or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Blended and Step Family Parenting › It's like the laws were written to keep lawyers in business..
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

It's like the laws were written to keep lawyers in business.. - Page 2

post #21 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by sehbub View Post
Why is that a surprise? In an intact family, if the income does not change, but the number of children increases, there will be less funds available to support each child. Why would that be any different in a split/blended family? AFAIK, you're entitled to a support modification at any time should the number of children you're obligated to support increase, regardless of what state you live in. It's simple math.

It's a surprise becuase where I am from that does not happen (Ontario)

Unless you claim undue hardship.......which can be difficult.
post #22 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by violet_ View Post

But, I see, what is most shocking here is that some state somewhere thinks that the older children can make do on 90% of what they had been getting, on the assumption that my child may deserve some support from her father too -- you know, 10% of what they get.
This is flawed math at best.

Let's plug in some real numbers, just for example. If your DH's CS is based on $5K/mo net, in our state, he would pay 25% of that in CS for two kids. That's $1250/mo. If, like you're saying, CS is lowered by 10% if he has another child, that would mean he'd pay $1000/mo in CS.

The important part here is his new child wouldn't be "making do" on 10% of the CS amount. If he nets $5K and pays $1K in CS with the new baby, that leaves 80% of his net income to go towards supporting the new baby. The two children from his previous relationship have to "make do" on 20% of his net income while the new baby has access to 80% of his net income.



Quote:
Sometimes I forget how selfish and entitled people get when they receive unearned income on a regular basis.
Yeah, those greedy kids from his previous relationship! They ought to *do* something to earn that child support!! What's the new baby going to do to earn her much larger portion of his net income?

Quote:
Originally Posted by violet_ View Post
I was talking about people who get far more than they need, and begin to feel entitled to it.
I'd feel my children were entitled to whatever percentage of income the state guidelines set forth. It's much simpler if you stick with basic math. One child is 20% of net income, two is 25%, etc. That's how it works in Texas, and the basic math only changes if the NCP has more than $7500/mo in net resources. And yes, the children are "entitled" to it.

Quote:
And, as we discussed previously, the amount of CS was based, not on the needs of the children, but on the income of my DH.
As it should be. If the NCP nets $1000/mo, it shouldn't matter if the children's proven needs are $1500/mo. The NCP doesn't have to give up every penny they earn, still leaving a "deficit" of $500/mo. The NCP would owe a percentage of net income just like the NCP who nets $7500/mo. How would one go about deciding what the "needs of the children" are, exactly?

Quote:
That money was not based on needs. I don't get a guaranteed income in life regardless of circumstances, and my DH doesn't get a guaranteed income in life regardless of circumstances, and no family that I know of gets this, so why should the stepkids' mother get a guaranteed income in life regardless of circumstances?
She doesn't. If it's not in your DH's bank account, it's not in his bank account. I have no doubt that if this is truly the case, that your DH simply has no resources left to pay CS with, his support order will be lowered. It's not like he's the only NCP on the planet who has lost a job and can't pay CS. It happens.

Quote:
And anyway their mother's salary is plenty to sustain them comfortably all by herself. I'm not saying that means he doesn't owe anything, but I am saying that having support lowered while he looks for a job is reasonable and will cause no negative effect on the kids whatsoever.
Not sure how you could possibly know this for sure unless you are privy to the ex-wife's finances.

Quote:
Conversely, keeping it maxed out does hurt the kids, because we can't afford to have them visit anymore.
And this absolutely needs to be brought to the attention of the court. As does the fact that your DH is unemployed.

Quote:
but their mother refuses to let them fly unattended, and we couldn't swing the full 4 tickets instead of two.
How old are the children in question? Unattended travel is typically covered in initial divorce paperwork here, and if not, it's covered when one parent chooses to move far enough away that travel becomes an issue. I wouldn't want my children flying unattended even on a direct flight until they were... heck, I don't know how old. I'd want them even older if a lay over was involved, but I'm still not sure of exact ages. Again, this is an issue that courts deal with every day, so I'm sure they have some guidelines.



Quote:
Then, people jumped in to tell me that my child, unlike her siblings, does not deserve support from my DH,
Who said your child doesn't deserve support from your DH?

Quote:
But, since people want to fuss about the court daring to presume my child to have any right whatsoever to her father's support, I'll bite.
Again, who said anything of the sort? Your new baby will have access to a much larger percentage of your DH's income than his other children do.
post #23 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by wifeandmom View Post
The important part here is his new child wouldn't be "making do" on 10% of the CS amount. If he nets $5K and pays $1K in CS with the new baby, that leaves 80% of his net income to go towards supporting the new baby. The two children from his previous relationship have to "make do" on 20% of his net income while the new baby has access to 80% of his net income.

<snip>

Again, who said anything of the sort? Your new baby will have access to a much larger percentage of your DH's income than his other children do.
Also, even if you restrict what the new baby has access to to be only the 20% mandated by the state, that's still $800/mo - almost as much as the other two kids get, together.

BOTH parents should be contributing to the child's needs. Apparently, his ex works as well, and also provides financially for the children. Your income should NOT be included in the calculation.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Blended and Step Family Parenting › It's like the laws were written to keep lawyers in business..