Conflicted...Domestics or Not...

[Phoenix~Mama]

Okay, I know what the general consensus is going to be to this question. lol But I'm still internally struggling... and maybe some words of reassurance or something from you strong ladies will help?

Basically, STBX and his ex never went through domestics for child support on their DD. There was a number specified in their divorce papers and they came to a mutual verbal agreement between the two of them and that is what it has been for the past 3+ years, even though it also was stated in there that it would be modified once DSD was school age and no longer in full time daycare.

Anyway... STBX is trying to come to a fair agreement between all of us and not have to go through domestics... but his ex is telling him she will not accept anything less from him because what is in their divorce papers is what DSD is entitled to until she is 18. (forget the fact that by law support can be reviewed and changed at minimum every three years, where she gets the idea that it will never ever change is odd... )

But anyway... I have researched a lot and have talked to a lawyer, and lots of people who have already gone through domestics, etc... and it looks like PA is on board now with distributing funds EQUALLY amongst all children. Meaning, yes DSD's amount will change as in PA they will only garnish up to 50% of the payer's pay and he is already paying like 38% for his DSD... so leaving me with 12% for two kids? Um, yeah that doesn't work.

So anyway, my Mom was talking to a woman she works with who has been through the system from all ends and she is saying that daycare is even separate from child support. That the court figures out what should be paid in child support and that is the portion they won't take more than 50% for, but their half of daycare expense is above and beyond the support amount.

I was under the impression it was all rolled into one. And as it stand right now, STBX is only going to give me $320/month, and that includes his half of daycare. But he is also going to keep DD on his insurance for the moment. Currently he is paying his ex $500/month... so yeah no where near equal even factoring in the health insurance.

My Mom and several others are pushing for me to just take him to domestics to ensure I get exactly what my kids deserve, because they are pretty sure I will be shortened if I do not.

I can't help but feel like a major B if I do this... I know I shouldn't, because it's not about me... I just want to make sure my kids are getting what they need. But everytime money is discussed STBX goes off saying how that's all I care about etc etc... and even though I know that isn't true... I still end up feeling sorry for him, because I do know what it's like and how much money he is going to be having to try to come up with a month... I know it's not my problem and he has a responsibility...

But yeah... I don't know. I feel so torn. But I'm pretty sure if I don't do this, and his ex doesn't budge on her amount changing (even though by law her's will), I know he will ask me to deal with getting less in the interim that he is trying to talk her into reason.

He doesn't want to go to domestics and doesn't want me taking him to domestics until he talks to a lawyer and hears all of his options and determines "what is going to screw him less in the end." Which, again, I realize I shouldn't listen to him or care about because the law is the law, and too bad too sad for him, he's going to have to figure it out...

But it is important to me that DD still gets to see her Dad and if she can't because he has to pick up a second job to try to live, after all that he is ordered to pay... and that will essentially be my fault...

So can anyone help clarify and get me thinking more reasonably please?

[~Charlie's~Angel~]

OK, so she wont budge for ONE child, so he is going to guilt trip you into taking less for TWO kids?

Don't be his door mat anymore. Hes still trying to bulldoze you in a last ditch effort. So what if all you care about is money. Since you are working on NOT being his wife anymore, it shouldnt matter to him if thats true or not.

Your right, he has responsibilities. And since I remember the circumstances surrounding your latest conception, he has only himself to thank for now having to pay CP for THREE CHILDREN. To bad, so sad, suck it up buddy.

If its not going to be fair, and the other ex wont budge on her amount, go to domestics and play hardball. Your kids deserve just as much as your step daugher does. NO more, No less.

[Super~Single~Mama]

Honey, just go to court. Seriously. Your DSD will get less, but you can't possibly think that $320/month is even going to put a DENT in your daycare costs for 2 kiddos.

Just make sure that when you file, they factor TWO children into it and not just one. You may have to modify after your second is born - talk to your lawyer and make sure this is possible.

[Oh the Irony]

I agree. I would go through domestics in this situation.

I didn't have to but I would if it was a complicated situation.

[doubledutch]

in this case i do think you should just go to domestics, because then you're definitely not the bad guy - an impartial system is making the decisions in the best interest of all three children.

if $500 were 40% of my monthly income with two kids and another on the way, i'd be looking hard for a better job, or a second job, especially considering i don't have custody and only have a child eow. it's not your fault that he doesn't earn enough money to support his kids and himself.

[Phoenix~Mama]

Well, he does make alright money for the area... it's 38% of his take home pay... so they'd likely figure out a different number too.

Though my Mom pointed out we shouldn't be penalized because he is choosing to put money into his 401K, etc.

So he could change some things like I had to in order to bring home more money.

And yes, I mentioned a second job to him, but he won't consider it because then "when would I sleep or see my kids, you women get blinded by money signs."

Plus when he moves back up to DSD's Mom's town, he won't be watching DD in the morning anymore, and will be sleeping so he can get up and get DSD everyday instead of her going to extended care at school/day camp.

[violet_]

He clearly pays too high a fraction to his ex. That's his problem, not yours. Go to court and get what your children are entitled to. If he insists on paying her extra, like he's doing now, well that's up to him. Not your problem. You still may not get much, but surely you should get more than 12% for 2 kids. In our state, he'd pay 30% total for three kids, divided evenly, plus he'd cover insurance and half of medical. I don't know about PA but I don't think 12% is likely to cut it.

Of course, you should speak to a lawyer and make sure how this will work. It sounds like he has very little income. 20% (2 kids' worth) of his take home, by your numbers, is less than he's paying you now. Again, I don't know the rules in PA, so look into those. $320 might be as much as you could realistically expect, depending.

Oh, wait, I just looked at a PA child support calculator, and made up some numbers to try it out. Looks like your ex will have to live under a bridge. The number looked outrageous and unfair to me, but you should at least find out what it is in your case and negotiate from there. Regardless, though, from under that bridge, whatever he does pay should be evenly divided among his children.

ETA: Did a different online calculator and got a totally different number. You should definitely consult a lawyer or Domestics on this to find out what it really is.

[Chantelle691]

Definitely, definitely, definitely go to domestic relations. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

[Super~Single~Mama]

Each state is a little different when it comes to child support, and your kids may get slighted a little bit. (in NY the first child gets the dough, and the rest - if by a different mom - get the short end of the stick). That may not be the case in PA, so definitely go through the court system (or domestic, whatever its called - here in NY everything is at family court) and get your due. Then have it adjusted for cost of living every 2-3years - however often they will let you have it adjusted.

[vocalise]

Just try and think of it this way (and tell your ex as much):

Child support is the right of the child. It has nothing to do with any of the parents involved or how they feel about one another or who made a deal with who first. Each child is entitled to be supported. Period.

I know it's hard, though. You're not a villain, here. It's just convenient for ex and his old ex to paint it that way.

[sparklefairy]

Another thing to consider, if you're thinking about what's "fair" -- what percentage of your income goes toward your kids' needs?

[doubledutch]

Originally Posted by sparklefairy

Another thing to consider, if you're thinking about what's "fair" -- what percentage of your income goes toward your kids' needs?

of course! but i truly never thought of it that way. you're a genius!

[Bad Mama Jama]

I would go and have the courts to handle it fairly. There is a reason that they are able to calculate it down. My state has the first to the well type of arrangement and luckily, I was first. But you need to go in as a spokesperson for your children. That is who the money is for. Your ex will have to live with the reality that his children cost money. Good luck, mama!

[PoppyMama]

of course dsd's mom is looking out for her interests and your x is trying to avoid conflict so to avoid the drama go w/ domestics. As the cp you will have most of the financial burden so don't feel bad about his struggle. He made his bed...
Posted via Mobile Device

[VocalMinority]

Originally Posted by JSMa

his ex is telling him she will not accept anything less from him because what is in their divorce papers is what DSD is entitled to until she is 18.

In some places, child support is not reduced because the payor has subsequent children. Sure, you can argue that this is really unfair to the subsequent children and their mothers. But the first child's mother also has a valid perspective: She didn't choose for her ex to have children with another woman, to let that relationship fail and thus create new child support obligations for himself! Should he be allowed to continue making children with different women, until his child support obligations for all the previous ones become so diluted that they don't benefit any of the children?

Not reducing prior C/S obligations can serve as a deterrent to the man (not to make more babies than he can afford) AND to future women who might make babies with him (Beware! He's already struggling to afford the kids he HAS. If you wind up having kids with him, you'll be entitled to even less child support than he pays to his last ex!) I don't know how effective it is, because women make all kinds of crazy choices about who to have kids with. (I'm sure friends of my husband's ex would say I was crazy to breed with him!) But this approach is logical. If you marry a drunk, expect to deal with the issues that accompany being the wife of a drunk. If you marry (and divorce) a man who doesn't have much money, expect not to receive much alimony. If you marry and divorce a man with prior children, expect not to receive as much child support as you would, if your children were the only ones he had.

Maybe it's different where you live. In which case, you should let a judge sort it out, rather than expecting his first ex wife to sympathize with you. I sympathize with you. But five years from now when your STBX has fathered two more children with the next woman, how eager will you be to look at things from her perspective and agree to a voluntary cut in child support for your little girls? Won't you be asking yourself why that woman had kids with him, knowing what you and his 1st ex had already gone through? There won't be a little part of you thinking, "She made her own bed..."?

* In court, his child support will be based on what he can afford with his actual earnings, not what he might be able to afford, if he got a second job.

* If you're not disputing custody or visitation, then it shouldn't be so terrible if you go to court without a lawyer (to save $). There should be fairly clear guidelines for the judge to follow, to calculate child support.

[Phoenix~Mama]

This is straight from the PA domestics website:

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 $1,500 for the obligor, $0 for the first spouse and $500 for the second spouse. The obligor’s basic support obligations to each family are $531 for the two children of the first marriage and $615 for the three children of the second marriage for a total support obligation of $1,146. Since this total obligation leaves the obligor with only $354 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.

So that is why I beleive PA now does modify first child support orders to proportion the monies more fairly to subsequent families.

STBX is supposed to be scheduling the big V operation now, actually... but if his lazy self does not do this and more children do spring up in the future... yes, it would suck to get a reduction because of this...

But also, I can sympathize with that woman and her children. ALL CHILDREN ARE EQUAL. And I think the entitled my child deserves more than yours because you are dumb for getting knocked up by someone who already has children is a bunch of BS. Sorry. But it really is not nice to tell someone they should have know better... be it truth or not, until you walk in that person's shoes and experience exactly the circumstances that made them choose the choices they did... putting them down or telling them, they should have known better is just not constuctive what so ever.

In the end the only ones who suffer are the children... so why not look at it that way. Sure first wife didn't ask ex to go out and create more children, thus "taking away from her's"... but the subsequent children born didn't ask to be born to a second therefore dictating that they should live on government aide while their half siblings get to go to private school and dance classes, something they will never ever see.

[HappilyEvrAfter]

Mamma, it seems like you're trying to solve their problems while trying to work out your own.
The only issues you need to worry about are the ones that affect you and your children.

They are both adults (STBX and DSD mom) and they need to be the ones worrying about what they can do for their own children.
Sorry to sound cold, but focus right now will really help you come out better in the end.

My ex recently tried to play this trip at our recent CS reassessment.
I have to remeber that while I do care about all children in general, the one I should be the most concerned with (in re: CS) is my own as his parent.

[nola79]

Go through domestics.

[*MamaJen*]

Originally Posted by doubledutch

in this case i do think you should just go to domestics, because then you're definitely not the bad guy - an impartial system is making the decisions in the best interest of all three children.

Originally Posted by vocalise

You're not a villain, here. It's just convenient for ex and his old ex to paint it that way.

Originally Posted by sparklefairy

Another thing to consider, if you're thinking about what's "fair" -- what percentage of your income goes toward your kids' needs?

I think all of these bear repeating. Guys like your ex try to personally vilify you. They try to paint the situation where they are the victim and you are the villain. That's classic abuser mindset, where they try to shift the blame on you for everything.
This is the exact reason why an impartial courts system sets up child support payments (and of course the system breaks down and it isn't always fair and it's not perfect.) But in general, the idea is that two people are divorcing and likely hate each other's guts, and at least one of them is likely trying to hurt the other and get out of their responsibility. So this impartial system steps in to act in the best interest of the child -- not the parents -- the child.
I've let my ex out of paying child support so far, because I've been plenty financially comfortable and he literally cannot support himself. But I'm going back to grad school in the fall, I'll be on a tight income, and I think he really is going to need to step in. I'm fighting with that enabling, codependent mindset myself, where I feel like if I "make" him pay child support, I'm being mean.
But hey, I've learned to stop "lending" him money, so I am getting better.

[doubledutch]

Originally Posted by Jeannine

* In court, his child support will be based on what he can afford with his actual earnings, not what he might be able to afford, if he got a second job.

there is so much variation state-to-state. the above is probably true in most places, but in my state, in the case of a ncp who is "voluntarily unemployed or underemployed", child support is calculated under the assumption that (s)he has the ability to earn 150% of the federal minimum wage at 40 hours per week, which is $1870.50 per month (gross). it doesn't mean much in the op's case, as she lives in a different state and that's probably about what her stbx earns, but it's an interesting slightly-ot tidbit!