Messages

Just browsing a bit, I found summaries of new child support legislation at the following:

http://www.dcs.state.or.us/familylaw/legislation_2003_outline.htm

Thought they were interesting (at least some of them.)  The DCS website also gives information on the new guidelines put into effect last May.  I've kind of avoided this site for the past several months, because I am so tired of it all.... so maybe it's old news to everyone else.  I had heard there were new guidelines, but assumed it meant more bad news for NCPs.  I was pretty stoked to find out that they now take into account the amount of parenting time NCPs have, if more than 20% (was previously 35%)  My husband's original parenting plan puts him at 23%--and it actually makes a pretty big difference for us.  Can't wait to modify CS......

"Many wouldn't give a dime if not "forced" to. Heck, many don't even when "forced" to."

I have issue with these statements.  First of all, statistics show that the majority of NCP's who do not pay CS simply cannot afford the over-high amounts ordered by the courts.  Also, I think the majority of NCPs would pay child support without being forced.  There are always going to be parents who don't care; they are in the minority, but the system is set up to guard against that minority and in return the majority are hurt by it.  My husband, when he had his own very successful business, was always current on CS, and often paid for extras for his daughters (bought the clothes, bedroom furniture, etc. etc.)  He willingly did it without the state telling him to pay more because he made more.  And I believe he is the norm.  I do think NCP's would willing "fork over" 1/2 the expenses if they had a say in what the expenses were.  And when the NCP can't afford to shop at the Gap, those expenses do not include clothes from the Gap.

If it's all just about taking care of the kids, as you state, why not let the kids stay with the parent who makes the most money, forget the "redistribution of wealth" altogether?  (Now we KNOW that idea won't go far!!  And really it shouldn't.)

The argument over the constitutionality of CS, and the involvement of government agencies is quite valid, because those agencies have created an atmosphere that severely restricts one parent from making choices in regards to their child's well-being--parents who would love to be on the other side, with the children in their home, whether or not they receive a check from the ex.

As has been previously stated, when parents decide to have more children or switch to a lower paying job, an intact family adjusts to it.  But in the case of divorce, the whole family cannot adjust to it.  You may think NCP cannot afford another child, but perhaps he/she thinks it is possible with a little adjustment and is willing to make that adjustment for the rewards of parenthood.  But the way the system is set up, the state is trying to tell NCPs they cannot have another child, cannot make the adjustments that another family would have the choice to make.

Then there are more dramatic instances--my husband was injured on the job, temporarily paralyzed, not allowed to work for 8 months, and then only with limitations.  When this happened, he went to school.  But CS said that he had no reasons to go to school and imputed his previous income to calculate CS.  Our family has struggled with a seriously reduced income, while CP got the same old check every month.  Funny how her attorneys fees last time she took us to court almost exactly matched the amount we paid to CS in a year.  And you can bet that when my husband is an attorney, CP and CSD will be right in line to adjust CS amount--no arguments about changing the first children's standard of living there.

Our state laws changed as well a few years back, but it stated specifically that you could not request a modification just because the law changed--there had to be a change in court-ordered parenting time.  There had to be documentation of that change.

In our situation, BM got an order to stop visitation (long story...) in 2002.  The CS law changed in 2003 to include parenting time in the calculation.  In 2004, my husband and BM signed an agreement re-establishing parenting time exactly as it was before 2002 (EOW, 4 weeks in summer, alternating holidays.)  We filed for a modification, and CS dropped almost $200/month--for two children. (It actually should have gone even lower, but for some reason CS officer didn't include about 20 overnights/year that were included in the new agreement.  We didn't want to push it though.)  Kind of ironic that CS would have stayed the same if BM hadn't pulled all her garbage.

Still not sure why, but BM didn't respond at all to any of this.  The modification was all done through the mail, with no attorneys.  Since the agreement re-establishing parenting time was never filed in court (BM was supposed to, but didn't), I'm not sure whether or not it would have been upheld in a hearing.

Yours is a tough situation though because you definitely don't want to rock the boat and end up losing time with your SS.  And if Indiana is the same as our state, you would need a new court order--either a stipulated agreement signed by both parties, or an order set forth by a judge. It's not enough just to say you have SS more than the parenting plan says.  Good luck....

Interesting.... I just received an email today addressing federal cuts to state child support enforcement--can only assume it is the same bill--but in the letter I received, the bill was called "devastating" to IV-D program.  This is how our state section chair described it:

The IV-D program "provides a valuable service to parents whether they receive or pay child support.  Without the IV-D program, in many cases, modifications to child support that need to be made would not be made and uncollected child support, particularly if the obligor lives in another state, would not be collected.  The IV-D program is an important resource in helping clients and their children to take full advantage of the judgments that their attorneys have secured for them."

I tend to lean more towards support of the cuts--IV-D has not done anything good for our family, certainly not an "important resource," except in wreaking havoc.  But it's always good to look at both sides.

OK, so a few months ago, caseworker called my husband completely out of the blue, because she noticed he was not paying the ordered amount.  Well, duh!  The ordered amount was way more than it should have been and we could not afford it (a whole other story I have already shared here.)  So caseworker offered to send a modification form.  Wahoo :)  We filled it out and sent it in as soon as we had a new parenting plan signed (adding 92 overnights.)  Then we sat back and waited and waited and waited.

Finally on Monday we received a copy of the modified amount.  It went down almost $200 month.  What a relief!!  But as I looked more closely at the paperwork, I noticed caseworker calculated CS based on 62 overnights instead of 92--makes a difference of about $80/month.  So frustrating.  Where do these people come up with these numbers?!?  It's not worth us trying to rock the boat to save that extra $80, but they'll hear about it if BM appeals.....

Our state automatically withholds income for ALL CS orders.  I'm not sure about all the specifics, but every time my husband has changed employers, within a month there is a new withholding order through the new employer--they must report all new employees to the state who checks for CS orders or something like that.  So it doesn't work to just hide the info from the CP.  My husband has never held two jobs at once, so I don't know what would happen there....  I have little enough faith in CSE to believe they would order withholding again and leave you to fix the mess--but I just don't know for sure.

Is $430 the ordered amount or just the max they can withhold?  My husband has 50% of his paycheck withheld, but it does not cover the ordered amount every month, so conceivably they could take more from job #2, if he had one.

Is the ordered amount based on full-time income or just the income from one part-time job?  If the amount is based on just your current part-time income, CP could request a modification to include income from a second job and raise CS.

Hope this answers your question....

That is what scares me the most for my SDs.  They come from a family of divorce.  At least back to their great-grandparents in both BM's family and my husband's, every marriage has ended in divorce.  SDs spend a LOT of time with BM's mom, who is currently on her 6th or 7th marriage.  And the Dads--even as far back as the great-grandparents--have not been in the picture.  (Some of that has been the Dad's fault, some of it has been Mom's.)  What chance do they have?

"Then, when I filed a motion for clarification, telling the court that I could not believe they would want me to quit my part-time job and/or full-time school to go look for a full-time job that I'd be unlikely to be hired for and/or unlikely to be able to perform, she just said, "Father may not enroll in college or choose to work part-time in order to avoid his child support requirement..." I never asked for that, I just want a GD fair amount!"

Why is it that everyone seems to think NCP's purposefully reduce their income to avoid CS?  Do they not realize that WE have to live on a smaller income also?  The benefit of less CS does not come close to compensating for loss income.....  In the past 3 years we have cut our expenses by more than 1/2, because our income has dropped significantly, but BM gets the same amount as always.

We are going through a similar battle.  My husband was temporarily paralyzed by an on-the-job injury (due to his employer's negligence.)  He was unable to work at all for 8 months, and then only allowed back on a conditional basis.  His injury makes it impossible for him to work in his previous field.  But the CS people somehow decided he was "voluntarily" underemployed.  My husband is a full-time student now--started classes the week after they released him from the hospital.  He gets approximated $940/month in financial aid (which includes student loans) and is ordered to pay $466/month for CS.

Because of our low income and because we also have 2 children, our tax return is pretty hefty and almost covers an entire year of CS.  Essentially, we plan on the refund going straight to CS, when we start getting nasty letters, we pay another month or two, and then wait for the next year's refund to go through.  BM gets her money--although she certainly complains about it, and tells the children that their dad doesn't pay.....

BUT about a month ago, my husband received a phone call from CS caseworker who commented that he was having trouble paying the ordered amount and would he like a modification?  Go figure!?!

The CS system takes CHOICE out of the equation.  The custodial parent can choose to have more children, and simply adjust their expenses, so that the children are equally cared for--rather than the first-born receiving a set amount, and the second receiving what was left over.

The CS-paying NCP does not have that choice--the first child receives the exact same amount of money regardless of what happens and regardless of what the rest of the family has to go without.  The laws do allow for a few exceptions in changing CS--but they do not even touch the possible occurances that would affect a family's available income.  (And the process is so slow that even if you are able to change CS to an appropriate amount, it was probably after several months of struggle.)