Community› The Bump Message Boards› Blended Families
Blended Families
New Discussion

Child care reform July 2013

brandyleighxxbrandyleighxx member
in Blended Families

I apologize if this has already been discussed (I don't post here too often and haven't lurked lately).

Anyone heard about this? Apparently starting July 1st, the percentage of child support a parent must pay based on their net income changes. This is great news if you make good money and sucks if you don't. The more you make, the less you pay. Can someone explain to me how this makes sense?

image

Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker

Anniversary
Report Reply to Post

Re: Child care reform July 2013

  • dmndsr4evadmndsr4eva member
    Child support is based on state law to my understanding.  Not sure what you are talking about?
    Report Reply
  • Loading the player...
  • MrsHetzelMrsHetzel member
    What state are you in? I know in RI and MA and most states in the northeast, the courts use the Income Share Model. Meaning a judge will add up DH and BM's income, tally in health insurance childcare, and then work a percentage. And then the judge will add my income with DH's income, apply same health insurance and childcare costs, and come up with a percentage. And those 2 percentages are, in theory, suppose to accommodate each other. For example, DH and BM's combined income is about 200,000 whereas my income and DH's income combined is only 130,000, so a judge would appropriate more money to me.

    I'm theory, that's how the model works.
    Report Reply
  • PamelacakePamelacake member

    imageMrsHetzel:
    What state are you in? I know in RI and MA and most states in the northeast, the courts use the Income Share Model. Meaning a judge will add up DH and BM's income, tally in health insurance childcare, and then work a percentage. And then the judge will add my income with DH's income, apply same health insurance and childcare costs, and come up with a percentage. And those 2 percentages are, in theory, suppose to accommodate each other. For example, DH and BM's combined income is about 200,000 whereas my income and DH's income combined is only 130,000, so a judge would appropriate more money to me. I'm theory, that's how the model works.

     

    This is how I understand it to be in my state and they also take into consideration how much time the NCP actually has the child/children.

    BabyFruit Ticker

                                                       

       Lilypie Angel and Memorial tickers                            

     

    My Loves= SD 18 SS 16 SS13 DD13 DS10 SD6 SD5 

    Report Reply
  • WWMSWWMS
    Important Changes to the NH Child Support Guideline

    Changes to the New Hampshire child support guidelines that take effect on July 1, 2013 will allow higher wage earners to pay less child support than under current guidelines. Under the current guidelines, child support is payable at a consistent percentage of the parties net income solely based upon how many children were to be supported. More specifically a parent paying child support under the current guidelines would pay: 25 of the net income for one 1 child; 33 for two 2 children; 40 for three 3 children; and 45 for four 4 or more children regardless of the paying parties income. High wage earner parents have argued for years that these guidelines were unfair to them. For example, if a parent earned 125,000 per year, he would pay approximately 30,360 per year or 2,530 per month in child support for two 2 children under the current guideline. Parents in that position have argued that children do not require that much in child support especially if the other parent is also contributing to the childrens support. Under the new guidelines set forth in the following chart, that same person would pay approximately 24,000 per year or 2,000 per month, a decrease of almost 6,400 per year or 533 per month.

    If you are currently under a child support order you should consider whether you might be entitled to obtain a reduction under this new statute. If the existing child support order was more than three 3 years old or if there has been any substantial change of circumstances, in either partys financial condition, you may be entitled to a modification based on these new guidelines. Please note that the enactment of this new statute in and of itself does not provide a basis for modification of an existing child support order.

    Please do not hesitate in calling Attorney Michael Fontaine to discuss whether you might be entitled to a reduction in your child support based upon these new guidelines.

    Author: Attorney Michael Fontaine


    March 22, 2013 at 12:39 am Child Support, Family Law 2 comments
    2 Responses to Important Changes to the NH Child Support Guideline

    Amy Poirier says:
    April 24, 2013 at 8:02 pm
    Are the net income amounts you listed above based on the combined incomes of both parents or just the parent ordered to pay child support??

    Reply
    wwfadmin says:
    May 10, 2013 at 3:50 pm
    Hi Amy,
    The new guidelines are for combined income. Therefore, if one spouse earns 20,000 and the other spouse earns 80,000 100,000 combined, and there is one child, the parent paying support would pay 20 under the new guidelines versus 25 under the old guidelines.

    Edited to take out the messed up chart
    Report Reply
  • MrsHetzelMrsHetzel member
    WWMS, can you cite your source for this article? It sounds like this attorney took the new statute pretty liberally and turned it into an advertisement to use him to go back to court, which I assume he charges 1,5003,000 retainer. I'd be wary of any articles that have a sales pitch in them...
    Report Reply
  • WWMSWWMS
    imageMrsHetzel:
    WWMS, can you cite your source for this article? It sounds like this attorney took the new statute pretty liberally and turned it into an advertisement to use him to go back to court, which I assume he charges 1,5003,000 retainer. I'd be wary of any articles that have a sales pitch in them...



    Here is NH's actual law but the lawyer's was easier to copy.

    https://www.nhliberty.org/bills/view/2012/HB597
    Report Reply
  • 2chatter2chatter member
    It makes sense because expenses for children are not that high.  I say this as a bio and step mom.  My children attend private school that I fund, and CS at the table % in a higher income would far exceed their actual needs.  The way CS is set up is insane to me.  This seems like a move in the right direction.
    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
    Report Reply
  • MrsHetzelMrsHetzel member
    Hmm, the new statute is definitely not flawless but I don't think it's as simple as "the more you make, the less you pay." If it is following the Income Share Model, as it stated in the beginning, then the support order will be determined not on just what the NCP makes, but on what the custodial parent makes too. Which is fair. I don't understand judges that only look at the NCP's income and assign a number and overlook the custodial parent who might not need that much in support and then abuse it for personal expense while the NCP struggles thinking their support is going to the child's welfare. Over all I think it does make sense. As much sense as an extremely flawed family court system in general can make.
    Report Reply
  • brandyleighxxbrandyleighxx member

    Sorry for the confusion, it is state specific. (Someone posted the link)

    DH already pays 40% for 3 kids. And that percentage is based on his former job, when he made $7 more per hour. When he started his new job in January, he decided it wasn't worth the hassle to go back to court to have it adjusted. He also gets money from the GI bill because he served in the military and is an apprentice receiving education from his current job. But that GI Bill is alloted for housing - which is exactly what we use it for; it's also reduced every 6 months. We're at the 6 month more and the money we will be recieving will now be less than our mortgage. The reform would mean that we pay 42% instead of 40%... which, when we did the math isn't that much but when you have $20 in your banking account like we currently do (the day before pay day) it's a slap in the face. If we understand it correctly though, they won't automatically make this change - one of the parties would have to file for a change - which, we hope she is not stupid enough to do since like I said, her current support is based on his previous income which is quite a bit lower (without GI bill - but that is being reduced bi-yearly). We also offered the kids to be on his health insurance but she wants to keep them on medicaid because it's 100% for her (no co-pays)

    Sigh.

    image

    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker

    Anniversary
    Report Reply
  • twister22twister22 member
    imagebrandyleighxx:

    Sorry for the confusion, it is state specific. (Someone posted the link)

    DH already pays 40% for 3 kids. And that percentage is based on his former job, when he made $7 more per hour. When he started his new job in January, he decided it wasn't worth the hassle to go back to court to have it adjusted. He also gets money from the GI bill because he served in the military and is an apprentice receiving education from his current job. But that GI Bill is alloted for housing - which is exactly what we use it for; it's also reduced every 6 months. We're at the 6 month more and the money we will be recieving will now be less than our mortgage. The reform would mean that we pay 42% instead of 40%... which, when we did the math isn't that much but when you have $20 in your banking account like we currently do (the day before pay day) it's a slap in the face. If we understand it correctly though, they won't automatically make this change - one of the parties would have to file for a change - which, we hope she is not stupid enough to do since like I said, her current support is based on his previous income which is quite a bit lower (without GI bill - but that is being reduced bi-yearly). We also offered the kids to be on his health insurance but she wants to keep them on medicaid because it's 100% for her (no co-pays)

    Sigh.

    BM can't stop you from adding the SKs to your health insurance. If it's available, I would do it.

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