Blended Families

Not to hijack a thread- regarding CS

2»

Re: Not to hijack a thread- regarding CS

  • I see both sides of the "new baby debate" but we will not be modifying the CO when LO comes.  I just feel squicky about taking money from SDs to better provide for my son.  If BM decides to file for a modification, it will come up though.
    Image and video hosting by TinyPic
    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • 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? 

    I'm sorry but that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Just because you have a child with someone doesnt mean you get to control his fertility with others for the next 18 years. It also doesn't mean you have any control over how much money he makes, what he does for a living and whom he associates with. When you divorce you lose all of those "rights."

     This debate really makes me annoyed because to prioritize finances and stuff over the gift of a sibling is really irritating. Why do people act like a new child "takes away" instead of enhances the lives of the existing child? It's not like a man is quitting his job to be sure not to pay CS, he is growing his family which means financial resources need to go further. That is life. The last child gets as much as the first child- anything else could actually amount to child abuse

    Also I'm sure if you ask your daughter if she'd rather have a brother or sister or more money she would pick a sibling. This is not an argument over what is best for kids or what they'd prefer this is an argument from BMs over control. I get this sense that some feel their ex's are making children and then making new lives with a new family...I mean that's what divorce does. It doesn't mean the existing children get left behind it means their lives change in a good way. More people to love your child is always a good thing. Always. 

    I could say its not fair that I spend my fun money on new shoes for SS or I take time off work when we are in a childcare crunch for him but that's the way MY cookie crumbles. That's life in blended families, there is no illusion of fair 

  • Loading the player...
  • imageIlumine:
    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. 

    Ok let`s get one thing straight, DH and I are the only ones providing money towards both households.

    As for a 100 dollars a month taking away extras for example activities, as long as we have input in that decision we have no problem helping out within reason. Shoes-BM can buy her own shoes for SD like we do since she does not want her wearing them here during visitation. I`m sorry but extras are just that extra, they are not a right.

     

    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






  • imageChance5291:

    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? 

    I'm sorry but that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Just because you have a child with someone doesnt mean you get to control his fertility with others for the next 18 years. It also doesn't mean you have any control over how much money he makes, what he does for a living and whom he associates with. When you divorce you lose all of those "rights."

     This debate really makes me annoyed because to prioritize finances and stuff over the gift of a sibling is really irritating. Why do people act like a new child "takes away" instead of enhances the lives of the existing child? It's not like a man is quitting his job to be sure not to pay CS, he is growing his family which means financial resources need to go further. That is life. The last child gets as much as the first child- anything else could actually amount to child abuse

    Also I'm sure if you ask your daughter if she'd rather have a brother or sister or more money she would pick a sibling. This is not an argument over what is best for kids or what they'd prefer this is an argument from BMs over control. I get this sense that some feel their ex's are making children and then making new lives with a new family...I mean that's what divorce does. It doesn't mean the existing children get left behind it means their lives change in a good way. More people to love your child is always a good thing. Always. 

    I could say its not fair that I spend my fun money on new shoes for SS or I take time off work when we are in a childcare crunch for him but that's the way MY cookie crumbles. That's life in blended families, there is no illusion of fair 

     

    Isn't the flip side of this argument "don't marry a man/woman who pays child support as you know they have a child to support for the next 18 years"? I am not saying my XH shouldn't have another child, nor am a I saying my child is more important. I am saying however that my child IS important. Nor did I ever say that I begrudge my daughter a father who loves her. I am fully supportive of their relationship, which is why I hold my tongue when his GF doesn't.

     I am saying that he should not have another child he cannot afford IN ADDITION to the child he already has. Like me. I cannot afford another child, so I have taken precautions not to have one.  LIke we would have if we were still married. 

    You marry a divorced father, you marry a man who is probably paying child support. Complaining about how it affects YOUR ability to afford another child is just silly. You knew about the child support when you married him, did you expect it to change? That is how I see the cookie crumbling.  

  • imageAnnplus1:
    imageChance5291:

    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? 

    I'm sorry but that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Just because you have a child with someone doesnt mean you get to control his fertility with others for the next 18 years. It also doesn't mean you have any control over how much money he makes, what he does for a living and whom he associates with. When you divorce you lose all of those "rights."

     This debate really makes me annoyed because to prioritize finances and stuff over the gift of a sibling is really irritating. Why do people act like a new child "takes away" instead of enhances the lives of the existing child? It's not like a man is quitting his job to be sure not to pay CS, he is growing his family which means financial resources need to go further. That is life. The last child gets as much as the first child- anything else could actually amount to child abuse

    Also I'm sure if you ask your daughter if she'd rather have a brother or sister or more money she would pick a sibling. This is not an argument over what is best for kids or what they'd prefer this is an argument from BMs over control. I get this sense that some feel their ex's are making children and then making new lives with a new family...I mean that's what divorce does. It doesn't mean the existing children get left behind it means their lives change in a good way. More people to love your child is always a good thing. Always. 

    I could say its not fair that I spend my fun money on new shoes for SS or I take time off work when we are in a childcare crunch for him but that's the way MY cookie crumbles. That's life in blended families, there is no illusion of fair 

     

    Isn't the flip side of this argument "don't marry a man/woman who pays child support as you know they have a child to support for the next 18 years"? I am not saying my XH shouldn't have another child, nor am a I saying my child is more important. I am saying however that my child IS important. Nor did I ever say that I begrudge my daughter a father who loves her. I am fully supportive of their relationship, which is why I hold my tongue when his GF doesn't.

     I am saying that he should not have another child he cannot afford IN ADDITION to the child he already has. Like me. I cannot afford another child, so I have taken precautions not to have one.  LIke we would have if we were still married. 

    You marry a divorced father, you marry a man who is probably paying child support. Complaining about how it affects YOUR ability to afford another child is just silly. You knew about the child support when you married him, did you expect it to change? That is how I see the cookie crumbling.  

    And just like intact families, kids may get a little less when the family expands, it is just the way it works. By no means does that mean that the first child`s needs are not being met. I`m so sick of hearing a lot of BM`s talk about how it`s not our child, we don`t get a say, well guess what, it`s not your body or your husband so you don`t get a say.

    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:
    imageAnnplus1:
    imageChance5291:

    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? 

    I'm sorry but that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Just because you have a child with someone doesnt mean you get to control his fertility with others for the next 18 years. It also doesn't mean you have any control over how much money he makes, what he does for a living and whom he associates with. When you divorce you lose all of those "rights."

     This debate really makes me annoyed because to prioritize finances and stuff over the gift of a sibling is really irritating. Why do people act like a new child "takes away" instead of enhances the lives of the existing child? It's not like a man is quitting his job to be sure not to pay CS, he is growing his family which means financial resources need to go further. That is life. The last child gets as much as the first child- anything else could actually amount to child abuse

    Also I'm sure if you ask your daughter if she'd rather have a brother or sister or more money she would pick a sibling. This is not an argument over what is best for kids or what they'd prefer this is an argument from BMs over control. I get this sense that some feel their ex's are making children and then making new lives with a new family...I mean that's what divorce does. It doesn't mean the existing children get left behind it means their lives change in a good way. More people to love your child is always a good thing. Always. 

    I could say its not fair that I spend my fun money on new shoes for SS or I take time off work when we are in a childcare crunch for him but that's the way MY cookie crumbles. That's life in blended families, there is no illusion of fair 

     

    Isn't the flip side of this argument "don't marry a man/woman who pays child support as you know they have a child to support for the next 18 years"? I am not saying my XH shouldn't have another child, nor am a I saying my child is more important. I am saying however that my child IS important. Nor did I ever say that I begrudge my daughter a father who loves her. I am fully supportive of their relationship, which is why I hold my tongue when his GF doesn't.

     I am saying that he should not have another child he cannot afford IN ADDITION to the child he already has. Like me. I cannot afford another child, so I have taken precautions not to have one.  LIke we would have if we were still married. 

    You marry a divorced father, you marry a man who is probably paying child support. Complaining about how it affects YOUR ability to afford another child is just silly. You knew about the child support when you married him, did you expect it to change? That is how I see the cookie crumbling.  

    And just like intact families, kids may get a little less when the family expands, it is just the way it works. By no means does that mean that the first child`s needs are not being met. I`m so sick of hearing a lot of BM`s talk about how it`s not our child, we don`t get a say, well guess what, it`s not your body or your husband so you don`t get a say.

    but it IS their child that is being affected and they had no choice in the matter. It's not ok to have both households effected when only one gets a choice.  Having children is inherently selfish, you are fulfilling your own desire to procreate. You are justifying fulfilling your own desires at the expense of others. Do you not get that? 
  • imagexmaryrickx:
    imagecole2144:
    imageAnnplus1:
    imageChance5291:

    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? 

    I'm sorry but that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Just because you have a child with someone doesnt mean you get to control his fertility with others for the next 18 years. It also doesn't mean you have any control over how much money he makes, what he does for a living and whom he associates with. When you divorce you lose all of those "rights."

     This debate really makes me annoyed because to prioritize finances and stuff over the gift of a sibling is really irritating. Why do people act like a new child "takes away" instead of enhances the lives of the existing child? It's not like a man is quitting his job to be sure not to pay CS, he is growing his family which means financial resources need to go further. That is life. The last child gets as much as the first child- anything else could actually amount to child abuse

    Also I'm sure if you ask your daughter if she'd rather have a brother or sister or more money she would pick a sibling. This is not an argument over what is best for kids or what they'd prefer this is an argument from BMs over control. I get this sense that some feel their ex's are making children and then making new lives with a new family...I mean that's what divorce does. It doesn't mean the existing children get left behind it means their lives change in a good way. More people to love your child is always a good thing. Always. 

    I could say its not fair that I spend my fun money on new shoes for SS or I take time off work when we are in a childcare crunch for him but that's the way MY cookie crumbles. That's life in blended families, there is no illusion of fair 

     

    Isn't the flip side of this argument "don't marry a man/woman who pays child support as you know they have a child to support for the next 18 years"? I am not saying my XH shouldn't have another child, nor am a I saying my child is more important. I am saying however that my child IS important. Nor did I ever say that I begrudge my daughter a father who loves her. I am fully supportive of their relationship, which is why I hold my tongue when his GF doesn't.

     I am saying that he should not have another child he cannot afford IN ADDITION to the child he already has. Like me. I cannot afford another child, so I have taken precautions not to have one.  LIke we would have if we were still married. 

    You marry a divorced father, you marry a man who is probably paying child support. Complaining about how it affects YOUR ability to afford another child is just silly. You knew about the child support when you married him, did you expect it to change? That is how I see the cookie crumbling.  

    And just like intact families, kids may get a little less when the family expands, it is just the way it works. By no means does that mean that the first child`s needs are not being met. I`m so sick of hearing a lot of BM`s talk about how it`s not our child, we don`t get a say, well guess what, it`s not your body or your husband so you don`t get a say.

    but it IS their child that is being affected and they had no choice in the matter. It's not ok to have both households effected when only one gets a choice.  Having children is inherently selfish, you are fulfilling your own desire to procreate. You are justifying fulfilling your own desires at the expense of others. Do you not get that? 

    My husband did have a choice in the matter, thank you. Just because that is your opinion does not make it right. We are affected by the choices BM makes all the time so it works both ways. SD would be affected if her mother had another child but that is their business. Do you have a child?

    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






  • I am a step mom and I am sure most of you would be surprised to hear me say that I think DH doesnt pay near what I think he should in CS!

    Not that his son isnt provided for.....its just that I met my DH when SS was 4. He is now 18 and heading off to college.  The amount DH pays has NEVER changed.  .

    I am thankful that BM and my DH have always kept their child as their main concern and worked at getting along for his sake.  It makes life so much easier!

  • This debate has nothing to do if the BF or BM have the right to decide to have more children. Of course they do, without question or permission from the other parent. The debate is wether or not the CS that the NCP pays should go down because of the new addition.

     I agree wholeheartedly the family that has the new addition will most likely have to tighten their spending on all children, regardless of which family has the new addition. But I am not sure why that means the other family has to tighten?

  • imagecole2144:
    imagexmaryrickx:
    imagecole2144:
    imageAnnplus1:
    imageChance5291:

    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? 

    I'm sorry but that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Just because you have a child with someone doesnt mean you get to control his fertility with others for the next 18 years. It also doesn't mean you have any control over how much money he makes, what he does for a living and whom he associates with. When you divorce you lose all of those "rights."

     This debate really makes me annoyed because to prioritize finances and stuff over the gift of a sibling is really irritating. Why do people act like a new child "takes away" instead of enhances the lives of the existing child? It's not like a man is quitting his job to be sure not to pay CS, he is growing his family which means financial resources need to go further. That is life. The last child gets as much as the first child- anything else could actually amount to child abuse

    Also I'm sure if you ask your daughter if she'd rather have a brother or sister or more money she would pick a sibling. This is not an argument over what is best for kids or what they'd prefer this is an argument from BMs over control. I get this sense that some feel their ex's are making children and then making new lives with a new family...I mean that's what divorce does. It doesn't mean the existing children get left behind it means their lives change in a good way. More people to love your child is always a good thing. Always. 

    I could say its not fair that I spend my fun money on new shoes for SS or I take time off work when we are in a childcare crunch for him but that's the way MY cookie crumbles. That's life in blended families, there is no illusion of fair 

     

    Isn't the flip side of this argument "don't marry a man/woman who pays child support as you know they have a child to support for the next 18 years"? I am not saying my XH shouldn't have another child, nor am a I saying my child is more important. I am saying however that my child IS important. Nor did I ever say that I begrudge my daughter a father who loves her. I am fully supportive of their relationship, which is why I hold my tongue when his GF doesn't.

     I am saying that he should not have another child he cannot afford IN ADDITION to the child he already has. Like me. I cannot afford another child, so I have taken precautions not to have one.  LIke we would have if we were still married. 

    You marry a divorced father, you marry a man who is probably paying child support. Complaining about how it affects YOUR ability to afford another child is just silly. You knew about the child support when you married him, did you expect it to change? That is how I see the cookie crumbling.  

    And just like intact families, kids may get a little less when the family expands, it is just the way it works. By no means does that mean that the first child`s needs are not being met. I`m so sick of hearing a lot of BM`s talk about how it`s not our child, we don`t get a say, well guess what, it`s not your body or your husband so you don`t get a say.

    but it IS their child that is being affected and they had no choice in the matter. It's not ok to have both households effected when only one gets a choice.  Having children is inherently selfish, you are fulfilling your own desire to procreate. You are justifying fulfilling your own desires at the expense of others. Do you not get that? 

    My husband did have a choice in the matter, thank you. Just because that is your opinion does not make it right. We are affected by the choices BM makes all the time so it works both ways. SD would be affected if her mother had another child but that is their business. Do you have a child?

    my procreation choices have nothing to do with this conversation. I have two stepchildren one of whom is still under 18 and receiving CS. 

    You are right this is about opinions. However, I have no doubt your opinion would change if the tables were turned. And I find it incredibly telling that you think an additional child in YOUR home warrants a modification, but not an additional child I. BM's home.  

  • imagetifanico:
    imagecole2144:

    Ok let`s get one thing straight, DH and I are the only ones providing money towards both households.

    As for a 100 dollars a month taking away extras for example activities, as long as we have input in that decision we have no problem helping out within reason. Shoes-BM can buy her own shoes for SD like we do since she does not want her wearing them here during visitation. I`m sorry but extras are just that extra, they are not a right.

     

    First this quote feature is getting out of control.

    Second, your husband is providing money to support your SD not to maintain 2 households. Are you aware of how expensive a child is. You are talking as if the BM didn't provide any money to support her child.  

    Third, when you say that if you have any other kids, BM wouldn't be helping support them. Guess what? by you lowering CS it means that BM will have to spend more of her money on her child so you can have more money available for the new kid. Its simple math and I'm giving you the side eye that you cannot understand that. 

    Is it fair or not? Well I think that if you chose to have kids with a guy with children this is what you signed up for. As BMs we do not care what you do with your body, your time or your money unless it doesn't affect us. Isn't it the way everyone behaves?

    Its the same as if the BM stopped working, well you couldn't care less about the fact unless it affects the CS amount.  

    Actually that statement is in response to the quote that BM and her SO are also supporting our household which if you read my previous statements they are not, we have not lowered support due to the fact that we have a child even though we have no CO and could do so if we wish. No one ever said that BM does not support SD because she certainly does.I am just saying that we (the collective we as SMs) also have rights to have our own children with our husbands and they have a right to supported by DH as well. If you can`t understand that I am giving you the side eye. Maybe SD will have to do without a few extras but it is no different than if she was here full time and we had another baby. Also I am certainly aware of the cost of raising children as I am paying to raise 2 of them, DS and SD.

    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






  • imagexmaryrickx:
    imagecole2144:
    imagexmaryrickx:
    imagecole2144:
    imageAnnplus1:
    imageChance5291:

    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? 

    I'm sorry but that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Just because you have a child with someone doesnt mean you get to control his fertility with others for the next 18 years. It also doesn't mean you have any control over how much money he makes, what he does for a living and whom he associates with. When you divorce you lose all of those "rights."

     This debate really makes me annoyed because to prioritize finances and stuff over the gift of a sibling is really irritating. Why do people act like a new child "takes away" instead of enhances the lives of the existing child? It's not like a man is quitting his job to be sure not to pay CS, he is growing his family which means financial resources need to go further. That is life. The last child gets as much as the first child- anything else could actually amount to child abuse

    Also I'm sure if you ask your daughter if she'd rather have a brother or sister or more money she would pick a sibling. This is not an argument over what is best for kids or what they'd prefer this is an argument from BMs over control. I get this sense that some feel their ex's are making children and then making new lives with a new family...I mean that's what divorce does. It doesn't mean the existing children get left behind it means their lives change in a good way. More people to love your child is always a good thing. Always. 

    I could say its not fair that I spend my fun money on new shoes for SS or I take time off work when we are in a childcare crunch for him but that's the way MY cookie crumbles. That's life in blended families, there is no illusion of fair 

     

    Isn't the flip side of this argument "don't marry a man/woman who pays child support as you know they have a child to support for the next 18 years"? I am not saying my XH shouldn't have another child, nor am a I saying my child is more important. I am saying however that my child IS important. Nor did I ever say that I begrudge my daughter a father who loves her. I am fully supportive of their relationship, which is why I hold my tongue when his GF doesn't.

     I am saying that he should not have another child he cannot afford IN ADDITION to the child he already has. Like me. I cannot afford another child, so I have taken precautions not to have one.  LIke we would have if we were still married. 

    You marry a divorced father, you marry a man who is probably paying child support. Complaining about how it affects YOUR ability to afford another child is just silly. You knew about the child support when you married him, did you expect it to change? That is how I see the cookie crumbling.  

    And just like intact families, kids may get a little less when the family expands, it is just the way it works. By no means does that mean that the first child`s needs are not being met. I`m so sick of hearing a lot of BM`s talk about how it`s not our child, we don`t get a say, well guess what, it`s not your body or your husband so you don`t get a say.

    but it IS their child that is being affected and they had no choice in the matter. It's not ok to have both households effected when only one gets a choice.  Having children is inherently selfish, you are fulfilling your own desire to procreate. You are justifying fulfilling your own desires at the expense of others. Do you not get that? 

    My husband did have a choice in the matter, thank you. Just because that is your opinion does not make it right. We are affected by the choices BM makes all the time so it works both ways. SD would be affected if her mother had another child but that is their business. Do you have a child?

    my procreation choices have nothing to do with this conversation. I have two stepchildren one of whom is still under 18 and receiving CS. 

    You are right this is about opinions. However, I have no doubt your opinion would change if the tables were turned. And I find it incredibly telling that you think an additional child in YOUR home warrants a modification, but not an additional child I. BM's home.  

    So you think you have a right to call people who have children selfish but don`t think I have a right to ask if you have a child?! LOL funny

    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






  • No one is questioning the right to your own children with your DH's. No one is questioning the right to your children to be supported by their father. What is being questioned is your child's right to that support taking away from a child from another household that your DH is legally (and some would say morally) obligated to support.

    I agree, again, that in the household that has the new child, the budget will be tightened. That while the SC is with you, the shoes won't be as nice, the extras will be cut down. As an intact family would have it. I still don't understand why the new child in that family has an effect on the other family the SC has. That's the part I fail to see. The SC didn't become cheaper for the CP becuase the NCP had another child.

  • imagetifanico:
    imagecole2144:
    imagetifanico:
    imagecole2144:

    Ok let`s get one thing straight, DH and I are the only ones providing money towards both households.

    As for a 100 dollars a month taking away extras for example activities, as long as we have input in that decision we have no problem helping out within reason. Shoes-BM can buy her own shoes for SD like we do since she does not want her wearing them here during visitation. I`m sorry but extras are just that extra, they are not a right.

     

    First this quote feature is getting out of control.

    Second, your husband is providing money to support your SD not to maintain 2 households. Are you aware of how expensive a child is. You are talking as if the BM didn't provide any money to support her child.  

    Third, when you say that if you have any other kids, BM wouldn't be helping support them. Guess what? by you lowering CS it means that BM will have to spend more of her money on her child so you can have more money available for the new kid. Its simple math and I'm giving you the side eye that you cannot understand that. 

    Is it fair or not? Well I think that if you chose to have kids with a guy with children this is what you signed up for. As BMs we do not care what you do with your body, your time or your money unless it doesn't affect us. Isn't it the way everyone behaves?

    Its the same as if the BM stopped working, well you couldn't care less about the fact unless it affects the CS amount.  

    Actually that statement is in response to the quote that BM and her SO are also supporting our household which if you read my previous statements they are not, we have not lowered support due to the fact that we have a child even though we have no CO and could do so if we wish. No one ever said that BM does not support SD because she certainly does.I am just saying that we (the collective we as SMs) also have rights to have our own children with our husbands and they have a right to supported by DH as well. If you can`t understand that I am giving you the side eye. Maybe SD will have to do without a few extras but it is no different than if she was here full time and we had another baby. Also I am certainly aware of the cost of raising children as I am paying to raise 2 of them, DS and SD.

    I am aware that you are not the one getting the CS lowered. I'm talking about your train of thought here.  I also think that you are reading my post incorrectly. Have I ever said that SMs don't deserve having children with their spouses?

    What I don't agree that because one party decides to have a child, the other party has to be affected (note that is affected not effected not directed to you but in general). If I choose to have another kid, I wouldn't expect BF to give me more money. By the same token, if I chose not to work full time, I wouldn't also expect CS to go up. MY personal decisions shouldn't affec the CS support amount. So you can have as many children as you want but if you cannot support them with the current responsibilities you have right now, then you need to reconsider. 

    This thread is getting very tiring as we will just continue to go in circles since we have a difference in opinions. I will simply say that in our home, we value our children equally no matter their birth order, so if we need to cut back on spending for one to even it out a bit for the other we will. (Now I say this knowing that you can never be exactly equal as needs change and are different for each child as they age but we do our best to keep things as close as we can.)

    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






  • Cole, I said SOME people are selfish about it, but yes choosing to have a child is inherently a selfish choice. You are doing so to fulfill a personal desire, ergo selfish. That doesn't mean that a person is necessarily acting in a selfish manner when making that choice, but to me, asking another household to make sacrifices to fulfill YOUR desire is terribly selfish. There are plenty of other things that go in bf situations that are selfish on one parties behalf, but for this discussion we were talking about the choice to have more children. 
  •  I am aware that you are not the one getting the CS lowered. I'm talking about your train of thought here.  I also think that you are reading my post incorrectly. Have I ever said that SMs don't deserve having children with their spouses?

    What I don't agree that because one party decides to have a child, the other party has to be affected (note that is affected not effected not directed to you but in general). If I choose to have another kid, I wouldn't expect BF to give me more money. By the same token, if I chose not to work full time, I wouldn't also expect CS to go up. MY personal decisions shouldn't affec the CS support amount. So you can have as many children as you want but if you cannot support them with the current responsibilities you have right now, then you need to reconsider. 

     

     Tifanico-

    I think its nice the way you are thinking...However, in my situation, bm does expect more money if she decides to work part time. She not only feels thats necessary, but she wants us to provide everything her children need at my house as well as pay her a full amount of cs. She also then thinks we should pay outside of cs for any extra decisions SHE makes for the kids without consulting my h.

    For me, I don't mind paying her the cs. But circumstances change. What a child needs at 1 they probably don't need at 10. I will have two children in daycare full time. This will be a huge expense for dh and I. Meanwhile, bm will have no children in daycare as they are going to school full time. This is a substantial change that DH the center factor in all this is part of. Do you not think that since that extra money bm was getting credit for for her children's child care expenses should not be shifted to now assist in dh other kids that are in child care?

    The bolded part sort of upsets me. With any new addition there will be changes to your responsibility. I honestly feel like statements like this come from personal feelings and not whats logical. In a perfect world no one would have to adjust their expenses. 

    If this were so black and white and an amount was just set forever until the children turned 18 no matter what the circumstances were, I would agree with you here. But this is not the way it goes for some. Some people nickel and dime back and forth. Unfortunately, this is part of my situation.

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • Annplus1- the flip side to your argument is don't get divorced. If you're saying it's that easy to determine who you fall in love with then why would you ever divorce someone you had a kid with.. Everyone knows divorce is expensive and divides resources and has the (most likely) possibility of the Bm and Bf remarrying and adding new SKs, spouses and bio kids to the mix. Divorce takes the most away from the kids if you really want to get in to semantics

    I don't think anyone grows up as a kid thinking their prince charming also comes with his own kids but welcome to modern day life. Like I said life in blended families will never be fair. As a Bm, bf or sm you should get used to that. Part of being unfair is that when new kids come the Bm's household finances are impacted. Just as if the bf lost a great job or was laid off what happens in one household absolutely impacts the other

    So I'd say all adults in this scenario knew what they were signing up for when they made the decisions they did.  The most important thing is that all kids are taken care of the SAME and have the same standard of living no matter which household they're primarily in.

  • imagecole2144:
    imagexmaryrickx:
    imagecole2144:
    imageAnnplus1:
    imageChance5291:

    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? 

    I'm sorry but that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Just because you have a child with someone doesnt mean you get to control his fertility with others for the next 18 years. It also doesn't mean you have any control over how much money he makes, what he does for a living and whom he associates with. When you divorce you lose all of those "rights."

     This debate really makes me annoyed because to prioritize finances and stuff over the gift of a sibling is really irritating. Why do people act like a new child "takes away" instead of enhances the lives of the existing child? It's not like a man is quitting his job to be sure not to pay CS, he is growing his family which means financial resources need to go further. That is life. The last child gets as much as the first child- anything else could actually amount to child abuse

    Also I'm sure if you ask your daughter if she'd rather have a brother or sister or more money she would pick a sibling. This is not an argument over what is best for kids or what they'd prefer this is an argument from BMs over control. I get this sense that some feel their ex's are making children and then making new lives with a new family...I mean that's what divorce does. It doesn't mean the existing children get left behind it means their lives change in a good way. More people to love your child is always a good thing. Always. 

    I could say its not fair that I spend my fun money on new shoes for SS or I take time off work when we are in a childcare crunch for him but that's the way MY cookie crumbles. That's life in blended families, there is no illusion of fair 

     

    Isn't the flip side of this argument "don't marry a man/woman who pays child support as you know they have a child to support for the next 18 years"? I am not saying my XH shouldn't have another child, nor am a I saying my child is more important. I am saying however that my child IS important. Nor did I ever say that I begrudge my daughter a father who loves her. I am fully supportive of their relationship, which is why I hold my tongue when his GF doesn't.

     I am saying that he should not have another child he cannot afford IN ADDITION to the child he already has. Like me. I cannot afford another child, so I have taken precautions not to have one.  LIke we would have if we were still married. 

    You marry a divorced father, you marry a man who is probably paying child support. Complaining about how it affects YOUR ability to afford another child is just silly. You knew about the child support when you married him, did you expect it to change? That is how I see the cookie crumbling.  

    And just like intact families, kids may get a little less when the family expands, it is just the way it works. By no means does that mean that the first child`s needs are not being met. I`m so sick of hearing a lot of BM`s talk about how it`s not our child, we don`t get a say, well guess what, it`s not your body or your husband so you don`t get a say.

    but it IS their child that is being affected and they had no choice in the matter. It's not ok to have both households effected when only one gets a choice.  Having children is inherently selfish, you are fulfilling your own desire to procreate. You are justifying fulfilling your own desires at the expense of others. Do you not get that? 

    My husband did have a choice in the matter, thank you. Just because that is your opinion does not make it right. We are affected by the choices BM makes all the time so it works both ways. SD would be affected if her mother had another child but that is their business. Do you have a child?

    I am the StepParent, thank you very much.  We had DD before we got custody of SS (which actually is a much larger financial burden then the child support we were paying) and never once thought about lowering his support becuase I wanted to push a child out of my uterus.  

     Why, becuase I have no right in negatively affecting someone by MY decisions.  

    And even $100 dollars will affect someone's household....or YOU wouldn't be needing that $100 for YOUR child, right? 

    file:///Users/Ilumine/Desktop/Family%20Portrait%20for%20gift.jpg
  • imageChance5291:

    Annplus1- the flip side to your argument is don't get divorced. If you're saying it's that easy to determine who you fall in love with then why would you ever divorce someone you had a kid with.. Everyone knows divorce is expensive and divides resources and has the (most likely) possibility of the Bm and Bf remarrying and adding new SKs, spouses and bio kids to the mix. Divorce takes the most away from the kids if you really want to get in to semantics

    I don't think anyone grows up as a kid thinking their prince charming also comes with his own kids but welcome to modern day life. Like I said life in blended families will never be fair. As a Bm, bf or sm you should get used to that. Part of being unfair is that when new kids come the Bm's household finances are impacted. Just as if the bf lost a great job or was laid off what happens in one household absolutely impacts the other

    So I'd say all adults in this scenario knew what they were signing up for when they made the decisions they did.  The most important thing is that all kids are taken care of the SAME and have the same standard of living no matter which household they're primarily in.

  • This argument boils down to: some of us think all children should be treated equally some of us believe first born kids deserve more. Lol really. Sounds like feudal China. Do boys deserve more too because they can carry down a name?

    Also I'll point out again I'm not hearing a lot about how the extra money or lack thereof impacts the CHILD all I'm hearing about is how less money impacts the Bm's household. Well excuse me while I do not cry a river over that. When Bm gets her car repod so we have to do all pick ups and drop offs it impacts my life so it's only "fair" that my decisions impact her life equally. 

  • imageChance5291:

    This argument boils down to: some of us think all children should be treated equally some of us believe first born kids deserve more. Lol really. Sounds like feudal China. Do boys deserve more too because they can carry down a name?

    Also I'll point out again I'm not hearing a lot about how the extra money or lack thereof impacts the CHILD all I'm hearing about is how less money impacts the Bm's household. Well excuse me while I do not cry a river over that. When Bm gets her car repod so we have to do all pick ups and drop offs it impacts my life so it's only "fair" that my decisions impact her life equally. 

    This!

    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






  • imageChance5291:

    Annplus1- the flip side to your argument is don't get divorced. If you're saying it's that easy to determine who you fall in love with then why would you ever divorce someone you had a kid with.. Everyone knows divorce is expensive and divides resources and has the (most likely) possibility of the Bm and Bf remarrying and adding new SKs, spouses and bio kids to the mix. Divorce takes the most away from the kids if you really want to get in to semantics

    I don't think anyone grows up as a kid thinking their prince charming also comes with his own kids but welcome to modern day life. Like I said life in blended families will never be fair. As a Bm, bf or sm you should get used to that. Part of being unfair is that when new kids come the Bm's household finances are impacted. Just as if the bf lost a great job or was laid off what happens in one household absolutely impacts the other

    So I'd say all adults in this scenario knew what they were signing up for when they made the decisions they did.  The most important thing is that all kids are taken care of the SAME and have the same standard of living no matter which household they're primarily in.

     LOL I didn't decide to get a divorce until my XH decided to get a GF when I was 10 weeks pregnant. Well, I think he had the GF before, but that's when I found out. After 10 years of marriage. In her case, I could say, don't date a man who's married and has a baby on the way, or in any case, don't date a NCP parent who pays CS. I agree, life isn't fair. But to walk into a situation with your eyes open and then say it needs to change because of a decision you and your spouse make, isn't fair to the situation you walked into. Your spouse knew how much their CS was. If there is a job change, a job loss, a loss of daycare needs, an increase of income for the CP, an increase in custody for the NCP, all of that makes sense to do a modification, as it would directly impact the child if the family were still "intact".

     I didn't get married with the expectation I was going to be a single mom. But it happened. However, dating a NCP now, I am very aware of the situtation. I know he pays CS, I know how long it will last, I know there is an XW he has to co-parent with. To ask them to make changes because he and I decided to have another kid is not right. That is different than not fair, in my opinion. Not fair would if he all of a sudden got a CS order. Going in aware of the situation and wanting it to change is not the same as not fair.

  • imageChance5291:

    This argument boils down to: some of us think all children should be treated equally some of us believe first born kids deserve more. Lol really. Sounds like feudal China. Do boys deserve more too because they can carry down a name?

    Also I'll point out again I'm not hearing a lot about how the extra money or lack thereof impacts the CHILD all I'm hearing about is how less money impacts the Bm's household. Well excuse me while I do not cry a river over that. When Bm gets her car repod so we have to do all pick ups and drop offs it impacts my life so it's only "fair" that my decisions impact her life equally. 

    Ok, so then you are ok with a BM modifying the CS for an increase because she has another child?  Because that rule would go both ways.  And when BM is the Octo-Mom type who keeps popping out kids, you're ok with your husband's CS going up to help her make ends meet?  Just like the deadbeat dads who have multiple children with several women should continuously be able to lower his CS obligations to each woman just because he can't take preventative measures?

    image

    Created by MyFitnessPal - Free Weight Loss Tools



  • imageChance5291:

    This argument boils down to: some of us think all children should be treated equally some of us believe first born kids deserve more. Lol really. Sounds like feudal China. Do boys deserve more too because they can carry down a name?

    Also I'll point out again I'm not hearing a lot about how the extra money or lack thereof impacts the CHILD all I'm hearing about is how less money impacts the Bm's household. Well excuse me while I do not cry a river over that. When Bm gets her car repod so we have to do all pick ups and drop offs it impacts my life so it's only "fair" that my decisions impact her life equally. 

    I think this is a very good point. And I have this funny feeling that we're all looking at this as a matter of BM's and BF's rather than as a matter of who has the kids.

    Say in my situation, we have the kids full time. If we received CS we wouldn't ask for more because we had a baby, but if she paid CS I could understand her wanting to lower it if feasible if she had another. Of course this is all beyond hyppthetical and into the realm of the impossible because she doesn't pay anything for the kids nor can she have more kids. But do you see my point?

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imageChance5291:

    This argument boils down to: some of us think all children should be treated equally some of us believe first born kids deserve more. Lol really. Sounds like feudal China. Do boys deserve more too because they can carry down a name?

    Also I'll point out again I'm not hearing a lot about how the extra money or lack thereof impacts the CHILD all I'm hearing about is how less money impacts the Bm's household. Well excuse me while I do not cry a river over that. When Bm gets her car repod so we have to do all pick ups and drop offs it impacts my life so it's only "fair" that my decisions impact her life equally. 

    So wait. Because I am protecting my child's interest because I don't believe my CHILD'S CS should go down because my XH decides to have another child I believe my child is more important than the new child? The new child that was concieved with the knowledge of both parents (BF & SM) that he has to pay CS? If that is the case, then yes. I care more about my child than I do about theirs. Just as you care more about your child with your DH than you do about the SC you knew you had when you married him. Of course I care more about my birth child. You will or do too. Its human nature.

    If CS goes down, it will impact my household which impacts our child. Tell me again how it doesn't/wouldn't? You need to take your BM back to court if you have issues regarding your custody agreement or if she is violating the order. Or really, your DH needs to. The pick up/drop off has nothing to do with CS. They are two seperate issues you are melding as you are pissed off at the BM. Which I understand. My XH pisses me off a lot. But I am not cutting off visitation and wouldn't. My feelings impact ME, not our DD.  If that $100 you gain from the modification makes a big enough impact on your NCP household budget, imagine what it does for the parent who has custody of your SC.

    Again. This is child support. It's not "birth mother support", nor is it nearly enough to get rich off of. It is what each state deems it costs based on whatever calculator they use to raise a child. I do not think my XH should think my child with him is more important than any future children he may have. I do, however, believe that he should continue to support that child. Is your child more important than the one that came before it??

  • There are too many different arguments going on in this thread. Since no one is debating the legality of the reduction, it's basically a question of finances (on both sides) and ethics.

    No child is intrinsically more important than another. But my child is obviously more important to me, and your child is more important to you. We each have to fight for what we want for our kids, and unfortunately, those interests collide sometimes in BFs. 

    If I had a dime for every SM who has come to this board and complained about BM being unemployed or underemployed to get more $$, I would have at least another $20 in my pocket. Having another baby and then seeking a reduction is just the other side of that coin. So if you're okay with the latter, then you have to be okay with the former, too. 

    my read shelf:
    Erin's book recommendations, liked quotes, book clubs, book trivia, book lists (read shelf)
  • imageChance5291:

    This argument boils down to: some of us think all children should be treated equally some of us believe first born kids deserve more. Lol really. Sounds like feudal China. Do boys deserve more too because they can carry down a name?

    Also I'll point out again I'm not hearing a lot about how the extra money or lack thereof impacts the CHILD all I'm hearing about is how less money impacts the Bm's household. Well excuse me while I do not cry a river over that. When Bm gets her car repod so we have to do all pick ups and drop offs it impacts my life so it's only "fair" that my decisions impact her life equally. 

    no one is saying first born kids deserve more. If that is what you are getting from this I can only imagine you are being deliberately obtuse. An comparing the birth of a new child, something that will cause a lifetime of change, to a temporary change like a car being repo'd is ridiculous and nonsensical. 
  • I totally agree with Jobal.  I pay a certain percentage towards raising my dd as does my xh.  If he were to have another child, why should my percentage go up so his can go down?  Same as if I had a baby, my percent would go down and xh would have to pay more child support?   Sounds crazy to me. Luckily that doesn't happen in my state.   My xh sees dd 1.5 hrs per week and provides nothing during his visitation (no clothing, food, or entertainment).  I pay for everything for dd with my income and cs combined.  If my xh were to have another child it affects my household and I have no say.  And to say I can cut back on something at my house bc of his choice------ what should I take from her- her special diet for GI issues? Her medication? Her orthotics and special shoes? Parking at the hospital? Gas to get her to her numerous appts?  My xh hasn't a clue what it costs to raise his child and lowering child support would certainly have more of an impact than just having to have a little less bc you have a sibling.  

    And to whomever said a child would pick a sibling over material things..... Not always.  Why would my daughter want a sibling at a house she hasn't been to in over six months? A sibling with a man she has no relationship with and I'm sure she wouldn't be thrilled to have a sibling when her dad can't even spend more than 1.5 hours with her.   She'd much rather a gym class or something materialistic at this point.  I know many kids have great relationships with both parents/families but each situation is different and blanket statements can't be made bc ever situation varies.  What works for one may not fly for the other.  

    Kirsten DD 4-7-06
  • imagefellesferie:

    There are too many different arguments going on in this thread. Since no one is debating the legality of the reduction, it's basically a question of finances (on both sides) and ethics.

    No child is intrinsically more important than another. But my child is obviously more important to me, and your child is more important to you. We each have to fight for what we want for our kids, and unfortunately, those interests collide sometimes in BFs. 

    If I had a dime for every SM who has come to this board and complained about BM being unemployed or underemployed to get more $$, I would have at least another $20 in my pocket. Having another baby and then seeking a reduction is just the other side of that coin. So if you're okay with the latter, then you have to be okay with the former, too. 

    ^^  Exactly.

    image

    Created by MyFitnessPal - Free Weight Loss Tools



  • imageChance5291:

    This argument boils down to: some of us think all children should be treated equally some of us believe first born kids deserve more. Lol really. Sounds like feudal China. Do boys deserve more too because they can carry down a name?

    Also I'll point out again I'm not hearing a lot about how the extra money or lack thereof impacts the CHILD all I'm hearing about is how less money impacts the Bm's household. Well excuse me while I do not cry a river over that. When Bm gets her car repod so we have to do all pick ups and drop offs it impacts my life so it's only "fair" that my decisions impact her life equally. 

    Are you being a blockhead for the sake of argument or do you really have suck blinders?

    Not wanting a child's child support to DROP is not the same as demanding that they GET MORE.  Not recognizing the difference, nor the fact that the DROP to this child'/ financial support is a CHOICE of the one parent, is pure self-centeredness.  

    Sure, you get to procreate, but YOUR desire to gestate after another child (who again did not ask for her split up parents or even her birth) is already in place is YOUR desire.  

    And to demand that she gets LESS then she now gets so YOUR child gets his/hers is actually putting that kids needs first.

    Becuas the majority of child support payments are not enough to raise a kid on alone.  HELL, if we got CS, we would get $200 a month.  That barely covers SS' snack intake, let alone his Meals, utility usage (he is in the 20 min shower stge), clothing, school supplies, and his portion of the mortgage/rent (if we didn't have SS we wouldn't need that extra bedroom, thus our house cost/rent would be lower) 

    And that is n DHs current salary. He is. Ow Offical,y retired.  In 9 months, our reserves are gone.  His retirement is 1/2 of his current salary.  That $200 a month could mean the difference between making our mortgage or not.  Were BM to have another kid and want to lower that to $100, we might have problems.  

    But hey, that new baby that came along 12 years later just NEEDS it more that her current kid.  HE should go without so the new baby can have it all.  That's EQUAL. 

    file:///Users/Ilumine/Desktop/Family%20Portrait%20for%20gift.jpg
  • Annplus1- you're projecting way too much onto my situation. My point about the car is I can't tell Bm "hey my SS needs a car, he may need to like go places so please make sure you use CS to pay that bill." trust me that we have hashed any and everything that could ever be hashed out in court and I'll take dealing with Bm without $500/hr attorneys any day of the year. Honestly once a year she gets on my nerves, I just use her actions as examples

    My point is that CS will never be fair and I am a little...irked (?) that so many are saying you would argue harder for your child. Actually no. I truly would not want my child to have more than his sibling. It's sad enough that our Bm's other kids have much less than SS and our children. How does it benefit my child if he has more or different things than the person who will have the strongest and closest biological bond to him in the world. 

    I guess we will agree to disagree. I make more money than Dh or Bm will ever hope to earn in their lifetime- they were teen parents while I was wrapping up graduate school. I have zero probs using MY money to enhance SS's life. I like doing that actually because I love him and want him to have the best. You can continue to support your child while making financial adjustments. I actually find when we pay less in CS then I end up making it up in other ways (redoing his room, more clothes shopping, enrollig him in an extra sport)

    I guess my point though is you can't have it both ways. You can't have the benefit of demanding financial support never change and being divorced. The only time you have the illusion of control in that area is when you stay married OR have an excellent coparenting relationship where you work as a team. Other than that financial support will wax and wane that's life.

    Jobalchak- Bm has plenty of other children that she receives no CS for. She gets $600 for SS so yes I am positive our support goes to provide for the other kids she had with other men. I didn't tell her "HEY our $600 goes LESS far because you have other kids with other men and live on welfare (so her income is obviously low and fixed)." I have no right to say that even though I'm SURE that is in fact the case. It goes both ways. Technically according to posters on this board SS would have been better off if Bm had no other siblings. I don't buy it. Yes he has fewer nice things there but I think when he's an adult he will appreciate his brothers and sister over having the newest shoes when he was 10. 

    To other poster(s) who called me a name, I'm not even going to go there. Didn't even read past the first sentence so if you'd like to try again without stooping to that I'd  be open to reading and responding otherwise not. 

  • imageChance5291:

    Annplus1- you're projecting way too much onto my situation. My point about the car is I can't tell Bm "hey my SS needs a car, he may need to like go places so please make sure you use CS to pay that bill." trust me that we have hashed any and everything that could ever be hashed out in court and I'll take dealing with Bm without $500/hr attorneys any day of the year. Honestly once a year she gets on my nerves, I just use her actions as examples

    My point is that CS will never be fair and I am a little...irked (?) that so many are saying you would argue harder for your child. Actually no. I truly would not want my child to have more than his sibling. It's sad enough that our Bm's other kids have much less than SS and our children. How does it benefit my child if he has more or different things than the person who will have the strongest and closest biological bond to him in the world. 

    I guess we will agree to disagree. I make more money than Dh or Bm will ever hope to earn in their lifetime- they were teen parents while I was wrapping up graduate school. I have zero probs using MY money to enhance SS's life. I like doing that actually because I love him and want him to have the best. You can continue to support your child while making financial adjustments. I actually find when we pay less in CS then I end up making it up in other ways (redoing his room, more clothes shopping, enrollig him in an extra sport)

    I guess my point though is you can't have it both ways. You can't have the benefit of demanding financial support never change and being divorced. The only time you have the illusion of control in that area is when you stay married OR have an excellent coparenting relationship where you work as a team. Other than that financial support will wax and wane that's life.

    Jobalchak- Bm has plenty of other children that she receives no CS for. She gets $600 for SS so yes I am positive our support goes to provide for the other kids she had with other men. I didn't tell her "HEY our $600 goes LESS far because you have other kids with other men and live on welfare (so her income is obviously low and fixed)." I have no right to say that even though I'm SURE that is in fact the case. It goes both ways. Technically according to posters on this board SS would have been better off if Bm had no other siblings. I don't buy it. Yes he has fewer nice things there but I think when he's an adult he will appreciate his brothers and sister over having the newest shoes when he was 10. 

    To other poster(s) who called me a name, I'm not even going to go there. Didn't even read past the first sentence so if you'd like to try again without stooping to that I'd  be open to reading and responding otherwise not. 

     

    **Standing applause** 

    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imageChance5291:

    Annplus1- you're projecting way too much onto my situation. My point about the car is I can't tell Bm "hey my SS needs a car, he may need to like go places so please make sure you use CS to pay that bill." trust me that we have hashed any and everything that could ever be hashed out in court and I'll take dealing with Bm without $500/hr attorneys any day of the year. Honestly once a year she gets on my nerves, I just use her actions as examples

    My point is that CS will never be fair and I am a little...irked (?) that so many are saying you would argue harder for your child. Actually no. I truly would not want my child to have more than his sibling. It's sad enough that our Bm's other kids have much less than SS and our children. How does it benefit my child if he has more or different things than the person who will have the strongest and closest biological bond to him in the world. 

    I guess we will agree to disagree. I make more money than Dh or Bm will ever hope to earn in their lifetime- they were teen parents while I was wrapping up graduate school. I have zero probs using MY money to enhance SS's life. I like doing that actually because I love him and want him to have the best. You can continue to support your child while making financial adjustments. I actually find when we pay less in CS then I end up making it up in other ways (redoing his room, more clothes shopping, enrollig him in an extra sport)

    I guess my point though is you can't have it both ways. You can't have the benefit of demanding financial support never change and being divorced. The only time you have the illusion of control in that area is when you stay married OR have an excellent coparenting relationship where you work as a team. Other than that financial support will wax and wane that's life.

    Jobalchak- Bm has plenty of other children that she receives no CS for. She gets $600 for SS so yes I am positive our support goes to provide for the other kids she had with other men. I didn't tell her "HEY our $600 goes LESS far because you have other kids with other men and live on welfare (so her income is obviously low and fixed)." I have no right to say that even though I'm SURE that is in fact the case. It goes both ways. Technically according to posters on this board SS would have been better off if Bm had no other siblings. I don't buy it. Yes he has fewer nice things there but I think when he's an adult he will appreciate his brothers and sister over having the newest shoes when he was 10. 

    To other poster(s) who called me a name, I'm not even going to go there. Didn't even read past the first sentence so if you'd like to try again without stooping to that I'd  be open to reading and responding otherwise not. 

    you are so right he wouldn't be better off if his mother didn't have all those kids to support on such a small income. No one needs college savings, an emergency fund for those unforeseen emergencies or to be able to have great life experiences like travel, extra curricular activities, etc. I can totally see what you mean. I think I will sell my house, quit my job, and sign up for welfare. 
  • imagejobalchak:
    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.

    I haven't even read through this whole thread, but I can testify that this is the case. My ex-h hasn't paid a dime for the girls medical or schooling (which he should be paying 49% of) the past almost 4 years. So I don't feel the slightest bit bad he'll be paying more in child support because I have another bio child. In the grand scheme of things, it's an extra $12 a month, anyway.  

    image

    imageimage

    TheseFourButton-1.png

  • imagexmaryrickx:
    imageChance5291:

    Annplus1- you're projecting way too much onto my situation. My point about the car is I can't tell Bm "hey my SS needs a car, he may need to like go places so please make sure you use CS to pay that bill." trust me that we have hashed any and everything that could ever be hashed out in court and I'll take dealing with Bm without $500/hr attorneys any day of the year. Honestly once a year she gets on my nerves, I just use her actions as examples

    My point is that CS will never be fair and I am a little...irked (?) that so many are saying you would argue harder for your child. Actually no. I truly would not want my child to have more than his sibling. It's sad enough that our Bm's other kids have much less than SS and our children. How does it benefit my child if he has more or different things than the person who will have the strongest and closest biological bond to him in the world. 

    I guess we will agree to disagree. I make more money than Dh or Bm will ever hope to earn in their lifetime- they were teen parents while I was wrapping up graduate school. I have zero probs using MY money to enhance SS's life. I like doing that actually because I love him and want him to have the best. You can continue to support your child while making financial adjustments. I actually find when we pay less in CS then I end up making it up in other ways (redoing his room, more clothes shopping, enrollig him in an extra sport)

    I guess my point though is you can't have it both ways. You can't have the benefit of demanding financial support never change and being divorced. The only time you have the illusion of control in that area is when you stay married OR have an excellent coparenting relationship where you work as a team. Other than that financial support will wax and wane that's life.

    Jobalchak- Bm has plenty of other children that she receives no CS for. She gets $600 for SS so yes I am positive our support goes to provide for the other kids she had with other men. I didn't tell her "HEY our $600 goes LESS far because you have other kids with other men and live on welfare (so her income is obviously low and fixed)." I have no right to say that even though I'm SURE that is in fact the case. It goes both ways. Technically according to posters on this board SS would have been better off if Bm had no other siblings. I don't buy it. Yes he has fewer nice things there but I think when he's an adult he will appreciate his brothers and sister over having the newest shoes when he was 10. 

    To other poster(s) who called me a name, I'm not even going to go there. Didn't even read past the first sentence so if you'd like to try again without stooping to that I'd  be open to reading and responding otherwise not. 

    you are so right he wouldn't be better off if his mother didn't have all those kids to support on such a small income. No one needs college savings, an emergency fund for those unforeseen emergencies or to be able to have great life experiences like travel, extra curricular activities, etc. I can totally see what you mean. I think I will sell my house, quit my job, and sign up for welfare. 

    His mom will be on welfare the rest of her life regardless of how many kids she has. This is a completely unrelated point. I was using it as an example to say if Bm's were treated like bfs then our CS should have decreased or BM should have been paying more towards SS so as not to limit his opportunities because she CHOSE to have more kids. Like I said the pendulum swings both ways. 

    I used her being on welfare as an example to say I know for fact she's not picking up extra shifts to pay for the additional kids and our CS is picking up the slack. In the scheme of life NO BIG DEAL. I'd rather SS and her other kids are treated fairly versus her kids going WITHOUT while SS lives a charmed priviledged life because dh only genetically contributed to him.

     You guys take things so dang literally. I feel like you are purposely failing to get the point 

  • imageDarthNBJenni:
    imagejobalchak:
    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.

    I haven't even read through this whole thread, but I can testify that this is the case. My ex-h hasn't paid a dime for the girls medical or schooling (which he should be paying 49% of) the past almost 4 years. So I don't feel the slightest bit bad he'll be paying more in child support because I have another bio child. In the grand scheme of things, it's an extra $12 a month, anyway.  

    I think this is the biggest point here. It actually makes little difference one way or the other.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • imagexmaryrickx:

    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".  

    Amen! I'm not allowed to tell our story because of "court" and the pending Custody battle we've been going through, but you've summed up the situation very well. They only eat dollar menu fast food (and are therefore obese), no clothes fit, she snips the leg elastic in their panties so they fit  when they're 2 sizes too small, she constantly "forgets" to put money in the lunch account and "forgets" to pay copay at doctor or hospital so we get the bill, but she lives it up and goes out and drinks and parties and does illegal drugs, gets her hair done, mani/pedi, new car, and pawns the kids off with whomever is available all the time.   but when we go to court she denies it all and blames DH because his $1500 a month in CS isn't enough to support the kids on her end (equal joint custody with her considered primary)  yep. crock of b.s.

This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards
"
"