Well, not exactly. Here is a clip of the law, since I can't link to just this part, and the whole thing is pertinent:
(12)(a) A parent with a support obligation may have other children living with him or her who were born or adopted after the support obligation arose. If such subsequent children exist, the court, when considering an upward modification of an existing award, may disregard the income from secondary employment obtained in addition to the parent's primary employment if the court determines that the employment was obtained primarily to support the subsequent children.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (a), the existence of such subsequent children should not as a general rule be considered by the court as a basis for disregarding the amount provided in the guidelines schedule. The parent with a support obligation for subsequent children may raise the existence of such subsequent children as a justification for deviation from the guidelines schedule. However, if the existence of such subsequent children is raised, the income of the other parent of the subsequent children shall be considered by the court in determining whether or not there is a basis for deviation from the guideline amount.
So, the amount would probably go down, but Florida seems to think that the custodial parent is the one who will receive the child support, not the non-custodial. Florida law seems pretty clear that the only two people responsible for paying for a kid are the bio-parents. The clip above clearly says "born or adopted". Just getting married to someone doesn't make a step-kid adopted. Again, a lawyer would know best.
The assumption is being made that the OP can support her child without the child support. Just because she has been able to since he stopped paying in December does not mean that she will be able to forever. Perhaps she is living off her savings right now?
(12)(a) A parent with a support obligation may have other children living with him or her who were born or adopted after the support obligation arose. If such subsequent children exist, the court, when considering an upward modification of an existing award, may disregard the income from secondary employment obtained in addition to the parent's primary employment if the court determines that the employment was obtained primarily to support the subsequent children.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (a), the existence of such subsequent children should not as a general rule be considered by the court as a basis for disregarding the amount provided in the guidelines schedule. The parent with a support obligation for subsequent children may raise the existence of such subsequent children as a justification for deviation from the guidelines schedule. However, if the existence of such subsequent children is raised, the income of the other parent of the subsequent children shall be considered by the court in determining whether or not there is a basis for deviation from the guideline amount.
So, the amount would probably go down, but Florida seems to think that the custodial parent is the one who will receive the child support, not the non-custodial. Florida law seems pretty clear that the only two people responsible for paying for a kid are the bio-parents. The clip above clearly says "born or adopted". Just getting married to someone doesn't make a step-kid adopted. Again, a lawyer would know best.
The assumption is being made that the OP can support her child without the child support. Just because she has been able to since he stopped paying in December does not mean that she will be able to forever. Perhaps she is living off her savings right now?









at least tonight i didnt offer extra time, so it was only the ordered two hours and ds came home early enough for me to feed him before he got worked up.