Reducing child support for subsequent children in Michigan

[gemini3]

I understand both sides, but I still feel that subsequent children should not be penalized because an obligor has more children.  Unfortunately, some parents become underemployed to skirt CS (but they are also making less money, so really I don't see the logic), but if a CP decides to make up the difference that's their choice.

 
 
I wasn't philosophizing about the issue.  I was saying why it is the way it is.  If you disagree, contact your legislators and ask that they change the state statutes. 
 
I don't know many people who become underemployed to skirt CS, and CS laws are written to prevent that sort of thing from happening.  Ask all the people who've become unemployed since 2009 how easy it was to get their CS reduced based on unemployment, or underemployment.  It's nearly impossible and, even when it does get reduced, it takes months to get your court date and you're thousands in arrears by that point.

[MixedBag]

And it can happen both ways, as an NCP, the CP had more children, and my obligation for my child went UP!  So essentially, I was supporting HIS children as a result.
 
 

[Apple]

And it can happen both ways, as an NCP, the CP had more children, and my obligation for my child went UP!  So essentially, I was supporting HIS children as a result.

I think that would send me over the edge...

[bloom6372]

And it can happen both ways, as an NCP, the CP had more children, and my obligation for my child went UP!  So essentially, I was supporting HIS children as a result.

 
This is one thing DH and I worry about... BM had another child, and we are pretty sure as soon as she can reapply for a modification in CS (next May), she'll do it because she had another child and chose to stop working because of the baby.
 
Personally, I feel both parents should receive a "credit" for additional children. However, I think it should be the SAME deduction for a credit. As I posted before, when doing the calculations using the state formula, my DH would get $300 total for our three little ones, and BM would get a $300 for her one little one. That doesn't seem fair. Additional children by either parent should be considered in the calculation, but they should be considered EQUALLY. It shouldn't matter which parent had additional children. Even if we had primary custody, because DH would still pay CS he would still have less of a deduction for his additional children than BM. Why should DH have to take from his children to provide for BM's new child? It's not his. My DH hasn't taken the credit for our younger children (wouldn't reduce by more than like $50, so why bother?), and still pays thousands each year in extras for SD (transportation, braces, co-pays, uncovered expenses, school supplies, tutoring, etc), in addition to providing for our other 3 children. Why should he have to support BM's other child, too? Either give EQUAL credits for both parents, or give no credits. Either way, things need to equal out. No parent's additional children should be more important in the eyes of the Court. BOTH parents knew their obligations to their "first" children, so if a CP can't afford a new child and chooses to have one, why should the NCP be required to pay more? Just like if a NCP can't afford a new child and chooses to have one, the CP shouldn't lose any CS.

[MixedBag]

"cant afford" has nno definition which is the proble.

my problem with the thought that additional children changing the formula is that the other parent has no say in additoional children.

i decided i couldnt afford more children while my ex had one more and "discovered" a second one. 

[MixedBag]

as a cp, my ex had no input to additional children but his cs would have gone up

as an ncp, again my ex had no input yet his available budget would go down

i as the parent have inoput for my own situation   its the fact that i havee no say yet pay the price or can force another to pay the price that i think is wrong.