You are here

Our CS is nearly doubling!!! :(

tiredofBM's picture

We finally have a good job that is able to help our family with their needs, and for the first time we'd have enough to tuck some money in savings, even take a real family vacation in almost a decade. And now our cs is doubling. Sad
I wish the cs system took into consideration the fact that my DH has other kids that live with him that needs his support as well but noooooooooooooooooooooo, the state doesn't get any federal money from them. I am counting down the years til we are done!!! I will be getting a good job in the future and she can't have any of my money so there's something else to look forward to. And thank the good Lord above that we don't have to cs through college.

somedevilishbeauty's picture

Wink oh lawdy she got a new victim..HRNYC please let us know your almighty "wisdom on this matter"
She is upset over money that BM &""skids" get, which we all had that feeling. she has a right to her feelings and venting here Pssssst? that what this site is for...,

tiredofBM's picture

No, cs should not be so detrimental to the NCP that he cannot maintain a minimum standard of living or take care of his other kids. The kid can benefit from him having extra money while the kid is in HIS household. Why does everyone act like the kid should only benefit from dad's money when they're with mom and not dad? Do dads/NCPS not deserve to have extra money to take his kid on vacation on his time or do fun stuff when they're with him? And no, just because his income increases doesn't mean I agree that the BM should automatically get an increase. He worked hard for his raise. If she wants an increase in income, she should have to get her it herself. A child's needs doesn't go up all of sudden because one parent is all of a sudden making more money.

Disneyfan's picture

The OP didn't say they were in the verge of being homeless, can't feed their children.... The increase isn't detrimental to his other children. He's still able to cover their needs. The wants are now a no go. But the wants can to covered by the OP.

tiredofBM's picture

Doesn't really matter if you agree or not. My husband and I are ONE, we do not separate our finances. It is OUR money, so yes, it is OUR cs that we pay.

twoviewpoints's picture

That's was one of my thoughts. The OP was written very generically. My second thought was if the CS did indeed double, there has to be a reason behind it. For starters, this man 1)must have received a major huge raise for CS to double 2)it's been a log long time since the last time CS was figured, or 3) the CS includes more than basic support but perhaps new additional item amounts such as daycare and/or health insurance. There may even be some arrears calculated in.

Regardless of the amount and/or reason, no matter what state the OP lives in , there are laws as to how much can be ordered. It's not like a CP can decide she/he wants more CS and therefore a judge says 'oh, ok, sure, how much more would you like?'.

In my particular state, one child equals 20% of NCP's income. So in my state if OPs got a major raise the OP's household would still benefit from 80% of the raise. For example if guy got a $2000 a month raise, his second set of children would still be receiving $1600 more a month than they were (figures excluding tax obligations of course).

Courts don't just pull numbers and CS order amounts at their own whim. Legislators make up the guidelines and pass the state's CS laws. Contrary to what seems to be a popular belief around here, BM just doesn't get to walk in courtroom, bat her eyelashes, toss out a few boo-hoos, make up fake NCP income disclosures and a judge gives her whatever she wants.

Disneyfan's picture

THIS

I'm not paying one dime to support kids I didn't create. But I'm not going to freak out about DF supporting his kids.

I don't believe he should decrease his CS if we have a child together. If we have a baby, it won't have to do without or suffer because I work. I would not have a problem with providing more for our child than DF does. As long as my child had all of it's needs and most of it's wants met, I wouldn't worry one bit about CS.

tiredofBM's picture

As a SM with kids, I say THANK YOU!!! It's nice to know there are BM's out there that don't try and get every little penny they can get their greedy hands on, and trust me, this woman is GREEDY. She's miserable though. She has stolen her OWN aging mother's tax return. What kind of a person does that?!?!? I mean really?! And it's probably not so she can donate to her favorite charity-it's so she can go shopping and buy dumb crap that doesn't make a person happy.

Here's the thing: BM chose to get a divorce. She can't keep a job or marriage more than 2 years. Like clockwork, when 2 years at a job/relationship hits, she quits. DH took her back when she wanted to reconcile. And she divorced him again. So really, she chose to be a single mom and isn't going to get the same kind of money she'd get if she were still married to him.

Sports Fan's picture

This is the problem I have with it. Both parents should have to provide financially for their kid. When BMs don't work and live off of CS, it is wrong.

missflo's picture

Ahh see thats the problem dtzy, we, people with active consciences, actually expect decency from others.
WRONG!!!
As we are currently experiencing, when someone shows you by their actions who they really are we need to believe them.
The only way you can avoid being disappointed is to adjust your expectations.
Witchy poo received an additional CS payment in July due to a third pay date in that month. DH advised her that this would be adjusted this month, by removal of a CS payment. She said this was fine at the time and was given 3 weeks notice that it would happen.
Fast forward to yesterday when the Cs payment wasn't there... She has SS16 call DH, Mum's crying, we're going to be homeless, we can't pay bills blah blah blah.
Totally should have expected her to do something like this. Had unreasonable expectation that she'd suddenly become a decent human being.
My bad.

Sports Fan's picture

In a lot of states the CP doesn't have a financial responsibility to their children. CS is based solely off NCP's income. If CP lives off of that, so be it. The law won't make CP support the child.

missflo's picture

I couldn't agree more. She completely knew that the "bonus" payment would be adjusted, because DH tried to adjust before it happened, but time frame was too tight and it went through. He told her BEFORE it was processed what would happen to rectify, and she pretended to be fine with it.
It's just become a tool to make him look bad to SS16.
DH told her perhaps she could use some of the 72% equity she got from the sale of their property if she was finding things tight. Unless of course that has been gambled away?
Of course she hasn't given ss16 the full story. He shouldn't have been involved at all!!!
She works, full time , cash in hand, for her sister (off books, pays no tax) and CS has exactly 16 months to run.
Interesting times ahead.

missflo's picture

Heard a phrase I love recently.
If your childrens father is actively involved physically emotionally and financially in his childrens lives, you are a single woman, not a single mother

Disneyfan's picture

That's bull. If you're a mother who isn't married, you are a single mother. That doesn't mean your child's father is a deadbeat. It just means you are not married.

DF pays CS and is an involved dad. BM isn't married so she IS a single mom.

Are women who aren't married to a man with children and those who never see his kids really SMs?

What about dads who only see kids during holidays and summers? Can they really be called parents since they aren't responsible for the day to day task of raising their children?

Jsmom's picture

Exactly... I was a widowed mom and let me tell you, the women who compared themselves to me, drove me nuts. If your ex is active in their kids lives and can take them from you and supports them, you are not a single mom...I was. I referred to myself as a widow and not single, because of the dilution of the term "single mom". I call BS on the term. Unless you have been completely abandoned and have no help, you are not alone!!!!

Orange County Ca's picture

The OP didn't say the increase was as a result of her increased income but if that's so then a divorce will take care of that problem while they live together until the kids are grown then they can "renew their vows".

Anon2009's picture

I guess I have a few more questions.

1. Are your kids his kids too? Or do they have a different bio dad?

2. If the bio dad is different is he paying any cs?

Right or wrong, bm doesn't have to give a hoot about your kids. That's the state's job. One thing you could consider is filing for legal separation and then filing your own cs order so the state will have to take your bios with dh into account. Many have done this. Your state's forms for reducing CS are likely online.

Or, your dh files for a cs reduction and calls CSE once a week to see what the status of things is.

tiredofBM's picture

I only have my kids with one man, who is the only man I've ever married. Weird huh?!And I know BM doesn't care about anyone but herself and somewhat* about her own kids, though she's a bad mom. I've actually thought about filing a separation from him many times, it's not easy being married to him. BUT, would that affect his c.s. to her at all? I've heard is all it does is the first cs order will be deducted from his income, before figuring in a second cs obligation.

B22S22's picture

I live in one of those states that computes CS on "combined income" - between CP and NCP. Soooo, what that means is my DH is 100% responsible for 100% of the support because BM has NEVER worked, because she "doesn't want to" and "it's too difficult to raise kids and work at the same time". Although this states says they impute a minimum income if one of the parents are voluntarily unemployed, they really don't.

The SK's have graduated from high school, and CS is ending in a few months, so not sure what predicament she's going to find herself in there... but that's not really my concern. Although I have a feeling we will be seeing his kids around a lot more asking for help.

So although I totally support that fact that parents (BOTH!) should be financially responsible for the children they brought into this world, I can also see where the OP is coming from. As in my case, BM has done absolutely NOTHING to contribute financially since they were divorced 17 years ago - yet continues to reap the benefits of DH's pay raises and bonuses because of that "equalization of standard of living" clause in the state's CS guidelines.

I guess it is what it is in this screwed up system.

Rags's picture

Congratulations on your new higher paying job. Yes, it is your job too, your income too, and unfortunately your CS obligation too. A marriage makes an equity partnership between spouses and together true equity life partners navigate life together and what each brings to the partnership belongs to both as unfortunately does any challenges each brings.

Sadly, rationale and intelligence is completely non existent in the family law system and with those bottom 10%ers of the legal profession that gravitate to family law, particularly those who end up on the family law bench. So, many Xs receive unearned money in the form of CS to augment a lifestyle that for whatever reason they seem incapable of earning for themselves.

I completely recognize that an NCP should support their children. All of their children. In an intelligent system if the CS paid by the NCP is a notable % of the CP household income (Say 10% or more) the NCP should have complete and total control over how CS is spent in support of their children rather than CS being a lifestyle augmentation for their X. Sadly neither the system nor those that are in authority within it are even remotely intelligent.

I am married to a former CP. Our household CS income from the NCP was so negligible as to be insulting. As toxic as my Skid's Sperm Idiot and the extended Sperm Clan is I would have loved to have CS be infinitely higher than the $110/mo it was initially and the $133/mo it was for 9 years. Not until the last 7 years of the CO did it reach anything remotely contributory and by then it was even a much smaller % of our household income than it was at $110/mo.

Even with that history I recognize wholly that NCPs get screwed by an illogical and unintelligent system dictated by the idiots of the legal profession.

I hope you find your personal new job soon and that it pays a notable salary that cannot be extorted by BM or accessed by the morons on the family law bench, CSE, CPS, etc......and that you and your DH can raise your own children with a notably minimized impact of having to augment BM's lifestyle.

Good luck.

Jsmom's picture

I don't believe in CS. I believe you get 50/50 and you pay for the kid on your time. That is what we had. But, that didn't stop BM who made 140K a year from trying to get it when she got SD18 full time. Mediator laughed and said she had actually owed DH 200 a month since the divorce. He never pursued any. After the re-calculation with her raising SD, she owed him 5.00 a month. He told her to keep it.

This has worked fine...Honestly, if every BM was forced to work and pay for their kid equally, this would not be a problem.

onthefence2's picture

I believe in Utopia as well, but unfortunately we are forced to deal with reality. The reality is that the courts are dealing with TONS of deadbeat dads who actually prefer not having their kids more than EOWE. And then there are dads like my ex who don't even want them that much. It would be nice, though, huh?

Teas83's picture

I have a huge issue with the CS laws being unfair to second families. My husband and I could have 10 kids together that he'd need to support, but he'd still have to pay $1500/month for his daughter. When normal families add children, the parents' income gets reallocated to each child accordingly. Luckily I also make a good living, so I can make up for the difference. I feel like I need to do that for my BD's sake, since so much money is getting wasted on my SD.

Teas83's picture

I've also always thought that if you can't afford to raise your children, maybe they should be living with the parent who CAN afford to raise them. BM makes $13,000/year. She gets $17,000/year in CS from DH, not to mention all the extras for extra curricular activities and medical expenses. In my opinion, if she needs that much help that CS more than doubles her income, she shouldn't have custody of my SD.

Sports Fan's picture

Agreed. And the ones who don't work at all are a joke. Having a child isn't a career or at least it shouldn't be. When you were married being a SAHM was a choice you both made. When you get divorced, you shouldn't get to continue to be one. NCP is suppose to be helping support the child not the ex-wife.

GoodBye's picture

That's so brutal Sad I'm all for NCP having to financially contribute to their children, that is their responsibility. However, why should they be so responsible when *often times...not ALWAYS** the CP is not responsible with the money that is given to them. BM worked 20 hours a week at Tim Norton's making minimum wage (which I guess is better than some of the BMs who don't work at all)...but DH was making really good money and SUCH a huge chunk of it was going into CS, which is fine...we survived...but NONE of it went into any kind of education savings or savings of any kind. She has no money saved for SD, doesn't put her in any sort of extra-curricular activities, always says she can't afford new clothes for SD, yet she drives a brand new SUV she just bought, just went on vacation to Mexico...I have a hard time not wondering where all that money is going. But what can ya do??

onthefence2's picture

Well, now that isn't all black and white either. If the mom is actually taking care of the child, feeding him properly, taking him to extra-curriculars, helping with homework, providing a decent home, etc. while Dad works overtime, hangs out with new wife/gf, does whatever he pleases, etc., then the child is being taken care of. Custody should be with the person who is willing to raise the child, not the one who makes the most money. Trust me, PLENTY of men prefer it this way. UNTIL they start a relationship with someone that has a problem with it.

Sports Fan's picture

Our BM lives off of it too. DH supports his kids, BM, BM's new child with H#2, H#2, and H#2's child. And to top it off BM never has money to buy skids clothes. DH also pays 100% of insurance and 70% of all medical expenses. I'm hoping H#2 wises up and leaves BM. If she ever gets a job, I hope it is some place I can go to and make her wait on me. lol..

Rags's picture

My issue with CS is not the support of the child. NCPs should support their children. My problem is that there is no accountability or control over how the CP spends the money. IMHO the NCP should be able to pay the monthly CS amount directly to the service that the kid consumes. Part directly to the landlord or mortgage company, part to utilities, party to a grocery store account, clothing store account, school lunch account, etc.... Far too many CPs use CS as nothing more than an unearned supplement to their own lifestyle.

IMHO if CS is more than 10% of the monthly income of the CP household then every penny should have to be accounted for, audited annually, and any use not directly benefitting the child should be penalized financially.

In no other financial liability is there so obvious an extortion of money from the payer than CS other than taxes.

To solve this problem either CPs should be forced to work or custody should default to the BioParent most capable of supporting the child(ren). Barring any abusive situation of course.

Emotion must be filtered out of the situation and it must be solely a decision of mathematics and logic. No qualification or advantage given to a parent based on some pseudo science bullshit about a child needing their mother or father, etc..... Of course children need their mothers and they need their fathers. Unless those mothers and fathers bring no value to the child's life and are toxic or incapable of supporting their kids.

I know, not a tender perspective but it is a problem that must be solved and it can only be solved with direct logical action rather than touchy feely bullshit.

And I am now done with my rant.... for now.