Welcome to SPARC Forums. Please login or sign up.

Mar 28, 2024, 01:30:42 PM

Login with username, password and session length

yup, she's a gold digger

Started by melissa3, Feb 23, 2006, 01:17:05 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

melissa3

What do you do when the ex wants you to support them, along with the children, and they ask for the money in the form of child supprt?

My fiance's ex has motioned for a raise in child support, claiming she can't afford to raise their daughter unless my fiance pays more.  However, the ex has a good job that pays well and she brings home a bigger paycheck than my fiance. She can't afford things because she's paying mortgage on the house they used to share but has neglected to rent out the lower appartment. In other words, she'd rather make my fiance pay more in child support than get off her lazy butt and rent out the lower half of her house, which would bring in an extra $600-$800 a month.

It's a perfectly good appartment and is in decent shape, there is no reason for it to be vacant. She's even had offers but she never returned the calls.

How can we prove in court that the ex is willfully not renting out the appartment?

Will the courts see that she is just playing games?

leon clugston

her motion to raise support has to show a significant change in circumstances, wether its in the form of the needs of the child increaing, or an increase in youre fiance's income to justify, warrant a motion to change.

ocean

In most states it is a percentage of the NCP's income. What state? Many states have on-line calculators. Plug in the numbers and see what it comes out with. In my state, 1 child =17% , 2 children 25%....   When was the last time CS was addressed in court?

melissa3

We all live in Mass. The daughter is 5yrs and is in daycare and dance class.

I checked out the guidelines and if the BM rented the appartment for about $700 my fiances C/S obligation would (supposedly) be reduced by $20. Not much of a difference, I'd say.

There has been no change of circumstances on the BMs part. My fiance is self-employed and we've found the courts don't look to highly on that, especially when your business is seasonal. Winter is the bad season and Bm really picked a good time to play games in court if you ask me.

From the list of expenses the BM gave us I figured out that she would be broke anyway, regardless of the cost of child care. She actually needs to rent out the lower appartment just to supprt herself.

See, the BM thinks that all her financial problems are because my fiance isn't paying her enough. She doesn't realize that he isnt' obligated to may alimony, he just has to help support his daughter.

Sherry1

strictly follow the CS guidelines.  Your DH's tax returns will probably be used to determine his CS.  Most states require the NCP to also pay a portion of daycare, you should probably look into that also.

melissa3

According to the guidelines, any income from rental property, from either parent, is factored into the formula for calculating CS.

The problem here is BM can't provide for herself and I don't believe a small increase in CS is going to change that.

BM emailed us a list of what it costs her monthly  to pay for heat, electricty, mortgage, utilities and car insurance. (note: child care is split pretty evenly between the parents.) She can't afford her cost of living with what she brings home for pay and with leaving the apartment vacant. The house BM owns and lives in is a two-family and she's paying to heat and light the whole thing.

There has been no significant change in circumstances and there is no need for an increase in CS. All I'm asking is, how can we get the courts to understand that all BM needs to be able to provide for their daughter is to rent out her lower apartment?

Thank you

leon clugston

The custodial parent has to be able to show the increase need for the child, regaurdless of her expences, as far as her personal costs you should file a motion in opposition of those finances since they have no correlation w/ the subject matter at hand, which is the allegedness of the expenses of the child has increased. What people tend to forget it all has to be coreelated w/ the child and in the enterest of the child, the common law of the responsibilities is that both parents contribute to the care nuture and the welfare of the child, not just one. People think these guidelines are god, but they dont hold weight when a person attacks them within there substantiveness and the overall application of there validity.

Sherry1

that is the problem.. His CS will be based upon her income and your DH's income.  If daycare is involved, he will probably be ordered to pay a percentage of that too.  

Our BM is the most stupid woman on the planet, she never uses common sense for anything.  It sounds like you have the same idiot of a BM.  You can't reason with her and a court isn't going to force her to rent out the apartment.  I do sympathize with you but you can't do what you have no control over.

If incomes haven't changed much, don't worry about it, CS probably won't go up.  You can find probably find a child support calculator for the state the order is in so you can run the numbers ahead of time.

ocean

I am not in your state so I do not know but they will just take both set of taxes and figure it out from there. She probably wants to go for the higher child support first and then rent it out. What is her reasoning for not renting it out? Why is she sending you all personal info? I would just e-mail that the numbers work out and that she needs to make adjustments (like rent out the apartment) but that is NOT you problem. I agree with everyone else, you will be court ordered (if you are not already) for a percentage of daycare costs while she as at work. Good luck!

Genie

the upkeep of the home is part of taking care of the child b/c it is putting a roof over the child's head etc etc.  CS is looked on to help pay those things.  Now if she is living beyond her means that is something else but I don't think that the judge will make a deal of that.  In my experiences with ex's first wife, the judges didn't.

She can make alot of arguments for not renting that out.  Main one being that she is afraid or isn't comfortable with strangers living beneath her since there isn't a man around (that makes a woman feel safer or more at ease many times). I don't know if she is with someone else in her life or not.

Also from experience she may not want to sell the home that she worked hard to get and feels is her home. She doesn't want to uproot the child from her home, friends, school etc. Stability is the factor here. Moving to an apartment is not as good as a house for the child (in a parent's mind). If she moves to an apartment, there is possibility she will be moving from place to place on a regular basis. If she stays in teh house, the child won't be subjected to that. Many have lost custody when one factor is not giving the child a stable home. In my case, I can afford my house, in her case she can't by herself.

I am not making excuses for her. I am giving you her possible defenses to your solution.  Think about how you can react if these come up.

As stated, guideline is guideline.  Most likely she will get this increase.  However, from what you said it doesn't sound like that will be much. And as you stated renting the apartment would only save $20 in CS a month. Will the judge order way above?  It has happened in many cases.

On a side note: I have never understood why some CP's feel they shouldn't do what is necessary to give their children what they need. Most parent's scrimp and save and budget and do without to give their kids what they need and do without the extras so the kids can have them. However, why do some CPs feel they don't have to do that but the NCP should do so in order to pay more and more while the CP spends and spends?  Never understood that one.

leon clugston

I will explain one more time, the problem resides in what people dont know, and this is what the courts and the Child suppoprt services division of every state depends on. The Sytem or the STATE PLANS are set up around the title IV-d of the Social Security Act and the cooperative agreements within the state plan under section 3.1, every state has them, and there all the same, and the states signed and agreed to abide by them,what the states have done is used there interpretive authority and mended the plans under there state guidelines, but there interpretive(have no force and effect of law) they are non substantive, and because they vary so much they have no supporting regulations outside of the federal requirements. People always want a quick fix, and want someone else to do it for them, and this is why so many people lose, because no one wants to challenge the correct issues and the true wrongs within the states.Even the feds have stated that both parents are to contribute, this is based upon the facts the feds are still tied within the common law of the United States.
You want to play in there world under there interpretive guidlines you will lose, especially since every state has a rebuttal as required by the feds, to extinguish any claim of wrong or judicial error.

melissa3

I see what you are saying but I'm a little unsure of what you believe is the correct issue to challenge here?

I don't understand how the cost of heat, electricity, rent/mortgage and upkeep of a house could be allowed to be included in figuring out child supprt. The CP and NCP would have to pay those anyways, whether they had a child or not. I searched the MA DOR state site and I don't believe those expenses are considered in the CS guidelines.

The courts won't make BM rent the lower apartment, even though rent is considered to be income? Rental income is passive income and, unlike working overtime at a job, it doesn't take anytime away from the child. And if the BM is really paranoid about strangers, she could just rent the apartment out to a single lady. BM has already had offers from a few women, some she knew personally!!!

I don't understand why the courts make the NCP go to the ends of the earth to find a better job if they feel he/she is willfully underemployed but they won't go to the same extreme for a CP??!!??!! Um, what happened to "what is good for the goose, is good for the gander??

So, basically, all we have to do to not get a CS increase is show that the cost of child care hasn't gone up, since the last time CS was established?

Thank you everyone

leon clugston

The basic needs of the CHILD are what is to be figured, not the other parents financial woes, as explained before unless you have a copy of the STATE PLAN and read it you will guessing and floundering around in the sea of BS. It is contract between the state and the feds, it details what the state shall do, the supreme court of the United States has twice ruled they must follow the guidelines under a contract stipulation, and this is what there not doing, but since most people dont know about it, nor how to resaerch it correctly, they get away with what they do, and that is operate outside there statuatory authorized authority.The state plan is easy to get, you file a FOIA(freedom of information act) to the nearest head collection office and demand for the copy of the state plan as required under title IV-d of the Social Security Act, and for wwhich all states MUST have to be able to get federal assistance, and they have ten days to comply, its a simple type up, and then you will be able to easily read and see what is going on, and what realy is mandated to be goiong on.

ocean

leon-Have you used the state plan in court? Each state has set a "general" system that can be changed dramatically with eveidence to what should be ordered.
Orginal poster-Has she rented out this apartment recently? Within the last year? Did the renters just leave? Then I think you have a shot of saying she will have income when she rents it out again. BUT if she has not rented it out in a long time, it will not come into play. It is like saying she can get a part-time job but won't. You are lucky because your state actual inputs BM income. Some states it is only NCP income and a percentage. Good luck and let us know what happens :)

leon clugston

the state plan, has been introduced in a lower superior court, never has been in Alaska before now though, however it wont go any where because I personaly insulteed the assistant Attorney General by smacking for being in violation of the code of ethices, and the federal law, so now the issue will soon enough go to a federal court. To answer youre question about income, many states only imput the income of the non custodial parent, what is different about Alaska is they dont care who has custody, all they care about is who makes more, custodian or not, and then that person is the obligor, custodian or not, it is illegal as hell and that is what ime fighting and will be soon in federal court. I have found two federal cases, one from a district and one from the United States Supreme court that states very clearly that the states are bound by the contract and the meanings and deffintions within the satte plan, as approved by the Secretary of health and Social services, and many state are not, but untill you fight them on it, they'l do whatever they want.

melissa3

For awhile, the BM had her sisiter living in the lower apartment, free of charge. BM paid all bills, with no help from the sister. The sister moved out about 6 months ago, I think, and she has yet to rent the apartment again. As I said, she's had many offers and some of those people would be willing to write an affadavit.

The child is the main concern here. However, the daughter would benefit more from the mother renting out the apartment, instead of the father getting an increase on CS. LIke I said, the increase would be nowhere near what the BM would get in rent. Which is better - $600 more a month or $80 more? ($80 a month/$20 more a week is the legal maximum amount the CS can be raised.