It seems that my ex (of four years) is taking me back to modify child support. I was wondering what I'm in for. She didn't even try to discuss this with me to try to come to some sort of agreement, just got a deputies' card on my door.

I have a long and sordid story, that I won't bore you with it's entirety. The basics: My kids' (I have four, 12, 11, 8, and 6) mom is a control freak and a narcissist. Always has been. She is a teacher and left me for... you guessed it, one of her students. They lasted for just a month and a half after we separated (he and I actually correspond to some extent) because she met someone else (at least he was her age) and they married 2 months after the divorce.

Anyway, she wants to modify child support, because evidently me paying her CS and the kids' health insurance and childcare expenses and most activity fees isn't enough. Yes, I'm a bit bitter about that, but I know there is not much I can do about it. Sorry, back to the point... What is going to happen with going to the courts to modify? Also, I was not happy at all with my attorney through the divorce and need to find another one, probably. Do you have any suggestions on how I might do that? Oh, I'm in MO.

Doc� (and for the record, I am NOT a doctor, it's just a nickname I got)

Hello doctor,

What's her basis for modifying the support? Did you get a new job or something?

and just curious...what's the custody and visitation agreement?

Later,
Bobby

Many states allow for a modification every two years, or sooner if there's a substantial change in income....25%
You'll be redoing your income/expense paperwork...basically the same route you went through when they first determined the support you've been paying.

Well, it is 50/50 custody, joint legal and physical. The kids residential home is with me because she moved to another city. No, there is no new job, but I did graduate with my masters.

As far as the basis, I haven't gotten served yet, so I still need to read the details as to why. I assume it is because my new degree.

quote:

Originally posted by BigBobby:
[qb] Hello doctor,

What's her basis for modifying the support? Did you get a new job or something?

and just curious...what's the custody and visitation agreement?

Later,
Bobby [/qb]

Well, that is part of the question I have. When we first set up child support, we compromised before going to court. Now that we are revisiting it, can the judge say whatever he wants, and potentially price me out of my house? Which I kept the marital house to give the kids some consistency. Or will the judge consider expenses and try not to uproot the kids?

quote:

Originally posted by Don:
[qb] Many states allow for a modification every two years, or sooner if there's a substantial change in income....25%
You'll be redoing your income/expense paperwork...basically the same route you went through when they first determined the support you've been paying. [/qb]

In California, before a court will move forward to modify the order, the movant must show there has been a significant/material change of circumstances since the last order was made. This is not necessary, howewever, if the last order was not made pursuant to state guidelines (i.e., parties agreed to less or more than state guideline support). In that case, either pary may request a modification anytime without showing a change of circumstances. Typically, a party to the case has lost a job, got a promotion, had hours cut significantly, or visitation has changed significantly. Both of you will need to complete an Income and Expense Declaration and attach your most recent pay stubs. Usually, the calculations for support are complicated. In California, its an algebraic formula. So, we have a couple software programs that do the calculations simply when you input the info. If you want to know more about what to look out for, send me an email and I'll help you. That's what I'm here for. Ronn (Child Support Attorney)

quote:

Originally posted by rbb333:
[qb]Usually, the calculations for support are complicated. In California, its an algebraic formula.[/qb]

Oooohh...that complicated algebra

Hah...I'm just kidding...I'm happy to have a lawyer here (and I hope you didn't find my post from earlier today in which I said you're evil).

I filed for a Modification in my state once, and I know the form I had to use to do it required "changes in the circumstances" since the original order, but that's about it. You're certainly a better resource to help the original poster.

If the custody is 50/50, and the primary residence is with him, then why does he need to pay CS?

Thanks,
Bobby

Your qestion: If the custody is 50/50, and the primary residence is with him, then why does he need to pay CS?

Well, back to the algebra.... Support liability does not rest on custody percentage alone. There are many factors. Primary custodial parents sometimes end up paying because their income is much higher and the other parent has high visitation (anywhere close to half). The objective is to be sure there is enough money in the household where the children reside for whatever percentage they reside. Comprende?

Thanks,
Bobby [/QB][/QUOTE]

quote:

Originally posted by rbb333:
[qb] Your qestion: If the custody is 50/50, and the primary residence is with him, then why does he need to pay CS?

Well, back to the algebra.... Support liability does not rest on custody percentage alone. There are many factors. Primary custodial parents sometimes end up paying because their income is much higher and the other parent has high visitation (anywhere close to half). The objective is to be sure there is enough money in the household where the children reside for whatever percentage they reside. Comprende?
[/qb]

Heh...well...I must admit that my "complicated Algebra" comment was sarcastic. You see, many times I've told people how easy the Mass CS worksheet is because it's only Algebra. Here's a link to it...maybe it's really simple compared to California one -> http://www.cse.state.ma.us/parents/Calc2.htm

The guidelines also state the following:

"These guidelines are based upon traditional custody and visitation arrangements. Where the parties agree to shared physical custody or the court determines that shared physical custody is in the best interests of the children, these guidelines are not applicable. The guidelines are also not meant to apply for cases in which there is split physical custody, i.e., each parent has physical custody of one or more children."

The worksheet instructions don't say which guidelines *are* applicable for shared physical custody in MA, but that's also a pretty rare custody arrangement in this state. From what I've heard California has been blazing a trail for shared physical custody; I've met several CA single parents with 50/50 physical custody.

I see where you're coming from with your argument for paying CS even when you provide the child's primary residence, but it still does not sit well with me. I might take a look at the CA worksheet sometime to see how they account for it fairly. Then again, I have a CS order until my son's 23 which you indicated was unfair (in another thread) since it's past the age of adulthood. I disagree with that, as my order merely reflects the reality that many children now attend college, and most of them receive support from their parents as they do so.

BTW - That was a beautiful response you just gave in the " child support without visitation rights" thread...wow...

Bobby

I don't remember what I wrote in "Child support without visitation rights" thread, but thank you.

Support past 18 years and graduation from high school is unfair, no doubt. Once the law determines you are an adult, you are no longer a child. Hence, termination of support. If parents want to support their adult children's college education, it their prerogative. But, to force a parent to pay for an adult child's college is inequitable and should be illegal.

We have student loans, pell grants, state grants, scholarships, etc. "I can't afford it" is NEVER an excuse not to go to college in the U.S.A.

So, we will agree to disagree.

As for a primary custodial parent owing the other parent for child support, I completely understand the sense of unfairness in your gut. However, what if it is 50/50 and one parent makes a little more than the other? That parent will other the other a small support order. If that parent makes a lot more than the other under a 50/50 situation, he/she will owe even more. Provided each parent is maximizing their income, it is in fair and in the best interest of the children, most importantly.

Okay, California guidelines. Here we go....

If parents can't agree on child support, the judge will decide the child support amount based on the guideline calculation.

The guideline calculation depends on:

* How much money the parents earn or can earn,
* How much other income each parent receives,
* How many children these parents have together,
* How much time each parent spends with their children,
* The actual tax filing status of each parent,
* Support of children from other relationships,
* Health insurance expenses,
* Mandatory union dues,
* Mandatory retirement contributions,
* The cost of sharing daycare and uninsured health-care costs, and
* Other factors.

Do you still want the formula? Are you sleepy? No need for Ambien now. Here it is, you little math wiz..... Enjoy!

4055. (a) The statewide uniform guideline for determining child support orders is as follows: CS = K (HN - (H%) (TN)).
(b) (1) The components of the formula are as follows:
(A) CS = child support amount.
(B) K = amount of both parents' income to be allocated for child support as set forth in paragraph (3).
(C) HN = high earner's net monthly disposable income.
(D) H% = approximate percentage of time that the high earner has or will have primary physical responsibility for the children compared to the other parent. In cases in which parents have different time-sharing arrangements for different children, H% equals the average of the approximate percentages of time the high earner parent spends with each child.
(E) TN = total net monthly disposable income of both parties.
(2) To compute net disposable income, see Section
4059.
(3) K (amount of both parents' income allocated for child support) equals one plus H% (if H% is less than or equal to 50 percent) or two minus H% (if H% is greater than 50 percent) times the following fraction: Total Net Disposable Income Per Month K $0-800 0.20 + TN/16,000 $801-6,666 0.25 $6,667-10,000 0.10 + 1,000/TN Over $10,000 0.12 + 800/TN For example, if H% equals 20 percent and the total monthly net disposable income of the parents is $1,000, K = (1 + 0.20) X 0.25, or 0.
30. If H% equals 80 percent and the total monthly net disposable income of the parents is $1,000, K = (2 - 0.80) X 0.25, or 0.
30.
(4) For more than one child, multiply CS by: 2 children 1.6 3 children 2 4 children 2.3 5 children 2.5 6 children 2.625 7 children 2.75 8 children 2.813 9 children 2.844 10 children 2.86
(5) If the amount calculated under the formula results in a positive number, the higher earner shall pay that amount to the lower earner. If the amount calculated under the formula results in a negative number, the lower earner shall pay the absolute value of that amount to the higher earner.
(6) In any default proceeding where proof is by affidavit pursuant to Section 2336, or in any proceeding for child support in which a party fails to appear after being duly noticed, H% shall be set at zero in the formula if the noncustodial parent is the higher earner or at 100 if the custodial parent is the higher earner, where there is no evidence presented demonstrating the percentage of time that the noncustodial parent has primary physical responsibility for the children. H% shall not be set as described above if the moving party in a default proceeding is the noncustodial parent or if the party who fails to appear after being duly noticed is the custodial parent. A statement by the party who is not in default as to the percentage of time that the noncustodial parent has primary physical responsibility for the children shall be deemed sufficient evidence.
(7) In all cases in which the net disposable income per month of the obligor is less than one thousand dollars ($1,000), there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the obligor is entitled to a low-income adjustment. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence showing that the application of the low-income adjustment would be unjust and inappropriate in the particular case. In determining whether the presumption is rebutted, the court shall consider the principles provided in Section 4053, and the impact of the contemplated adjustment on the respective net incomes of the obligor and the obligee. The low-income adjustment shall reduce the child support amount otherwise determined under this section by an amount that is no greater than the amount calculated by multiplying the child support amount otherwise determined under this section by a fraction, the numerator of which is 1,000 minus the obligor's net disposable income per month, and the denominator of which is 1,
000.
(8) Unless the court orders otherwise, the order for child support shall allocate the support amount so that the amount of support for the youngest child is the amount of support for one child, and the amount for the next youngest child is the difference between that amount and the amount for two children, with similar allocations for additional children. However, this paragraph does not apply to cases in which there are different time-sharing arrangements for different children or where the court determines that the allocation would be inappropriate in the particular case.
(c) If a court uses a computer to calculate the child support order, the computer program shall not automatically default affirmatively or negatively on whether a low-income adjustment is to be applied. If the low-income adjustment is applied, the computer program shall not provide the amount of the low-income adjustment. Instead, the computer program shall ask the user whether or not to apply the low-income adjustment, and if answered affirmatively, the computer program shall provide the range of the adjustment permitted by paragraph (7) of subdivision (b).

Are you still awake? I didn't bother to edit, so, hope there are not too many errors. I got the code section directly from FC 4055.

Your friend,
Ronn

Thanks for the info.

Doing a quick spreadsheet, it looks like I'd be getting $70/week if we lived in CA compared to the $60/week I get here. I assumed the computation for net disposable income is the same in CA as in MA (since you didn't include Section 4059), but really the support amount doesn't change that much when I adjust HN/TN 10% (min CS = $52, max = $90). I must admit that I would have freaked if this formula had coughed out an amount where I paid CS to her even though he spends 26.5 days of the month with me. It looks like the formula works well, however, and it's interesting to see how states have accounted for joint physical custody.

Heh...and it's kinda fun to play around with the formula. If she had custody 8.3 days of the month, then the CS amount would be zero. Likewise, if my income increased to over $200k/year, then I'd have to start paying her CS for the 4 days he spends with her each month. Those situations both seem to make sense...I'm sure the state of CA is giddy to get my approval on their formula.

As someone who paid for all of his degrees, I've often said that it's good for kids to pay for their own college. I could definitely make arguments as to why the parent has a responsibility to the bill, however. It doesn't sound like you're here to carry on theoretical discussions, however, so I won't try to chase you away with one. Thank you for what you have brought to the site...

Later,
Bobby

PS - For anyone else interested in topic of a parent's responsibility to pay for their child's education, here's a guy who's put a lot of work into researching/analyzing the issue: http://www.rbs2.com/son_edu.pdf

I just printed that baby off, going to go through it tomorrow (working in formula's for classwork, don't wnat to confuse them tonight)

I'm not sure if I have enough info on him for it though.....

You guys are crazy. I can't believe you actually attempted to use that formula, let alone arrive at an actual number! lol Bobby, what do you do for a living? What are your college degrees in? We have two software programs approved by California courts that calculate the amount effortlessly. The horribly named "X-Spouse," and "Dissomaster." Can't imagine doing the calculation manually!

Heh...well, I double majored as an undergrad in Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, and I have my MS in Computer Engineering. I do math a lot more complicated than this every day, but I still say that this equation isn't so complicated that the average person can't tackle it.

There are only 4 components to the CS equation: HN, H%, TN, and K.

H%, the approximate time that I have primary physical responsibility, is easy. There's only 4 days of the month he's not in my care, so it's 26.5/30.5 = 0.868 = 86.8%

HN, the high earner's net monthly disposable income, would be my yearly income minus the expenses the state allows divided by 12. I remember when I figured this out in Dec at my courthouse (it was another worksheet), my monthly disposable income was $6666. CA probably defines disposable income a little differently than Mass, but at the end I can show that it doesn't matter too much if I'm a little off on my estimate.

TN, the total net monthly disposable income of both parties, would be HN plus my ex-wife's disposable income. I remember from December, that this was $2500, so our total would be $9166

K, amount of both parents' income to be allocated for child support as set forth in paragraph (3) is the most complicated part of the equation due to the non-linearity in it's calculation. It's the combination of two numbers calculated together. For the first number, since H% is greater than 50%, is (2 - 0.868)= 1.13. The second number, since TN is between $6667 and $10k, is (0.10+1000/9166)=0.209. The total value for K, then, is (1.13*0.209) = 0.237.

My CS in CA, would therefore be 0.237*(6666-0.868*9166) = -306. The number is negative, indicating that she pays me, and it's a monthly amount which translates to (306*12/52)= $70/week.

Now, lets say that Mass and CA significantly disagree in how yearly income becomes disposable income. Even if I use my total income from last year, the child support amount doesn't change much. HN would be $8333, TN would be $10833.3, and K would be 1.13*(0.12+800/10833)=0.219. The CS would then be 0.219*(8333-0.868*10833)= -236. That translates to $54/week...not a big difference. That's why I'm not going through more trouble to estimate HN/TN exactly according to CA law.

Hopefully by seeing me step through the equation, I've convinced some people not to be so scared of the CS math. Hopefully I haven't convinced too many other people I'm a big nerd.

Really, the hardest part about CS for me to swallow, is my knowledge of how my ex and I ended up with the earning potentials that we have today. When we were teenagers and found out a baby was on the way, I stopped all social activities and dedicated my life to being able to take care of that child. She felt sorry for herself, and did whatever she could to make herself happy in spite of her responsibilities. It was very hard to give up my childhood to become the wage-earner that I am today, and it was much harder when I had to watch all the partying she did. 10 years later as we're filling out these CS worksheets, it doesn't feel right that because she didn't make sacrifices before, she is not expected to pay as much today.

But really...I'm just happy to have custody...

Later,
Bobby

Bobby, I love ya, buddy, but I glazed over after the first sentence. I guess that's why I never went to med school. I have a B.A. in Biblical Literature, an M.A. in Social Science with an emphasis in Human Development and my J.D. in law. I'm a "soft" sciences kind of guy. I cracked up that you actually thought you could get me interested in that equation. I'd rather eat pig intestine (not really).

I like you--you're a good guy. You ARE a numbers geek and I respect you for that because I don't have it in me. To me, you are a god with math. You have a unique talent and I think you are very intelligent. Compared to you, I am a knuckle-head when it comes to math. I'm pretty analytical though--I can tear things a part and diagnose pretty well. I find that fun, but others can't do it very well.

Anything I can help you with on the legal end of things, just fire away.

Your friend,
Ronn