Child Support Help

cole2144 · October 2012

We had a child support conference yesterday and with the amount calculated we will not be able to pay all our bills. They did not even look at any of our expenses. We go back for a court date in November, do they look at your expenses then? I thought they could not make child support so high that you could not afford to keep your home. At this point we are at a loss as to how we are going to make this work. We go to custody court on the 30th so hopefully if we get what we are asking for CS will go down anyway. And for those of you who are wondering, my husband has being paying an amount that was agreed upon when he broke up with BM, so even though there was no order he has been paying support.

kimmygirl77 · October 2012

In my state they do not look at other expenses. The reasoning is that the first and most important obligation is to the child or children. Everything else is secondary. The state will set the support amount and that is it. You budget your other expenses with what you have left AFTER support is paid. Basically they are saying you need to adjust where you live, car payments, etc with what you have left after you make your support obligation to the child. Support in my state is calculated by how much time the child spends with each parent and how much each parent makes. So hopefully if you get more time with SD then the child support will go down.

wwnbw · October 2012

In my state they don't look at any expenses. They take 20% (depending on how many kids) of the NCP income and that is child support. DH and I get less in child support for two kids then we pay out to one BM. I think it's really unfair how it's calculated here.

"Win the super bowl and drive off in a Hyundai"

cole2144 · October 2012

We just bought a home, we can not afford to keep it if we have to pay this much support.

Ginlyn0 · October 2012

What wwnbw said applies in my state. No expenses are considered at all ever. CS is the most important. Ours is a flat percent based on DH's income + medical insurance + 50% of medical expenses.

However, I'm not sure about what Wendi said because I know in our state up to 50% of wages can be garnished and I kind of thought that was a federal thing but not sure. Trust me though I at least know the cap in our state because, we hit that cap both times DH was on unemployment and they took half and also when he was working his last contract job and getting paid crap. So you might look into your state specifically.

SusanH. · October 2012

I am a step mom whose DH pays support, so dont think I am receiver of CS.

Your expenses should have NOTHING to do with child support. THink about it...if they did, people would try to get around paying it by always having a high car payment, living beyond their means, etc.....

xmaryrickx · October 2012

It depends on where you are. H had to fill out pages like 20 of itemized expenses. It covered everything. Was that taken into consideration, yes, but not necessarily in a good way.
How does the ordered CS line up with your states CS guidelines? You should be able to find a state specific calculator online.

cole2144 · October 2012

SusanH.:
I am a step mom whose DH pays support, so dont think I am receiver of CS.

Your expenses should have NOTHING to do with child support. THink about it...if they did, people would try to get around paying it by always having a high car payment, living beyond their means, etc.....

I understand that way of thinking but when an honest person who wants to support BOTH his children and pay his obligations and can`t afford to because child support is so high that is a bit crazy IMO. I know what it costs to raise SD and her needs are getting met and then some.

Nineoceans · October 2012

SusanH.:
I am a step mom whose DH pays support, so dont think I am receiver of CS.

Your expenses should have NOTHING to do with child support. THink about it...if they did, people would try to get around paying it by always having a high car payment, living beyond their means, etc....

Well first I think that would be the exception and not the rule. People in general unless they are total @sses, don't like to see their children go without. It doesn't cost 20% of our salary to raise our SS and we pay ALL his expenses with a few reimbursements from bmom here and there. If it cost 20% of your income + the income of another custodial parent, to raise a child many people just wouldn't have children at all.

Especially as the child ages expenses are less and less. SS is almost 8 and eats the same food we do, lives in the same home we do, rides in the same car we do and we flex our schedules to avoid paying child care. His medical co pays are nominal and his insurance isn't even included in support. His sports, activities and toys are managed by our budget. He plays with a rec league at a church instead of with a competitive team etc.

Brass tacks I bet he costs us 8% to raise without Bm's help at all and I feel like he's pretty spoiled. Lots of new clothes/shoes, sports, gifts here and there and getting to go to events. And that would even be calculating his portion of the "home" even though that's a zero sum cost as we would have the room regardless of whether or not we have SS.

To the OP I am really sorry about the judgment award. I wish the state would look at the whole picture, but at the end of the day they just want to keep as many people off of welfare as possible and still want to be able to take their percentage from the top (I think it's like 2-5% admin they charge a month for getting cs.)

Our Bm getting too much CS from us for TOO many years really set her up to fail. This is the first year she is getting no support and she is about the be evicted, had her car repo'd and is getting sued for non payment of bills. She lived large off of the large money we were providing and it did her no favors and did SS even fewer. Children should NEVER EVER be a source of revenue under any circumstance it only sets up a horrible precedence that has to end eventually one way or the other. I think CS in this country is an absolute shame. That's my soapbox for the day though.

socloudy99 · October 2012

The NCP's expenses are not used for c/s calculations in my state either. DH pays 26% of his gross income and 50% of his take home pay. DH couldn't support himself on his own with his c/s obligation. This doesn't include the insurance we provide, half of all medical expenses, half of all sports/teams, and school clothes.

You guys will make it work! Somehow you just figure it out. Take a hard look at your budget. Take a hard look at the c/s calculations. Try to make the situation the best you can. GL!

cole2144 · October 2012

Nineoceans:
SusanH.:
I am a step mom whose DH pays support, so dont think I am receiver of CS.

Your expenses should have NOTHING to do with child support. THink about it...if they did, people would try to get around paying it by always having a high car payment, living beyond their means, etc....
Well first I think that would be the exception and not the rule. People in general unless they are total @sses, don't like to see their children go without. It doesn't cost 20% of our salary to raise our SS and we pay ALL his expenses with a few reimbursements from bmom here and there. If it cost 20% of your income + the income of another custodial parent, to raise a child many people just wouldn't have children at all.
Especially as the child ages expenses are less and less. SS is almost 8 and eats the same food we do, lives in the same home we do, rides in the same car we do and we flex our schedules to avoid paying child care. His medical co pays are nominal and his insurance isn't even included in support. His sports, activities and toys are managed by our budget. He plays with a rec league at a church instead of with a competitive team etc.
Brass tacks I bet he costs us 8% to raise without Bm's help at all and I feel like he's pretty spoiled. Lots of new clothes/shoes, sports, gifts here and there and getting to go to events. And that would even be calculating his portion of the "home" even though that's a zero sum cost as we would have the room regardless of whether or not we have SS.
To the OP I am really sorry about the judgment award. I wish the state would look at the whole picture, but at the end of the day they just want to keep as many people off of welfare as possible and still want to be able to take their percentage from the top (I think it's like 2-5% admin they charge a month for getting cs.)
Our Bm getting too much CS from us for TOO many years really set her up to fail. This is the first year she is getting no support and she is about the be evicted, had her car repo'd and is getting sued for non payment of bills. She lived large off of the large money we were providing and it did her no favors and did SS even fewer. Children should NEVER EVER be a source of revenue under any circumstance it only sets up a horrible precedence that has to end eventually one way or the other. I think CS in this country is an absolute shame. That's my soapbox for the day though.

I agree with you there. My SD is five and is actually not that expensive and her BM does not share SD`s stuff so we have to provide full wardrobe and everything while she is here. The CS they are asking for is more than enough to meet her needs so BM will need to contribute nothing to raise her child which I think is unfair.

dor79 · October 2012

It's hard I know, some months we've been taken to the breaking points financially (especially when I was on mat leave) but we made it work and Child support was always paid first.

DH couldn't afford to maintain his own home and Child support before we got together. When we were looking for homes, we knew exactly how much we could afford to spend each month. And we did a projection for what CS will be in the future (when he gets his raises) to ensure that we could maintain a home together and have a child of our own.

We had to downgrade what type of home we wanted, and cut some unnecessary expenses but we are making it work, its hard, but manageable.

Banana44 · October 2012

Sorry it came out this way. The only way to change Child Support at this point is if you have more than 40% custody. In our state they will start reducing for every percentage point over 40.

Did you get credit for medical? That is the only thing they look at when we go in.

How did expenses get split?

We have 50% custody - pay $800/month and have to pay 60% of all expenses. In my opinion - this is not the way support should be calculated - but there is nothing we can do about it. And this is the best we have had it. When I first met DH he was paying $1800 in support and $1100 in alimony a month - he could barely afford to live! It was complete crap!

Good luck with the custody - hopefully you can see some change there and it will roll-over to support.

bdbelladonna · October 2012

I know for most CS where I live it is a % of annual income based off the previous years taxes. If there are reason the receiver needs more or the payer can not pay that there is a process to go through to request an adjustment. But if the issue can be fixed by lifestyle changes of either then it will be denied.

CFjo2010 · October 2012

Every State handles their CS calculations a little differently. I'm in CA, so I can really only speak in regards to my State's guideline. Here, the CS amount is based off of each parent's income and time with the child. Health Insurance and child care is factored separately. If one parent is under-earning (deliberately not working or barely working as to avoid earning sufficient income to keep CS high/low) then the Court will order that parent's income be entered at either full-time minimum wage or the amount they're capable of earning (obviously an attorney or a Dr wouldn't be calculated at full-time minimum wage). Expenses are not taken into consideration unless one parent's expenses are clearly more then they earn. Even then, those expenses are scrutinized because 1) if you're spending more than you're making then where are you getting the extra money; and 2)living beyond one's means isn't an excuse to pay less CS. I'm not saying that is what you and your husband are doing at all, I'm just explaining how expenses are looked at in my State. For example, last time my husband dealt with DCSS and he provided his expenses, BM tried to say, "See? He can afford all that stuff, he can afford to pay me more each month". However, my income made up for what his wasn't covering after CS, and new spouse income isn't considered in CS. That's my biggest pet peeve: having my income disclosed to make sure that BM doesn't demand some sort of extra investigation into our accounts to see if DH is "hiding" money.

I think across the board, the intent of CS is to maintain that lifestyle and status quo at each home. So if one parent is making a good living and can afford extras, the Court wants to try and maintain that balance at the other parent's home. Is it completely fair? Not at all. I think the intention is good, but the execution is one-sided and oftentimes unfair and miscalculated. At times it almost feels like the parent that is more successful and financially stable is being "punished" for their accomplishments.

cole2144 · October 2012

Banana44:
Sorry it came out this way. The only way to change Child Support at this point is if you have more than 40% custody. In our state they will start reducing for every percentage point over 40.
Did you get credit for medical? That is the only thing they look at when we go in.
How did expenses get split?
We have 50% custody - pay $800/month and have to pay 60% of all expenses. In my opinion - this is not the way support should be calculated - but there is nothing we can do about it. And this is the best we have had it. When I first met DH he was paying $1800 in support and $1100 in alimony a month - he could barely afford to live! It was complete crap!
Good luck with the custody - hopefully you can see some change there and it will roll-over to support.

We are responsible for 62.23 percent and she is responsible for 37.77. We have to pay the support and medical insurance on top of that. Keep ur fingers crossed for me on the 30th!

cole2144 · October 2012

jobalchak:
Every State handles their CS calculations a little differently. I'm in CA, so I can really only speak in regards to my State's guideline. Here, the CS amount is based off of each parent's income and time with the child. Health Insurance and child care is factored separately. If one parent is under-earning (deliberately not working or barely working as to avoid earning sufficient income to keep CS high/low) then the Court will order that parent's income be entered at either full-time minimum wage or the amount they're capable of earning (obviously an attorney or a Dr wouldn't be calculated at full-time minimum wage). Expenses are not taken into consideration unless one parent's expenses are clearly more then they earn. Even then, those expenses are scrutinized because 1) if you're spending more than you're making then where are you getting the extra money; and 2)living beyond one's means isn't an excuse to pay less CS. I'm not saying that is what you and your husband are doing at all, I'm just explaining how expenses are looked at in my State. For example, last time my husband dealt with DCSS and he provided his expenses, BM tried to say, "See? He can afford all that stuff, he can afford to pay me more each month". However, my income made up for what his wasn't covering after CS, and new spouse income isn't considered in CS. That's my biggest pet peeve: having my income disclosed to make sure that BM doesn't demand some sort of extra investigation into our accounts to see if DH is "hiding" money.

I think across the board, the intent of CS is to maintain that lifestyle and status quo at each home. So if one parent is making a good living and can afford extras, the Court wants to try and maintain that balance at the other parent's home. Is it completely fair? Not at all. I think the intention is good, but the execution is one-sided and oftentimes unfair and miscalculated. At times it almost feels like the parent that is more successful and financially stable is being "punished" for their accomplishments.

Well BM can afford to do all the extras and fun stuff and now we can`t afford to take SD or our son anywhere. My husband worked hard in college to be able to get a well paying job, why should he be punished for that? BM lives in her boyfriends house and they both work while I am a stay at home mom and am student. So what now I need to quit school and go to work and give up the way I want to raise my child so we can pay child support? I don`t have a degree so I would basically work to pay childcare.

Banana44 · October 2012

cole2144:
Banana44:
Sorry it came out this way. The only way to change Child Support at this point is if you have more than 40% custody. In our state they will start reducing for every percentage point over 40.
Did you get credit for medical? That is the only thing they look at when we go in.
How did expenses get split?
We have 50% custody - pay $800/month and have to pay 60% of all expenses. In my opinion - this is not the way support should be calculated - but there is nothing we can do about it. And this is the best we have had it. When I first met DH he was paying $1800 in support and $1100 in alimony a month - he could barely afford to live! It was complete crap!
Good luck with the custody - hopefully you can see some change there and it will roll-over to support.
We are responsible for 62.23 percent and she is responsible for 37.77. We have to pay the support and medical insurance on top of that. Keep ur fingers crossed for me on the 30th!

Well, no matter what happens with custody - the percentage won't change. So you'll always have to pay 62.23% of extra-curriculars, medical (after her $250 I'm assuming) and other stuff. I have to say though - that doesn't come into play much for us.

I work from home on Tuesdays - I should pack up the baby, head into town and take you out for a stiff drink after court!!!!!! I know how it feels! I would sit in that damn building all day and its so nerve-wracking and the judges are such @ssholes most of the time!

Good Luck! I'll be thinking about you!

cole2144 · October 2012

Banana44:
cole2144:
Banana44:
Sorry it came out this way. The only way to change Child Support at this point is if you have more than 40% custody. In our state they will start reducing for every percentage point over 40.
Did you get credit for medical? That is the only thing they look at when we go in.
How did expenses get split?
We have 50% custody - pay $800/month and have to pay 60% of all expenses. In my opinion - this is not the way support should be calculated - but there is nothing we can do about it. And this is the best we have had it. When I first met DH he was paying $1800 in support and $1100 in alimony a month - he could barely afford to live! It was complete crap!
Good luck with the custody - hopefully you can see some change there and it will roll-over to support.
We are responsible for 62.23 percent and she is responsible for 37.77. We have to pay the support and medical insurance on top of that. Keep ur fingers crossed for me on the 30th!
Well, no matter what happens with custody - the percentage won't change. So you'll always have to pay 62.23% of extra-curriculars, medical (after her $250 I'm assuming) and other stuff. I have to say though - that doesn't come into play much for us.
I work from home on Tuesdays - I should pack up the baby, head into town and take you out for a stiff drink after court!!!!!! I know how it feels! I would sit in that damn building all day and its so nerve-wracking and the judges are such @ssholes most of the time!
Good Luck! I'll be thinking about you!

Man that would be amazing lol. I`m so nervous for court even more so now that we have so much riding on it. Give me any and all advice you can. Can I go into the hearing?

HisChamaoleGirl · October 2012

cole2144:
We had a child support conference yesterday and with the amount calculated we will not be able to pay all our bills. They did not even look at any of our expenses. We go back for a court date in November, do they look at your expenses then? I thought they could not make child support so high that you could not afford to keep your home. At this point we are at a loss as to how we are going to make this work. We go to custody court on the 30th so hopefully if we get what we are asking for CS will go down anyway. And for those of you who are wondering, my husband has being paying an amount that was agreed upon when he broke up with BM, so even though there was no order he has been paying support.

When my DH and BM went to court to determine CS both were asked to list expenses. This may vary state to state, but they were more concerned with the expenses that were in the home of the CP. DH and I live in a HCOL area than BM so when the courts (in BMs area) saw DH income they ordered a large amount of CS to be paid. When he pointed out his expenses, specifically rent, they said "find a cheaper place to live." In reality what we were paying to live in Hawaii was very cheap but they did not consider DHs location.

Like I said, this could vary state by state, but this was our experience.

Banana44 · October 2012

cole2144:
Banana44:
cole2144:
Banana44:
Sorry it came out this way. The only way to change Child Support at this point is if you have more than 40% custody. In our state they will start reducing for every percentage point over 40.
Did you get credit for medical? That is the only thing they look at when we go in.
How did expenses get split?
We have 50% custody - pay $800/month and have to pay 60% of all expenses. In my opinion - this is not the way support should be calculated - but there is nothing we can do about it. And this is the best we have had it. When I first met DH he was paying $1800 in support and $1100 in alimony a month - he could barely afford to live! It was complete crap!
Good luck with the custody - hopefully you can see some change there and it will roll-over to support.
We are responsible for 62.23 percent and she is responsible for 37.77. We have to pay the support and medical insurance on top of that. Keep ur fingers crossed for me on the 30th!
Well, no matter what happens with custody - the percentage won't change. So you'll always have to pay 62.23% of extra-curriculars, medical (after her $250 I'm assuming) and other stuff. I have to say though - that doesn't come into play much for us.
I work from home on Tuesdays - I should pack up the baby, head into town and take you out for a stiff drink after court!!!!!! I know how it feels! I would sit in that damn building all day and its so nerve-wracking and the judges are such @ssholes most of the time!
Good Luck! I'll be thinking about you!
Man that would be amazing lol. I`m so nervous for court even more so now that we have so much riding on it. Give me any and all advice you can. Can I go into the hearing?

You can go into the hearing as long as you are not on the witness list. I've been able to go in everytime we have been there. If you are in the big building (the circle one) you sit in these gigantic court rooms - because they are meant for criminal trials. Anyway - you start the day with tons of people in the courtroom and the judge will call each case (one by one) and the lawyers will say if they are willing to conference - if they need to trial - or whatever - sometimes they wouldn't even get to us until noon or later. And we have never finished in one day - so at the end of the day - they put us on the docket again!

Definitely go out of the building during lunch break - you need to get out! We almost always walk across the street and catch lunch at Lily's cafe (I love that place) or one of the other restaurants (there are so many).

If you are on the witness list - you can't go in! If you are in the big building - you have to sit in horrible marble benches - seriously uncomfortable - bring a book or an iPad or something. If you are in family court (the little corner building) the seats are more comfortable but the bathrooms are tiny and not on every floor (weird).

I hate going there and we will probably avoid another fight if we can! Do you have a lawyer? Our lawyer was always good at keeping me calm! Oh - and you can bring moral support - so if any of DH's family wants to come and just be there - they can sit in the court room. We did that sometimes.

I'll send you an e-mail with my cell number - I'll pop down into town if I don't have too much work to do!

HisChamaoleGirl · October 2012

cole2144:
Banana44:

Sorry it came out this way. The only way to change Child Support at this point is if you have more than 40% custody. In our state they will start reducing for every percentage point over 40.

Did you get credit for medical? That is the only thing they look at when we go in.

How did expenses get split?

We have 50% custody - pay $800/month and have to pay 60% of all expenses. In my opinion - this is not the way support should be calculated - but there is nothing we can do about it. And this is the best we have had it. When I first met DH he was paying $1800 in support and $1100 in alimony a month - he could barely afford to live! It was complete crap!

Good luck with the custody - hopefully you can see some change there and it will roll-over to support.

We are responsible for 62.23 percent and she is responsible for 37.77. We have to pay the support and medical insurance on top of that. Keep ur fingers crossed for me on the 30th!

DH is responsible for 91% and BM 8% in our situation.

FX!

CFjo2010 · October 2012

cole2144:
jobalchak:

Every State handles their CS calculations a little differently. I'm in CA, so I can really only speak in regards to my State's guideline. Here, the CS amount is based off of each parent's income and time with the child. Health Insurance and child care is factored separately. If one parent is under-earning (deliberately not working or barely working as to avoid earning sufficient income to keep CS high/low) then the Court will order that parent's income be entered at either full-time minimum wage or the amount they're capable of earning (obviously an attorney or a Dr wouldn't be calculated at full-time minimum wage). Expenses are not taken into consideration unless one parent's expenses are clearly more then they earn. Even then, those expenses are scrutinized because 1) if you're spending more than you're making then where are you getting the extra money; and 2)living beyond one's means isn't an excuse to pay less CS. I'm not saying that is what you and your husband are doing at all, I'm just explaining how expenses are looked at in my State. For example, last time my husband dealt with DCSS and he provided his expenses, BM tried to say, "See? He can afford all that stuff, he can afford to pay me more each month". However, my income made up for what his wasn't covering after CS, and new spouse income isn't considered in CS. That's my biggest pet peeve: having my income disclosed to make sure that BM doesn't demand some sort of extra investigation into our accounts to see if DH is "hiding" money.

I think across the board, the intent of CS is to maintain that lifestyle and status quo at each home. So if one parent is making a good living and can afford extras, the Court wants to try and maintain that balance at the other parent's home. Is it completely fair? Not at all. I think the intention is good, but the execution is one-sided and oftentimes unfair and miscalculated. At times it almost feels like the parent that is more successful and financially stable is being "punished" for their accomplishments.

Well BM can afford to do all the extras and fun stuff and now we can`t afford to take SD or our son anywhere. My husband worked hard in college to be able to get a well paying job, why should he be punished for that? BM lives in her boyfriends house and they both work while I am a stay at home mom and am student. So what now I need to quit school and go to work and give up the way I want to raise my child so we can pay child support? I don`t have a degree so I would basically work to pay childcare.

Unfortunately that's the life in a blended family. BM in my situation refuses to maintain gainful employment so my husband will forever be supporting her because the Courts let her play the "woe-is-me" card whenever she wants. She's being inputted at full-time minimum wage, when we know she could be earning more than that because she has in the past. However my husband works nearly 60 hours a week and I went back to work after being a SAHM for 8 months so that we could afford the house we wanted and to have a baby together. BM still refuses to work more than 15-20 hours a week. Is it fair? No. But I knew when I started dating and subsequently married him that he had a child to support and that K had a deadbeat mom.

Look, the CS "program" isn't 100% fair. I think we can all agree to that. And the enforcement of it isn't fair. I haven't seen a penny of CS for my 2 kids in several years and BD has successfully ducked service and avoided his responsibilities this whole time. I adjusted to that and worked full-time while doing classes online to earn my degree while raising my 2 kids on my own. You don't have to stop going to school, you can do school part-time or online and then work to help maintain the lifestyle you want. It can be done, it's just not easy or fun to do.

fellesferie · October 2012

In my state, it was XH's income, my income, and the number of overnights XH had DS. If it was over a certain number (100ish maybe?) child support would have been reduced by a certain percentage. If XH covered DS's health insurance, he'd be given a credit for that--like if he's ordered to pay me $1000/month and it costs him $250 to cover health insurance, he only has to pay me $750.

XH's expenses were not taken into account, but neither were mine.

I'm really sorry you're dealing with this. When we bought our house, DH was absolutely insistent on getting only what we could afford if CS evaporated. It definitely makes things more complicated.

cole2144 · October 2012

Banana44:
cole2144:
Banana44:
cole2144:
Banana44:
Sorry it came out this way. The only way to change Child Support at this point is if you have more than 40% custody. In our state they will start reducing for every percentage point over 40.
Did you get credit for medical? That is the only thing they look at when we go in.
How did expenses get split?
We have 50% custody - pay $800/month and have to pay 60% of all expenses. In my opinion - this is not the way support should be calculated - but there is nothing we can do about it. And this is the best we have had it. When I first met DH he was paying $1800 in support and $1100 in alimony a month - he could barely afford to live! It was complete crap!
Good luck with the custody - hopefully you can see some change there and it will roll-over to support.
We are responsible for 62.23 percent and she is responsible for 37.77. We have to pay the support and medical insurance on top of that. Keep ur fingers crossed for me on the 30th!
Well, no matter what happens with custody - the percentage won't change. So you'll always have to pay 62.23% of extra-curriculars, medical (after her $250 I'm assuming) and other stuff. I have to say though - that doesn't come into play much for us.
I work from home on Tuesdays - I should pack up the baby, head into town and take you out for a stiff drink after court!!!!!! I know how it feels! I would sit in that damn building all day and its so nerve-wracking and the judges are such @ssholes most of the time!
Good Luck! I'll be thinking about you!
Man that would be amazing lol. I`m so nervous for court even more so now that we have so much riding on it. Give me any and all advice you can. Can I go into the hearing?
You can go into the hearing as long as you are not on the witness list. I've been able to go in everytime we have been there. If you are in the big building (the circle one) you sit in these gigantic court rooms - because they are meant for criminal trials. Anyway - you start the day with tons of people in the courtroom and the judge will call each case (one by one) and the lawyers will say if they are willing to conference - if they need to trial - or whatever - sometimes they wouldn't even get to us until noon or later. And we have never finished in one day - so at the end of the day - they put us on the docket again!
Definitely go out of the building during lunch break - you need to get out! We almost always walk across the street and catch lunch at Lily's cafe (I love that place) or one of the other restaurants (there are so many).
If you are on the witness list - you can't go in! If you are in the big building - you have to sit in horrible marble benches - seriously uncomfortable - bring a book or an iPad or something. If you are in family court (the little corner building) the seats are more comfortable but the bathrooms are tiny and not on every floor (weird).
I hate going there and we will probably avoid another fight if we can! Do you have a lawyer? Our lawyer was always good at keeping me calm! Oh - and you can bring moral support - so if any of DH's family wants to come and just be there - they can sit in the court room. We did that sometimes.
I'll send you an e-mail with my cell number - I'll pop down into town if I don't have too much work to do!

I will check out Lily`s for lunch. Yes we have a lawyer. I did not know that I could bring we could bring company. Thank you for all your help. Maybe I will see you then!

Nineoceans · October 2012

jobalchak:
Every State handles their CS calculations a little differently. I'm in CA, so I can really only speak in regards to my State's guideline. Here, the CS amount is based off of each parent's income and time with the child. Health Insurance and child care is factored separately. If one parent is under-earning (deliberately not working or barely working as to avoid earning sufficient income to keep CS high/low) then the Court will order that parent's income be entered at either full-time minimum wage or the amount they're capable of earning (obviously an attorney or a Dr wouldn't be calculated at full-time minimum wage). Expenses are not taken into consideration unless one parent's expenses are clearly more then they earn. Even then, those expenses are scrutinized because 1) if you're spending more than you're making then where are you getting the extra money; and 2)living beyond one's means isn't an excuse to pay less CS. I'm not saying that is what you and your husband are doing at all, I'm just explaining how expenses are looked at in my State. For example, last time my husband dealt with DCSS and he provided his expenses, BM tried to say, "See? He can afford all that stuff, he can afford to pay me more each month". However, my income made up for what his wasn't covering after CS, and new spouse income isn't considered in CS. That's my biggest pet peeve: having my income disclosed to make sure that BM doesn't demand some sort of extra investigation into our accounts to see if DH is "hiding" money.

I think across the board, the intent of CS is to maintain that lifestyle and status quo at each home. So if one parent is making a good living and can afford extras, the Court wants to try and maintain that balance at the other parent's home. Is it completely fair? Not at all. I think the intention is good, but the execution is one-sided and oftentimes unfair and miscalculated. At times it almost feels like the parent that is more successful and financially stable is being "punished" for their accomplishments.

I see what you're saying but how is it reasonable that I chose to go to grad school and work 50 hours a week, and Dh chooses to work 40 and Bm chooses to work 10 hours a week? We should overpay her so her home resembles ours? That will never be possible unless the state requires both parents to work the same amount of hours and then try to compensate if one side makes significantly more than the other.

Even still, BM has 2x the amount of children we have, smokes, parties. These are lifestyle choices that impact HER income and the type of home SHE can provide. I don't see why this is our problem (or my SS's problem honestly because the more money we give her the less money we have to genuinely spend on him for fun things) and I don't see how us paying her more money can possibly improve her situation or home life for SS.

All it actually does is enable terrible behavior. Our SS will be 18 one day, why should we be her welfare for 18 years? In the mean time if the state is so concerned about the child being raised in the best environment maybe they should look to award custody to the family that has the more stable financial situation and home life instead of always just defaulting to one side regardless of the situation.

I truly don't think the state is even trying to be fair, they are just trying to punish the heck out of the few dads who do step up to compensate for the ones who don't and to make sure the birthmoms in those situations do not rely on state assistance at all. It doesn't work that way though.

A better system is to determine the TRUE cost of the child (daycare expenses, food, shelter, clothing etc) and then split that cost in the middle or ask the NCP to pay 60-40 or some amount slightly higher to compensate for the fact that they are the ones having to limit their careers, taking sick time off for kids, having to transport to appointments and sports etc.

Like I said if it TRULY cost $1500 a month to raise ONE child, literally Americans would stop reproducing. That's what the CS system would have us believe though.

Ginlyn0 · October 2012

jobalchak:
cole2144:
jobalchak:

Every State handles their CS calculations a little differently. I'm in CA, so I can really only speak in regards to my State's guideline. Here, the CS amount is based off of each parent's income and time with the child. Health Insurance and child care is factored separately. If one parent is under-earning (deliberately not working or barely working as to avoid earning sufficient income to keep CS high/low) then the Court will order that parent's income be entered at either full-time minimum wage or the amount they're capable of earning (obviously an attorney or a Dr wouldn't be calculated at full-time minimum wage). Expenses are not taken into consideration unless one parent's expenses are clearly more then they earn. Even then, those expenses are scrutinized because 1) if you're spending more than you're making then where are you getting the extra money; and 2)living beyond one's means isn't an excuse to pay less CS. I'm not saying that is what you and your husband are doing at all, I'm just explaining how expenses are looked at in my State. For example, last time my husband dealt with DCSS and he provided his expenses, BM tried to say, "See? He can afford all that stuff, he can afford to pay me more each month". However, my income made up for what his wasn't covering after CS, and new spouse income isn't considered in CS. That's my biggest pet peeve: having my income disclosed to make sure that BM doesn't demand some sort of extra investigation into our accounts to see if DH is "hiding" money.

I think across the board, the intent of CS is to maintain that lifestyle and status quo at each home. So if one parent is making a good living and can afford extras, the Court wants to try and maintain that balance at the other parent's home. Is it completely fair? Not at all. I think the intention is good, but the execution is one-sided and oftentimes unfair and miscalculated. At times it almost feels like the parent that is more successful and financially stable is being "punished" for their accomplishments.

Well BM can afford to do all the extras and fun stuff and now we can`t afford to take SD or our son anywhere. My husband worked hard in college to be able to get a well paying job, why should he be punished for that? BM lives in her boyfriends house and they both work while I am a stay at home mom and am student. So what now I need to quit school and go to work and give up the way I want to raise my child so we can pay child support? I don`t have a degree so I would basically work to pay childcare.

Unfortunately that's the life in a blended family. BM in my situation refuses to maintain gainful employment so my husband will forever be supporting her because the Courts let her play the "woe-is-me" card whenever she wants. She's being inputted at full-time minimum wage, when we know she could be earning more than that because she has in the past. However my husband works nearly 60 hours a week and I went back to work after being a SAHM for 8 months so that we could afford the house we wanted and to have a baby together. BM still refuses to work more than 15-20 hours a week. Is it fair? No. But I knew when I started dating and subsequently married him that he had a child to support and that K had a deadbeat mom.

Look, the CS "program" isn't 100% fair. I think we can all agree to that. And the enforcement of it isn't fair. I haven't seen a penny of CS for my 2 kids in several years and BD has successfully ducked service and avoided his responsibilities this whole time. I adjusted to that and worked full-time while doing classes online to earn my degree while raising my 2 kids on my own. You don't have to stop going to school, you can do school part-time or online and then work to help maintain the lifestyle you want. It can be done, it's just not easy or fun to do.

I agree with this. I am working FT and going to school FT. DH works for basically CS and child care expenses only because that's all his income covers. BM works PT now but wasn't working for several years before this year. My ex can't hold down a job and SM pays my child support most of the time and it's sporadic like when she can afford to fit it in she will pay a whole month, then I might go a whole month without it and then get 1 weeks worth, ect. CS sucks....you just have to learn to deal with it even if you have to alter your plans.

fellesferie · October 2012

Nineoceans:
A better system is to determine the TRUE cost of the child (daycare expenses, food, shelter, clothing etc) and then split that cost in the middle or ask the NCP to pay 60-40 or some amount slightly higher to compensate for the fact that they are the ones having to limit their careers, taking sick time off for kids, having to transport to appointments and sports etc.
Like I said if it TRULY cost $1500 a month to raise ONE child, literally Americans would stop reproducing. That's what the CS system would have us believe though.

I understand what you're getting at, and I don't disagree on principle. However, I don't think that CS is based on bare minimums.

Let's say I could provide shelter for my child for $500/month. Does that mean a court should calculate child support based on that? Let's say that I could provide basically nutritious meals for DS for $50/month. Does that mean that's what should be used to calculate XH's support obligation?

cole2144 · October 2012

gin9874:
jobalchak:
cole2144:
jobalchak:

Every State handles their CS calculations a little differently. I'm in CA, so I can really only speak in regards to my State's guideline. Here, the CS amount is based off of each parent's income and time with the child. Health Insurance and child care is factored separately. If one parent is under-earning (deliberately not working or barely working as to avoid earning sufficient income to keep CS high/low) then the Court will order that parent's income be entered at either full-time minimum wage or the amount they're capable of earning (obviously an attorney or a Dr wouldn't be calculated at full-time minimum wage). Expenses are not taken into consideration unless one parent's expenses are clearly more then they earn. Even then, those expenses are scrutinized because 1) if you're spending more than you're making then where are you getting the extra money; and 2)living beyond one's means isn't an excuse to pay less CS. I'm not saying that is what you and your husband are doing at all, I'm just explaining how expenses are looked at in my State. For example, last time my husband dealt with DCSS and he provided his expenses, BM tried to say, "See? He can afford all that stuff, he can afford to pay me more each month". However, my income made up for what his wasn't covering after CS, and new spouse income isn't considered in CS. That's my biggest pet peeve: having my income disclosed to make sure that BM doesn't demand some sort of extra investigation into our accounts to see if DH is "hiding" money.

I think across the board, the intent of CS is to maintain that lifestyle and status quo at each home. So if one parent is making a good living and can afford extras, the Court wants to try and maintain that balance at the other parent's home. Is it completely fair? Not at all. I think the intention is good, but the execution is one-sided and oftentimes unfair and miscalculated. At times it almost feels like the parent that is more successful and financially stable is being "punished" for their accomplishments.

Well BM can afford to do all the extras and fun stuff and now we can`t afford to take SD or our son anywhere. My husband worked hard in college to be able to get a well paying job, why should he be punished for that? BM lives in her boyfriends house and they both work while I am a stay at home mom and am student. So what now I need to quit school and go to work and give up the way I want to raise my child so we can pay child support? I don`t have a degree so I would basically work to pay childcare.

Unfortunately that's the life in a blended family. BM in my situation refuses to maintain gainful employment so my husband will forever be supporting her because the Courts let her play the "woe-is-me" card whenever she wants. She's being inputted at full-time minimum wage, when we know she could be earning more than that because she has in the past. However my husband works nearly 60 hours a week and I went back to work after being a SAHM for 8 months so that we could afford the house we wanted and to have a baby together. BM still refuses to work more than 15-20 hours a week. Is it fair? No. But I knew when I started dating and subsequently married him that he had a child to support and that K had a deadbeat mom.

Look, the CS "program" isn't 100% fair. I think we can all agree to that. And the enforcement of it isn't fair. I haven't seen a penny of CS for my 2 kids in several years and BD has successfully ducked service and avoided his responsibilities this whole time. I adjusted to that and worked full-time while doing classes online to earn my degree while raising my 2 kids on my own. You don't have to stop going to school, you can do school part-time or online and then work to help maintain the lifestyle you want. It can be done, it's just not easy or fun to do.

I agree with this. I am working FT and going to school FT. DH works for basically CS and child care expenses only because that's all his income covers. BM works PT now but wasn't working for several years before this year. My ex can't hold down a job and SM pays my child support most of the time and it's sporadic like when she can afford to fit it in she will pay a whole month, then I might go a whole month without it and then get 1 weeks worth, ect. CS sucks....you just have to learn to deal with it even if you have to alter your plans.

I will have to quit school because we will be unable to afford it. I don`t see why I should have to alter the way I raise my son for someone else`s. Even if I go to work it would simply cover childcare and therefore not contribute any money to the provide for my own son. I am sorry if I feel BM should have to contribute to the raising of her child. Our child support will more than cover SD`s expenses. I will do what I have to to make it work for my family meanwhile BM is laughing all the way to the bank.

CFjo2010 · October 2012

Nineoceans:
jobalchak:

Every State handles their CS calculations a little differently. I'm in CA, so I can really only speak in regards to my State's guideline. Here, the CS amount is based off of each parent's income and time with the child. Health Insurance and child care is factored separately. If one parent is under-earning (deliberately not working or barely working as to avoid earning sufficient income to keep CS high/low) then the Court will order that parent's income be entered at either full-time minimum wage or the amount they're capable of earning (obviously an attorney or a Dr wouldn't be calculated at full-time minimum wage). Expenses are not taken into consideration unless one parent's expenses are clearly more then they earn. Even then, those expenses are scrutinized because 1) if you're spending more than you're making then where are you getting the extra money; and 2)living beyond one's means isn't an excuse to pay less CS. I'm not saying that is what you and your husband are doing at all, I'm just explaining how expenses are looked at in my State. For example, last time my husband dealt with DCSS and he provided his expenses, BM tried to say, "See? He can afford all that stuff, he can afford to pay me more each month". However, my income made up for what his wasn't covering after CS, and new spouse income isn't considered in CS. That's my biggest pet peeve: having my income disclosed to make sure that BM doesn't demand some sort of extra investigation into our accounts to see if DH is "hiding" money.

I think across the board, the intent of CS is to maintain that lifestyle and status quo at each home. So if one parent is making a good living and can afford extras, the Court wants to try and maintain that balance at the other parent's home. Is it completely fair? Not at all. I think the intention is good, but the execution is one-sided and oftentimes unfair and miscalculated. At times it almost feels like the parent that is more successful and financially stable is being "punished" for their accomplishments.

I see what you're saying but how is it reasonable that I chose to go to grad school and work 50 hours a week, and Dh chooses to work 40 and Bm chooses to work 10 hours a week? We should overpay her so her home resembles ours? That will never be possible unless the state requires both parents to work the same amount of hours and then try to compensate if one side makes significantly more than the other.

Even still, BM has 2x the amount of children we have, smokes, parties. These are lifestyle choices that impact HER income and the type of home SHE can provide. I don't see why this is our problem (or my SS's problem honestly because the more money we give her the less money we have to genuinely spend on him for fun things) and I don't see how us paying her more money can possibly improve her situation or home life for SS.

All it actually does is enable terrible behavior. Our SS will be 18 one day, why should we be her welfare for 18 years? In the mean time if the state is so concerned about the child being raised in the best environment maybe they should look to award custody to the family that has the more stable financial situation and home life instead of always just defaulting to one side regardless of the situation.

I truly don't think the state is even trying to be fair, they are just trying to punish the heck out of the few dads who do step up to compensate for the ones who don't and to make sure the birthmoms in those situations do not rely on state assistance at all. It doesn't work that way though.

A better system is to determine the TRUE cost of the child (daycare expenses, food, shelter, clothing etc) and then split that cost in the middle or ask the NCP to pay 60-40 or some amount slightly higher to compensate for the fact that they are the ones having to limit their careers, taking sick time off for kids, having to transport to appointments and sports etc.

Like I said if it TRULY cost $1500 a month to raise ONE child, literally Americans would stop reproducing. That's what the CS system would have us believe though.

I think you need to re-read my last paragraph. I clearly state that the CS system isn't fair. The principle and intent it was founded on is good, but the execution is unfair.

And you're preaching to the choir about paying someone to essentially just stay at home. BM in my situation refuses to work more than 15 hours a week and is perfectly content sitting on her butt collecting a check from my husband as well as assistance from the State. My husband and I both work to support my kids, K, the CS each month and the baby on the way. I was a single mom for several years and had to do it on my own with zero financial support from BD, so why can't BM actually apply herself and attempt to provide for her child? Again, it's not fair. CP's should be held accountable for providing for the child just as much as NCP's. But we as SM's willingly chose this. We knew when we married our husband's that he had a CS obligation before we came along. Just like my husband knew when he married me that BD is a complete deadbeat and hasn't paid a penny of CS. But we've made it work.

kimmygirl77 · October 2012

cole2144:
gin9874:
jobalchak:
cole2144:
jobalchak:

Every State handles their CS calculations a little differently.  I'm in CA, so I can really only speak in regards to my State's guideline.  Here, the CS amount is based off of each parent's income and time with the child.  Health Insurance and child care is factored separately.  If one parent is under-earning (deliberately not working or barely working as to avoid earning sufficient income to keep CS high/low) then the Court will order that parent's income be entered at either full-time minimum wage or the amount they're capable of earning (obviously an attorney or a Dr wouldn't be calculated at full-time minimum wage).  Expenses are not taken into consideration unless one parent's expenses are clearly more then they earn.  Even then, those expenses are scrutinized because 1) if you're spending more than you're making then where are you getting the extra money; and 2)living beyond one's means isn't an excuse to pay less CS.  I'm not saying that is what you and your husband are doing at all, I'm just explaining how expenses are looked at in my State.  For example, last time my husband dealt with DCSS and he provided his expenses, BM tried to say, "See? He can afford all that stuff, he can afford to pay me more each month".  However, my income made up for what his wasn't covering after CS, and new spouse income isn't considered in CS.  That's my biggest pet peeve: having my income disclosed to make sure that BM doesn't demand some sort of extra investigation into our accounts to see if DH is "hiding" money. 

I think across the board, the intent of CS is to maintain that lifestyle and status quo at each home.  So if one parent is making a good living and can afford extras, the Court wants to try and maintain that balance at the other parent's home.  Is it completely fair?  Not at all.  I think the intention is good, but the execution is one-sided and oftentimes unfair and miscalculated.  At times it almost feels like the parent that is more successful and financially stable is being "punished" for their accomplishments.

Well BM can afford to do all the extras and fun stuff and now we can`t afford to take SD or our son anywhere. My husband worked hard in college to be able to get a well paying job, why should he be punished for that? BM lives in her boyfriends house and they both work while I am a stay at home mom and am student. So what now I need to quit school and go to work and give up the way I want to raise my child so we can pay child support? I don`t have a degree so I would basically work to pay childcare.

Unfortunately that's the life in a blended family.  BM in my situation refuses to maintain gainful employment so my husband will forever be supporting her because the Courts let her play the "woe-is-me" card whenever she wants.  She's being inputted at full-time minimum wage, when we know she could be earning more than that because she has in the past.  However my husband works nearly 60 hours a week and I went back to work after being a SAHM for 8 months so that we could afford the house we wanted and to have a baby together.  BM still refuses to work more than 15-20 hours a week.  Is it fair?  No.  But I knew when I started dating and subsequently married him that he had a child to support and that K had a deadbeat mom. 

Look, the CS "program" isn't 100% fair.  I think we can all agree to that.  And the enforcement of it isn't fair.  I haven't seen a penny of CS for my 2 kids in several years and BD has successfully ducked service and avoided his responsibilities this whole time.  I adjusted to that and worked full-time while doing classes online to earn my degree while raising my 2 kids on my own.  You don't have to stop going to school, you can do school part-time or online and then work to help maintain the lifestyle you want.  It can be done, it's just not easy or fun to do.

I agree with this. I am working FT and going to school FT. DH works for basically CS and child care expenses only because that's all his income covers. BM works PT now but wasn't working for several years before this year. My ex can't hold down a job and SM pays my child support most of the time and it's sporadic like when she can afford to fit it in she will pay a whole month, then I might go a whole month without it and then get 1 weeks worth, ect. CS sucks....you just have to learn to deal with it even if you have to alter your plans.
I will have to quit school because we will be unable to afford it. I don`t see why I should have to alter the way I raise my son for someone else`s. Even if I go to work it would simply cover childcare and therefore not contribute any money to the provide for my own son. I am sorry if I feel BM should have to contribute to the raising of her child. Our child support will more than cover SD`s expenses. I will do what I have to to make it work for my family meanwhile BM is laughing all the way to the bank.

you may have to alter the way you raise your son because you CHOSE to have babies with someone who is already a father and has an obligation to that child 1st because she was here first. My attorney told me one time that my DH's child support will not go down for the kids he already has because we CHOSE to have another one. I know some states take into account other kids, but mine does not. So i was left with a decision on whether or not to have children with a man that already has them. That is what happens in a blended family. I made my decision. I would have looked for someone with no kids if i thought i couldnt do this. But i love my DH and his boys. It is the hardest thing I have ever done. But i also remind myself that i wanted to be here and i cant imagine life without him or them.

cole2144 · October 2012

jobalchak:
Nineoceans:
jobalchak:

Every State handles their CS calculations a little differently. I'm in CA, so I can really only speak in regards to my State's guideline. Here, the CS amount is based off of each parent's income and time with the child. Health Insurance and child care is factored separately. If one parent is under-earning (deliberately not working or barely working as to avoid earning sufficient income to keep CS high/low) then the Court will order that parent's income be entered at either full-time minimum wage or the amount they're capable of earning (obviously an attorney or a Dr wouldn't be calculated at full-time minimum wage). Expenses are not taken into consideration unless one parent's expenses are clearly more then they earn. Even then, those expenses are scrutinized because 1) if you're spending more than you're making then where are you getting the extra money; and 2)living beyond one's means isn't an excuse to pay less CS. I'm not saying that is what you and your husband are doing at all, I'm just explaining how expenses are looked at in my State. For example, last time my husband dealt with DCSS and he provided his expenses, BM tried to say, "See? He can afford all that stuff, he can afford to pay me more each month". However, my income made up for what his wasn't covering after CS, and new spouse income isn't considered in CS. That's my biggest pet peeve: having my income disclosed to make sure that BM doesn't demand some sort of extra investigation into our accounts to see if DH is "hiding" money.

I think across the board, the intent of CS is to maintain that lifestyle and status quo at each home. So if one parent is making a good living and can afford extras, the Court wants to try and maintain that balance at the other parent's home. Is it completely fair? Not at all. I think the intention is good, but the execution is one-sided and oftentimes unfair and miscalculated. At times it almost feels like the parent that is more successful and financially stable is being "punished" for their accomplishments.

I see what you're saying but how is it reasonable that I chose to go to grad school and work 50 hours a week, and Dh chooses to work 40 and Bm chooses to work 10 hours a week? We should overpay her so her home resembles ours? That will never be possible unless the state requires both parents to work the same amount of hours and then try to compensate if one side makes significantly more than the other.

Even still, BM has 2x the amount of children we have, smokes, parties. These are lifestyle choices that impact HER income and the type of home SHE can provide. I don't see why this is our problem (or my SS's problem honestly because the more money we give her the less money we have to genuinely spend on him for fun things) and I don't see how us paying her more money can possibly improve her situation or home life for SS.

All it actually does is enable terrible behavior. Our SS will be 18 one day, why should we be her welfare for 18 years? In the mean time if the state is so concerned about the child being raised in the best environment maybe they should look to award custody to the family that has the more stable financial situation and home life instead of always just defaulting to one side regardless of the situation.

I truly don't think the state is even trying to be fair, they are just trying to punish the heck out of the few dads who do step up to compensate for the ones who don't and to make sure the birthmoms in those situations do not rely on state assistance at all. It doesn't work that way though.

A better system is to determine the TRUE cost of the child (daycare expenses, food, shelter, clothing etc) and then split that cost in the middle or ask the NCP to pay 60-40 or some amount slightly higher to compensate for the fact that they are the ones having to limit their careers, taking sick time off for kids, having to transport to appointments and sports etc.

Like I said if it TRULY cost $1500 a month to raise ONE child, literally Americans would stop reproducing. That's what the CS system would have us believe though.

I think you need to re-read my last paragraph. I clearly state that the CS system isn't fair. The principle and intent it was founded on is good, but the execution is unfair.

And you're preaching to the choir about paying someone to essentially just stay at home. BM in my situation refuses to work more than 15 hours a week and is perfectly content sitting on her butt collecting a check from my husband as well as assistance from the State. My husband and I both work to support my kids, K, the CS each month and the baby on the way. I was a single mom for several years and had to do it on my own with zero financial support from BD, so why can't BM actually apply herself and attempt to provide for her child? Again, it's not fair. CP's should be held accountable for providing for the child just as much as NCP's. But we as SM's willingly chose this. We knew when we married our husband's that he had a CS obligation before we came along. Just like my husband knew when he married me that BD is a complete deadbeat and hasn't paid a penny of CS. But we've made it work.

Yes, I knew he had a child but they had their own verbal CO agreement and it was never this much money. We also did not have a child, sorry if I think my DH should have money left to provide for his other child.

CFjo2010 · October 2012

cole2144:
jobalchak:
Nineoceans:
jobalchak:

Every State handles their CS calculations a little differently. I'm in CA, so I can really only speak in regards to my State's guideline. Here, the CS amount is based off of each parent's income and time with the child. Health Insurance and child care is factored separately. If one parent is under-earning (deliberately not working or barely working as to avoid earning sufficient income to keep CS high/low) then the Court will order that parent's income be entered at either full-time minimum wage or the amount they're capable of earning (obviously an attorney or a Dr wouldn't be calculated at full-time minimum wage). Expenses are not taken into consideration unless one parent's expenses are clearly more then they earn. Even then, those expenses are scrutinized because 1) if you're spending more than you're making then where are you getting the extra money; and 2)living beyond one's means isn't an excuse to pay less CS. I'm not saying that is what you and your husband are doing at all, I'm just explaining how expenses are looked at in my State. For example, last time my husband dealt with DCSS and he provided his expenses, BM tried to say, "See? He can afford all that stuff, he can afford to pay me more each month". However, my income made up for what his wasn't covering after CS, and new spouse income isn't considered in CS. That's my biggest pet peeve: having my income disclosed to make sure that BM doesn't demand some sort of extra investigation into our accounts to see if DH is "hiding" money.

I think across the board, the intent of CS is to maintain that lifestyle and status quo at each home. So if one parent is making a good living and can afford extras, the Court wants to try and maintain that balance at the other parent's home. Is it completely fair? Not at all. I think the intention is good, but the execution is one-sided and oftentimes unfair and miscalculated. At times it almost feels like the parent that is more successful and financially stable is being "punished" for their accomplishments.

I see what you're saying but how is it reasonable that I chose to go to grad school and work 50 hours a week, and Dh chooses to work 40 and Bm chooses to work 10 hours a week? We should overpay her so her home resembles ours? That will never be possible unless the state requires both parents to work the same amount of hours and then try to compensate if one side makes significantly more than the other.

Even still, BM has 2x the amount of children we have, smokes, parties. These are lifestyle choices that impact HER income and the type of home SHE can provide. I don't see why this is our problem (or my SS's problem honestly because the more money we give her the less money we have to genuinely spend on him for fun things) and I don't see how us paying her more money can possibly improve her situation or home life for SS.

All it actually does is enable terrible behavior. Our SS will be 18 one day, why should we be her welfare for 18 years? In the mean time if the state is so concerned about the child being raised in the best environment maybe they should look to award custody to the family that has the more stable financial situation and home life instead of always just defaulting to one side regardless of the situation.

I truly don't think the state is even trying to be fair, they are just trying to punish the heck out of the few dads who do step up to compensate for the ones who don't and to make sure the birthmoms in those situations do not rely on state assistance at all. It doesn't work that way though.

A better system is to determine the TRUE cost of the child (daycare expenses, food, shelter, clothing etc) and then split that cost in the middle or ask the NCP to pay 60-40 or some amount slightly higher to compensate for the fact that they are the ones having to limit their careers, taking sick time off for kids, having to transport to appointments and sports etc.

Like I said if it TRULY cost $1500 a month to raise ONE child, literally Americans would stop reproducing. That's what the CS system would have us believe though.

I think you need to re-read my last paragraph. I clearly state that the CS system isn't fair. The principle and intent it was founded on is good, but the execution is unfair.

And you're preaching to the choir about paying someone to essentially just stay at home. BM in my situation refuses to work more than 15 hours a week and is perfectly content sitting on her butt collecting a check from my husband as well as assistance from the State. My husband and I both work to support my kids, K, the CS each month and the baby on the way. I was a single mom for several years and had to do it on my own with zero financial support from BD, so why can't BM actually apply herself and attempt to provide for her child? Again, it's not fair. CP's should be held accountable for providing for the child just as much as NCP's. But we as SM's willingly chose this. We knew when we married our husband's that he had a CS obligation before we came along. Just like my husband knew when he married me that BD is a complete deadbeat and hasn't paid a penny of CS. But we've made it work.

Yes, I knew he had a child but they had their own verbal CO agreement and it was never this much money. We also did not have a child, sorry if I think my DH should have money left to provide for his other child.

But verbal CS agreements, just like written CO's, can be modified at anytime. Nothing in Family Law is ever permanent. Custody, visitation, healthcare responsibilities, CS, etc, is always changing. Again, it sucks.

And yes, you and your husband should have money left to provide for your children after his CS obligation is met. But that means for right now you'll have to help provide as well. The situation is crappy, I understand that. Trust me, I completely sympathize with you because (based on your previous posts) it sounds like your BM not only interferes with parenting time but is also trying to keep the visitation low so she can collect more CS. Before the Court imputted BM at a certain amount, it looked like my husband was going to be paying nearly double what the agreement previously was. But once we got to Court, the Judge was slightly more fair towards my husband.

You can still go to school, albeit part-time or doing online classes. You might qualify for some financial aide or fee waivers. It's worth looking into.

CFjo2010 · October 2012

wendilea:

Disposable earnings are after all withholdings are taken out. I know the system sucks - DH pays as much as Dink does for 2 kids - and Dink makes more than double what DH does. We're buying a house only because I received an inheritence. Right now we're living in a 2 BR trailer while BM's biggest complaint is her inground pool needs a new liner. The skids each have big TV's in their rooms, game systems, etc. We have one TV in the living room. We're finally starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel, but it's been hard for many years.

Hahahaha so I read this and thought, "Wow, when did Wendi start referring to the kids as skidmarks?" and then I realized my poor reading and started laughing hysterically. Oh preggo brain, what fun you are!

Thats all.... Stick out tongue

Nineoceans · October 2012

fellesferie:
Nineoceans:
A better system is to determine the TRUE cost of the child (daycare expenses, food, shelter, clothing etc) and then split that cost in the middle or ask the NCP to pay 60-40 or some amount slightly higher to compensate for the fact that they are the ones having to limit their careers, taking sick time off for kids, having to transport to appointments and sports etc.
Like I said if it TRULY cost $1500 a month to raise ONE child, literally Americans would stop reproducing. That's what the CS system would have us believe though.
I understand what you're getting at, and I don't disagree on principle. However, I don't think that CS is based on bare minimums.
Let's say I could provide shelter for my child for $500/month. Does that mean a court should calculate child support based on that? Let's say that I could provide basically nutritious meals for DS for $50/month. Does that mean that's what should be used to calculate XH's support obligation?

I tend to think yes and HOPE that the parents would not just provide the minimums. Even when we were paying a ton of support we still had some money for extras for SS.

I am more about the state intervening as little as possible though and letting the parents shake out the rest. It would be super annoying to me to be told by a judge that we HAVE to pay for things like college or boarding school because those are parenting decisions that need to be made by the parents, not the state.

It's just weird to me that in intact families it feels like you have more "rights" over parenting decisions than blended families...and I truly feel that is because the system is set up to be completely punitive to discourage people from not staying together.

It's a very archaic system to me, one in which, yes in the 50s when you have few divorces and men made 80% more than women in the work force made sense. It just doesn't make sense any more. Wages are evening out and HUGE CS awards only reward the first child (or first CP) and punish the subsequent and that should not be a victory for the state, no one should have to face homelessness or living on 50% of their income because they had a child and didn't stay married.

Kids simply do not NEED $1000+ a month to live and if they do the CPs are doing something wrong and setting them up to have a harsh awakening when they move out and get their first minimum wage job and realize life is hard without that type of parental subsidy.

We are happy to do A LOT for SS but he has to earn things and show appreciation. If the state told me I HAD to do things for SS that takes away my parenting rights and decisions and I don't agree with that. If SS messes around in HS and gets failing grades I'm not paying for him to party in college. If he works his behind off (which is what I anticipate he will) I am happy to reward that behavior by helping him with college.

cole2144 · October 2012

Nineoceans:
fellesferie:
Nineoceans:
A better system is to determine the TRUE cost of the child (daycare expenses, food, shelter, clothing etc) and then split that cost in the middle or ask the NCP to pay 60-40 or some amount slightly higher to compensate for the fact that they are the ones having to limit their careers, taking sick time off for kids, having to transport to appointments and sports etc.
Like I said if it TRULY cost $1500 a month to raise ONE child, literally Americans would stop reproducing. That's what the CS system would have us believe though.
I understand what you're getting at, and I don't disagree on principle. However, I don't think that CS is based on bare minimums.
Let's say I could provide shelter for my child for $500/month. Does that mean a court should calculate child support based on that? Let's say that I could provide basically nutritious meals for DS for $50/month. Does that mean that's what should be used to calculate XH's support obligation?
I tend to think yes and HOPE that the parents would not just provide the minimums. Even when we were paying a ton of support we still had some money for extras for SS.
I am more about the state intervening as little as possible though and letting the parents shake out the rest. It would be super annoying to me to be told by a judge that we HAVE to pay for things like college or boarding school because those are parenting decisions that need to be made by the parents, not the state.
It's just weird to me that in intact families it feels like you have more "rights" over parenting decisions than blended families...and I truly feel that is because the system is set up to be completely punitive to discourage people from not staying together.
It's a very archaic system to me, one in which, yes in the 50s when you have few divorces and men made 80% more than women in the work force made sense. It just doesn't make sense any more. Wages are evening out and HUGE CS awards only reward the first child (or first CP) and punish the subsequent and that should not be a victory for the state, no one should have to face homelessness or living on 50% of their income because they had a child and didn't stay married.
Kids simply do not NEED $1000+ a month to live and if they do the CPs are doing something wrong and setting them up to have a harsh awakening when they move out and get their first minimum wage job and realize life is hard without that type of parental subsidy.
We are happy to do A LOT for SS but he has to earn things and show appreciation. If the state told me I HAD to do things for SS that takes away my parenting rights and decisions and I don't agree with that. If SS messes around in HS and gets failing grades I'm not paying for him to party in college. If he works his behind off (which is what I anticipate he will) I am happy to reward that behavior by helping him with college.

THIS!

twister22 · October 2012

Like PP's have said, it all depends on where you live. Here they factor in the CP's income and the NCP's income, as well as whether or not either party has other adopted or bio children living in the home, and if they are paying CS or alimony to anyone else. They do not factor in living expenses like mortgage, car payments, etc.

Unfortunately, it looks like you are going to have to make some adjustments to your lifestyle.

bebe11 · October 2012

What is your current custody agreement that the CS was based on? Is there anyway that BM would be willing to accept a lower payment?

I am sorry this is happening, but unfortunatly there isn't a whole lot that can be done. If you want to maintain your current life style, you may just have to go back to work and help support your family as well. It sucks, but I'd rather do that, and keep my house.

cole2144 · October 2012

bebe11:
What is your current custody agreement that the CS was based on? Is there anyway that BM would be willing to accept a lower payment?

I am sorry this is happening, but unfortunatly there isn't a whole lot that can be done. If you want to maintain your current life style, you may just have to go back to work and help support your family as well. It sucks, but I'd rather do that, and keep my house.

Really, I do support my family. I take care of my son and save us from having another childcare bill. I also take care of the house and all that involves. Have you ever been a SAHM? I can`t believe people especially women still think like this.

Ginlyn0 · October 2012

cole2144:
bebe11:

What is your current custody agreement that the CS was based on? Is there anyway that BM would be willing to accept a lower payment?

I am sorry this is happening, but unfortunatly there isn't a whole lot that can be done. If you want to maintain your current life style, you may just have to go back to work and help support your family as well. It sucks, but I'd rather do that, and keep my house.

Really, I do support my family. I take care of my son and save us from having another childcare bill. I also take care of the house and all that involves. Have you ever been a SAHM? I can`t believe people especially women still think like this.

Do not turn this into SAHM /WM debate that is an entirely different argument in an intact family versus a blended family. She was more than likely referring to FINANCIAL support and the argument about taking care of a home can also go on the WM side, BTW. You were talking about not being able to afford your mortgage, logic then says you need to find another way to fix your finances and that could include cutting out other expenses, getting a job or your husband could get a second and be subject to more CS. Logically, you getting a job would most likely have more of an impact than the other choices.

fellesferie · October 2012

Nineoceans:

I tend to think yes and HOPE that the parents would not just provide the minimums. Even when we were paying a ton of support we still had some money for extras for SS.
I am more about the state intervening as little as possible though and letting the parents shake out the rest. It would be super annoying to me to be told by a judge that we HAVE to pay for things like college or boarding school because those are parenting decisions that need to be made by the parents, not the state.
It's just weird to me that in intact families it feels like you have more "rights" over parenting decisions than blended families...and I truly feel that is because the system is set up to be completely punitive to discourage people from not staying together.
It's a very archaic system to me, one in which, yes in the 50s when you have few divorces and men made 80% more than women in the work force made sense. It just doesn't make sense any more. Wages are evening out and HUGE CS awards only reward the first child (or first CP) and punish the subsequent and that should not be a victory for the state, no one should have to face homelessness or living on 50% of their income because they had a child and didn't stay married.
Kids simply do not NEED $1000+ a month to live and if they do the CPs are doing something wrong and setting them up to have a harsh awakening when they move out and get their first minimum wage job and realize life is hard without that type of parental subsidy.
We are happy to do A LOT for SS but he has to earn things and show appreciation. If the state told me I HAD to do things for SS that takes away my parenting rights and decisions and I don't agree with that. If SS messes around in HS and gets failing grades I'm not paying for him to party in college. If he works his behind off (which is what I anticipate he will) I am happy to reward that behavior by helping him with college.

When XH and I split, he cleaned out our bank accounts and it took MONTHS for him to even give me money for things like diapers and milk. I had to file an emergency injunction to get him to pay at all. Where would I have been for three years as a single mom relying on him to want to do more?

I'm not saying it's a good system, but I don't think what you're proposing is fair either. I don't say this to be rude, but I think it's really naive to think that the majority of people can work this out without state intervention. The system you describe hinges on the good moral and ethical behavior of the NCP, and I would not want to rely on the good will of a person I divorced.

Your rationale for saying kids don't need $1000/month to live sounds like you believe the money is going into toys and extras. Think about it this way:

When we bought our house, DS was an only child. We picked it because it was in a good school district. We live in a county in which there are only 3 good school districts, so our house wasn't cheap. We pay about 120% more than we would in a less desirable area. It works out to about $800 more/month.

We spend around $600 on groceries per month, and DS consumes a pretty good portion of that. Especially since we pack him a healthy lunch to take to school every single day.

His taekwondo costs $80/month not including belt tests and gear.

$250/month is deposited into his college savings account.

There's also going out to eat once or twice a week, zoo memberships, health insurance, weekend activities, presents for his friends birthdays, the gas it costs to chauffeur him around, utilities he uses, doctors visits, medications, clothes and shoes, school activities.... I could go on.

I am honestly uninterested in doing the math, but I can guarantee you that it's far more than $1000/month. These obviously aren't bare minimums, but there's no reason they should be.

Want a personalized experience?

Child Support Help

Re: Child Support Help

Choose Another Board

Search Boards