Mist I agree. That's why I said 'it appears he has the full return" OP needs to not appear deceitful, but cautious about marking out the irrelevant information. Going overboard will certainly find him in the hotseat with the judge and yes possibly even in contempt.
The employer information will need to be known to set the child support through DCSE, right? So that needs to stay just as the wages do. Wife's information can't be used in determining child support and therefore has no bearing on the case.
You are correct that you assume to lose some privacy once you marry someone with an ex and kids. But if you keep your finances seperate from the wife's then they can not subpeona her records...joint checking, savings, etc.
I will have to say my attorney said that I needed to list the vehicles that are in my wife's name- to not appear to be trying to hide assets. Judges (and other attorneys) will make a mountain out of a molehill. OP is simply trying to protect his wife's privacy. Anything beyond that is IMHO unreasonable and will be frowned upon by opposing counsel and the court.
>>As Soc once said to me, " you can not provide what you do
>not
>>possess."
>>
>> If he doesn't have the return, just the W-2s, that's all he
>>can provide(though it appears he has the full return).
>
>As Soc also might have said: "You an go to jail for contempt
>for lying to a judge".
>
>It just seems like a pretty risky strategy - especially since
>it's not very believable that the OP doesn't have (or can't
>get) copies of their tax returns.
The employer information will need to be known to set the child support through DCSE, right? So that needs to stay just as the wages do. Wife's information can't be used in determining child support and therefore has no bearing on the case.
You are correct that you assume to lose some privacy once you marry someone with an ex and kids. But if you keep your finances seperate from the wife's then they can not subpeona her records...joint checking, savings, etc.
I will have to say my attorney said that I needed to list the vehicles that are in my wife's name- to not appear to be trying to hide assets. Judges (and other attorneys) will make a mountain out of a molehill. OP is simply trying to protect his wife's privacy. Anything beyond that is IMHO unreasonable and will be frowned upon by opposing counsel and the court.
>>As Soc once said to me, " you can not provide what you do
>not
>>possess."
>>
>> If he doesn't have the return, just the W-2s, that's all he
>>can provide(though it appears he has the full return).
>
>As Soc also might have said: "You an go to jail for contempt
>for lying to a judge".
>
>It just seems like a pretty risky strategy - especially since
>it's not very believable that the OP doesn't have (or can't
>get) copies of their tax returns.