SS and my mother arrived safely and without delay and BM wanted to know if my mother made it back to CA. Somehow the conversation lead to her asking about CS. She basically said that SS lifestyle should not change just bc we decided to have a baby.
While I can kind of see her point, I don't think it is as simple as she is making it out to seem. For example, even in intact families when their is an additional family member added, everyone is effected. One of her points was that DH should be providing the exact same dollar amount to SS as he will to LO. Well, no. That wont happen bc she lives in a low col area and we live in the city.
Another example on how I think her reasoning is flawed is that it is BOTH PARENTS responsibility to provide for the child and she quit her job. She said that LO is my responsibility to support and DH and she will support SS. She justifies quitting her job to go back to school bc SS wont be effected bc CS will support his lifestyle and not hers. Really? Ok BM. How are you paying your cell phone payment and car payment? She lives with her mother so it is common knowledge she doesn't pay rent, groceries, or utilities. And before someone says its none of my business how she spends CS, I agree with you. However, SHE is the one who says that SS uses his money and she doesn't.
She believes that bc she quit her job that she should receive more CS. Our CS is calculated based on shared income so I explained that wasn't true and her potential income would be considered into the calculation for CS. She said I am making up numbers that don't exist since she is unemployed. OK. With her POV DH can quit his job and then say "hey BM. I don't have a job anymore so I don't have to send you CS...." She said NO, it is his responsibility to support his son ... but apparently not hers to support SS ... I just don't get it.
CS is based on what DH made when we lived in Hawaii and now that we moved he makes less. This is one of three reasons he falls into the category of being eligible for modification. I did the math and even if they considered her as 0 income and DH was responsible for 100% of the CS Obligation, it would still be less than what she is receiving now.
At this point I just don't want to deal with any of this and neither does DH. I almost just want to say F asking for a modification bc I don't want to deal with her nonsense.
Thoughts ? I'm really trying to understand where she is coming from but nothing sticks out clearly to me.
Re: BM is a trip ...
BFP #1 11/07/2012 EDD 07/09/2013 M/C 11/22/2012
BFP #2 02/05/2013 EDD 09/19/2013 Arrived via c-section 09/27/2013
BM is in Guam and we are in Virginia. The going to court comment was based on if she wouldn't do a voluntary child support modification to the voluntary child support agreement that is in place.
Sure we could go through the CS agency on Guam, but we physically wouldn't be able to go in and BM does NOT want to go through them. She prefers that DH pay CS into her bank account on the first of the month. He's never been late on a payment so this isn't an issue for them.
BFP #1 11/07/2012 EDD 07/09/2013 M/C 11/22/2012
BFP #2 02/05/2013 EDD 09/19/2013 Arrived via c-section 09/27/2013
I agree.. and yeah where I'm at CS doesn't go in front of a judge.. it's just the CS prosecutor and their attorneys.
Their was a short period of time years ago when I paid child support and lost my job in the middle of it.. I still had to pay and the amount didn't change.. I let them know about being out of work so I didn't get penalized if I missed a payment but the amount I paid was not lowered, They still went by what I made from my previous employer.
I think she's full of it about paying thousands for an atty.. I could be wrong but where I'm at the prosecutor has their own attorneys to represent both parties.
My Loves= SD 18 SS 16 SS13 DD13 DS10 SD6 SD5
BFP #1 11/07/2012 EDD 07/09/2013 M/C 11/22/2012
BFP #2 02/05/2013 EDD 09/19/2013 Arrived via c-section 09/27/2013
BFP #1 11/07/2012 EDD 07/09/2013 M/C 11/22/2012
BFP #2 02/05/2013 EDD 09/19/2013 Arrived via c-section 09/27/2013
BFP #1 11/07/2012 EDD 07/09/2013 M/C 11/22/2012
BFP #2 02/05/2013 EDD 09/19/2013 Arrived via c-section 09/27/2013
BFP #1 11/07/2012 EDD 07/09/2013 M/C 11/22/2012
BFP #2 02/05/2013 EDD 09/19/2013 Arrived via c-section 09/27/2013
Created by MyFitnessPal - Free Weight Loss Tools
BFP #1 11/07/2012 EDD 07/09/2013 M/C 11/22/2012
BFP #2 02/05/2013 EDD 09/19/2013 Arrived via c-section 09/27/2013
Created by MyFitnessPal - Free Weight Loss Tools
Could be ... It just threw me off bc any other time I've received advice I'd admired her POV.
The BM in our case cant even remember what is in the CO even though SHE is the one that came up with it with her lawyer. I'll quote why or why not things she suggests are not OK and she asks where I'm getting my information ... well read the CO BM ... I don't just make this stuff up. That being said, I doubt she even understands how CS is calculated.
BFP #1 11/07/2012 EDD 07/09/2013 M/C 11/22/2012
BFP #2 02/05/2013 EDD 09/19/2013 Arrived via c-section 09/27/2013
Created by MyFitnessPal - Free Weight Loss Tools
I hate that mentality. We deal with it here too. BM tells skids that my children should not have things (like a bed when DD moved from her crib at 4) because it takes away from them having things (like Justin Beiber front row seats). The parens are a literal example. She does not tell the skids that she quit working when she knew DH was actually going to leave. She does not tell them that I work full time, and that's why my children have the things they have. She does not tell them that she gets VOLUNTARY spousal every month to make sure their lives remain the same. She calls that "her money".
We did not change CS when DS was born. But if she ever wants to complain about adjustment, I think that will work in our favor in court. I disagree that skids lives should not change due to a baby; in an intact family the addition of a sibling might mean fewer trips to the movies, etc.
::: Standing applause :::
It amazes me how many of the locals will complain about the military being on island, but the only reason their economy is able to exist and function as it does is bc of the military that occupies the space. SMH
BFP #1 11/07/2012 EDD 07/09/2013 M/C 11/22/2012
BFP #2 02/05/2013 EDD 09/19/2013 Arrived via c-section 09/27/2013
I agree with BM that her support amount shouldn't change because you have another child. However, it should not also change if she decided to not work. She cant have it both ways.
File for the modification, don't worry about all the BS she is trying to feed you. BM is trying to get all she can from your DH and will do and say anything she has to.
And I have mixed feelings about "what the other parent does should/shouldn't affect CS". Yes, in an intact family the addition of a new baby will mean less extras for the rest of the family. However, CS isn't really intended for "extras". It is intended to help the CP with necessary living expenses such a shelter, electricity, water, food. In our case, BD decided to shack up with a girl that had 3 kids already and then they had a baby. His moronic decision to support 3 kids that aren't his shouldn't affect the CS he pays to support his son's needed living expenses.