Did the kids you have with DH help reduce his CS?
Forums:
I understand that the courts view 1st kids as most important, but in my state I'm seeing that's it up to the court if DH gets a credit for the secondary kids he is supporting. Any experience here?
CS amounts are based off both CP and NCPs incomes, and then theres a chart that shows how much $ they would spend if they lived together and each is responsible for their % of the total.
Confusing sometimes, but at least if shes going to be flipping burgers then it means DH isn't handing over big bucks.
I was floored to find out
I was floored to find out where I live the guidelines actually account for more kids. It actually significantly lowers SOs cs.
It is not up to the court to
It is not up to the court to allow subsequent children into the calculation of child support. They must count all subsequent child on the mother and father's side. If they did not then it is a mistake.
Since BS is 3 and SD is 6,
Since BS is 3 and SD is 6, the original and modification were done before BS was even with us.
I've found the info on line on how to calculate the 'credit' but all the wording makes it sound like 'if the court allows'
I think this means if DH takes BM to court he cant get a reduction based on him having more kids.
BUT if BM takes DH to court, he can say whoa I have others to support, I cant pay YOU even more.
AND nothing says anything anywhere about calculating my income in this credit.
I would say what it means by
I would say what it means by if the court allows it they mean if they allow a modification to be done on the support itself.
A court will not modify an order just because another child has been born. They will work all the children into the calculator, all income and medical insurance costs. If after doing this calculation they see there will be at least a 14% change in the the obligation amount they will file to modify the order.
They will modify if:
The income of 1 or both parents has changed;
One parent has lost his or her job;
One parent has been incarcerated;
One parent had another child from another relationship;
There have been significant changes in how much time the child in the case spends with each parent;
The child's needs may have changed and there may be more (or less) costs for child care, health care, or education; and
There have been changes in any of the factors that are used to calculate child support.
AS far as I know it is in the
AS far as I know it is in the federal laws. If there is an agreed order that is different, but if it is a worksheet done by the state yep they count the subsequent children.
Your Ex isn't responsible for
Your Ex isn't responsible for the kids you have with your DH, but your DH should be able to support the kids he has with you as well, not just kids with BM.
I see how this can be viewed
I see how this can be viewed from the BM side. All the more reason, I think its up to the courts to decide, and from my comment above, I think it depends on who is requesting the modification.
When we had BS, we knew how much DH was paying BM and made it work. But if she wants to drag him back to court to get more, shell be taking away from our family and I don't think thats fair.
Your right the cost of living
Your right the cost of living has not dcreased, but with more kids per household that means less can be spent on each kid individually.
Right. I also spoke with
Right.
I also spoke with someone in my state who has 4 kids with her husband, and he has 1 with BM.
BM also has 1 with someone else.
Because both the BM and the DHs incomes are computed, he is getting credit for his 4, and the BM is getting credit for the other that she supports. This way they are both coming to the table with less and therefore he pays her less.
The more children you or your
The more children you or your ex have from another relationship will decrease the total child support obligation. Most likely your exes obligation to your child's support would decrease
IF your state looks at both
IF your state looks at both incomes to compute what he has to pay for CS, the obligation would reduce because you are putting less into the pot as well. Why should he solely support the kids you have together while you are support your others?
If both incomes are
If both incomes are calculated.. when there is a modification both incomes are reviewed. Supporting a kid has nothing to do with what it costs to support them, CS is based off incomes.
This is kind of what I was
This is kind of what I was wondering too. Wouldn't then the new mom's income be taken into consideration?
I was a little surprised by
I was a little surprised by how they calculated the credit for the CS payer.. but if I can keep my income off the table all the better. I bet its because the traditional CS payer is the NCP, the daddy and often the new mom doesn't work, so what would be the point?
Because she is paying less
Because she is paying less for that kid if she has more.
How much $ is available for her to contribute is calculated in the total pot which determines ultimately how much the NCP is paying to her for CS.
Understood, and that's
Understood, and that's probably another reason why it 'all depends'.. if the NCP is behind and never paying, the court is not about to give him a reduction for his additional kids.
n my state the first children
n my state the first children get a % of NCP income (overnights don't count nor does CP income). One child 20%, two 28% third 35% would go to CP BM of this set of kids. Then say guys goes off and remarries and has one more child. This 4th born child while living with Dad already gets the benefits of whatever Dad has left from first commitment (anywhere from 80 to perhaps 65%). But now the second BM divorces/leaves the guy. This second BM can receive CS from the guy. But as the guy already had 1-3 kids with BM#1, BM#2's child would not collect a full 20% from the guy, but the amount the first 1-3 had been receiving may go down to account for a percentage going to yet another child.
Then guy finds a 3rd lady and they have a child (knowing full well this guy already is pouring out around 50% of his income for two sets of previous children). Then BM#3 divorces/leaves guy and files for CS. Yes, she too would get some of guy's income for her child per CS. But by the time this last child gets their 'due' it will be a very small amount as the guy is already ordered to pay BM#1 and BM#2.
But in answer to question, in my state, no. Just because you would marry and have a child with a guy already paying CS to his first set of kids, his CS would not go down even if you produced 2, 3, or even 4 kids (unless you divorced/left him and files for CS. It goes under the assumption that a man wouldn't be produced additional child if he couldn't continue to support the ones he already has had and been ordered to support. Yes, all states are different, but I highly doubt any state allows so much of a credit for having even more additional children on top of a previous commitment that it would amount to too much extra saved cash.
We are in Oregon and we get
We are in Oregon and we get credit for having two baby mama's. It's not much but we do.
In our state, CS is only
In our state, CS is only based on mom's income & dad's income. Other expenses are not taken into account. Other children are not taken into account.
A judge here won't take support away from one set of children to accomodate another set of children.
"I don't think the BM should
"I don't think the BM should have to cut back to the point that HER kid is living a completely different lifestyle simple because dad has new other kids."
I agree.
The whole reason for child
The whole reason for child support to begin with was to not burden a child. The court sets the amount of the obligation as if the family were intact. They treat it as if ALL kids produced by both parents live in one household. They only way I know for them to get around this would be to take all income including spouses into consideration. That doesn't seem fair either.
I get pissed that if the BM and SD and my husband were actually still intacted. BM would have to get a job way better than minimum wage to support SD.
The kids you have with DH
The kids you have with DH should contribute to a reduction in his CS. But how that happens really depends on the state his CS order is located in. In many states, he'll have to file for a reduction.
I'm in Oregon and the amount
I'm in Oregon and the amount of CS my SS's BM pays was lowered because she has two other kids. If she has another, her CS will be decreased again.
It's not fair, but such is life.
Were these reductions
Were these reductions initiated by her.. shes the one that filed for it?
The reductions where done by
The reductions where done by the judge. The judge took what BM makes and what my DH makes, calculated a percentage, and then subtracted from her amount because of her two other kids. She was also ordered to pay half of school supplies/clothing, sport activities, and medical bills. She pays none of it.
She pays $191 a month and complains about it. CS just started up this month and she's never paid anything before. My SS will be 8 in a month and has always been with his dad. She tried getting my income from over the last couple years included to reduce her CS. She was pissed when the judge informed her that any income from me has no bearing on CS.
I was asking who took who to
I was asking who took who to court, but I'm guessing since you have custody, you guys took her.
She took us to court only
She took us to court only because her mother made her. Sorry, I misunderstood your previous post.
I'm a stepmom and my DH pays
I'm a stepmom and my DH pays support to BM. I don't think that support should change based on subsequent children. I know what our family income is after my DH pays his support and that is what we have to work with to support our family. My stepson should not get less just cause we have children. I only have one bio and would love another but our family income doesn't support having a second child born in my marriage so we are not having a second.
Now if BM decided she wanted more support than what she already gets we would have a serious fight on our hands. That is the point that we would argue that there are more mouths to feed now so she should not be entitled to an increase.
Simply, if you can't support children based on your family's income after child support is taken out, don't have more children.
For my SS's Bio Dad it did
For my SS's Bio Dad it did not do him any good at all. My SS is his eldest and our only. He added 3 more out of wedlock spawn by 2 more baby mamas. He is the CP for the youngest 3. Even as he added children to his side of the equation his CS kept going up and up and up.
Most states use some version of the Income Shares methodology for establishing CS. As you indicated it takes in to account the income of both Bio Parents and establishes a division of responsibility based on total Bio Parent income and parenting time of each parent. The higher the parenting time the more credit that parent gets and more of the support % shifts to the other parent.
As my DW's income went up the total Bio Parent income went up and the more $ the Sperm Idiot had to pay even though his income had remained mostly static for years and years.
Test drive your state's online CS calculator to get an idea of what is likely to happen in your case. You can estimate BMs income or if she is unemployed you can enter various imputed income amounts based on anything from minimum wage to a reasonable income for any education or qualifications BM may have.
Good luck.
Depends on the state.
Depends on the state. Indiana, for example, does automatically calculate a subsequent child into the equation, while Illinois does not unless the court sees fit to do so.
Basically, for IN, you get a credit, which is as if you were paying CS for another kid and they calculate it based on your leftover income. Ours would be a credit of $50 a week (plugged it into the IN CS calculator) for CS if BM ever wanted to go for a modification (we don't see a point, even though we'd save about $200 a month, lawyer fees are way more than that).
Check the state. I don't like disturbing the status quo because it's more hassle than it's actually worth but I do like that it discourages BM from modifying because it will go down.
I can think of far better things to spend 6k on instead of a lawyer for a modification.
Exactly, according to my
Exactly, according to my calculator, DH would have a 100 or so reduction. Of course we would go through all the trouble to change that, but if she drags him in there, hell be demanding his 100!
Your bf or husbands income
Your bf or husbands income has nothing to do with the support order. But if your income increases a lot, the next time you are in court, what your Ex pays could be reduced, depending on how your state calculates. Some states still do a flat & of the NCP income regardless of what the CP is putting in.
I dont think there are any NCPs having kids on purpose to 'reduce support', kids are expensive regardless.
And yes the responsible parent does get the shaft, but the responsible parent is not always the CP. Why should BM be getting food stamps and government assistance AND DH have to give her his check??
Fair enough, and I wasn't
Fair enough, and I wasn't trying to make stabs at you personally. BM lives with her BF in his house, always has a BRAND new car and cell and does the whole makeup/hair game, on top of getting money on time every month from DH.
Its like its never enough. I know the point of CS is so maintain a lifestyle, but this lifestyle would have never been achieved if they were still together.
And yes Im sorry Im always bringing in a new argument, this whole CS topic just gets under my skin.
In my state, MA, it's like
In my state, MA, it's like this: when you have 1 kid to pay Cs for, it's roughly 17% of your gross income. 2 kids is roughly 22%, 3 is around 26%. My DH has 3 kids with his ex. When he and I have a baby, that baby also deserves 17%. They subtract 17% for our baby from his gross income, and the amount that's left is what they use as his income for determining the CS for the other kids. Unless you make more than about 100k/year, the amount does not change by much.
They do this because some dads have multiple kids by multiple moms. It's not BM#2's fault that her child came after another, all children deserve the same % but they need to make sure it's not going to punish any kids that dad supports full time.
Confusing, eh?