Wow! Thanks! That is interesting, because I have scoured the PA domestic site and it had read quite differetly at that time. It has basically about say H made $1000, and he had to give 50% to first family (only doing this for easier math sake) So then his income would technically be $500. Then if his second family were to get 50% also, it would be from the $500, leaving him $250.
Quote:
|
I would consult a lawyer on the child support regulations. I know there are lawyers and custody agreements that don't follow the guidelines, but PA state law says that all families should be equal; support should not be reduced due to your child being from a second family, though they will avoid taking so much he can't live off the rest, as judged by them.
Here is the site with the relevant laws, and examples to explain them. It was linked to from the PA state child support site. Some relevant quotes, bolding mine: Rule 1910.16-7. Support Guidelines. Awards of Child Support When There are Multiple Families. (b) When the total of the obligor’s basic support obligations exceeds fifty percent of his or her monthly net income, the court may consider a proportional reduction of these obligations. Since, however, the goal of the guidelines is to treat each child equitably, in no event should either a first or later family receive preference. Nor shall the court divide the guideline amount for all of the obligor’s children among the households in which those children live. One of their examples involves support for children from a second marriage: Example 2. The obligor is sued for support of three children of a second marriage. There is already an order in effect for two children of the first marriage. The relevant monthly net incomes are $1,000 for the obligor, $0 for the first spouse and $500 for the second spouse. The guideline amounts for each family are $229 for the two children of the first marriage and $422 for the three children of the second marriage for a total support obligation of $651. Since this total obligation leaves the obligor with only $349 on which to live, the order for the three children of the second family is too high. However, reducing the order for three children while leaving the existing order intact would give preference to the first family, contrary to the rule. Therefore, both orders must be reduced proportionally. I am not a lawyer, but they seem to say pretty clearly that you would not just get whatever is left over after he pays CS for his elder daughter. Honestly, I wouldn't worry about how he is going to live on his income, or where he will live - he needs to figure that out. Take care of yourself and that wonderful little girl! |







