS because now he has another chlid to support.  First of all: you're already not paying me so shut it.  Secondly: if you can't provide for the chldren you have then don't have more (isn't that the same argument we use on people receiving state assistance?).  There's this lovely thing called birth control, use it.  As a SM: when my husband and I decided to try to have a baby, we never even considered asking to modify his CS for K.  We looked at his income and subtracted the CS amount, and discussed we wanted to cut out to save for the baby.  There wasn't much we were really willing/able to cut out, so I decided to go back to work part-time.  That's just what grown-ups do.  You want something, you figure out a way to afford it or you do without it. 

    I have heard this before from BM`s on this board but this statement makes me angry. Why should I not be able to have a child with my husband simply because he had a child before we met. He is not trying to stop paying support, just requesting a modification based on the fact that now his money has to stretch further. This happens in intact families as well. When you are an only child you may get a bit spoiled and when another child comes along parents may need to scale back a bit. 

    But mine and my husband's decision to have a baby shouldn't impact K's standard of living at BM's. Our decision shouldn't effect BM. Do I think she should be doing more to support K and not need as much CS? Yes. But I knew my husband had a child to support well before I married him, so I have no room to complain. That's why I went back to work so that we can afford this new baby. And remember, I'm a BM as well as a SM. 

    Try flipping the situation: if BM and her new husband decide to have a baby, should she be entitled to more CS? Her financial burden would be changing as well, so does she get a modification?  

    I think you may have misuderstood my original point. Another child does impact everyone's standard of living. Honestly, I don't think it really matters if the ex's life is effected, but that may simply be the b!tch in me.

    For example, jobal, isn't your family effected by you having another child? Surely so, but K shouldn't be? It just seems that if fair is the goal, then a stepchild may do without a little extra just like everyone else.

    And no, BM wouldn't be entitled to more, that is unrelated to your DH.

    I think that cole has very good points here, and I have to say that I agree. But I'm sure that all of these hypothetical situations would be far too complex for a court system to work out.

    And K would do with a little less: in our home.  Just as my 2 children would do with a little less.  But why should K do with less at BM's?  It wasn't BM's decision for my husband and I to have another child.  Therefore it's up to me and my husband to make sure that everyone is provided for as best we can, hence why I went back to work.

    And to say that BM wouldn't be entitled to more CS since it's "unrelated" to my husband, doesn't the same go for him?  Again, it wasn't BM's decision for my husband and I to have a baby, so why should her CS be reduced?  The needs at BM's residence haven't gone down.  That's basically telling BMs that they need to work more because their exes decided to have another kid.  And some BMs probably should work more, but what about the BMs (like I was) that work full-time to support their children?  Now they need to work overtime?  That doesn't seem quite right. 

    Maybe I'm the minority among the BMs and SMs with my opinion here.  And I'm ok with that.  I just feel that my husband having a child shouldn't impact the amount of CS that BM receives.

    I actually agree with Job. 

    Lets do a little math.  The court has decided that the Biological Father Child Support payment for Child 1 is $500 a month.  Even if BM is remarried, both of the stepparents are providing money towards the two households, so the remarriages are a moot point.

    Say BF and SM decide to have another child and now want to lower the CS to help cover the costs.  No matter WHAT the lowered amount is, this wont fully cover the extra costs of this new child.  So the BF's budget is still going to be tight in his home, even with that extra$100 a month.

    And loosing that $100 a month is definitely going to affect the BM's home too. From extra activities, that new pair of shoes, cable, etc. 

    So now this child - who had no say in ANY OF THIS (sibling, parents divorce, or even his/her birth) is now going to live in TWO houses with less.

    Conversly, in intact families, when everyone is living together, budgeting together, sharing together, that $500 a month that was used in CS actually goes FURTHER.  It just does. So you cannot use the whole "intact families do it" the same way.

    If you dont like what your husband is paying for CS (and it follows the State Calculator, using current pay information) then you shouldnt have married him/her.

    And this is coming from someone who had a baby with a man who had full custody of a teenage boy without any financial support from the biological mother. 

    file:///Users/Ilumine/Desktop/Family%20Portrait%20for%20gift.jpg
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards
"
"