You are here

Sitting at my desk in tears now

Ninji's picture

Someone explain this to me. How does something like this happen.

We just got the final judgement for the CO modification.

For those that don't know. BM decided she didn't want SS11 anymore in Feb. We contacted a lawyer in Apr to get the CO changed.

BM still has custody of SD13

What was requested

-Change primary custody of SS to DH with BM getting SS every other weekend

-Cut CS in half (meaning we still pay her for SD but she provides nothing to us for SS)

-BM provides transportation for her visitation time with SS

-BM claims SD on her taxes and DH claims SS on his.

BM signed the papers with zero problems.

Well, today we got the finalized documents signed by the judge.

DH is going to be paying BM CS until SS is 18. I told DH to call his lawyer because that had to be a typo. Why would we pay her anything past SD's 18th birthday. She will only have SS every other weekend.

Turns out it's not a typo. The judge decided that BM would need the support for two extra years.

Why!!!!! This isn't spousal support. Why will she be getting nearly $500 a month for a child she has every other weekend???? Honestly, SS will be 16 when SD turns 18. Will he really be spending much time at BM's house? She barely sees him now and his's 11.

Why can't these women be held financially responsible for their own children?

And guess what, DH is still unemployed. So guess who is actually supporting this woman. And she's going on vacation to NM in a few weeks but is refusing to help provide back to school items for SD. Even though she has been getting full CS since we had SS in Feb. Also, the lawyer said "it may take a few weeks" to get the CS changed.

ARRRGGGGGGGGGGGGG

Comments

Ninji's picture

It was calculated off of information from 7 years ago. BM didn't have a job and DH was making $24 hr.

BM has been working full time for years now and DH lost his job a month ago. And he was only making $18hr for the last year before he was laid off.

Ninji's picture

Because both BM and DH agreed to just reduce the CS by half because we have SS full time now, we weren't asked to provide any.

We thought because there was an agreement between both parties, we would be good. I never would have guessed this outcome.

I am curious why the judge didn't just ask for the info. Or put in the order that CS would need to be readdressed when SD turned 18.

BSgoinon's picture

What the heck?! That does not sound right AT ALL? Can you appeal it? What could she have possibly said to the judge to make him rule that way?

tankh21's picture

Wow that judge is a** and if BM gets SS EOW you shouldn't be paying CS to that witch. The system is so screwed up and totally not fair and these judges always think that BM is the victim. I am so sorry that you are going through this. I will pray for you Ninji. Sad

justkeepstepping's picture

I'd appeal it. That's not right at all. Did your DH sign the paperwork with that wording?? Or was it added without consent?

Ninji's picture

"100 percent medical and never claim the skids on taxes"

That's what DH's first CO says

TwoOfUs's picture

Did the CS at least get lowered? I can't tell from your post.

I totally understand the frustration about the additional 2 years...if you're anything like me, you look at that 18 mark like a light at the end of the tunnel. But is it still a decrease overall? And do you get to claim SS on your taxes?

TwoOfUs's picture

OK...that's good.

This is so weird, though. Your DH and BM worked out an arrangement between them that both were happy with and the judge felt he needed to insert his 2-cents? Gah. Maddening.

Focus on the cut in half and maybe think about trying to change it when the time comes. Who knows...a lot can happen in 5-7 years. For now, enjoy the financial break of the reduction.

Ninji's picture

That's what DH said. It's just maddening to me that we will have to pay another lawyer in the future to fix this. And it may not get changed.

TwoOfUs's picture

Yeah...but in 5-7 years SS may decide he wants to go back to BM...BM may be willing to take him back...kids may emancipate or...??? DH may have a killer job and $500 feels like nothing.

I know it's rough...just the lack of any control or say is absolutely infuriating...especially when all parties are happy with the arrangement and trying to do everything to get along. Now, instead, a judge has added his extra little say, causing frustration and resentment where there didn't need to be any. Way to go, family court!!

DaizyDuke's picture

That's insane! She'll have him 4 days a month at most.. why full support??? AND she pays you nothing- zip-nada for having him 90% of the time?? That judge needs to be tossed out on his dumb ass. Sorry! Sad

WalkOnBy's picture

but it's not full support - it was cut in half.

If SS is still a minor, and she has parenting time, than yeah, OP's DH is obligated...

Ninji's picture

I am 100% sure. BM has never hired an attorney and she didn't contact the judge. I don't care for the woman, but I know her.

Ninji's picture

SD is 13 and SS is 11. When SD turns 18, we should be done paying BM CS. We shouldn't have to pay her for two more years.

Ninji's picture

I'm in tears because this means MORE money being paid out. Either to a lawyer or BM or both. It never ends.

WalkOnBy's picture

that's not how it works...typically a parent is financially responsible for all kids until they reach the age of majority. SS won't age out until two years after SD....

Is your state a percentage state or an income shares state?

Ninji's picture

Why would the judge order DH to pay BM CS for a child she only has every other weekend? Have you seen this often?

WalkOnBy's picture

for the same reason that every other parent who only sees a kid every other weekend is ordered to pay...

When DH only saw the kids every other weekend, he had to pay CS...

Yeah - I have seen parents with EOWE visitation pay child support. all. the. time.

I wonder what the income disparity is in this case - that could be driving it??

Ninji's picture

????

We have SS full time...BM will be the one seeing him every other weekend. And the judge ordered that BM will be getting paid CS until SS is 18.

WalkOnBy's picture

I am aware. This judge feels that as long as she has parenting time, she should get some CS for that.

TwoOfUs's picture

The weird thing is...according to this order...they're NOT paying CS for SS now, as he lives with them. But when SD hits 18, they will suddenly start paying CS for SS for 2 years after having not paid it for the past 5??

It just makes no sense at all.

WalkOnBy's picture

It makes no sense at all, which leads me to believe that something is missing or got lost in the translation somehow.

They were paying CS for SS - that was part of the reason for the filing....

I don't think we can say what is or isn't in the order - none of us has seen it.

TwoOfUs's picture

Right. But after the filing, they are no longer paying CS for their SS...it's been dropped since he lives with them now. For 5 years. Then, magically, after 5 years of not paying, they owe CS for 2 years for a kid who lives with them.

I agree that we can't fully know what's in the order...just going off of what's being presented.

WalkOnBy's picture

I think OP is saying it was "dropped" - what likely happened was that the formula allowed for a reduction of support because of all the overnights they now have with SS.

Do they have any overnights with SD???

WalkOnBy's picture

Okay - then I think it's an income issue...

I also think that people should be well versed in their own COs and the laws governing CS in their own state.

Information is power.

Ninji's picture

??????

Then why does it say father will provide $XXX dollars per month until further order of the court or upon the youngest child reaching 18 years of old on XXX date?

Doesn't say until SD turns XXXX years old.

TwoOfUs's picture

^^Was about to say the same thing.^^

My dad was an attorney, and they use boilerplate language for a lot of routine, transactional things. I bet this gets straightened out in the next day or two.

I understand being financially stressed and feeling like you're providing more for your skids than their parents. It sucks...but don't panic about this. There is a light at the end of this tunnel.

TwoOfUs's picture

You're confused. Her DH has the kid full time...BM is the one who has him EOWE...yet DH is the one paying BM for a kid she only has 4 days a month.

WalkOnBy's picture

I am not confused.

She never answered my question about income shares vs income percentage. That could be a huge factor here.

WalkOnBy's picture

well, you should find that out, and quickly....

This just doesn't sound right to me...what does/did your attorney say??

Ninji's picture

His secretary said that's what the judge decided. She had no real info. Said the lawyer would call. We haven't heard from him yet.

WalkOnBy's picture

yeah - wait for that call and take notes. It sounds to me like something got lost in translation.

Ninji's picture

I hope you are right. It makes as much sense to me as it does everyone else on here that is confused.

TwoOfUs's picture

Your wording is very confusing, then. From your comment, it sounds like you're saying that the EOWE parent should be the one paying CS...that's what you see happen "all the time" (as we all do) -- in this case, that's BM, not DH. What's unusual is someone who is CP paying the NCP CS...especially at the full amount.

Maybe it was a typo in your comment.

WalkOnBy's picture

what I am saying is that as long as a kid is a minor, CS will likely be ordered.

As I said, my guess is that the state formula and the respective parental incomes are such that even her 4 days a month entitles her to some CS. Typically, CPs don't pay support, but sometimes the income inequities are such that they do.

Plus, OP said that the support goes down by half...

WalkOnBy's picture

because she has the kid every other weekend...SS may live with him the majority of the time, but she still has parenting time.

I am not saying it's necessarily fair, but she still has parenting time, so yeah...

TwoOfUs's picture

Huh?

So WE have kids EOWE...are you saying BM should have been paying US CS all these years?!?! Because we do still have some parenting time. I need to go get this fixed right away!

nengooseus's picture

But Dad is unemployed and income information wasn't provided because there was an agreement in place.

Ninji's picture

He did not tell the lawyer about it because we hope he will be employed again soon and it should be around the same income (between $18-20hr)

thinkthrice's picture

That's a BIG problem! So many dads have a sense of false chivalry and feel they need to "be fair" with their exes. And so do the judges. There have been many horror stories where even though NCP BM makes oodles of money, the judge goes out of (usually) his way to see the BM pays little or nothing in CS.

Too bad NCP DADs can't get CS from CP BM for visitation expenses! I've seen Chef being "chivalrous" to the Girhippo many times--mainly because of MY income.

Roles reversed? Yeah, right.

tankh21's picture

That is exactly what I was thinking I thought that the NCP pays CS hence in Ninji's case from her post it looks like BM will become the NCP for SS which she should be paying CS not Ninji's DH since he will now be the CP. Something is not right with this CO.

Ninji's picture

I understand what you are saying. But why wouldn't it decrease once SD turns 18? Why is it remaining the same amount for two more years.

Nothing in the CO about paying for skids until 21 or anything about college.

MJL2010's picture

That is horrible. I'm really sorry and I hope this can be rectified to some point of fairness.

Willow2010's picture

it already HAS decreased. By half, right??
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes…but it decreased because the CO now reflects that DH has one kid full time. It shows that BM no longer has both kids all the time. She has one and he has one. He paid her $1000.00 for both kids. Now he pays her $500.00 for SD and she pays him zero for SS. So that is why she said it decreased by half. (IMO...it should be zero CS now since they both have a kid. And when SD turns 18, BM should pay CS to the father until SS turns 18)

I am almost positive that what happened is this is just a normal sentence in all COs and the lawyer did not have it taken out. It needs to be fixed NOW. Not when SD is 18.

FieryEscape's picture

In my limited experience Judges usually don't just add things and if they do decide something - wouldn't that be during a trial type of situation ? If both parties decided on an order , I would think that is all is needed or the judge would reject and have them redraw the order with suggested changes. Also wouldn't the attorney have a chance to agree or amend the order PRIOR to anyone signing it. Something is missing here.

Willow2010's picture

From what I read, I thought they have a copy of the new CO that is why they called the lawyer and ended up talking to the secretary…..?
This is what she said it says…. “father will provide $XXX dollars per month until further order of the court or upon the youngest child reaching 18 years of old on XXX date?”
This is just normal verbiage for most COs. Likely her lawyer just did not catch that it was still on there. The lawyer needs to have it taken out ASAP.

OP is probably freaking out because she may have already been put through the ringer and her DH is unemployed right now so she is having a moment. We all have them from time to time.

Ninji's picture

Exactly right I have a copy of the new CO right in front of me.

I hope that does turn out to be a typo, but the secretary said it wasn't. Hopefully DH hears from the lawyer soon.

Willow2010's picture

Exactly right I have a copy of the new CO right in front of me.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yea…some don’t read very well. Lol.
I really would not worry too much about it. I know you have said several times you hope it is a typo and I think it is. All the lawyer needs to have changed, AT HIS expense, is the word “youngest” to “oldest”.

EDIT to add…and do not let the lawyer tell you that he can change it later when the kids are older. He needs to take care of it right now.

Acratopotes's picture

this is bullshit - DH should appeal.... or file he is unemployed and can't afford it

send me the judge's name, I will fly over and knock some sense into him

ItsGrowingOld's picture

I didn't read all the comments. Here's what I think probably happened. They are continuing the CS to keep her off welfare more than likely. If your DH is a high earner and BM is not, that will have something to do with it as well.

It's maddening. But, it's also temporary.