What is your opinion on how CS should be treated if non-custodial has another child?
So here in NM they take into consideration if the non-custodial has another child and will usually lower CS. What Dh was advised was that he has to file a motion and then a review will happen and then they'll take Dd into consideration. We decided however not to ask for the review and just wait until the next review happens(they review him every 3 years and they ask about if Dh has other children on these forms) just because it's not that important to us at this point.
Anyway, I googled this topic out of curiosity and it seems like a touchy subject. I seen a few online posts about people asking about this topic and there are so many negative repsonses that are so mean. It's almost as if the subsequent children are treated as second class citizens or something. So many people have such nasty attitudes ranging from saying dad should have thought about his first family and not had more kids to people making jokes about how "ghetto" the person must be for having a child with another woman. Personally I think if dad has more kids it's only fair to treat the children equally in the financial aspect of it all. Sh*t happens, people divorce and move on etc. Maybe I'm wrong? What do you guys think of this?
- msg1986's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
This. For our state, it's a
This. For our state, it's a $50 'credit' (IE reduction in monthly income used to calculate CS). Not much at all, unless you have like 10 kids.
If, however, the other kids are on CS as well it can be reduced significantly because total of all CS can't exceed a certain % of your income. Idk, I've never known anyone in the situation, they just mention it on the CS website for our state.
I'd just be happy if we could
I'd just be happy if we could get the system to award DH some support from the non-custodial BM...Never mind our baby.
The system is screwed.
I totally agree But then we
I totally agree
But then we hear of the greedy noncustodial a that find out that non-custodial is making more and then goes and tries to get more money....
The whole system is screwed.
That blade cuts both ways.
That blade cuts both ways. Dad can get a decrease in CS if his income decreases or mom's income increases.
My son's CS case was in NC. I moved back to NYC when he was 8, but kept the order in NC. Every three years the courts did a CS review. CS was decreased each time because I earned much more than son's dad.
DF had no problem getting two CS decreases in the the last few years.
I think all the kids should
I think all the kids should be supported. But I think decisions like these need to be handled on a case by case basis. A divorced dad moving on/remarrying and maintaining a stable relationship, then having another kid, is much different than someone who has multiple kids with multiple women.
I agree with you on that also
I agree with you on that also as far as a person just going around having babies from anyone dtf. lol.
What is this TRUE single mom
What is this TRUE single mom BS? Just because a woman picked a POS man to have a child with doesn't make her more of a single mom than a woman who who had a child with a responsible man. Both are single moms. One just made a better choice when decided who to have children with.
This whole TRUE single mom thing makes me wonder if there is such a thing as a TRUE SM.
Many of us aren't married. Heck, some of the posters here aren't even living with their SOs. Are we true SMs?
What about women who haven't had SKs in their homes in months or years? Are they true SMs?
What about women who only see their SKs a few weeks a year due to distance? Are they true SMs?
Yeah, I would get a little
Yeah, I would get a little annoyed when our BM would say she was a "single mom" struggling to do it all "on her own" and having the skids with her so much. In reality, she was living pretty damn well for a "single mom" with no job. She got CS from my DH like clockwork and was on all sorts of assistance. But yet she owned a house and could afford to take the skids out of school for a MONTH to go on vacation without informing their dad. The reason she had the skids so much was because she was constantly denying visitation, even when court-ordered.
Compare that to my life where the BF got thrown in jail and I broke up with him. Then he fled the state when DS was 6 months old to avoid paying CS. I was in college and raising a baby who's father couldn't even be bothered to send him a bday card or xmas card. To me, I would have LOVED to have been a "single mother" like BM was.
I think a single mom is a
I think a single mom is a woman who has a child & the father doesn't help financially or spend time with the kid.
If you get CS & the kid is at dad's 50% of the year, I don't consider you a single mom. I consider you single, and a mom. But not a single mom.
Just my thoughts. Not that it matters what I think lol
I think a single mother is a
I think a single mother is a mother who isn't married.
Just because a woman picked a loser to have children with doesn't make her more of a single mother than a woman who picked a responsible man to have children with.
IDK, I just see this as another chapter in the never ending Mommy Wars.
THIS I bet the TRUE SMs get
THIS
I bet the TRUE SMs get sick and tried of hearing fake SMs complain.
I agree with you. I don't
I agree with you. I don't understand why subsequent kids are treated so poorly. If dad were to mess around w/ Bm after their divorce/break up you know she'd surely file for MORE support in addition to what she already gets so why are other kids shafted? it's so strange to me.
Most progressive, and in my
Most progressive, and in my opinion, the more "correct" states allow child support to be reduced for subsequent children, and therefore all children to be supported more equitably.
That's nice that your state
That's nice that your state will consider lowering it.
In my state, subsequent children aren't taken into consideration unless there is a child support order for that child as well.
I've heard two different things from two different attorneys in my state.
One stated that subsequent children can prevent a BM from trying to raise current support but that no, CS cannot be lowered because another child was born.
The second stated again that no, it cannot be lowered (because to the state, "if you can't afford another kid, don't have one") but she also stated the opposite of the other attorney. That CS cannot be prevented from going up.
It's a shitty and tricky situation. I feel like CS shouldn't necessarily be based off of income but more so on what it takes to raise the child.
DH pays $400 a month and 60% of co pays as well as health and dental insurance and half of extra activities.
Now, we have SD6 for 4 weeks this summer. In no way have we needed to spend $400 on SD in these four weeks.
$4800 is way over plenty of money needed to clothe, feed, and supply with school supplies.
Especially now that she's older and is self sufficient. Eats the same food we do, etc.
We still have to buy SD clothes and food in our house.
So why are we paying for not just our house, but BM's as well?
BM stopped working. Which now it becomes a super unfair because I am pregnant and we CAN afford baby with CS at the $400 it's at now.
But because BM isn't working, she's trying to raise support and DOR is expecting it to go up to $900. Which is over half what he pays now.
And according to my current attorney, she says she can "request" that they "care" abouty baby. But legally they don't have to.
BMs fight for more time just to get money. I feel like most cases should be 50/50 when they aren't :/
I know a couple who are
I know a couple who are married with a child. The had an order drawn up for child support. He has a child from another marriage and our state doesn't taken subsequent children into account. They hired separate lawyers and went to court with a child support agreement. They have separate finances and she wanted her child accounted for. The judge let them have a child support order and now child support services has to take their child into account. It's happening more and more in these situations.
Yup. It's the only way to
Yup. It's the only way to protect your own child financially.
I know a few people and have seen some talk on here about filing for CS for your child with DH just so the state can care and consider the new baby.
I talked about this with DH but he doesn't want to do it.
I think it's more insecurity. More of his money being taken. Even though it's coming back to us since we are together.
It's ridiculous that we need to take these measures
A CS decree without
A CS decree without divorcing? Thats brilliant. I'll have to keep that in mind.
My opinion is that subsequent
My opinion is that subsequent children should be given consideration, since the NCP has the same obligation to support THEM as the first-born children who live with the CP.
Another related issue that has always bothered me is that BM's subsequent children/marriage are not taken into account. The CS formula in our state just "assumes" the BM will be a single parent and will have the provide a home, utilities, etc. for the kids. There is no deduction if BM remarries and has another child with someone else (as DH's ex did the month after their divorce was final,) which results in a total WINDFALL to BM, not to mention her new DH!!
The only saving grace for us now is that CS is finally over, and BM is left to scrounge on what she can get out of her DH/ex DH whatever he is!
IDK. I don't know if BM
IDK. I don't know if BM should get a cs reduction because she remarried. Should DH get a cs increase because he remarried? Because if you want BM to get a cs reduction for remarriage, you can and should expect that DHs cs obligation will increase because of remarriage. So that means you might have to take on more of the household bills.
My point is, stepparents' money/income shouldn't factor into CS. SF shouldn't have to take on more expenses for someone else's kids unless he feels like it, and neither should you.
"I don't know if BM should
"I don't know if BM should get a cs reduction because she remarried. Should DH get a cs increase because he remarried?"
Perhaps you missed the fact that I said our state's CS assumes that BM will be head of household as a single parent and therefore, have a mortgage, utilities and other household bills that she has to pay with only her income and DH's CS? In our case, BM had a child with her new DH living with her. Didn't BM's DH have an obligation to support HIS daughter who was living in the home by also contributing to the utilities, mortgage, etc? The fact that the formula assumed it was only DH and BM's income contributing to BM's household is what skewed things in BM's favor & meant that BM's DH essentially got a free ride.
To that end, when a CS formula takes into account the CP's household costs, I DO think the income of spouses living with the CP should be considered IF that spouse has a bio child with the CP living with them who also is consuming things in the house.
And no, I can't see any rationale to support a NCP getting an increase because he remarried. Besides, remarriage is not what I'm talking about. It's having children with the CP who is getting CS for a household. And while I do think the courts should take into account the NCP's obligation to support his or her subsequently born children, I can understand that more than not taking into account BM's subsequently born children whose father is living in the home and has an obligation to contribute financially.
Again, thank God, I will never have to worry about that again, since our CS obligation finally ended, and BM can now suck her DH (I think he's now her EX DH #2) dry trying to claw every drop of CS she can out of him.
I think many states assume
I think many states assume that. Plus, how do you know that SF was not contributing towards the household and his child? How do you know that it's not his income paying the mortgage/bills at his home?
I know that many on this site would be a bit resentful if their incomes were taken into consideration as SPs. Regardless of whether they're married to the CPs or not. In your case, sf didn't have kids with dh, so he'd be within his rights to be pissed if dh wanted to see his income/have the system take it into consideration.
Oh, I'm virtually certain my
Oh, I'm virtually certain my SKs' SF did contribute financially to BM's home. That's my point. DH paid CS under a formula that assumed BM had to run the household on her own, when she had her DH. If BM did not have a child with her DH #2, then I would not care. However, there was never any recognition of the fact that she DID have a child with her DH living in the home, who also needed a roof over her head, consumed utilities, etc, so DH paid CS to support that household as though it was only BM and the 2 SSs there. In a fair system that took into account the costs of a household, there would be a consideration for the fact that BM's DH lived there and had an obligation to support his DD with BM, and that amount would have been offset or otherwise factored in to the formula for what DH had to pay to support the same household.
FWIW, that is just part of the reason my DH's CS was so grossly unfair. The other part was that, up until youngest SS turned 18, it was calculated as if BM was paying her mother $800/month to babysit SSs. (THAT was on DH, who did not want to rock the boat and paid through the nose to the bitter end!) I'm so glad that it's over for us, but I hate it for anyone else who has a situation like ours.
Hmm I've thought about this
Hmm I've thought about this particular topic a lot actually and I'm on the wall about it . I can see your point of a Bm suddenly marrying into money and not necessarily NEEDING the cs but at the same time I don't think stepdad should be supporting the kid. If that were the case us steps income would be counted too and I'm not down with that at all. I lean more toward the idea that the bios are the responsible for their hellions lol
Great comment! I never really
Great comment! I never really thought about cs/alimony in that aspect but you are right. The system is outdated and needs revamping. Women aren't typically sahm anymore. Bm recently quit or got fired (who really knows!) and has no intention of going back to work because she's "sick" whatever that means. Thankfully nm in our state they said because ss is school age they inpute as tho she's making min wage-which is already where is was before, so nothing will change. I don't understand the logic tho of treating your kid like a paycheck. It's absurd!
If his income decreases, or
If his income decreases, or BM's increase, he can request a decrease.
Too true. SO recently tried
Too true. SO recently tried to get his CS reduced since BM finally got a full-time job that doubled her salery from what she was making. DCSS told DH that it wasn't much of a difference, since the amount was more then 20% of what he was paying, but less then $50.00. We have SD 50/50 and pay for half of ALL medical, school, and extracirriculars. BM makes almost as much as SO. I just don't understand why she is still getting CS.
DF has had his CS decreased
DF has had his CS decreased twice (we're in NYC). It doesn't cost him one dime to have it done.
My son's dad never had a problem requesting decreases either.
I agree. People keep saying
I agree. People keep saying "in a nuclear family, everyone adapts." Well, the cp isn't part of the NCPs family anymore. So I don't think they should have to "adapt" for a kid they had no say in making and will have no say in raising. I would be a bit angry if I were cp and had to make financial adjustments for/because of some ex's kid who I'd have no say in raising.
I think that if you want to
I think that if you want to have a baby, that is your choice. But most of these BMs didn't make these guys fathers while said guys were minors. It's a shame bm wasn't prosecuted for that. That could've gone on her record and been held against her in court and in terms of having custody of her kids. Then she could've been the one paying cs.
If the bm didn't commit any crime, though, I could see why she'd be frustrated over having to make financial sacrifices/cuts for some kid she has no say in raising. Don't you have some say in how sks are raised in your home?
Like one op said many are
Like one op said many are choosing to have kids with their DHs and get cs orders for their kids. Then the state has to take their kids into consideration. Perhaps you'd consider doing that.
But you CAN have a baby. DFF
But you CAN have a baby.
DFF and I are TTC. He still has three kids to support. F2f SD17 lives in a state where CS ends at 18. Just 10 more months and that one is over. SDs 9&7 live here in NYC. So that's 14 more years of CS.
If we are lucky enough to have a child, I will have to cover most of his/expenses until SD7 turns 21. Right or wrong that's just the way it is. I don't believe he should lower is financially obligation to his older kids just because we want one (or two or three :jawdrop: ).
I find it funny that it is
I find it funny that it is assumed that BMs do not work, are out having kids from a bunch of men for the CS and collecting welfare.
Most BMs I know work. As a matter of fact, they earn much more that dads.
There are bad apples in both camps. Yes there are woman who seem hell bent on milking the system and men. But there are also men who think they are modern day Johnny Apple Seeds. These men jump from relationship to relationship leaving a trail of kids behind.
It doesn't matter if you're a man or woman. If you can't afford to support additional kids, then do not have any more.
I'm hoping I'll live to see
I'm hoping I'll live to see the day when child support in the U.S. is based on the actual expenses of raising a child and capped at that level regardless of how much a non-custodial earns. In my opinion, anything else is tinkering with a hopelessly broken system. Doubt I'll make it though!