Child support
I just found out that BM quit her management job (of 15+ years) and has accepted a part time job as a receptionist at her husband's dental practice. She was making around $70,000 and now will only make around $30,000.
My husband had primary custody of their two kids and BM paid him support up until last year when their daughter moved in with BM. Since he had their son and she had their daughter and both BD and BM made close to the same amount, there was no child support for either of them. Beginning next school year, my husband will have primary custody of both kids again and we are working through all the paperwork now. Mt question is, how will support be calculated? Based on her new income or the last year's income? It seems unfair to base it off the past 12 months when she's not actually making that kind of money anymore, however it also seems unfair that she just up and quit her higher paying job right when she found out she was going to have to start paying support again. We are just happy to have SD back with us but I'm curious about what others have experienced.
I've heard this is the case,
I've heard this is the case, but I've never dealt with it directly. Hopefully this is the case for you! I would suggest speaking with an attorney.
I don't have input persay,
I don't have input persay, but wanted to chime in with this being our situation currently, but reversed. So I guess I'm kind of just babbling and putting a new spin on it lol But my DH quit his job to go on his own with his own company 5 yrs ago which meant less pay (because he no longer had the double-bubble over time) and now his ex wants a lot of money based on the fact that he's capable of earning $$$ even though that's not what he earns right now. He didn't quit in an effort to thwart CS, he's always paid. He did it as an investment in life to build on something that will be bigger and better in the long run. But all his ex sees is that he's making WAY less $ than before and she wants child support based on what he used to make. The problem is, we can't afford to pay the amount of CS she WANTS. It blew me away that a judge might actually rule in her favour since at one time DH DID in fact make that kind of money and therefore is "capable" of making it again. EVEN if it means folding his company and doing what's best for is ex & DD and not what's best for him, his family in the long run.
I must stay, I am floored by everything I'm learning in this process of ex's, CS, being a SM, having SKs etc. Just WOW.
Yes, I was floored as well
Yes, I was floored as well when it happened to us. The Judge told my DH that he didn't care if he lived in a card board box...he just needed to take care of his first family as they were custom to and pay his CS. I know he even told him to get 2 jobs if that is what it took to make it and pay his support.
double wow. I can clearly see
double wow. I can clearly see why some people would rather go to jail then break themselves setting their ex's up with the high life. Which is similar to our situation. BM tries to throw in DH's face how we live in a "beautiful mansion" filled with "all brand new furniture and contents" and have luxuries to take family vacations etc and it kills me that DH & I work HARD for what we have, we budget, live frugal and buy needs not wants so we can splurge now and again but its looked down upon just because BM chose to live in a tiny farmhouse with SD in hopes her dad will kick the bucket so she can cash in on the family farm. She CHOSE their lifestyle and doesn't attempt to make it nicer for SD she would just rather DH finance it all for her because that's what she's used to.
It does burn me (perhaps because I'm not in those shoes) that SD is considered paramount to the other kids simply because she was born first. Somehow that means she should live the life of privledge and silver spoon fed while the other kids need to learn to earn things and the value of a dollar. It's all so BACKWARD to me....
Sorry, I hijacked your post to rant LOL
The judge will tell her that
The judge will tell her that the children need not suffer for her bad decision in life and her CS will stay where it was when she was making 70k.
Your DH (or his attorney)
Your DH (or his attorney) will have to point out that BM voluntarily took a lower paying/less hours job. Judges usually don't look kindly upon parents who try to get out of their obligation in this way.
To "impute" income in my
To "impute" income in my state (VA) is a long drawn out expensive process unless one is dealing with an unemployed person who will be "imputed" to be able to earn at least minimum wage. To do what you want to do, essentially claim that BM is voluntarily underemployed and could be earning $40K more, you will have to hire an attorney, supoena her financial records (which will trigger supoenas for yours in retaliation), hire an expert to show available jobs that BM could be hired for at the higher salary, and prove it all to a judge in a hearing. Very costly, we spent $7K on attorney fees just on exploring the possibility of doing this and settling for a straight CS judgment.
I would suggest that you locate your state's child support calculator and see how different the CS awards would be between BM's income at $30K and at $70K, and estimate the cost of litigation. Will it be worth it? Depending on the age of the skid, the # of years left to pay or receive CS, the income of your spouse, etc., it may be more cost effective (and stress-effective) to take the easy route.
I did calculations based on income for BM ranging from $30-$70K and the difference in payments from her to us was surprisingly small, only $285/month. $3420/year. So a court battle could cost you 2 years at the highest imputed income, but if you lose, you are out a lot of money. And it could cost more. Be cautious.
I think the court will
I think the court will consider that also, only because our situation is kind/sorta similar in the sense that BM went ballistic accusing DH of ripping her off/hiding money/using his company to filter funds etc when she found out that DH put me on the payroll to do his books/billing etc. He explained to her that I'd been doing it for him all along but it wasn't fair for me to work for free and it wasn't like he was paying an exhorbant amount, it's really not much at all. VERY explainable and we do everything by the books with his company for this very reason--so BM can't 'catch us' doing something we shouldn't because we know that would hurt us more in the end. It just kills BM that just because SHE is under handed and would do whatever it took to screw over DH she assumes he'd do the same to her so she's trying to dig up dirt on us that simply isn't there.
So for the fact that she quit to work with her DH in a family company, I agree the courts might not view it harshly, however because knowing what I now know, and how DH is still being scrtewed by the courts, I think they could still look at her and say "well we know you were CAPABLE of earning that much, so regardless of you earning that much now, or not, you will still pay the same amount of child support". KWIM?