My ex lied about his income and ended up paying only $75 a month for 3 kids (oldest was over 18, but he didn't help with her college). He testified (and had a hand-written receipt) that he paid MORE than his monthly income to sleep in his girlfriend's bed at her mother's house. He didn't help provide insurance or any extras. I was also going to college and working 3 part-time jobs to live on $6-8,000 a year. Thank goodness for our garden and the food shelf or I wouldn't have been able to feed the kids. We didn't have any welfare assistance. The judge wasn't in his right mind to accept that "rental" receipt.

Dirty, Just goes to show you evil has no gender!!!!I totally agree, what are the judges thinking??? Even when they perjure them selves in court under oath, any atty will tell you they will never get punished....Guess we just have to live our lives with our heads up, like you did when you took care of your kids alone..

rachel,

I'm curious; how much is your DH paying and for how many kids?

KKNY-- We know about the remodeling because when DH goes to pick up the boys, he's almost always invited inside. X also prides herself in boasting about her new items. We never question the boys about anything. They are children and we only discuss adult matters with adults and never in front of them. We pride ourselves in leaving them to their children mentalities and realizations. X uses them as little reporters and tries to mold there opinions, just to be mean to DH and I. The truth prevails. Eventually the boys will be old enough to realize that X speaks out of anger and spite and not love and truth.

To all-- he pays $1340p/m for two- 6 & 8 years old. His income is humble. He's no doctor! :) He makes as much as a police officer or teacher. There is a small amount of equity in the home, but its not enough to speak of. When DH quick-claim deeded the home, she was adamant the DH not be able to see her refi paperwork. We are fairly certain that X's mother did not co-sign.

I did not want to offend anyone with my financial inquiry, but X seems to want to crush DH's financial ability just because she can. Dotz, I believe that X will get a dose of her own medicine one day, so, I'm banking on karma catching up with her. :) Whatever helps us smile thru it, right?!!

I joined this forum because I needed to 'vent' and ask questions to someone besides DH. Lord knows that venting is necessary every now and then. Also, I'm looking forward to learning from everyone's experiences and maybe contributing some encouragement from my own experiences!!

"We do not use support received for any qualifications. "

No, it is only optional for the borrower - as a borrower, if you don't want it included, you don't have to put it down. The bank HAS to include it as income, because it is. They can require proof (such as photocopies of checks) but they can't ignore it. You can't ignore child support income anymore than you can ignore the wife's income like they used to thirty or more years ago.

As a matter of fact, some lenders allow an upward adjustment of child support income, since it is not taxable.

The FHA regs are:

http://www.fhainfo.com/incomeguidelines2.htm

I wasn't speaking as a lender, TOS. I was saying we, my DH and I, do not use support as income for anything we apply for. But thanks for the regs, I know them well, though these are FHA rather than conventional uninsured.

I imagine the OP's husband's exW would want to use child support when applying for a mortgage, if she earns less than 2K a month. There is nothing wrong with using it. After all, you have to report it as income if your child is applying to college, or you are applying for fuel assistance, etc.

1340 per month!?! Wow....

BM is supposed to (and doesn't) pay DH a whopping 94 a month for two boys...

Funny how that works. I know in our state you can have child support re-evaluated twice a year for via CPS for like a 25 dollar fee, might be the same where you live?

I agree with CS. Its needed for the kids. But what i cannot understand is why people on this site use the terms' we pay' Since when does the SM pay for his CS payments. I dont'. If SM here are paying into CS then i can understand why so many are bitter.
CS here in quebec are based on the bioparents salary alone. the only time the Stepparetns salary comes into light is if we were to have sole custody and the CS will reflect that.
As for the amount, you can figure her life style easy by audit. The materials she has in her home and how she goes about living. And as for CS, i would advise that is based on His income, not yours. It doesn't make sense to me at all!

BMs have all kinds of tricks they can use to get CS higher. In my case, my DH pays $1200/mo for 2 boys. When they got divorced over 10 years ago, BM claimed she was paying her mother $800 a month to babysit them (when grandmother watched them for FREE during the marriage), which is why it was so high. DSSs are now 12 and almost 14, so they have no child care. DH has not asked for an adjustment because he does not want to rock the boat.
Our state does not take into account new spouses' incomes OR additional children. BM was remarried within a month of their divorce and had that man's child a few mos later. (DH did not know she was pregnant until after the divorce was final.) DH pays CS as though his Ex is the only adult living in the home and there is no one else who contributes towards the household utilities, etc. (BM married well and is financially well off; although she travels extensively, she does spend some money on the boys, as they take annual trips to Europe and have never asked us to contribute towards them.) In the meantime, DH and I have 2 children together, but his responsibility to pay for them is not taken into account. The whole system is just flawed, IMO. And I do say that "WE" pay CS, because it comes directly out of MY household's income. If that's not "WE," I don't know what is. I can say for certain that "WE" will have a higher household income in 7 years when the CS ends!

I agree with it's our household income. I'm staying at home raising our 3 babies. So I don't have an income myself at this time. It isn't my DH's income. It is our family income. Income that we also use to fly skids here, income we use for their b-days & holidays, income we use for medical/dental bills.
I don't really understand why they don't take additional children into account. I know in TX they have a specific code for multiple family obligations. Some states do & some don't. We should start a grass roots group that supports multiple family obligations. I know some people would say, "well you shouldn't have had them if you couldn't afford them". Now my DH came to me $30,000 in debt, they sure couldn't afford their 2 children but still had them. I don't think cs necessarily should be lowered if you have additional children but I think additional children should be considered if support is being increased. What state do you live in Mollymcb? I know a friend who divorced, married a very well off man, & lives in a beautiful home. The Xhusband is now living in an apartment, paycheck to paycheck, driving a junky truck while my friend is vacationing extensively, living a very good life. Actually, they have 4 kids from their marriage that he pays cs for & the kids drive better vehicles than the Dad. I think the system is very flawed too.
I agree with supporting your children but some states there's alot of inequality.

I disagree in regards to additional children. If a man had children and left his wife and now she struggles raising them, it doesn't mean he can use his new children with subsequent women as an excuse for lowering support for his first children. Personally my X changes women every few years and if he wants to have kids with all of them, I don't think my DD has to suffer financially because of that.

Having other kids is no EXCUSE. My second child that will be coming is no excuse , Its a valid reason to lower child support and thank GOD in quebec they do consider this . The first child in a second marriage doesn't justify it. They only freeze the CS from increasing but the second child in a family does decrease. A law came out in april 2004 that states the first family cannot be detrimental to the second family. So my kids do not have to suffer either because he had a previous life. Fair is fair. My husband will support ALL HIS CHILDREN equally based on his salary.
So i dont see other children as an excuse. And as for raising kids on their own, i disagree. I think custody should always be 50 / 50 . Both parents made them , both parents should raise them. Unless you prove that either parents is not capable due to substance abuse or otherwise. Neither parent should move purposely miles away to condemn the other full time parent.. I think the system is very flawed. There are many parents who choose to not communicate and live farther apart. Its not the kids fault but that is life.
Back to CS. If the mother has full custody , than she also gets the government checks that the hubby doesn't and she gets to claim them for tax purposes...along with many other deals she may have gotten during the divorce. So please dont tell me its not justified to lower CS when their is a valid reason such as another child. Especially when BM earns more money, claims the kids and has a live in boyfriend who doesn't earn a dime. (just for more info on the law, if he had a job, his salary would be taken into account as well. CS would be lowered drastically or cut off. Which is fair cause then they look at both houses family income to see this.)

i agree all custody should be 50/50 a divorce should not mean one parent does not have as much say/input/time with their children. And personally, I think having more children SHOULD change the child support amount and reflect each child equally. Just because another child was born later than one does not mean that he/she should be less important.

Rachael,
Yes these evil bio parents eventually get what's coming to them. Two of my kids will have nothing to do with their Dad in any manner. I never bad mouthed him to them, they saw him over the years verbally abusing me on every corner. The other two kids have very little to do with him and just call him a couple of times a year. He hasn't seen his 4 grandkids in 5 years or so and he dearly loves them. His loss for being such a jerk; he earned it. We've been divorced for 15 years, and yes, I am still angry because his treatment of the kids was so hurtful to them so many times just to try to get back at me.

The standard of living of a custodial mother almost always goes way down after divorce, while that of a NC father almost always goes up.

His first responsibility is to support the children who are already here. How can it be fair to make them starve just because some guy gets a dozen different women pregnant?

The courts won't award more child support than the NCP parent can comfortably afford no matter how many kids he has with his first wife. The maximum child support is limited to around 60% of his income, even if he has two dozen kids.

If I had had my six kids with two different men each earning the same amount, I would receive almost twice as much child support. In my state, you don't get any more child support for 4, or 5, or 6, or 12 kids than you do for three - the reasoning being that not very many families have more than 3 kids. That's like saying that your insurance will pay the same amount toward a heart transplant that they would pay for a tonsilectomy, because not very many people have heart transplants.

Maria makes a good point. He is supporting them all equally. If he had stayed married and had two more kids with his wife, their financial position may have dropped anyways because the more kids you have, the more expensive it is. TOS says that if her kids were from two different men, she'd get more support combined, but she didn't. I'm sure that if their income had stayed the same throughout the marriage, then each time they had a child, they had more expenses from that child.

I don't think it's fair if a father has a house full of kids and leaves to start another family and makes more kids than he can support so none of them get adequately supported. But, If the situation is where there is one or two from the first marriage and he goes on to have more children in a second, then of course there should be an adjustment. But, what about when a custodial mother remarries and has more children?

But each time we had another child, the choice was made by both of us. If my exH had married someone else and had more children (he didn't have any more and his current wife is even older than I am so this is hypothetical) since I wouldn't have any input into that decision, it wouldn't be right for the support amount for the existing children to decrease.

In a hypothetical scenario, if you remarried and went on to have another child, you would then be responsible for the support of that child and it would take away from your other children. Does that mean you would have to discuss it with your exH before you would discuss it with your hypothetical DH? Both parents are responsible for supporting their kids, so it's not much difference when a custodial mother has an additional child. Her contribution to support all her children gets spread out between all her children. She wouldn't think of making that decision with her ex. That's silly.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think one parent should do anything that is detrimental to their children, like making more children than they can support and care for. But, plenty of mothers that have custody go on to have more children and when a non custodial father has more, he's criticized for it. That doesn't seem to be a fair way of thinking.

And it really seems that what you are saying is that it was okay for him to have more children with you and if it lowered your existing children's standard of living, it was acceptable because you made the decision with him. but if he makes that decision without you, it's unacceptable because your existing children will be affected. Either way, your existing children would have a lowered standard of living so what difference is it? If he had left you after three kids, and went on to have three more with someone else, it would have still resulted in the six kids he has now. The only difference would be your input in the last three kids. So, would it have been wrong for him to have those three with someone else, but it was okay to have them with you?

The difference is that in an intact marriage, it is mom and dad making the decision togethor, and living with it, to have more children, and how it will affect the older ones. When parents are divorced, they are not making these decisions togethor, that is why courts have to get involved.

I think it is similiar to why courts in some states get involved with college tuitiion issues -- the parents may have different interests.

If a custodial parent remarries and has more kids, most often the original children's standard of living rises relative to what it was when the parent was single (assuming the stepparent has a job). When the NCP remarries and has more kids, the original children's standard of living almost never rises. I can just imagine the NCP saying, "Now I have plenty of disposable income because I only have to pay half of the mortgage. I'd like to increase the child support. Would the kids like to go to private school? They would like piano lessons? - please let me pay for them."

I really don't understand you sometimes.. sometimes you are soo pessimistic about people. What DAD wouldnt want to help out all of this children with piano lessons and private school if he had the money... All of the fathers I know are like that ... If they are not then they are not a real father. IMO

you are being naive mom of 4. so many nonexistant or uninvolved fathers are out there and so many posters here described uninvolved selfish bioparents and now you say that every father who has the money is willing to help the children. it simply is not true.

then they are not a real father as I said and that still doesnt mean that cs should not consider all children involved even if he is a crappy excuse for a father. Children of any mother or father are not responsible for their parents actions and should not be punished or treated any differently in any standard because of that.

TOS, is the original children's standard of living supposed to go up when a NCP remarries? If you want your kids standard of living to increase, then why don't YOU remarry? Why would it or should it fall on the shoulders of a NC step parent that brings a second income into your ex's home? and if the NCP is single and living on their own, they are more likely to fall behind in their support because they may be struggling to pay their own bills. If they remarry, the new spouse may have an income that allows them to be able to make their payments on time. (not in all situations but with NCP's that don't have a high income and/or have more than a couple of kids)

IMa, I dont think that is the approach we want with anyone, that a CP should remarry to get kids a better standard of living. I am of the impression that worked for you, but that doesnt mean it is an answer.

I am not aware of any statistics on remarried v. single NCPs and default rates on CS, are you?

And in my state if a NCP remarries and/or has someone to split rent with that is (and I think should be) taken into account. Not that are taking NCP's partner's income into account, but are looking at expenses.

In all honesty KKNY, my kids had a better standard of living before I met my husband. Our standard increased when I became self employed. My husband is in a lot of debt from his previous relationship and didn't bring more money into our marriage. In fact, since his ex left my SD here with us full time, our standard of living has gone down a little because an 8 year old is expensive. We now have higher counseling bills, school lunches, school clothes, school supplies, field trips, etc. and those things are paid for out of my income. BM doesn't pay a dime for ANYTHING and he didn't have any 'extra' money after he pays his bills.

But I guess BM's standard of living went up. She went from sharing a bedroom at her mom's house with two kids to sharing a house with her BF and no kids. (but still get the child support payments)

i wonder is the father (didnt he try to get custody of his daughter ??) knows that his child is living at grandma's with her living with borfriend still collecting his child support. Not that trying and failing is really an excuse to not be aware of what is going on but... now would be the perfect time to file for emergency custody or temporary custody...whatever it is and get his daughter... since mom has all but abandoned her with gma.

We're not sure what their situation is. DH wants to stay out of it. We know when they (BM & her DH) split up, he went back to his wife (BM was TOW). He initially tried to get custody of his DD when she was 1, but sees her once a month I think and on a few vacations a year. Not sure why he hasn't tried to get custody, he must know... it's been five months, almost six. BM may be telling him she give gma the support or maybe he doesn't care what happens with the money he sends as long as his DD is taken care of. If I were gma, I would be pissed at BM. It could be that he doesn't want custody of her now. He had two older kids with his first wife that he went back and raised with her. They are grown & off in college now so maybe taking in his 12 year old is something he isn't prepared to do. I don't know what kind of father he is so I can't answer it or understand it. If it were my DH's child, I would be encouraging him to get custody.

"She went from sharing a bedroom at her mom's house with two kids to sharing a house with her BF and no kids. (but still get the child support payments)"

BM gets child support? But SD lives with you, why do you pay CS?

oh i see, she gets support from her other X. my bad, I thought sd is with you but BM still wants CS. ha hope not.

well, last week when DH asked her why she hasn't paid him half of SD's counseling (per the court order), she told him 'well, you haven't paid the child support since September!' Umm, we've had SD since August and we did pay her September's support. That's the nerve of the woman. (btw, the counseling is about forty or fifty dollars a month for her half. That's all he's asked for since she left and she tells him that.)

although it may be true that in most cases, the ncp's standard of living increases upon divorce, and the cp's standard of living decreases, that only holds true until the cp remarries. At that time, the standard of living becomes much much better for the cp.

80% of women who are divorced with children do indeed remarry.

Perhaps things like remarriage, and family income, should be taken into account when child support amounts are set. I know where I lived in Ontario, cs was set according to guideline based on the ncp income, BUT, when it came to extras like daycare and piano lessons being added on, the entire family income of both the ncp and his new spouse and the cp and her new spouse were considered, in order to determine if it would be fair.

I think that could be a fair way to go about it, so that the children are not deprived of a base amount of proper support( which actually is quite high), but additional items should be paid for by the family with the higher income.

I think it's fair if both parents are remarried, but if only one is and the one that isn't wants to use the new spouse's income as a basis for increasing or decreasing support, then that is not fair.

In my exH's case, he doesn't have to pay a penny in rent or mortgage. If he had a job that included a free house, he would have to include that as income; why shouldn't he have to include the value of the free housing he gets from his current wife as income?

I have read that chances of getting remarried after you hit 40 is lower than being hit by a tornado. lol Who are these 80% of women getting remarried? hahah

he should include the fact that he does not pay mortgage or rent, which means he has more disposable income so he should pay more child support. absolutelly!

In the CS calc's here you fill out a sheet that includes housing costs, toothpaste costs, etc. to determine *your* cost of living. It seems practical - I would like to think each state did that.

Doesn't it seem like this should be standardized??

You do that here, too, but it has nothing to do with the child support awarded. I don't know why they bother. Child support is based only on income from your job.

Really? Here they take the % of time you have, your income and your basic cost of living (not your boat or 3 sports car payments, but house and reasonable food, clothing etc.) day care and medical expenses and throw them all in the pot. A heavier portion is attributed to income, but unfortunately in our case little documentation is required to prove the income you make. This allows a parent to not claim bonuses, trust disbursements and the like as income and get away with it.

I don't have any personal experience with 50/50 splits or similar here, but when there is a CP and a NCP with visitation, they take both incomes, subtract a certain amount from the CP's income as a floor, subtract daycare expenses from the CP's income, and then use those figures to adjust the default child support percentages. Therefore, if the NCP earns 50K and the CP's adjusted income is 30K, they take the default percentage and multiply it by 1-(30/80). You have to prove your income with W2's etc., but second jobs are not counted unless they were a regular source of income while married. The percentages can be adjusted up or down a maximum of 2% for extenuating circumstances like high medical costs, the fact that the parents have more than three children, etc. The NCP is not required to pay a penny toward daycare - the only place it is taken into account at all is in the relative income computation. Although child support for one child is relatively high for one child, my state is among the lowest for child support awards for multiple children. And the child support can never exceed 60% of the NCP's income, even if there are a dozen children.

Here's and interesting and depressing article on the cost of raising children:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CollegeandFamily/Raisekids/P37245.asp

According to those figures, if my exH and I had equal incomes (and his is higher), I should be receiving almost a thousand dollars more in child support than I do in order for him to be paying half - and that doesn't count the costs of the two kids in college, whom he is required by law to support in our state.

Fine, I m one of those women that married after 40!! LOL After 50 actually (was 54 ) my sister just got married at 62 last August..I have lots of girlfriends in the 50 to 55 year age range and they date and I can see them remarrying soon..Had 3 friends remarry in the last 5 years...I ve heard the tornado(or lightening statisics too,lol), but I live in a big city, and I think its raining men...LOL I have divorced guys asking me to fix them up all the time....

Oh dear,

I am also one of those women who remarried after forty. Its not as uncommon as some people think. My best friend also remarried after she was forty.

My husband is 6 years younger than I am, also a trend I guess.

As for child support, I have absolutely no problems with the child support guidelines when it comes to the base amount. Where I have gotten upset in the past, is when daycare is added on, and the NCP ends up paying for most of it. If it were 50/50 on daycare I would have less problems. The way it works in most states, its a proportional share, which leaves no incentive for a CP to manage costs, since the ncp pays for most of it in many cases. Also, some vindictive people try to maximize costs, because they know it will be a hardship on their ex.

In our situation, ex wife tried to claim that it cost 8k a year for after school care for a 12 year old...when care was available at the childs school for five dollars a day. My husband would have been required to pay for three quarters of that.

Never mind that her costs for the last year were 3500.

Anyway, she was mightly pissed off when the judge told her that to get daycare, the costs had to be reasonable , and necessary. 8 k for a 12 year old isnt reasonable, when its available for 800 per year. Now she is furious and somehow its my husbands fault. Go figure.

What I've found Kathline...it's always the DH's fault. Why does a child of 12 need after school care? He should be responsible enough to stay alone. Red Cross does babysitter training for kids ages 11-15.

dotz, I know people are dating at any age and bunch of people ask to be fixed up with somebody, but it doesn't mean remarriage. It is raining men, lol, no problem to find a man, I never said there is. But I was talking about remarriage. Most men of older age want younger women (to have kids usually). Most men my age want a woman at least 5 years younger than me. Most divorced women of my age and older do date but do not remarry or...remarry and divorce again. In any case it is harder with age. It also depends on expectations and standards. Higher are your standards less likely you are to remarry. I mean tornado is a joke, of course it is not that bad, but still. ...Don't deny that...

Fine, Like Kathline, I also married a younger, not older man, 5 years younger, and at that age , a lot of the men are finished(or almost finished raising the last of their kids) and have No desire to start another family...I know what you mean about standards tho...I was lucky, I was looking for a ten, and ended up with a twelve!!!LOL Only baggage is vindictive, I dont want you to be happy BM....But the marriage is solid and happy, and he is the perfect example of a husband who believes (who on the board said this?) There are problems around us, not between us...Totally helps me deal with the whack attacks LOL

I like that saying, "There are problems around us, not between us".

dotz, if you got married at 54 and didn't get hit by tornado lol then I still have time. :) to get married I mean not get hit by tornado. haha

Good luck to you Fine, Never thought it could happen to me!!!!! Came out of an oppressive long term marriage thinking I was a total loser(at least thats the way HE made me feel)BUT I lost the polyester, the pounds, start looking to woman I thought were sharp, changed my style completely, and LO and Behold, my wit and personality came back, and BONUS People were asking, what the heck happened to you, you look ten years younger(felt it too)And what a shocker!! I was perceived as a CATCH all of a sudden!!!So, you never know...I d be the last person in the world that thought I d wind up with a cute, younger guy that treats me like a human being, an equal,a partner....Keep your eyes (and mind open) He may be waiting for you out there..My wish for all you who are still waiting :)