She's going for more money.
We got a letter in the mail the other day from the child support enforcement agency. BF didn't read it until BM called him asking if he'd gotten the letter yet. She then explained to him that she had been fired (I didn't tell him, I wanted him to find out from her) and that she requested that his income be re-evaluated so that hopefully she could get a higher child support payment from him. Why she felt the need to tell him this personally, I don't know.
In our state, child support is based off both the parents' income. BF says that his lawyer explained to him long ago that if BM's income ever went down, she would be eligible for a raise in child support.
However, BF also said that he hadn't planned on rocking the boat when our baby is born. He WAS just going to leave the CS payment what it was instead of requesting it be lowered since he had another child. Now that she's trying to get more money out of him, though, he plans to modify that when the baby's born. By then, we hope she'll have another job (that's well over 6 months from now) and so the payment will result in being lower than it was to begin with.
- Nymh's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
Of course she is....
In our state, it's the same, both parents income are factored in. BUT there is also an argument that states that both parties need to work to their "full potential". This prevents individuals taking a lower paying job in hopes to pay less cs OR in your case, get paid more cs.
I would think that if BM maintained employment for any period of time that she would have to be held that amount. My skids BM did this very thing. She has an associates degree in nursing but she worked as a waitress and then at a daycare. In the cs formula, she was held to what she made as a medical assistant.
She still needs to provide for her son, just because she can't hold a job...that doesn't make it your BFs responsibility to make up the difference.
"Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass...It's about learning to dance in the rain."
Both incomes considered, but...
Let's say they jointly make $100k/year, he makes $50k and she makes $50k. In our state, since they make the same amount of money, then they are responsible for equal shares of the support. He makes 50% of their combined income, so he is responsible for 50% of the total amout it takes to raise a child in our state. Likewise for BM, since she also makes 50% of their combined income. Let's say the calculation states that it takes $1200/mo to raise a child in our state. BM would be responsible for $600 and DH would pay her his share, which is also $600.
Now let's say she loses her job, gets a new job and is only making $25k/year. Their combined income is now $75k/year. Since she only earns 1/3 of that total, then she's no longer responsible for half, she's only responsible for 1/3. So yes, her portion of the total amount would be decreased.
BUT... in our state, the total amount of CS is based on combined income. If the combined income is lowered, then the TOTAL child support amount is lowered. Instead of the total amount being $1200/mo, it's now maybe $900/mo. She's responsible only for 1/3 of that, which is $300. He is now responsible for 2/3, but that still only works out to be $600/mo... the same as he was paying before.
That's how it works in our state. I don't know how it is where you live, but it doesn't make sense to penalize one parent just because the other parent can't hold up their financial end of things. Like CG points out, her losing her job might be a problem for HER, but that doesn't/shouldn't necessarily equate to a problem for HIM.
♥ Georgia ♥
"Good men don't just happen. They have to be created by us women." (from ROSEANNE)
Let me know how this turns out
We are facing something similar. We have had SD14 for the past four years with no CS from BM. Husband agreed to let SD move in with BM, and BM filed for CS. We still have SD, meanwhile...
I want to get back CS for the four years we had SD or to get credit for the CS not paid toward what the courts might order us to pay.
The complicating factor is that BM does not work. So, in her eyes, because she has no income (besides her husband's), she shouldn't have to pay CS. But the courts will impute to her the income she COULD be earning. She can't just not work to avoid her obligation to her child.
And, according to our lawyer, we will get credit for the other two children (our BDs) in our house. That will reduce our CS. We also will get credit for the medical insurance amount we pay (we provide coverage for SD).
Good luck!