Welcome to SPARC Forums. Please login or sign up.

Jul 18, 2024, 03:21:26 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Reducing child support for subsequent children in Michigan

Started by momof2b2g, Mar 10, 2011, 09:02:08 AM

Previous topic - Next topic


I was wondering if someone knew anything about Michigan child support guidlines? I have a child with a man who is divorced and has 2 children from that marriage he pays child support for. We are not married but living together and he helps support our son. Is it possible to get his child support reduced that he pays for his other 2 chidlren to help support our son?


I'm not in Michigan but thought this might be relevant.  When I was paying child support for 2 of my children my cost was a certain amount.  When 1 of those children reached the age of 18 and I was no longer paying child support for him my cost was refigured and it was NOT cut in half.  I was paying much more than half of what I had been paying. 

That says to me that the amount of children you are paying for does factor in to how much you pay so even though the mother is not the same for all children, as long as the father is, hopefully you would be able to get his child support refigured so that he could manage supporting all 3 children.

Hope this helps.


Yes, His base support for 1 child is 602 and 915 for 2 children a month. Thats not including child care or insurance. I am just wondering how they will calculate him having another child into that.

They had the first court date last week in front of the referee. He is asking for a reduction because of our son and the fact that his daughter is no longer in day care all day so childcare costs have gone down for her. She is contesting saying that now there daughter wants to play sports so she is going to use the childcare money for that and that he should not have had more children. I just don't understand why his life is suppose to end because she wanted a divorce. If they had another child together the money would be distributed to all the children.


A few states have that. NY does not. The courts here say "dad knew he had the kids and responsibility so that comes first"

Since you are not married that may be an issue, because you are not collecting child support from him to use in the new formula.

The childcare needs to change and say "father will pay the daycare half directly to the provider until Kindergarten"
The activities should be added "when father and mother agree to an activity , the father will pay the mother half of activity directly when a receipt is given to father"


My DH has all of his stuff through MI now. So I've read the guidelines a few times, but I'm no expert (getting that out of the way first. lol). From what I've read, having an additional child is NOT a reason alone to decrease. However, he CAN get a deduction on his income (which in turn could give a small deduction for CS) when they go back to Court for a modification based on other circumstances. The credit is not all that big, though. For my DH, for our 3 children together, it's a $300ish reduction in his total monthly income before being used for child support. For BM, she could get a $300 deduction based solely on her one additional child.

By the way, I think MI laws are TOTALLY screwed up. A CP having an additional child IS reason to increase CS, but a NCP having an additional child is NOT reason to reduce.


I agree with you, if both parents choose to bring forth the blessing of another child, in new families, then their circumstances should be taken into consideration equally.

Given Michigan has a shared time/income model for support, if the NCP and CP both bring additional children into the world, then I think it's only fair for the support order to be recalculated. That does seem reasonable.

If NCP decides (s)he wants to keep bringing kids into this world, and CP does not, CP and existing children should not then bear the brunt of NCP's decision. NCP should find another job and/or his new spouse should to equally shoulder the responsibility of the total family.


I respectfully disagree on the last point.  How is the CP bearing the brunt if NCP has subsequent children (and the CS is reduced as a result)?  The CS is for the child.  If an intact family decides to have additional children and there is no increase in the parent's income, then logic tells me all the children will have 'less.'  Why should it be different for split families?

I live in a state where CS can be reduced if NCP has subsequent children and courts take into account both parent's income (or potential for income).  I think it's progressive and fair.


Because in an intact family, the decision to have more is presumably decided by both parties and the effect felt by both parties.  In a divorce situation, it's not. 

I chose to remain single and not have any more children.  I also chose a career path that put my kids first (ie, not a lot of changing of jobs and therefore only yearly raises and not promotions).  My ex had more kids, changed his job for less pay and shifted the income sharing from 30/70 (CP/NCP) to 60/40 (CP/NCP).  I didn't have a choice, didn't have a say and it created a greater responsibility for me than we had during the marriage.  He got greater income because of his wife but lesser responsibility for his first kids.  And refused to pay his share of the medical/dental.
The wonderful thing about tiggers is I'm the only one!


There is an advantage for filing first because of the way CS laws are written.  If you file for CS, the state will look at the parents income, then deduct any previous CS obligations.  Then CS is established from this adjusted income.  They don't rewrite the first CS order to account for the second one.

I agree that it shouldn't be that way, but that's the way these laws are written.


I understand both sides, but I still feel that subsequent children should not be penalized because an obligor has more children.  Unfortunately, some parents become underemployed to skirt CS (but they are also making less money, so really I don't see the logic), but if a CP decides to make up the difference that's their choice. 

If an family is not intact, it doesn't give the older children more of a priority financially, at leat not in my opinion.  Each parent gets to make their own decisions about kids.  If a NCP has more kids knowing it may decrease the CS they pay to exsisting kids, then as a parent they have a right to make that choice. Albeit not a popular one for the CP.