Proposed CS sent by opposing counsel

LJF1218 · August 2011

As I stated, my lawyer and I figured out a range of CS that was likely to be due based on the financial information submitted, even though not listed was C's additional teaching income. We added that amount in ourselves because I know what it is.

Yesterday we received an "offer" to settle from opposing counsel with an amount calculated that excludes that 2nd income, estimates what I pay in health insurance for B to be $70 less than what I actually pay, and allows a daycare amount $200 less than what I actually pay.

Their offer also said back support would be paid from the time of B's birth, but no other expensses, including pre-natal or other out of pocket health costs or legal fees.

I know many were upset over the amount my lawyer quoted me, and their offer is still substantial, but I don't think it's right that he excluded income and doesn't allow enough for health insurance or daycare (and for those upset about my daycare amount, it is no more than he pays for his other child's daycare. It's less, actually). I may be fighting mad at him so honestly a little part of me wants this to be difficult for him. On the other hand though, I would still fight him even if I wasn't angry because B is owed the proper amount of child support. I know C is a crappy person, but I'm still just amazed that while all he does is financially contribute to his child and he still tries to cut corners.

Offer was not accepted of course.

Unknown · August 2011

This content has been removed.

sweetie0228 · August 2011

In PA, the payor's 2nd income is typically not counted towards CS if the 2nd job is a supplemental income and not actually primary income. So that not being counted is not really uncommon.

You just have to supply what you pay for insurance since they know that's an estimate and the actual invoices from daycare.

But remember they assume you provide for the child too, so if you combined made $100,000 and he made $70,000 and you made $30,000 he would only pay 70% of all of the child's expenses such as health insurance and daycare. You would need to provide the other 30%. And since even the government knows it's ridiculous to garnish your wages to pay yourself, they just assume on good faith that you cover your portion.

**numbers are used for ease of calculation and to demostrate a principle.

LJF1218 · August 2011

I did ask my lawyer if reporting the 2nd income was mandatory and he said it was. He is required to report all of it, but excluded it (on purpose I'm guessing).

That actually is roughly our split 70/30, and I'm fully prepared to pay my 30%, but don't feel like I should have to pay more when I will likely have to do all out-of-pocket medical costs, activities, etc. on my own. I figure our CS amounts cover mostly DC, insurance, clothes, food, diapers, and the like.

sweetie0228 · August 2011

Of course I can only speak to the state laws I'm acustom to, but here it's manditory to disclose but not to include in the numbers. Mostly b/c if the payor were to drop the 2nd job since it's not his primary income he shouldn't be penalized by a higher CS b/c of a work/life balance choice.

Ulitimately, it will be up to a judge to decide if the 2nd income is included or not in the final CS amount award.

LJF1218 · August 2011

sweetie0228:

Of course I can only speak to the state laws I'm acustom to, but here it's manditory to disclose but not to include in the numbers. Mostly b/c if the payor were to drop the 2nd job since it's not his primary income he shouldn't be penalized by a higher CS b/c of a work/life balance choice.

Ulitimately, it will be up to a judge to decide if the 2nd income is included or not in the final CS amount award.

That makes good sense, actually. When he and I were civil I actually did think maybe that shouldn't be included. It's got to be frustrating to work a 2nd job to get ahead and have it held against you. But of course I don't care about his frustration anymore. I just think it's shady he didn't even disclose it.

More important though is the DC cost and health insurance. I won't nitpick about the 2nd income, but I will about the actual costs I've been incurring to care for Barrett. It is only fair that he pays his portion of the amount I actually pay.

As always, thanks for the input and advice, Sweetie!

lurkylulu2 · August 2011

LOLZ. This would be a good lesson in "don't count your gold digging eggs before they've hatched".

ETA- I really don't understand why you think he should pay more than 50% of the daycare costs. Please explain the logic behind that one.

sweetie0228 · August 2011

lurkylulu2:

LOLZ. This would be a good lesson in "don't count your gold digging eggs before they've hatched".

ETA- I really don't understand why you think he should pay more than 50% of the daycare costs. Please explain the logic behind that one.

sweetie0228:

But remember they assume you provide for the child too, so if you combined made $100,000 and he made $70,000 and you made $30,000 he would only pay 70% of all of the child's expenses such as health insurance and daycare. You would need to provide the other 30%. And since even the government knows it's ridiculous to garnish your wages to pay yourself, they just assume on good faith that you cover your portion.

**numbers are used for ease of calculation and to demostrate a principle.

Using the above example if the NCP (non custodial parent) contributed $60,000 and CP contributed $40,000...the expenses split would be 60% on the NCP.

The down and dirty of figuring out CS comes down to the percentages based on the combined income. The government feels the child should be able to have all the opportunities afforded as if the parents were together and sharing income. They have a table saying at this level of income for x amount of children= XX total amount to raise a child and then they apply the percentage to that amount to figure basic CS.

So if in my example the state decided that at $100,000 it cost $4000 a month to rase a child 60% would be owed or $1600/ month plus daycare and insurance split. Also the split is based on the percentage so if Daycare costs 1000/month the NCP owes $600 on top of the CS.

Again, I'm using simplified numbers so most people can follow the math easier.

lurkylulu2 · August 2011

sweetie0228:
lurkylulu2:

LOLZ. This would be a good lesson in "don't count your gold digging eggs before they've hatched".

ETA- I really don't understand why you think he should pay more than 50% of the daycare costs. Please explain the logic behind that one.

sweetie0228:

But remember they assume you provide for the child too, so if you combined made $100,000 and he made $70,000 and you made $30,000 he would only pay 70% of all of the child's expenses such as health insurance and daycare. You would need to provide the other 30%. And since even the government knows it's ridiculous to garnish your wages to pay yourself, they just assume on good faith that you cover your portion.

**numbers are used for ease of calculation and to demostrate a principle.

Using the above example if the NCP (non custodial parent) contributed $60,000 and CP contributed $40,000...the expenses split would be 60% on the NCP.

The down and dirty of figuring out CS comes down to the percentages based on the combined income. The government feels the child should be able to have all the opportunities afforded as if the parents were together and sharing income. They have a table saying at this level of income for x amount of children= XX total amount to raise a child and then they apply the percentage to that amount to figure basic CS.

So if in my example the state decided that at $100,000 it cost $4000 a month to rase a child 60% would be owed or $1600/ month plus daycare and insurance split. Also the split is based on the percentage so if Daycare costs 1000/month the NCP owes $600 on top of the CS.

Again, I'm using simplified numbers so most people can follow the math easier.

I am in full agreement that daycare costs should be additional on top on child support, as should be 1/2 of all sporting costs, left over medical costs, etc. but I think it should be split 50/50. Also, assuming the father already has a family health insurance plan, wouldn't he be smarter to just add the child to his plan instead of contributing to the mom's plan?

(Just to clarify- this IMO on all child support not just LJF's situation.)

sweetie0228 · August 2011

lurkylulu2:
sweetie0228:
lurkylulu2:

.

sweetie0228:

I am in full agreement that daycare costs should be additional on top on child support, as should be 1/2 of all sporting costs, left over medical costs, etc. but I think it should be split 50/50. Also, assuming the father already has a family health insurance plan, wouldn't he be smarter to just add the child to his plan instead of contributing to the mom's plan?

(Just to clarify- this IMO on all child support not just LJF's situation.)

I understood that based on the non snarkiness of the question it was more of a fact finding question

IF the NCP wanted to add the child to his insurance plan, the he would get a credit towards CS therefore having it lowered. By the percentage the CP would "contribute" towards having the child on the NCP's insurance. This is what actually happens in most cases. I had to fight to have my CS changed to show that I would carry the insurance on the children b/c my ex dropped all coverage for them and refused to pay CS for 2 years....sorry tangent

But as an across the board thing the base everything on the percent the parents contribute to the total income. Mostly, b/c it's fairer overall if one parent was SAH and the other was 100% of the income or it was 90/10 split, 50/50 on day care is unfair to the lesser making income. bc/ if DC is 1000/month 500 each (while fair on paper) really isn't fair if the income levels is grossly different. If one parent is struggling to pay their half but the other parent isn't.

It's a flawed system, but these rules are supposed cover a broad range of income levels and situations. There is separate guidelines in the PA code for parents whose combined income is over $250000 a yr. I never read them b/c it doesn't pertain to my situation and I doubt it ever will. Since my ex barely has a HS diploma and can't stay in a job longer than 3 months to stay ahead of the wage garnishment. But my case will be moot soon since my H is in the process of adopting the children.

ShanJosh777 · August 2011

lurkylulu2:
sweetie0228:
lurkylulu2:

LOLZ. This would be a good lesson in "don't count your gold digging eggs before they've hatched".

ETA- I really don't understand why you think he should pay more than 50% of the daycare costs. Please explain the logic behind that one.

sweetie0228:

But remember they assume you provide for the child too, so if you combined made $100,000 and he made $70,000 and you made $30,000 he would only pay 70% of all of the child's expenses such as health insurance and daycare. You would need to provide the other 30%. And since even the government knows it's ridiculous to garnish your wages to pay yourself, they just assume on good faith that you cover your portion.

**numbers are used for ease of calculation and to demostrate a principle.

Using the above example if the NCP (non custodial parent) contributed $60,000 and CP contributed $40,000...the expenses split would be 60% on the NCP.

The down and dirty of figuring out CS comes down to the percentages based on the combined income. The government feels the child should be able to have all the opportunities afforded as if the parents were together and sharing income. They have a table saying at this level of income for x amount of children= XX total amount to raise a child and then they apply the percentage to that amount to figure basic CS.

So if in my example the state decided that at $100,000 it cost $4000 a month to rase a child 60% would be owed or $1600/ month plus daycare and insurance split. Also the split is based on the percentage so if Daycare costs 1000/month the NCP owes $600 on top of the CS.

Again, I'm using simplified numbers so most people can follow the math easier.

I am in full agreement that daycare costs should be additional on top on child support, as should be 1/2 of all sporting costs, left over medical costs, etc. but I think it should be split 50/50. Also, assuming the father already has a family health insurance plan, wouldn't he be smarter to just add the child to his plan instead of contributing to the mom's plan?

(Just to clarify- this IMO on all child support not just LJF's situation.)

Actually my daycare is split 65/35 (me paying 65) because I get the tax benefit of claiming what I paid for daycare and/or using a FSA to pay for daycare if I wanted to. But our other CS is closer to a 70/30 split (me being 30) based on our incomes. I thought that was the purpose of daycare being separate.

LJF1218 · August 2011

sweetie0228:
lurkylulu2:
sweetie0228:
lurkylulu2:

.

sweetie0228:

I am in full agreement that daycare costs should be additional on top on child support, as should be 1/2 of all sporting costs, left over medical costs, etc. but I think it should be split 50/50. Also, assuming the father already has a family health insurance plan, wouldn't he be smarter to just add the child to his plan instead of contributing to the mom's plan?

(Just to clarify- this IMO on all child support not just LJF's situation.)

I understood that based on the non snarkiness of the question it was more of a fact finding question

IF the NCP wanted to add the child to his insurance plan, the he would get a credit towards CS therefore having it lowered. By the percentage the CP would "contribute" towards having the child on the NCP's insurance. This is what actually happens in most cases. I had to fight to have my CS changed to show that I would carry the insurance on the children b/c my ex dropped all coverage for them and refused to pay CS for 2 years....sorry tangent

But as an across the board thing the base everything on the percent the parents contribute to the total income. Mostly, b/c it's fairer overall if one parent was SAH and the other was 100% of the income or it was 90/10 split, 50/50 on day care is unfair to the lesser making income. bc/ if DC is 1000/month 500 each (while fair on paper) really isn't fair if the income levels is grossly different. If one parent is struggling to pay their half but the other parent isn't.

It's a flawed system, but these rules are supposed cover a broad range of income levels and situations. There is separate guidelines in the PA code for parents whose combined income is over $250000 a yr. I never read them b/c it doesn't pertain to my situation and I doubt it ever will. Since my ex barely has a HS diploma and can't stay in a job longer than 3 months to stay ahead of the wage garnishment. But my case will be moot soon since my H is in the process of adopting the children.

I didn't know this, Sweetie - how exciting! When this happens I know your ex will not longer be liable for CS, but does that also absolve him of the amount in arrears?

sweetie0228 · August 2011

@Shanjosh

That could be. My situation I have the higer percentage b/c I made more. So when ever I do the math for some one else I have to think it backwards. The DC is separate b/c it can't fit neatly on a statewide table b/c DC prices vary greatly.

Overall princple's the same it's not a flat 50/50 split. It's specific to the income percentages.

Also I haven't had a daycare for years now. My oldest is a teenager, some of things may have changed.

LJF1218 · August 2011

"Actually my daycare is split 65/35 (me paying 65) because I get the tax benefit of claiming what I paid for daycare and/or using a FSA to pay for daycare if I wanted to. But our other CS is closer to a 70/30 split (me being 30) based on our incomes. I thought that was the purpose of daycare being separate."

I don't know if our MO calculator is different or what, but we enter our incomes, he then gets a credit for his other child and then they determine the % split. After that I get a credit for paying for daycare and health insurance. Then it calculates the support amount based on Barrett's costs and our individual income.

That is all that is required. Out of pocket medical expenses, activities when he is older, etc. are not required and we would have to come to an agreement or have this court ordered by the judge.

So I'm really not so worried about not getting as much as my lawyer calculated. The only possible variation is if he isn't required to include his 2nd income. Even if he isn't his offer is still too low because the DC and health insurance amounts are not correct.

r9stedt · August 2011

beccaga16:
I would at least make sure the numbers for DC and health insurance are correct and he pays the full amount he owes in those 2 areas.

Agreed.

If the numbers itself were incorrect, I wouldn't have accepted either. I can't stress the importance of both parents understanding the FULL cost of raising a child--- not just an estimate.

Want a personalized experience?

Proposed CS sent by opposing counsel

Re: Proposed CS sent by opposing counsel

Choose Another Board

Search Boards