Ex taking lower paying job to avoid support increase.
Hi all,
It's my first time posting on any kind of site or forum or... anything really. I'm a mom of two girls, an 8 year old with my ex, and a 3 month old with DH. Recently I've been struggling a lot with my ex. I think I've given him a lot of slack over the years regarding support, and I've always tried to work with him when he needs some extra time to pay. We've been separated since she was about 3 or 4 months (so quite a long time). Our custody was based off of him having her every weekend (which is still the agreement we follow today). He was working at a restaurant at the time we went through court, so he was only ordered to pay $126 a month. That rate has never been adjusted at all in the last 7.5 years, and he has had a much better paying job for about the last 4 years or so. Although the amount he has to pay isn't much, he still struggles to do it. He lives at home with his parents in their basement, and does not have any financial obligations outside of his car insurance and cellphone bill. So it's been hard for me to understand why he has such trouble, but I try my absolute hardest to never rock the boat so that things can be civil and happy and my daughter doesn't have to sense anything is wrong.
Recently, I've asked him if he would agree to possibly adjusting support to his income, since this is the way it should be. Things are expensive and as much as my husband and I support our daughters, I feel like it's getting to be unfair that I do and pay for everything for my oldest. I'm starting to get a little bitter after so many years and tired of the "poor me" story my ex always tries to feed me. Needless to say, he flipped his lid, and said he thinks because my husband and I own a home and have new trucks that we don't need "his help" as he puts it, and then felt it necessary to call me a loser for asking, which I thought was totally unnecessary. Needless to say, its wound up that I'm going to see a lawyer about going to court now. There isn't any common ground with this is seems like. I hate the idea of having to go through all of this again... especially while my husband and I are trying to take the time to enjoy our newest addition to the family and we are in a great place. I don't feel like I'm being unreasonable by asking my ex to help pay for his daughter. I'm sorry, but $126 a month just doesn't go very far.
So... about a week after my ex freaking out, and me letting him know I'd be talking to a lawyer, he quits his good paying job. He gave his two weeks, and is returning to work at his mothers family restaurant where he makes next to nothing, and where he was the first time the agreement was made. So he won't have any extra money to pay for an increase in child support. All he said to me was that I can't make him pay what he doesn't have. I could NOT believe he would even go so far as to quit his job. All for what, so he wouldn't have to potentially pay an extra $100 a month maybe? Dear lord.... I'm just looking for anyone else's insight or input... I don't want to keep having to talk my husbands ear off about it because he's busy with our business and working lots while I'm on maternity leave. I just need a moms perspective sometimes.
Sorry for the length of this! Just very frustrated.
Find out if your lawyer can
Find out if your lawyer can request he submit back tax returns. If so, that will show what his earning potential is.
In the future move in silence.
So you were fine with the
So you were fine with the support he was paying until you had another child and felt strapped? Why didn't you pursue a modification before now? He probably sees your timing as suspect and doesn't think he should pay more because you have more kids.
Are 100.00 more a month worth
Are 100.00 more a month worth the drama?
Either a CP or NCP can
Either a CP or NCP can initiate a CS review any time either of them wishes if it has been 2yrs or more since the last review or if there has been a significant change of circumstance.
And.... the attempt to take a lower paying job to avoid CS in all liklihood will backfire significantly. My SS's SpermIdiot used this avoidance strategy but it bit him in the ass. What many do not realize is that CS will often go up even if it is the CPs income that goes up. Cereris paribus. My SS's SpermIdiot kept adding out of wedlock spawn to his brood, his income stayed flaf for more than a decade, my DW's income was doubling every 10 years or so and the SpermIdiot;s CS just kept going up. The algorythm for the calculation under the income shares model in SpermLand. The OPs X may be in for a very rude awakening.
I for one am completely on board with maximizing CS regardless of if the CP needs the money or not. It really is not about the CP. It is about the kid having the right to the benefit of the incomes of both parents.
We never needed the CS that the SpermClan paid for my SS. But.. that was not the point. My job was hit when the SemiConductor bubble burst in the early 00s. When I had been without a job for a full year I advised my DW to file for an ammendment of CS (it had been 9 years) since I had no income and logically the idiot Judges in SpermClan could no longer rive the SpermIdiot an income reduction credit for CS calculation purposes based on my income. So after 9 years CS went from $133/mo to $785/mo. That set the DipShitiot;s head on fire. There was a downward adjustment 18mos later due to his whining but ..... SS maintained access to the SpermClan's income.
As it should be for minor children in destroyed family situations.
Instead of being an ass, he
Instead of being an ass, he should be thanking the OP.
The jerk has spent EIGHT YEARS paying $31.50 a week to help support his child. :sick: :sick:
Perhaps the OP's husband is giving her hell about letting the child's father skate by in regards to supporting his child.
Personally i think you
Personally i think you shouldnt have asked for any more.
He was paying and he has his kid every weekend.
You were lucky!
My kid never saw her father nor did he pay one penny towards her.
Anyone that thinks that $126
:jawdrop: Anyone that thinks that $126 a month is enough for child support is crazy. How in the world does $126 make a person lucky. And now he wants to pay less for this child. This is just wrong.
Most states have a formula
Most states have a formula based on recent earnings. Quitting a job to work for less money doesn't usually work.
BOTH parents should be supporting the child. He's a total loser.
CS in your country is
CS in your country is different than here in the US, but doesn't matter. Every child has the legal right to be supported by their parents. Both of them.
Here, quitting a job to lower Cs or taking a lower paying job to do so can be held against the paying parent. Some states will simply go with what that parent has the potential to earn/was earning. Being underemployed on purpose doesn't necessarily 'save' them.
$125 a month? That's just sad. Unfortunately some people who have children can not financially afford children. Some kids can barely get a couple hundred a month while another kid gets hundreds or thousands. But the amounts are set per the parent's income, ability of earnings, and calculated as to the state's laws and guidelines. I know it works differently where you live, but after eight years, surely one would think the paying parent to at least be somewhat improved in financial ability (actually I'd think both parents, people don't usually stay stagnant for eight years).
One of the biggest things you did 'wrong' was not pursuing what your child should have been receiving all along as finances improved for both of her parents. You chose not to do so. Now you're living with your decision's consequences. The most you can do now is talk to your lawyer and take your chances or not. If the lawyer believes (talk to more than one) you have no grounds nor chances of receiving enough to make it worth your effort to pursue (meaning it cost you more to try and get than you will actually get), it's something you will have to really think about.
His choice to leave a high
His choice to leave a high paying job for a lower paying job will likely come back to bite him in the ass. You should have fun with this and barring his ass in front of a judge and that is exactly what you need to do IMHO. Even when one bio-parent makes zero income the courts will often impute an income to that non-earner commensurate with the higher of either minimum wage or a wage appropriate for their earning capability and history.
My SS's SpermIdiot sounds much like your X in many ways. This DipShitIot purposely remained under employed in an effort to avoid paying more CS. My SS is the eldest of his four all out-of-wedlock spawn by three different baby mamas. SS is our only. His mom and I met when SS was 15mos old and married the week before he turned 2yo. The SpermIdiot's CS obligation was initially $110/mo and then jumped to $133/mo a year later when my bride finally got the SpermClan to court rather than letting them continuously attempting to bleed her dry with legal fees and travel costs traveling back to her home state for court which they repeatedly at the last minute would cancel or reschedule. That court date was 2wks after we married.
For 9 years DW avoided amending CS until I finally was able to give her clarity that it was her job to make sure that our son had access to an equity share of his SpermClan's assets. So... she filed and the SpermIdiot did everything he could to avoid the process. Because he was voluntarily perpetually under employed (and we could demonstrate that with documented fact) and he refused repeated delivery of court documents and physically ran from the Constable who attempted to serve him with court papers the DA accepted our volumes of documentation on the SpermIdiot's qualifications, living rent free in SpermGrandHags and SpermGrandPa's rental property, abandoning his three younger spawn on the SpermGrandParents doorstep with no financial support, and that he purposely refused raises from his employer and was working for cash under the table as a licensed plumber the Admin Law Judge issued a revised CS order raising his CS to $785/mo and accepted out request that direct payroll withholding of CS be invoked. }:) }:) }:)
In that case the DA imputed an income commensurate with his qualifications and work history as a licensed plumber. When he got his first $0 pay check he about blew a gasket and went screaming to the DA's office to get back to court ASAP. So we had a telephone hearing with the Admin Law Judge and CS was revised to $385/mo with two years of arrears ordered at the higher $785/mo. And for the last 7yrs of our Custody/Visitation/Support CO the SpermIdiot and the rest of the SpermClan whined, bitched and moaned about it but they did as they were told when they were told because they were petrified that we would smack them with the CO. We never needed the money but that was not the point. The point was to deliver on the best interests of the Skid.. who is no longer my Skid btw. He asked me to adopt him when he was 22 so now we have papers for what I have always been... his dad.
So, just because your idiot X quit his higher paying job to avoid an increase in CS it will likely do him little good. Your attorney should request that the Judge impute an income at the higher earnings your X just resigned from since he has proven he can earn at that level and this is an obvious ploy to avoid paying his fair share.
Have fun rubbing his nose in his own stench in court. }:) Quit worrying about his feelings and focus on the process and the facts. His behaviors are detestable and as your daughter's CP it is your duty to protect her best interests regardless of any feelings involved. Particularly when it comes to someone who is trying to rip off your daughter.
Though we did maintain and attorney on retainer and requested his advice fairly regularly after the first court date we represented ourselves in all hearings and interface with Judges and the SpermClan's revolving door of sup-par attorneys. You may not need an attorney for a CS modification request. Make sure to check your State's online CS calculator to get an idea of what the likely CS outcome will be.
And good luck.
In my state, the weekly
In my state, the weekly minimum is $50. It doesn't matter what you and your DH earn/have, he has a child and should make a reasonable contribution.
My bf lost his well paying
My bf lost his well paying job in 2011-12 and had problems finding a new one. When he went to court to file for a temporary change in support they denoed him based on his proven earning potential. Fast forward 6 years and his ex took him to court after payments were increased less than a year ago because her hours got reduced at her job and she thought he should make up the difference.... I just don't see how this system is at all fair. Meanwhile she moved over an hour away, greatly effecting his parenting time with his son, because she could make a better life for their son but now needs even more money? I'm confused...
The system is designed to protect the support interests of the
child(ren) and to force unwilling NCPs to support their children.
This is a double edged sword that sadly punishes responsible NCPs whose income is impacted through no fault of their own.
The system is fair only when looked at from the direction of NCPs who vector towards the dead beat direction. A key element of the problem IMHO lays with the idiots we ofteb have on the family law bench who don't or are incapable of useing a brain cell to make a good decision.
A secondary but also significant part of the problem is the Income Shares model that most states use in their CS calculations. In the Income Shares model total CS is established by considering the income of both bio-parents, the # of joint and non joint children, and parenting time. Some states consider other elements (insurance costs, etc...) but generally these are the core elements of the Income Shares model. The Income Shares model is heavily factored to be an advantage for the CP in the sitaution. Even if the CP earns signficantly more than the NCP and continues to advance their income at a far faster rate than the NCP CS often will increase significantly even if the NCPs income decreases. This is due to the increase in the total $ available for support.
This was the case in our situation. My DW was the CP and put significant effort into college, grad school and her career as a CPA while the SpermIdiot avoided adulting at all costs while attempting to expand the population of the Pac NW states through his focus on spawning with every willing under age womb in the region ultimately having 4 oowl children by three different baby mamas. My SS is his eldest and our only.
As his brood increased and he was exposed to CS obligations to two other baby mamas he landed on the brillian idea to avoid income thinking it would decrease his CS obligations. Nope. He did become a licensed plumber and as such was capable of earning significantly more than he claimed in income. When my DW finally decided to nail his ass to the wall for more CS after 9yrs at $133/mo his CS obligation jumped to $785/mo though there were three more spawn and not a whole lot more W-2 earnings. My DW provided the court with his income history from their time together, his plumbers license #, the breakdown of plumbers wages in his county of work and residence, as well as his history of living rent free in his parent's rental property, the fact that they paid his CS obligations on all 4 spawn while raising the younger three in their home (yes, they paid baby mamas numbers 2 & 3 CS while raising the spawn in their home), and giving him their older vehicles to drive ... all in an attempt to avoid income and assets. So, though his income had dropped and his official dependents had increased his CS went up by almost 600%. In the SpermIdiot's case ... it couldn't have happened ot a nicer guy.
The model and Judges sadly do not consider an NCP with a legitimate drop in income or increase in dependents due to subsequent marriages and children.
The system is designed to protect the support interests of the
child(ren) and to force unwilling NCPs to support their children.
This is a double edged sword that sadly punishes responsible NCPs whose income is impacted through no fault of their own.
The system is fair only when looked at from the direction of NCPs who vector towards the dead beat direction. A key element of the problem IMHO lays with the idiots we ofteb have on the family law bench who don't or are incapable of useing a brain cell to make a good decision.
A secondary but also significant part of the problem is the Income Shares model that most states use in their CS calculations. In the Income Shares model total CS is established by considering the income of both bio-parents, the # of joint and non joint children, and parenting time. Some states consider other elements (insurance costs, etc...) but generally these are the core elements of the Income Shares model. The Income Shares model is heavily factored to be an advantage for the CP in the sitaution. Even if the CP earns signficantly more than the NCP and continues to advance their income at a far faster rate than the NCP CS often will increase significantly even if the NCPs income decreases. This is due to the increase in the total $ available for support.
This was the case in our situation. My DW was the CP and put significant effort into college, grad school and her career as a CPA while the SpermIdiot avoided adulting at all costs while attempting to expand the population of the Pac NW states through his focus on spawning with every willing under age womb in the region ultimately having 4 oowl children by three different baby mamas. My SS is his eldest and our only.
As his brood increased and he was exposed to CS obligations to two other baby mamas he landed on the brillian idea to avoid income thinking it would decrease his CS obligations. Nope. He did become a licensed plumber and as such was capable of earning significantly more than he claimed in income. When my DW finally decided to nail his ass to the wall for more CS after 9yrs at $133/mo his CS obligation jumped to $785/mo though there were three more spawn and not a whole lot more W-2 earnings. My DW provided the court with his income history from their time together, his plumbers license #, the breakdown of plumbers wages in his county of work and residence, as well as his history of living rent free in his parent's rental property, the fact that they paid his CS obligations on all 4 spawn while raising the younger three in their home (yes, they paid baby mamas numbers 2 & 3 CS while raising the spawn in their home), and giving him their older vehicles to drive ... all in an attempt to avoid income and assets. So, though his income had dropped and his official dependents had increased his CS went up by almost 600%. In the SpermIdiot's case ... it couldn't have happened ot a nicer guy.
The model and Judges sadly do not consider an NCP with a legitimate drop in income or increase in dependents due to subsequent marriages and children.