1040 for CS calculation when joint ?!?!

[mistoffolees]

The only problem with that is that it sounds like (unless I'm reading something into it) the judge asked for tax returns. Giving him W2s when he asked for tax returns is a sure way to get in trouble.

[HelpingHands]

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).

 

[ocean]

I would just bring your W2's the first time and see if that is fine. They request it at our child support hearings all the time but they never asked for it when we got there....
Once I whited out all my info and the bottom line (so BM did not know what I make) and it was fine.. DH had his W2's and paystubs to prove what he was making....
Good luck!

[mistoffolees]

>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.

[ocean]

I would not lie...
Just here are my W2's....."owe I did not bring them"....

[HelpingHands]

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.

[leon clugston]

>>when in doubt and questioning what is alleged to be legal,
>go
>>look it up on the federal side. No other person, or persons
>is
>>repsonsible for youre alleged debts, nor can they be held
>for
>>youre alleged debts. all Information,financial and such of
>>theres is useable or admissable, of course there is some
>here
>>who will argue, but there protecting what the Supreme Court
>>has established as absolute fact, Cooperative Federalism,
>its
>>where the state are bound by the federal regs under the
>>Cooperative agreements.
>
>
>Just to note that your view is not supported by legislation OR
>case law.
>
Supported by tons of case law, you just choose to ignore them for youre own personal enterest

[Genie]

That is the only way to keep her information out of it.  You can black out her SSN and name but her income will be part of the bottom line so nothing you can do.