pointers on how to lower/minimize support payments

[tilldeathdouspart]

Hello all and thanks ahead of time. first off i am writing this from Milwaukee Wisconsin, and i am telling you that because i know how most states have different laws.

I recently had my 50/50 custody/placement taken away from me for no substantial reason at all. The gender biased judge skipped all legal steps and imposed sanctions on me by taking my daughter away, a daughter whom i have taken care of just as much if not more than her mother since her birth (she is 3 now) Anyways, the lazy mom just served support papers on me and the hearing is only a week away and i am freaking out wondering if i will even be able to support myself, my 6 month old son and my fiance. I make alright money but never see much of it since i pay a $1200 mortgage, and around $1000 in bills each month. Since i take home $2400 a month roughly that leave me with squat.

I am looking for ways to minimize the payment amount based upon my current obligations and debts and the fact that i have a new child to care for and support financially. I realize that my 3 year old was here before my new child but need to know if my debts will be taken into consideration before some other judge that hates men set some crazy support payment that will not allow me to maintain my own household. I carry the insurance for my daughter but do not pay for it, my employeer covers the entire premium. Even though i personally do not pay for the insurance it surely is reflected in my hourly wage according to my boss. Is ther any way that i can get a lower payment based on that situation. I love my daughter to death but did not produce her to be a bank account for her sick mother. The mom has never had or held a full time job but has a college degree, what can you tell me about the "ability to earn"????


Please any pointers, tricks or suggestions will be of great assistance. I know the family court system is pro mom and anti dad here in Wisconsin, but i refuse to live in poverty or let my newborn suffer because of that because IT IS TOTALLY WRONG!!!!! Thanks again and god bless all dads that fight for their fatherhood.

[mistoffolees]

For starters, drop the attitude. Judges do the best job that the can and attacking them isn't going to help your cause. There must have been SOME reason for the change - whether you like it or not. Furthermore, how can you claim that the judge 'skipped all legal steps' when you have a hearing coming up. Sounds like the judge is doing his/her job and you don't understand it.

In any event, a large number of factors enter into setting support. Your expenses are not really that relevant (you could always sell the house, buy a cheaper house, etc). What they will consider is:

1. Your income.
2. Other expenses you pay (in my state, the amount of insurance that you provide is factored in, even if your employer pays it, but that's not universal).
3. Your ex's income. If the ex doesn't have income, they will impute income depending on her earning ability. Unfortunately, it's very hard to do so in most cases, so it often defaults to minimum wage. If she has a particular, high demand skill (such as nursing) which has a clear value in the market, they can impute a higher income.

There's not much else that goes into the calculation. It is intended to put your responsibility to your child at the top of your obligations.

[ocean]

In my state is goes by a calculation simple with your income.... you really can not change the amount unless you both agree.... sometimes if you have travel expenses for child or are willing to pay medical insurance you may get a credit. Medical usually goes by which parent can get it through their job.
Good luck..

[leon clugston]

Funny I thought all children of a mans was his responsibilty, not just the one that a judge created a legal obligation to.
Why should a person sell there house? just to make someones elses life easier for which they hold no obligation to" the EX"
There is an obligation to the child, yes, but not the state, nor the EX, there is also an obligation to any other children outside the Judgement of the court, even though its is under all legal theory only a moral obligation," being that the courts are the one's that make it a legal obligation" its still a obligation, in either event, if such were to depart, the court would make it a legal obligation,,holding to that value then one must with reason come to the overall desision that are not all kids created equal, and do not all kids deserve the same standard of living, reagaurdless to when or where they were born.

[mistoffolees]

>Funny I thought all children of a mans was his responsibilty,
>not just the one that a judge created a legal obligation to.
>Why should a person sell there house? just to make someones
>elses life easier for which they hold no obligation to" the
>EX"
>There is an obligation to the child, yes, but not the state,
>nor the EX, there is also an obligation to any other children
>outside the Judgement of the court, even though its is under
>all legal theory only a moral obligation," being that the
>courts are the one's that make it a legal obligation" its
>still a obligation, in either event, if such were to depart,
>the court would make it a legal obligation,,holding to that
>value then one must with reason come to the overall desision
>that are not all kids created equal, and do not all kids
>deserve the same standard of living, reagaurdless to when or
>where they were born.


You just happen to be wrong.

Legally, the courts can and will require support at a certain level. If you bought a house that's more than you can afford (which appears to be the case here), the courts will place support of your children above your desire to overspend your means.

I realize that you have all these grandiose ideas that the courts have no jurisdiction, but you're just plain wrong. The courts DO have jurisdiction and will act.

[leon clugston]

Funny, not a word in here about juisdiction from me anyways, the discussion here was equal protection of the laws, and equal protection of the children, instead of just one. Since we are talking about more than
one child here,
And what am I wrong about? because someone "ie"  the state isn't syphoning money off the latter children, that they have no right to equal protection? that might be what youre administrative manual says but that will only goes as far as somone lets it.
Congress might have created the benefit"s" and therefor can limit or completely deny the remedy but only within the administrative side.

[krazyfamily_6]

The judge will not take any of your debts into consideration.  There is a sheet that most states use to calculate support.  The mother's AND father's income is calculated into that in my state.  Also takes into consideration any daycare costs and medical insurance.  

I also know that in my state they will ask if there are any other children that the NCP is supporting.  

Other than that, I don't know what really to tell you except to expect to pay support.  Tighten your belt and make cuts where necessary.  I paid support for 10 years to my son's mother and while it sucked, I also realized that it was my obligation to help support my son financially.  

[mistoffolees]

>Funny, not a word in here about juisdiction from me anyways,
>the discussion here was equal protection of the laws, and
>equal protection of the children, instead of just one. Since
>we are talking about more than
>one child here,
>And what am I wrong about? because someone "ie"  the state
>isn't syphoning money off the latter children, that they have
>no right to equal protection? that might be what youre
>administrative manual says but that will only goes as far as
>somone lets it.
>Congress might have created the benefit"s" and therefor can
>limit or completely deny the remedy but only within the
>administrative side.

You're wrong about your continued assertions regarding child support and legal obligations as well as your pretending that equal protection somehow allows a parent to stop supporting their children. You've also argued repeatedly that states have no jurisdiction in setting and enforcing child support - which is also wrong.

[leon clugston]

Dont recall anywhere saying that equal protection warrents discontinuing support..please where did I say that, Ime waiting...
For this discussion I didn't mention jurisdiction, why bother, few understand it anyways, and those that know will try anything to cover it up.
Of course since you want to go there, jurisdiction is based upon youre status and what citizenship you claim..//
must be nice to circumnavigate the issues to ward off ones enterest.