All forums, topics and discussions are geared to single parents and the issues faced with single parenting.
Support a single parent today and one will support you back!
                 

Single Parents Network SPN Newsletter Single Parents Match Single Parent Articles discussion boards Many Stores to choose from Join Us for Friendship and Support Keep SPN growing Members Personal Area search the network

Page 1 2 3 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
-star Rating Rate It!  Login/Join 
I am New to SFV
Posted
Hello, my husband was just summoned to court for child support. Until now, he and his son's mother split almost everything 50/50. She remarried about 2 years ago and her husband makes over 7 or 8 times at least what my husband makes. They don't really "need" the money and she even said that. She's doing it to spite us. We do understand that he has certain responsibilties for his son which is why we have been giving her money whenever needed without question. My question is, will her husbands income count as her income too when in comes to determining child support? She is a homemaker who stays at home and has a housekeeper, but still sends her 2 other children to daycare. Thanks!
 
Posts: 10 | Location: Pennsylvania | Registered: 18 May 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
On the Board
Posted Hide Post
I find it odd that you think the father should be excused from financially providing for his child if the custodial mother happens to marry someone who earns a good living.

The answer to your question is yes and no. The new spouse income is used in calculating support, but the more the new spouse makes, the higher the support order will be. Let me explain....

The new spouse's income is not counted as "income" in calculating the order. However, when you add the income of custodial mom with her new spouse's income (which is what must be done when they file jointly), it will put them in a higher tax bracket because the joint income is so much greater than mom's income alone. Higher tax bracket means less mom pays more taxes on her portion and the order will go up (everything else remaining the same). Make sense?

You also need to understand that new husband is not legally responsible for this child. YOUR husband and the mother are financially responsible.

It probably is spite, as you say. I've litigated enough cases to know.

Good luck.

P.S. My analysis is according to California law, but most state laws will likely be similar on this issue.
 
Posts: 94 | Location: Southern California | Registered: 28 March 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
I am New to SFV
Posted Hide Post
First, thank you for your reply. I would like to explain that I don't think he should be totally excused financially. I just don't think it's fair that while she is living so lavishly, it will be as if she has no income at all.

quote:
Originally posted by rbb333:
[qb] I find it odd that you think the father should be excused from financially providing for his child if the custodial mother happens to marry someone who earns a good living.

The answer to your question is yes and no. The new spouse income is used in calculating support, but the more the new spouse makes, the higher the support order will be. Let me explain....

The new spouse's income is not counted as "income" in calculating the order. However, when you add the income of custodial mom with her new spouse's income (which is what must be done when they file jointly), it will put them in a higher tax bracket because the joint income is so much greater than mom's income alone. Higher tax bracket means less mom pays more taxes on her portion and the order will go up (everything else remaining the same). Make sense?

You also need to understand that new husband is not legally responsible for this child. YOUR husband and the mother are financially responsible.

It probably is spite, as you say. In my experience, the women are the most spiteful after a divorce, and I've litigated enough cases to know.

Good luck.

Ronn (Child Support Attorney)

P.S. My analysis is according to California law, but most states are similar with this particular fact pattern. [/qb]
 
Posts: 10 | Location: Pennsylvania | Registered: 18 May 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
On the Board
Posted Hide Post
I understand. Just reminding you that new spouse is not financially responsible for your husband's child but your husband is. The more a new spouse gets involved in her partner's child support matters, the worse it gets. The expense affects you, of course, but you knew what you were getting into when you married him. He should be handling this and you should stay far away from it. You are not a party to the case and it is really not your affair. But, I know you won't be happy about that true statement and you don't have to listen to me either. Just something to think about.
 
Posts: 94 | Location: Southern California | Registered: 28 March 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
I am New to SFV
Posted Hide Post
Its hard not to get involved, but I do see what your saying. Thank you very much for your advice, I really do appreciate it!


quote:
Originally posted by rbb333:
[qb] I understand. Just reminding you that new spouse is not financially responsible for your husband's child but your husband is. The more a new spouse gets involved in her partner's child support matters, the worse it gets. The expense affects you, of course, but you knew what you were getting into when you married him. He should be handling this and you should stay far away from it. You are not a party to the case and it is really not your affair. But, I know you won't be happy about that true statement and you don't have to listen to me either. Just something to think about. [/qb]
 
Posts: 10 | Location: Pennsylvania | Registered: 18 May 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
On the Board
Posted Hide Post
[QUOTE]Originally posted by needadvice:
[QB] Its hard not to get involved, but I do see what your saying. Thank you very much for your advice, I really do appreciate it!

I know it's hard not to get involved because it directly effects you financially! I respect you for admitting that and not getting angry with me. It's all small stuff in the big scheme of things anyway. Nobody has a gun to your head, right? Smiler
 
Posts: 94 | Location: Southern California | Registered: 28 March 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
"Board Blazen Parent"
Board Beacon Parent
Posted Hide Post
needadvice-in addition to what RBB said, in PA, the mother's income potential before she quit working will be used in determining her responsibility of the child support, so it will not be as if she is not working, in fact she will be judged on money she is not currently earning, based on her income potential.
 
Posts: 595 | Location: Pennsylvania | Registered: 29 October 2005Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
"Least Fun Guy You Know"
At A loss for Words - NOT!
Posted Hide Post
Hello Ronn,

Glad to see you're still posting; I was worried you might have gotten bored with the board.

I agree that ncp's have a duty to their children, and it doesn't make sense that their duty would be lessened because some other person is now providing money to the children. However, what about the "Voluntary Reduction of Income" portion of the support guidelines? This is from the web page for PA law:

"(1) Voluntary Reduction of Income. When either party voluntarily assumes a lower paying job, quits a job, leaves employment, changes occupations or changes employment status to pursue an education, or is fired for cause, there generally will be no effect on the support obligation."

If the cp becomes a housewife, reducing their monthly income to $0, why wouldn't that be a voluntary reduction of income? I'm assuming this wife must have had a job before she married the rich guy, to have had a 50/50 CS arrangement before.

Heh...I'm thinking of my own situation...I get hardly anything from my ex-wife because I make a lot more money than her. If I married a rich woman and became a stay-at-home dad, I can't picture the judge saying that my ex now needs to pay more because of it Razzer

Later,
Bobby
 
Posts: 1422 | Location: Lexington, MA | Registered: 10 November 2004Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
"Least Fun Guy You Know"
At A loss for Words - NOT!
Posted Hide Post
Heh....netsurfr...you beat me to my point. I started researching/writing about a 1/2 hour ago, and when I got back here you'd just posted Smiler
 
Posts: 1422 | Location: Lexington, MA | Registered: 10 November 2004Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
I am New to SFV
Posted Hide Post
Thanks so much for all your replies! That's my point exactly...now because she is a stay at home mom, are we going to have to pay more because she has no income? Anyway, the mother had said that the courts asked her to bring her income tax return to the conference because her & her husband filed jointly and his income is her income??? Now I'm really confused. Why would they even ask her for that if it doesn't matter?

quote:
Originally posted by BigBobby:
[qb] Hello Ronn,

Glad to see you're still posting; I was worried you might have gotten bored with the board.

I agree that ncp's have a duty to their children, and it doesn't make sense that their duty would be lessened because some other person is now providing money to the children. However, what about the "Voluntary Reduction of Income" portion of the support guidelines? This is from the web page for PA law:

"(1) Voluntary Reduction of Income. When either party voluntarily assumes a lower paying job, quits a job, leaves employment, changes occupations or changes employment status to pursue an education, or is fired for cause, there generally will be no effect on the support obligation."

If the cp becomes a housewife, reducing their monthly income to $0, why wouldn't that be a voluntary reduction of income? I'm assuming this wife must have had a job before she married the rich guy, to have had a 50/50 CS arrangement before.

Heh...I'm thinking of my own situation...I get hardly anything from my ex-wife because I make a lot more money than her. If I married a rich woman and became a stay-at-home dad, I can't picture the judge saying that my ex now needs to pay more because of it Razzer

Later,
Bobby [/qb]
 
Posts: 10 | Location: Pennsylvania | Registered: 18 May 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
I am New to SFV
Posted Hide Post
I was doing some research on the web and came across this :

"Child Support

Pennsylvania�s child support guidelines apply in virtually every case, unless special circumstances are present. Both parties� gross incomes and certain child related expenses are taken into consideration when calculating the child support obligation . The child support payments should continue until the child reaches eighteen years of age, and may be extended through the child�s secondary education."


The mother also said today that they wanted her to bring her income tax return papers because she filed jointly with her husband
 
Posts: 10 | Location: Pennsylvania | Registered: 18 May 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
"Needs to Get Life"
At A loss for Words - NOT!
Posted Hide Post
I just want to say that I am totally understanding where you sit, although I do not sit there. I think it is your business as when you marry you combine the finances and share financial obligations. Sure you aren't a party to the actual agreement but this is stuff that effects everyday living. And, you came on here saying you've been paying and continue to pay. I would hope the laws would not allow her to just stop working, make nothing and therefore cause you and your husband to pay more. It is not just your husband paying, you are married.
 
Posts: 2553 | Location: Maine | Registered: 10 July 2005Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
I am New to SFV
Posted Hide Post
Thank you! It is very comforting to hear that. She told me the other day that they actually make over $750,000 NET and I just find it so hard
to believe that that doesn't count for anything.
 
Posts: 10 | Location: Pennsylvania | Registered: 18 May 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
"Least Fun Guy You Know"
At A loss for Words - NOT!
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by needadvice:
[qb]Both parties� gross incomes and certain child related expenses are taken into consideration when calculating the child support obligation."

The mother also said today that they wanted her to bring her income tax return papers because she filed jointly with her husband [/qb]
Hmmm...the "parties" are your husband and his ex, so I don't see how "gross incomes" is going to include that of the rich new husband.

The court is going to ask for the tax returns because that's the best way to verify her income. Her husband's income will also be on the same joint return, but that doesn't mean that they're going to consider it her income.
 
Posts: 1422 | Location: Lexington, MA | Registered: 10 November 2004Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
"Board Blazen Parent"
Board Beacon Parent
Posted Hide Post
needadvice-I really don't think your husband will have to pay more in child support unless his own pay has increased. If that is your only concern, I don't think there is much to worry about. It is his children and he should be responsible, including if he makes more. As the income from her husband is not considered in determining the child support of your husbands and his ex's kids, your own income is not considered in determining the amounof support he has to pay. I noticed you never mentioned anything about your own income. I know it is hard to deal with the financial obligations in this situation since you have married into it, but you knew he had kids before he took that step and my belief is those kids come first whatever happens. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but that is how I feel. If it was too much for your husband to handle, he shouldn't have made a move that makes his obligations more difficult for him to handle.

I do wish you luck, but like I said if your concerns are what I have read, I don't think you have much to worry about. PA is pretty good about not letting someone who was making money with a child support obligation to eliminate that obligation by choosing to lessen their income by their own actions.
 
Posts: 595 | Location: Pennsylvania | Registered: 29 October 2005Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
 Previous Topic | Next Topic powered by eve community Page 1 2 3  
 


 
Web Single Parents Network
A Single Parents.com