Child support and new kids
Hi, everyone. Longtime lurker, finally made an account.
Kinda searched around for more information about my question, but haven't found anyone in my situation.
So I'm a SM and BM. My oldest is 11, his dad is my XH. After we divorced, we both moved on. He got remarried. Anyway, a few weeks ago DS comes home from XH's and says that SM is having another baby. This will be XH and SM's fourth child together.
Later, I get a text from XH informing me of the new pregnancy then hints about getting CS recalculated because it's been a while and he now has three more kids to support (last time it was calculated, he only had one new kid). Makes a few douchy remarks about how "it definitely doesn't take $xx a week to take care of DS anyway." ...Cool. I ignore his comments and just say congrats, hope SM is doing well (genuinely - she's a saint and DS loves her).
We live in a state that does take subsequent children into account. So okay, that makes sense.
When we went back last time the CS amount actually remained the same because while he did get a credit for the new kid, our state won't change the amount unless the new calculation is 15% more or less than the previous amount. So it was a tiny credit. (He wasn't too happy about that. Even though he already pays a pretty pathetic amount of CS - but I digress)
My question is, has anyone been in the situation where ex has 4+ new kids? Does it substantially change CS? What if (good lord) he continues to have more kids?
- Cyclemama's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
I really doubt an extra kid
I really doubt an extra kid will make that big of a difference. Maybe he'll get it slightly reduced if it meets that percentage threshold that your state requires.
Here in Texas, additional kids do reduce child support obligation but it's super negligible. It starts at 20% of net resources if there is only 1 kid to support and parent has no other kids. Drops to 17.5 if parent has an 1 kid then 16% for another kid, 14.75% for the next, and 13.60% for the next. There is a cap here at 7 kids lol.
So as you can see the tiers don't vary greatly between number of children.
I agree, doubt it makes much of a difference
And they will also factor in his income, which may have gone up since last adjustment
I
I don't think his income has changed too much. He works a close to minimum wage job.
He also works for his mother's business under the table. That's where he really makes bank. If that income was official, his CS would at least double.
This information should be
This information should be circled back to him in regards to CS and how much he SHOULD be paying and how much you've NOT seen up to this point based on him not claiming all of his income properly and legally. And then tell him, do you really want to go back to re-evalute what CS you give to your kid just because you're having a fourth with your new wife?
If his CS is already being
If his CS is already being calculated at near-minimum wage, it's not going to change much in a downward direction. If it does, I'd inform the courts about his under-the-table earnings from his mother. They may or may not take that into account.
Ultimately, you filed CS first, so it shouldn't affect your CS payments that much. If SM and XH were to divorce, she'd feel it worse than you.
How do you know he works for
How do you know he works for his mother under the table? Is it something you could prove? He, his wife (if they file jointly) and his mom would have some tax issues if you were able to use that information. If you're OK with what he's paying now, the threat of you using the information about his tax fraud might dissuade him from trying to get a CS reduction.
Unless CS is ordered for
Unless CS is ordered for those kids, my understanding is that there is very little change if any, even in states where they do take subsequent kids "into account". USUALLY the stance on the matter is each kid after the first marriage/child that CS was awarded to, gets a smaller piece of the pie- basically the left overs. I have heard a judge say more than once that if you can't afford the child support that you are already ordered to pay, QUIT HAVING MORE CHILDREN.
My state is one where they take subsequent kids into account. It reduced my CS by like $6 month. It was kind of amusing. My exH and I don't fight about much, we honestly have a really good relationship. However, taking me back to attempt to pay less CS because he knocked up his girlfriend (now wife whom I adore!!!) really pissed me off at the time.
As it should piss you off!
As it should piss you off!
DH and I are currently trying, but we do it knowing what his CS is and what his general financial responsibilities are. Money will DEFINITELY tighten up if we have a kid, but that doesn't mean the boys should lose out substantially (I get more kids = everyone tightens their belt, but since CS is covering basics, THAT'S the part that shouldn't change).
I think CS can be a raquet, but it's foolish to have more kids when you can't already afford the ones you have. If you're overpaying on CS, get that sorted *before* bringing more kids into the equation.
I'm not sure about any other
*
Generally
in my state the amount of child support is raised every so often as the cost of living goes up so any reduction he could see from his other children may be wiped out by cost of living increases.
Do not forget
People often tend to forget that even in a nuclear family the new kid would reduce the amount of money that the parents could spend on the first one. Simple math, the same income is divided by more people.
I am not saying the parents should stop paying CS but I totally agree that the amount should be reviewed in order to take into consideration the newborn’s existence too.
In addition, I strongly disagree that the SP’s income should be taken into consideration. SP is not a parent and has nothing to do with the first kid. It is bio parent’s income that should divided among their kids, as they are the only responsible for their children.
CS is there to cover basics.
CS is there to cover basics. The amount of food, clothes, school supplies, utilities, etc that are needed/used by one kid is not diminished by the presence of another. Plus, CS is calculated based on the time that the NCP doesn't have custody of the kid. How those calculations come to be differs, but the premise remains the same.
Well if it was for basics
If it was for basics no one would disagree. I read here on the forum that people pay thousands on child support, which means not the basics but the income is taken into consideration to fix it. Overwise it would be easy, there is statistical data on utilities/food/clothes consumption per child and no one would pay thousands on child support.
I am the one who didn’t ask DH to re-evaluate CS but now I am starting to think about it. Example : the daycare for my kid cost me around 1200 usd/month and this is basic for me, because I need to work. I pay for my DD’s food and clothes and everything. The BM does not pay any of that, as the kid is with the ILs. And my ILs themselves do not need to pay for the daycare, as they are retired and can watch the boy. My daughter’s food cost much more as I buy organic only and cook for her. The boy is eating chips and other type of junk food, which is much cheaper. What I want to say is that basics vary a lot, depending on circumstances.
The ILs may need daycare from
The ILs may need daycare from time to time, or they should be compensated for the care they are providing if it is needed. Regarding food, you make the choice to buy organic. Food could be be cheaper - and basic - if you didn't.
JustMaking below did a good job of explaining this. Additionally, as income increases, it is a reasonable assumption that a kid would benefit in their basic care based on that income, which is why CS tends to increase.
It's not a perfect system, but a parent shouldn't get to support one child less because they want to support one child more. Yes, some kids are going to be more or less expensive, but CS tries to average that out.
But in this situtation, there is an additional adult
The SM should be contributing to the costs for HER kid, thus resulting in no decrease or minimal decrease of CS for dad's older kids. If you want to factor in the money the younger kids need, then you have to compare apples to apples and either add in SM income, or impute it.
BUT... the children would
BUT... the children would have the benefit of both parents FULL income. Since SP's incomes aren't included in any of the calculations it isn't fair to have one parent's small portion of income continually reduced because they keep having kids.
Other things that aren't fair in all of this:
Oh I would even agree
I would agree and ask my husband to pay exactly 50% of expenses that are incurred for my DD. If I do so, he will not have enough to fly back and see his first kid, not pay any CS.
at the same time, if BM asks for the same, DH will not be paying much, as she is not spending a lot on this kid. Same for the ILs btw but I now talk about basics: quality food, clothes and education.
Stupid toys are not basics and I am not taking them into account in both calculations.
So, who is right and what to do? :)
You’re asking very state
You’re asking very state specific questions and you can find out through a child support calculator.
So this mental giant games
So this mental giant games the system, is expecting his FIFTH kid, and wants you to accept less cs for your joint child because of it?!?
That's either laughable or insulting, depending on your mood.
He really needs to put that thing away or get snipped. Arsehole.