I don't know how I am going to make it through this summer. SD (14) insists she is bisexual and BM is not having any of it. It goes against her beliefs as a southern baptist and she is forcing SD to go to bible studies and church camps all summer. Lots of tension going on in that house. DH doesn't like how BM is raising the kids and wants to take them 50%. We agreed that if we had them 50% we wouldn't pay child support.
Right now DH pays $900 a month about half his check after taxes. I don't make much, work part-time and I am a nursing student. We are broke, we can't pay all are bills and are pushing things back every month. They are piling up and I have just been waiting for DH to get CS taken care of, he had said BM said it was ok to cancel if we split 50/50.
Now becuase BM is pregnant with her new husbands baby, she quit her job and won't cancel CS and we are screwed! If we take them 50% we won't be able to afford to feed them or cloth them or do anything with them. If we don't DH is stuck leaving them with CRAZY BM and we are still in a super bad financial situation.
CS says since she has no income and DH does even if we have them 50/50 we still have to pay aout $700 a month plus 50% of everything they need! What are we supposed to do?
prove her earning capacity -
prove her earning capacity - they should calculate it - she cant quit her job just to have more money - plus he needs credit for any other kids he has.
What?
Whether or not she is pregnant if you have this child 50% of the time I seriously doubt you will find a court that will grant her child support.
If she's quit her job (not on a leave of absence) or whatever for this baby it has absolutely nothing to do with you.
I would take the child 50% of time and take her back to court.
If not, if things don't work out. Don't take the child 50%.
She's counting on the extra time without her kid and the money for this baby.
That's disgusting.
Send the child to her house. If she screws him up its her fault not yours. You can do so much.
That doesn't sound right.
That doesn't sound right. If you each have the kids 50/50 there should be zero child support. BM connot refuse to work if she is capable. Being pregnant is another story. She may temporarily be out for maternity leave but it is not your DH's problem in any way shape or form if she is pregnant. That is her DH's problem and should not have anything to do with your DH's c/s for his children with her. Take it to court. You can do it all yourself, you do not need to hire a lawyer.
How soon did she go back to work after having her other children?
That doesn't sound right.
That doesn't sound right. If you each have the kids 50/50 there should be zero child support. BM connot refuse to work if she is capable. Being pregnant is another story. She may temporarily be out for maternity leave but it is not your DH's problem in any way shape or form if she is pregnant. That is her DH's problem and should not have anything to do with your DH's c/s for his children with her. Take it to court. You can do it all yourself, you do not need to hire a lawyer.
How soon did she go back to work after having her other children?
I don't know what the laws
I don't know what the laws are where you guys are, but in Cal. an increase in visitation decreases but does not eliminate support. We have 50/50 and still have to pay a whopping amount every month -- support is based solely on a comparison between BM's income and DH's income, not need or actual expenses or anything like that. However, they will impute a certain amount of income to BM (she doesn't work at all) based on her education and past work history; she can't just quit and unilaterally bring her income down to zero for support purposes. Depending on laws in your state, it sounds like the CS estimate could be right, although I'd think some of BMs former income should be imputed to her. I don't know what they do about maternity leave, maybe that would reduce the assumed income for some period b/c of that.
I'd be leery of any agreement to "cancel" CS, baby or no baby. In most places if not all, CS is mandatory and the only way to get around it is for a BM to not enforce her rights. By law, you can't enforce a voluntary agreement to cancel CS, so BM could simply re-instate at any time. (And apparently get up to three years back-pay, if one lives in Canada. Yikes.)
It sucks 100%. I am living it, too. I am sorry.
c/s in CA
We live in California and recently had c/s reduced from $1,300. to $200. without changing timeshare. BM just went to work for the first time in her life and is making the same as DH. They were both college educated, he went to work, she stayed home. When they divorced she said her degree wasn't sufficient and had to go back to school....for 5 MORE YEARS! The agreement was going to be zero but BM decided that asking for $200 per month would eliminate having to ask to split have of extracurricular activities. I think we got off easy...she signs them up for EVEYTHING!
ie: In CA you can have your c/s reduced to zero if all parties agree. We did the paperwork and submitted it to the court with both parties signitures.
I would love to hear how you
I would love to hear how you got a court to agree to sanction a support waiver. The California Court of Appeals has held that as a public policy matter, parents can't agree to waive support obligations toward their children. Most recent case that I am aware of is Kristine M. v. David P., 2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 34 (January 13, 2006). Good for you, and maybe we should call your lawyer.
No way that can be
right???? I guess though, men always get screwed when it comes to the CS thing. I think I would take her back to court for a reduction and explain to the judge that just b/c she isn't working doesn't mean she isn't capable of earning. In KY, they will not use the BM's spouses' income UNLESS she is dependant upon it for her support. I think I would check into it more!
We are in MI, bm and dh have
We are in MI, bm and dh have 50/50 physical and legal custody and there is no support ordered. In the even that anyone got support, it would probably be DH as bm makes 20,000 a year more than he does. He is debating whether it is worth more lawyer bills to attempt to get some CS.
We are in NC and we arn't
We are in NC and we arn't sure how the compute it yet. We have been using there worksheets on the website, but don't know if they will impute an average income for BM while she isn't working or use her husbands since it is her only form of support herself, or give her some time for maternity leave? If they used her new husband they would owe us about $80 a month. Wouldn't that be a riot! If the use her average before she quit we'd owe more like $400 a month which is still too much for us to care for them 50% and pay $400 on top of that. We were told before by the worker that they could come in and sign an agreement to suspend CS. Now we can't get anyone to call us back and give us answers. This is such a pain, I just want to run away sometimes.
https://nddhacts01.dhhs.state.nc.us/GuideLines.jsp#SSReserve
read this.,,,,and this
https://nddhacts01.dhhs.state.nc.us/GuideLines.jsp
then contact an atty to handle it for you.
Thanks, I read through it
Thanks, I read through it and basically I got that the state is required to leave us with $800 a month. Thats pathetic. How can you live on $800 a month. We were able to talk to a worker today although ours is still on vacation. We were told that it doesn't matter if BM quits to raise her new baby, they still imput her income as 0! That is so wrong. We are so screwed, we had to cancel my daughter birthday party we are so broke. It is just ridiculous, I want to cry!
I'm really, really sorry for
I'm really, really sorry for what you are going through. I think the whole concept of "amount of support child would have received had parents lived together" is based on a ridiculous fiction and ignores important principles. I'll just shut up there.
Honestly, it has occurred to me that sometimes the smart thing to do is for a divorced DH to stay home/keep house/care for children and the new SM to work her rear end off. One has to do the math carefully, b/c usually income will be imputed to a non-working parent (apparently, in NC, unless they are caring for a child under 3).
I know that solution is rarely practicable and perhaps not desirable for many individuals. My DH has a personality more suited to workaholic/career professional and I am better at keeping the home. As it is, we are both career professionals b/c we can't afford not to be, and we both handle home responsibilities (somewhat heavier on my side); we are just tired and sick all the time, and quality of life suffers accordingly. The good news is that we get to see the skids and be part of their lives, and we can keep our heads above water. Nothing fancy -- BM lives much higher on the hog than we, and she gets to stay at home all day. I wonder what she does on the 50% days when we have the kids . . . calls it her "lifestyle" . . . must be nice . . .
Sorry, I'm getting lost in my own woes. I'm sorry, again, for your hardship and pain. The only thing I can think of is to explore ways for you to make more $, that BM can't touch. I know that solution has its own problems.
no no no
it doesnt work like that in most states. the NCP provides support based on his/her "income potential" so even if he wuit work to be a stay at home dad, he would still be expected to pay the same amount. i blogged about this once before bc its possible w my career that this could happen and why would we not want one of us to stay at home and care for our kids if we financially could? but u cant choose not to work and not pay cs, even if it would be better for your "new family". courts dont care about the 2nd family remember.
also what i dont get is why is there no "income potential" for the CPs. our BM dropped out of school to work a PT minimum wage job and that doesnt matter one bit...just another way the dear ol dads get screwed by the "family court" system.
isnt really disgusting whats done to these men, especially ones like this womans poor DH above.
I think I said that, yes?
I think I said that, yes? It can work if the math works, you have to figure out imputed income. If the new stepparent makes enough additional, it can work.
yeah u did
just wanted to elaborate and stand on my soapbox for a minute
I'm all in favor of
I'm all in favor of soapboxes!!
I 100% agree w/you, btw, re: the unfairness.
re:
My divorce w/ my Ex took place in Florida, and we did wave CS. We owe eachother nothing. We agreed to share parenting time with our kids, and we follow an informal schedule that we set ourselves because we communicate well. In our divorce papers that were final in court(the only time we even went to court) under CS, it states 0/0 dollars to be payed. My Ex does well $$ wise, and I even supported his decision to move to Austin, to further his work, and now he makes even more $$ to support our kids, and I live here on the Cape, so the only thing we exchange $$ for is we split the travel costs 50/50 for the kids to fly back and forth. We each have our own lives and our not tied down to eachother financially. It is hard when my kids are not here w/ me, but we have maintained peace, and the kids can have us both and love us both, without any hostility on either side."~waiting on the world to change~"
Child support laws differ by
Child support laws differ by state, in Cal. I'd be v. careful. Google "California waive child support" or something along those lines and check out the discussions, you'll see the gist. Filing an agreement is one thing; enforcing it if one party changes their mind may be different. I'm envious of anyone who has made it work.
We have 50/50 custody and under all of our circumstances, I think it is unethical for BM to take child support, and that it would be most fair for each household to take care of their own expenses. (Folks who take child support in a 50/50 situation, don't be offended, I can almost guarantee that you don't have our circumstances.) I have a lot of respect for parents who decide to take responsibility for themselves and not accept a fat check every month even though they could and are technically "entitled" to it. I blame a history of non-payors for the current inequitable laws that don't take individual circumstances into account.
Bi
All little teenage girls say they are Bi for attention now. It's a cool thing to do and they get attention from boys. So I think 9 times out of 10 your SD isn't Bi.
Post new comment