Messages

That's a good way to sum it up!

It just makes me really feel for folks that need CS to provide for the kids.  If we were in a situation were we really depended on CS, we would be screwed.  And I know that is the exact situation lots of people find themselves in.

I'll let you know how it turns out though

Ok - going to names here cause I really don't care!  The ex is Lynn and her husband, the child-molesting scum, is Mark.  Their kid is Caitlyn.

When calculating the amount of CS Lynn pays, they give her credit for Caitlyn and subtract that amount from her income.  Then they use that remaining income to go into calculating the amount of CS she pays.  Something goofy happened when she went part-time cause they only used her income rather than her income combined with Tom's (my husband).  It is really odd.

But anyway - - if they calculate the credit for Caitlyn based on Lynn and Mark's income combined, the it would be a higher amount because the combined income is more than just Lynn's part-time income.  BUT she would only get half of that credit.  As it is, she gets full credit based on only her income.

It's really just more theoretical - and like I posted to Amy, I have to admit that there is more of a revenge/payback......and possibly, it is just time for me to let go.

I just really feel for those that truly need CS to provide for the kids that live with them -- and are stuck in this insane system.

And really, when it is all said and done, it is just money.  And to be painfully honest, it is more about wanting to make her pay in the only way we have.

Maybe I should just let go........................but that ain't always easy, is it chick?

The amount of credit she is given for her other child is subtracted from her income - - which has an effect on the child support calculation.  The amount her husband makes has an effect on the amount of credit she is given.

I did find child support laws -  basically, the the basic child support obligation is subtracted from her income for other children - UNLESS the other children's father lives with them.  In that case, than she only gets to subtract 1/2 the basic child support obligation.   Also, this basic child support obligation is determined by the combined incomes:

http://www.sog.unc.edu/pubs/electronicversions/pdfs/childsupport.pdf

and search on 'other children'

Now given this, I'm not sure how that can be calculate WITHOUT her husband's income.  But it sure doesn't seem like you should be able to subpeona that information.

Of course, I guess if she didn't want to provide that information, she could forego her credit!

Just wondering if anyone knows  - - -

We are in NC and have my husband's 2 kids full-time.  His ex pays child support, and has another child with her current husband.  The NC child support worksheet allows a credit for additional children, but it also has a slot for the other parent's income (ie ex's new husband) so that this amount can be calculated.

Husband's ex had child support modified back in March due to illness Was really somewhat of a joke as she had no paystubs or anything, just a note from the dr saying she needed to 'cut back' her hours.  We didn't even get a copy of the dr's note.  Judge must have felt sorry for her and set child support based on the currently hourly rate and 20 hours a week.  They also put in a full credit for her other child - - and that put her below poverty level and cut her child support from $340/month to $66/month - - - for 2 teenagers!  

Anyway - the judge did order a review in Sept, when the ex is suppose to bring paystubs.  I doubt she does and we will probably have our lawyer subpeona them.    But curious if we could subpeona the new husband's income records since that is needed to fully fill out the worksheet.  Anyone know?

I mean - I know his income has nothing to do with the support of the kids - - just like my income doesn't.  But it does have a lot to do with the support of his kid which does affect the child support calculation.
(Our lawyer is out of the country for a couple of weeks.  I'll ask her when she gets back, but am just curious)

I did not flame you, and if you took it that way, I apologize.  I was simply disagreeing, stating my point of view and asking for clarification on your statements.   I personally felt that you went on the defensive and somewhat attacked me, twisting my statements into things I did not say or imply.

Personally, I still think the NORMAL CS calculations should not take into account additional children.  That is just my opinion, and I think that should be the case for additional children of the CP and/or the NCP.  You disagree.  

In a normal situation, both parents agree and adjust to life changes.  But in a divorce situation, you have split that and there are now 2 families.  I don't know that I think it is fair that the decisions and actions of one family should have an effect on members of the other family.  Sure, there is gray area because in this case, the kids are members of BOTH families.

Children come with a financial responsibility, just like most things in life.  Since it takes 2 people to enter into accepting this responsibility, any changes (especially voluntary changes such as having additional children) to that responsibility should be a joint decision by those 2 people.  That is typically no longer possible in a divorce situation.  

I especially think this is wrong in the case of the CP having additional children.  Now, in theory, a CP can have more and more kids, requiring the NCP to pay more and more in CS for kids that aren't the NCP's!  (This is due to the CP's available income being reduced to account for their additional expense for the additional kids).  At least in the case of the NCP having additional kids and child support being lowered, there is the assumption that the money NOT being paid will be used to help support the NCP's kids.

Now - back to the more personal side of things - one that we are in TOTALLY agreement about :-)    The first time the biological mom tried to get out of CS, we asked that she terminated her parental rights.  We are thinking about asking again, although I'm sure she would not agree to do that.  She basically has no parental rights - she abdicated those when she did not protect her kids (and I didn't even go into the emotional abuse on her part).

And I also agree with you that CS calculations have nothing to do with the actual costs of the kids.  I think the whole manner in which CS is calculated is flawed badly - although I don't have any real answer on how to fairly calculate it that would cover all situations.  And even if I did, I'm sure others would disagree!!

Oh - one other thing.  We have been on the other side of the coin as well.  Before the girls came to live with us, we were paying child support for 3 kids (there is a 21 yr old son as well who is no longer in the CS equation).  For these 3 kids, we were paying $1390/month.  Was that money used for the kids?  Of course not!  Especially considering that we had to provide clothes/etc for them for close to 50% of the time, any extras they did or had were provided by us.  So we have been on that side of the equation as well!

On a personally note, I obviously do not know the details of your personal situation, but the little you shared sounds horrible.  This probably isn't the appropriate forum to discuss this further, but I am curious - were there any criminal charges brought in your case due to the sexual abuse/rape?

First, I wasn't jumping on ANYONE - I was stating my opinion.

And please point out where I said NCPs are not entitled to sex - how utterly ridiculous.  But surely you are aware that there are methods and ways of having sex and NOT becoming pregnant?  I personally have been having sex for almost 25 years and have never been pregnant.  (And trust me, when my husband was an NCP, we still had sex)

And I also never said that NCPs (or CPs) should not have children - I simply said they shouldn't if they can't afford them.  It shouldn't affect their existing obligation.   Are you sure that you are actually reading what I posted??

Again - we are talking the same thing - CS.  Using the calculator to determine CS (at least in this state), additional children FOR BOTH CPs AND NCPs are taken into account.  That means that if the CP has additional children, their income is adjusted (downward) and the amount of child support they are responsible for is reduced - and thus, the amount of money the NCP has to pay is INCREASED!  What the CP does with their money is their business - I was only commenting on the affect on the amount of CS paid.

Now - so far as my little "BLACK and WHITE" world -- you have absolutely NO CLUE what you are talking about.  I have LOTS of responses for you on that comment, but I will just keep them to myself.

And your little sidetrip on FAMILY is nice - but totally unrelated to the discussion.   The discussion was CS.

And why do you think there is reason for a parent not to financially support their child?  Why should the amount one parent makes relieve the other parent from having to provide financially for their children?

In our case, my husband actually makes more than $10,000/month.  And no we don't need child support. The biggest reason we even filed for child support is that the NCP allowed her husband to molest these kids, didn't believe the kids (and thus allowed it to continue for 18 more months until they finally told us), and is STILL married to the sorry SOB.  AND she then filed motions against us for contempt because we didn't force the girls to visit her.  If she can afford to do that, she can afford to pay child support.

And for subsequent children - I'm sorry, but they don't "just happen"!   If you can't afford another child, don't have one.  Sure life happens, jobs can be lost - - but that is a different situation.  I'm not sure how you see that when an NCP loses a job, the "new" kids starve and the  "old" ones don't?  If the NCP loses their job, they have NO income so neither the old kids or new kids are being supported by the NCP.  The only reason the "old" kids wouldn't suffer is because their other parent supports them.  And the "new" kids have another parent as well!

And so far as every kid being equally provided for - that is not reality!  Children are not provided for equally - even if they share a parent.  In the example given with the CP makes $10,000 a month and the NCP making $1600 -- - do you think any "new" kids the NCP elect to have are provided for equally to the kids that are with the CP?  Of course not!

And it goes both ways - - if the CP has additional kids, their income is reduced as well in the CS calculator so the NCP pays MORE.  Is that right?  Because the CP elected to have more kids, the NCP has to pay MORE??  So you have a person that has to pay more money for the decision their ex makes in regards to having more kids - something they have absolutely no say in!

Insanity - total insanity.

When we were dating and he told me this, I knew he was either the most generous person in the world......or the dumbest!  I'm still now sure which!

But I can tell you, he wouldn't spit on her if she were on fire now.

In these examples, I didn't put in any additional children for either NCP or CP.

In my real life situation, my husband is the custodial parent and does not have additional children.  The PBFH is the NCP and has an additional child and she does get credit and that lowers the amount of child support.

And yes - I agree with you. I think additional kids should not be considered.  It is a choice the parent makes, knowing the obligation they already have to existing kids.  Knowing that obligation, if they can afford and want more kids, so be it.  

(Just an odd twist here on my personal situation - - In this state, you have to be separated for a year before your divorce is final.  PBFH was 8 months pregnant when that year was over.  My husband delayed the divorce so that she could be covered under his insurance, since even if they divorced and she remarried - it would have been an existing condition and not covered under her new husband's insurance!  Technically, from a legal standpoint, this child would be considered to be my husband's child until paternity was contested!)