missjoyfulme's picture

Child Support Modification and BM Income went up... but our CS goes up??????

We hired a really good attorney, one with morals. Go figure. I like him.
Anyway, BM is a piece of work, diagnosable with personality disorder of the Narc Soc type. Truly, what she has done to us would turn your hair gray. Not the point. So her newest court trick (6th time in 18 months). Is a Child Support Modification Request. And according to our attorney, she will get it. She is now in real estate and it is a boon market. This dumbass, with no college degree actually made almost 150K last year, go figure. My DH is on a set income as a state employee and his income is maxed out on the payscale. Their original child support was based on her and his income which together brought in about 9K a month. So he pays his share monthly. Now get this. Because HER INCOME HAS GONE UP (and one kid aged out of the child support system) she can take him back to court for a modification based on her now 100K MORE in income. Since the child support scale takes his and her income into affect, they now top out the scales and his child support goes up by over 1000 a month. No kidding. His income has not changed at all! I had to ask the attorney 3 times because that is so insane to me. Anybody have any experience with this.

So this means as a mom of 3 and my former husband (who is a disabled veteran so his income is set). But my income in the last 5 years has actually gone up a lot (not real estate, I actually got a 2nd master's degree). Anyway so that means I can be an ass and take my exhusband back to court and cripple him financially by maxing out the child support and increase his child support by over a thousand dollars a month. Yeah, no I don't like my exhusband but I have a moral compass.

ANY INSIGHT ON THIS> THIS IS CRAZY


justkeepstepping's picture

What!! $10,000 a month in

What!! $10,000 a month in CS!! Please tell me he does not really have to pay that much. That's insane! Did I read that wrong??

Hey, look. "Es-ca-pay". I wonder what that means? That's funny, it's spelled just like the word "escape."

queensway's picture

I am confused to. How much

I am confused to. How much did the child support go up? Is it $1000.

twoviewpoints's picture

No. She said both parents

No. She said both parents combined totaled $9,000 per month income.

So both parents were earning roughly $52,000 a year if now BM's yearly went up $100,000 and is currently $150,00.

Dad's increase in CS is being estimated by lawyer to go up $1,000 a month.

queensway's picture

Thanks that is how I read it.

Thanks that is how I read it.

missjoyfulme's picture

no a thousand not ten

no a thousand not ten thousand

No Name's picture

That doesn't make sense. But

That doesn't make sense. But from what I understand they take the income of both parents and get a total. Then they take the total and divide it into each parents income. This gives them the percentage. Then they go by the state guidelines set forth as to what the child or children should be receiving. In my case (I was the custodial parent) I was at 60 percent and my ex was at 40 percent. What I felt was unfair was that I worked tons of overtime to make ends meet and he refused OT so in the end it kind of felt like I was penalized.
They also somehow took medical insurance for the child into consideration (in my case I paid it). I think they also look at overnights so be careful on that.
If the two parent's combined income is off their chart then the judge sets the support.
This is just my understanding of child support based on my experience.
She is probably getting a modification based on change of circumstance. Hopefully it will back fire on her. Good luck!

No Name

Stalk's picture

How much was he payibg

How much was he payibg before. $1000 a month isn't to out there.

queensway's picture

Stalk I think it is a $1000

Stalk I think it is a $1000 more.

DaniAM73's picture

I am confused too. I am not

I am confused too. I am not fluent on how child support works. I always thought the NCP's income was the only factor.

Disneyfan's picture

My income was always required

My income was always required when determining CS for my son. Once I moved back to NYC from NC, my income JUMPED and I began to earn much more than my son's dad. That resulted in CS decreasing Drastically every 3 years.

"Some of you nonstepparents should have disclaimers in your signature lines. Disney isn't a SM any more, but her's could read, "Was a SM. That shit is for the birds! I don't hate all SMs, though. I'm cool."" LadyFace

twoviewpoints's picture

My state was solely NCP

My state was solely NCP (Illinois) until extremely recently. Texas is also NCP only. I think there are likely less than a dozen that are without looking to check.

Time spilt except for 50/50 in some cases nor overnights counted here in Illinois . We are under a brand new calculation basis here as of the 1st of July 2017. First change in like 35yrs.

missjoyfulme's picture

where do I find that

where do I find that information if we are a NCP or both?

twoviewpoints's picture

Your profile states WA (I

Your profile states WA (I assume Washington State).

It's online, even a worksheet. Google: Child support laws in Washington State. Or Child support calculator (watch it with that as you say the two parents max the scale, kinda similar to what Texas has).

justkeepstepping's picture

https://fortress.wa.gov/dshs/

https://fortress.wa.gov/dshs/dcs/SSGen/Home/QuickEstimator

Hey, look. "Es-ca-pay". I wonder what that means? That's funny, it's spelled just like the word "escape."

justkeepstepping's picture

I found this one online. It

I found this one online. It looks like the income amount caps off at 12000 a month for NCP and CP income.

ETA: Are you sure that they are not figuring it with all 4 kids instead of just the 2 that are still at home? I figured it and it would be right below $1800 with all 4 kids on it...Also WA charges less CS for children under 12 years old. It goes up when the turn 12.

Hey, look. "Es-ca-pay". I wonder what that means? That's funny, it's spelled just like the word "escape."

missjoyfulme's picture

His support from the

His support from the paperwork that I am reading will go up over 1800 a month total from what he is currently paying. His income has not changed one bit. They divorced 3 years ago, one child aged out and 2 are left. Her income has skyrocketed (and yes it is just a bubble as she is in real estate). But it just is crazy that the CS was set 3 years ago. And now because she makes a ton more, she can go in (because a year ago one child aged out) and ask for and get a huge increase because HER INCOME WENT UP. crazy.

Dontfeedthetrolls's picture

I'm very confused. In our

I'm very confused.

In our state CS is based solely on the non custodial parents pay. It has nothing to do with overnights so you could have them 3 out of 7 and pay the full amount. It doesn't matter if primary makes 100,000 a year its just NC's pay.

They have a chart. You take the average pay NC makes and it tells you x amount for x children. Done.

If NC's pay goes down CS goes down. If it goes up CS goes up.

That being said I am completely confused as to why CS would go up for NC if the primary starts making more money. That makes absolutely no sense at all. If the amount is based on both parents pay it should in my mind go down since now the primary has less need.

I'm sorry your in this boat. Good luck.

Some days are hard but you just fight through them to get to the good ones.

mtnwife530's picture

Family Courts Assumes the

Family Courts Assumes the child(rens) will have a higher Standard of Living when either parents income increased. Higher Standard Of Living on bm's end = higher standard from bd! Not saying it's fair, but that's why it happens in CA anyway.

I am, however glad, to see so many parents collecting CS! In CA , if both parents agree on an CS amount (even below state standards) judges usually will approve it,as they did in my case. I had primary physical custody, joint legal, visitation as childs school sched and BD sched allowed (pretty crazy since he didn't WORK!).
When parents don't agree, CA does take both parents income (then they use a chart for minimum need per child) and divide it by percentage of time with each parent. If there is a 60/40 split, they take the BMN(basic minimum need divide by 100,x by % of each parent) If child is spending more time with NCP than the court realizes, that could help you.
it might be adjusted.
I was CSO was for $ 200.00 a MONTH! period! Which I was told is way below standard. Of course bd quit paying so I turned it over to the state to collect for me, ha, a lot of good that did. They notify me when there is a court date, I usually go, he'll show 1 in 4 times, usually a day or 2 before, he'll pay $ 50.00-$ 100.00 just so they don't take him to jail right then. Now that lazy B_S_A_D owes me over $ 20,000 ! That I will probably never see unless his mother leaves it to me from her estate,( which IS possible, she loves me more)
What happens in court? Not much, he has no license to take, no wages to garnish, no bank account. Yes, he's a BUM! He works off and on, but is paid cash. I did report and gave the guys name, address and phone number! Plus the TAX board! They didn't have an address, and on my way to work, I would spot him (on his bike) in the next town, I started following him, he doesn't know my vehicle, he was going to the same place each time, I reported it, they sent me a letter saying they confirmed his residence,THEN...then nothing as usual. And mind you dd is 25! CALIFORNIA FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICE SUCK!!!!!!!!

mtnwife530
SM of 4 adult skids- 10 SGKids
I MUST be Crazy!!

ldvilen's picture

Not sure about now, but all I

Not sure about now, but all I know is in my state even a couple of years ago they only went by a percentage of the non-custodial parents income (which is usually the dad). BM could have made a million a year and dad only $40,000, but it was strictly calculated as 1 kid = 25%, 2 kids = 35%, and similar. And, there could be annual recalculations or adjustments up for whatever reason. Either parent could petition to have it lowered (dad) or raised (mom). But, it involved a heck of a lot of paperwork, even thought in the end they'd just go by a percentage of dad's income anyway.

States can really vary. I never minded my DH paying child support. He certainly should. He, of course, had an issue with it tho. It wasn't so much giving it that he minded. It was just that the thought the mother should somehow be held accountable where that money went. (She often took several vacations a year.) But, if you'd try to manage that, that would be a logistical nightmare.

Best thing for step-mom to do at weddings--either go looking like Sofía Vergara in a red dress and play the flaming 2nd wife to the max., or avoid the whole thing and plan a spa day with friends, people who actually care about you.

missjoyfulme's picture

I really don't have an issue

I really don't have an issue with DH paying his Child Support. He has and does pay on time every month. It has been a fair amount. Heck my ExH pays his child support as well. (he was not so regular but he is now). My issue is that the mom's income went up a LOT. Good for her. But DH income has not and the higher income of BM pushes the "standard of living" up thus DH has to pay more. To me that is so so so unethical.

thinkthrice's picture

Depends on the state. NYS

Depends on the state. NYS also calculates it this way. Take the NCP biodad (and any other people he may live with)'s income and then add CP BM's income (and disregard any income from anyone who lives with HER)

Add it together and assign a percentage to each parent then a percentage on number of kids. So if the paYOR or the paYEE's income goes up, so does CS.

Author of "The Guilty Parent Trap"--Amazon Kindle

DaniAM73's picture

Oh my. So if the NCP has a

Oh my. So if the NCP has a wife/girlfriend they will look at her income too?

Disneyfan's picture

"Depends on the state. NYS

"Depends on the state. NYS also calculates it this way. Take the NCP biodad (and any other people he may live with)'s income and then add CP BM's income (and disregard any income from anyone who lives with HER)
Add it together and assign a percentage to each parent then a percentage on number of kids. So if the paYOR or the paYEE's income goes up, so does CS."

That is not the norm across the board in NYS.I believe that there is verbiage stating that that CAN be done, but that is not usually what happens.

My income was never used to determine how much CS ex had to pay. While we were living together, he had his order modified (decreased)several times.

"Some of you nonstepparents should have disclaimers in your signature lines. Disney isn't a SM any more, but her's could read, "Was a SM. That shit is for the birds! I don't hate all SMs, though. I'm cool."" LadyFace

WalkOnBy's picture

One - sounds like your state

One - sounds like your state is an income shares model state.

Two - this attorney isn't nearly as good as you think he/she is.

IF it's an ISM state, your DH's support should go down based on his now lower percentage of the combined income.

I would get a second opinion from another attorney or find the calculator online and run it myself.

Reading...it's fundamental

"Maybe it should be "reading comprehension..... it's fundamental" - ItsGrowingOld

ESMOD's picture

I agree... it would seem

I agree... it would seem improbable that if one person makes so much more that the other parent's obligation would go up! In fact, it would seem more possible that she would owe CS to him if the income disparity is large enough!

Rags's picture

Unfortunately that is not how

Unfortunately that is not how the Income Shares Model plays out. Since the premise is that a kid has a right to the benefit of the income of both BPs both BPs are forced to participate in supporting the child even if one earns a ton of money and the other earns nothing. For a BP who doest have an income an income is often imputed on them for CS calculation purposes based on either minimum wage or the reasonable and customary income of someone with that BPs skills, qualifications and experience whichever is greater.

In my layman's experience the flaws in this model particularly show up in situations where the CP earns disparately more than the NCP. Calculation under an ISM model considers the income of both BPs, how much parenting time each BP gets with the kid (the more time the lower the % of support tends to be generally), and how many dependents each BP has (both shared and non-shared). Then a self support allowance is assigned to for each BP, all of the variables are factored in, and a % of responsibility for supporting that child is assigned to each parent. From there it is purely an application of what is the NCPs % of responsibility multiplied by the total joint BP income available for support of the child.

NCPs often get screwed.

A parent is an example, mentor, confidante, advocate and disciplinarian, not a buddy.-Rags
If you can't listen and learn then you will have to feel.-WLR
If you want to be a part of my life then use your head or STFU and do what you are told.-Rags

justkeepstepping's picture

https://fortress.wa.gov/dshs/

https://fortress.wa.gov/dshs/dcs/SSGen/Home

Hey, look. "Es-ca-pay". I wonder what that means? That's funny, it's spelled just like the word "escape."

Rags's picture

It is nothng but math. The

It is nothng but math. The income shares model which is what all states except for DE base their CS calculations on allocates a % of total BioParent income for the support of the kid(s). The CP is awarded CS from the NCP based on a formula of income and parenting time. Each state is slightly different but the income shares model basics remain very similar from state to state.

If one BioParent (Mainly the CP) significantly increases their income that increases the total available dollars for support of the kid(s) and though their share of the income responsibility increases the NCP will likely get nailed with a higher CP obligation.

Basically if an NCP is responsible for a paying % of the total available money to the CP and the CPs income goes up while the NCPs remains stagnant then the % of responsibility of the NCP will go down but rarely does it decrease as much as the CPs income increases so though the NCPs share of the income may decrease the actual dollars the NCP pays goes up because the total available joint parental income goes up.

A simple example.

Total available income to support a child is $1. Due to parenting time and income distribution the CP is responsible for 40% of the support of the child and the NCP is responsible for 60% (as an example) so the NCP pays the CP $.6 each month.

The CP gets a huge raise (say they finish college, grad school and become a CPA... more on this later) and the NCP does little to nothing to increase their income.

Under this new scenario the new total available income to support a child is now $10. Parenting time remains the same. Since the CP now earns significantly more than the NCP the CPs % of responsibility increases so now it switches and the CP is responsible for 60% of the total support of the child and the NCPs % drops from 60% to 40%. Under the income shares model the NCP now pays the CP $4/mo though the CP is now making a ton of money. The NCPs obligation goes up by over 650% while their income may not have changed at all.

And that is how the income shares model tends to function.

Remember above when I said "more on this later"? My wife was a statutory rape victim (though my ILs didnt press charges on the SpermIdiot). She was originally awarded sole physical and legal custody and the SpermIdiot was ordered to pay $110/mo in CS. DW was 16 at the time and the SPermIdiot was 22. So a year after that court date and CO the SpermClan decided to go for full custody when they heard through the grapevine that DW was dating someone. After 7mos of wrangling and two weeks after we married we finally wound up in court. 8 hours in front of the judge and countless instances of whinning from the SpermClan and nothing changed regarding custody, CS went up to a whopping $133/mo and the SpermIdiot was awarded 7wks of visitaiton per year (5wks summer, 1wk winter, 1wk spring).

Meanwhile back at the ranch and 9 years later DW had finished her dual major undergrad with honors, an MBA with honors and is a successful CPA while the SpermIdiot is living in the SpermGrandParents crack house rental property rent free, has three more out of wedlock spawn by 2 other baby mamas and is a voluntarily intermittently employed (because he thinks that it will keep his CS on all 4 of his out of wedlock spawn to a minimum) licensed plumber.

DW finally decides to file for an amendment of CS and .... the total combined income of DW and the SpermIdiot had gone way up (mostly due to my DW's success) and the judge rules that her % of responsibility will also increase and then runs the calculation and ......... the SpermIdiots CW went from $133/mo to nearly $900/mo. Since we had spent hours in the state CS calculator and researched the income shares model for countless hours we actually estimated the new CS amount to within $60/mo. The only reason we were off by that much was because the Judge again granted the SpermIdiot an income reduction credit of $1000/mo due to my income since "StepDad makes a significant income and the the child gains benefit from that. BioDad should not be forced to supplement an artificially elevated standard of living for the child." The $1000/mo income reduction credit was the max allowable and that only reduced the potential CS by $50/mo. So our estimate was actually within $10/mo of what the income shares model stipulated.

And that is why your DH is about to get nailed to the wall on a CS increase.

I would suggest that you and DH go full brutal on BM, document, document, document, nail her for the IRS payroll withholding that DH paid on her behalf (with penalties and interest) and make sure that her total income is revealed to the Judge.... Sadly... even then your DH is likely going to get raped for more CS.

Even though I am the Sparent on the custodial side ... I recognize the injustice of just this scenario even though I had a great time brutalizing the SpermClan in court. Evil

That a good and responsible dad is going to get raked over the coals by a manipulative X irritates me to no end.

Good luck.

A parent is an example, mentor, confidante, advocate and disciplinarian, not a buddy.-Rags
If you can't listen and learn then you will have to feel.-WLR
If you want to be a part of my life then use your head or STFU and do what you are told.-Rags

amodernstepmom's picture

We're in California and I

We're in California and I have heard, ni simple terms, that because their income is now in a different bracket, it means that their household is in a different bracket; thus they need more money to support a 'bigger' household.

I'm not 100% sure if this is correct but that's the idea that I've been told by more than one person well-versed in this and a few lawyers, too.

(If anyone can tell me how correct or incorrect this is I'd appreciate it)