I wouldn't do it. Why should he look like the bad guy if he is willing to take him, but they can't agree on terms. (which are reasonable terms) I also would want the change in writing, even if she verbally says to keep the support, if he doesn't pay and she later decides to get him for contempt for not paying, it becomes he said/she said. and the one with the court order wins.

The fair thing, in my opinion, is that your husband should pay half of his daughter's medical expenses and not pay support if each has one child. (assuming their incomes are fairly comparable) Just because he has another child with a medical condition, that's not the first wife's fault. He has a primary responsibility to his children and that would include his daughter that he had first. She shouldn't suffer because he had another child (or worse, if it's not his child but only yours)

It sounds like she wants to get rid of some stress from two kids but not give up the money.

Ima, for once I agree with you. The fair thing to do is offer to pay half of the daughters medical. If she doesnt accept that, then you are left with a more difficult situation.

As to is it all about the money -- one thing we should be able to agree on is raising kids isnt cheap. So yes, money matters.

Where we live, if there is split custody of the children, then each parent is liable to support the child who does not live with them, to the extent required in the guidelines by their income. For example, if husband makes 50k and one child lives with him, and mom makes 15k and one child lives with her, dad will pay child support on his income of 50k to the mom, and mom will pay child support of her income of 15k to the dad. Since dads *usually* make more than moms, dad still ends up paying support. Medical expenses for ALL the children are usually divided proportionally. In my above scenario dad would be responsible for about 70 percent of the medical expenses.

You may think that sucks, but thats fair. Unless they have relatively the same income, one will still end up paying support to the other. And medical expenses are not something that can be shoved off just because you have the healthy child.

Yes, Kathline, that is more fair, thank you.

I thought about presenting Kathline's idea to BD. The difference would only be about $50-$75 a month based on what the courts already set. I still don't think she would go for it because she wants SS to be able to come back to her whenever he chooses to and we pick up with child support. We don't feel that would benefit SS or us. He needs to learn boundaries.

To answer imamommy it is his child.

See I hate that scenario kathline, why should Dad pay a larger portion because he has a higher paying job? They should be equally responsible for the cost. 50/50 on med regardless of who makes more. IMO....

Sieryn, it's because the kids have the right to benefit from both parent's standard of living. If dad has a higher income, even if they share custody, the child should get something to bring his/her standard of living up a little.

I think it's ridiculous that when you have 50/50 custody or each parent has one child, they are both providing a home & feeding the same meals as the other, but then I have to agree that the child should benefit from both parents' standard of living. IMO, support in that situation, should be used on the child, not to pay rent or food, since both parents already expend equal amounts. I would use it for nicer clothes or lessons, etc. Something that benefits just the child.

If its not proportional, then you can have the situation of one sibling living in a nice house with dad and the other one in a ratty slum with mom...or any variation thereof. Support money is for the children, not for the ex spouse.

OP, boys often do better at 13 with their BD, if they have a good relationship with them. I would probably agree to BM's idea, and leave the arrangement in place for six months or so, and not push it. After six months, when the boy is firmly established in your house, I would file an order for modifying support. At that time, the court would not be interested in changing the boy back to mom, because courts usually follow whatever the status quo is. At that time, mom would also be required to contribute support, and your support would be adjusted.

You have to think of what is best for the kids. Sometimes you can get farther agreeing with the other person until the precedent is set, and then you can modify support to reflect it later.

I spoke with an Attorney friend of mine as to if that would be in our best interest to just get a informal agree drawn up and get it notorized so that we can have some form of proof as to the agreement that we settled on. He said don't do it because in his experience they do not work. If we are going to get SS, we need to pay the money and have it done formally.

"If its not proportional, then you can have the situation of one sibling living in a nice house with dad and the other one in a ratty slum with mom...or any variation thereof. Support money is for the children, not for the ex spouse."

But why should Dad in that situation be responsible for Mom's standard of living? When DH was awarded full custody of the boys first thing BM did was quit her job she then claimed no income, no support. Since then she's maybe worked part time as a waitress here and there and so forth. So you're saying because she's made those choices and can barely afford her small apartment that because we're living in a fairly large home then we should pay more of the kids expenses? That doesn't sit well with me, I believe we're entitled to what we've earned and she is entitled to what she's earned and she shouldn't be able to stiff her kids (any less than she already does) because she makes minimum wage, its not our fault she refuses better employment (she's a CPA for god sakes....)

OP - good luck!

Sieryn, I was only telling you what the law might be or the rationale behind it. That's how the court looks at it. I don't think it's fair either. I think if you have a CP that can't earn as much because they have childcare, the answer is to split the daycare expense. Not give them more child support so they can stay home or work less or stay in low paying jobs when they are qualified to get higher paying jobs. If they still can't do it, then maybe they are not cut out to be a full time parent.

I guess it only matters if the NCP has more??? We are in the same boat Sieryn, we have custody, we both work, we have a better standard of living because of it. BM won't work, so therefore she doesn't pay anything right now... we're trying to change that.

I agree with you that neither is responsible for the other's standard of living. If the mom in that situation, won the lottery or married a wealthy man, it would not mean dad no longer has to pay support. I think parent's (mom or dad) should take responsibility for themselves and quit whining that the other parent isn't taking care of them. My mom did that for twenty years, while dad worked his ass off to get his life back together after the divorce, mom blamed him for her failure to rebound. (She might have even claimed that she 'couldn't' because she had custody of me. Well, he had custody of my sister and he did it.) My husband had 50% custody of my step daughter before he met me, so he managed to work full time & take care of his daughter while her mother made excuses why she couldn't keep a job and take care of kids. My husband has been in the same job for over 21 years. (and if I wasn't here, he'd still be able to manage working & raising his daughter just fine. He's a great dad.)

BM told my DH that she could get a job at McDonald's and still live well because of the money we send and the money from her other BD. She is a social worker and with her income + what she gets from child support she lives very well. She is single and has 2 nice cars, shops every weekend, & etc.

I am not saying she should not have a nice life style, but we both have very nice jobs & sometime I feel like we are working for her to live large. That is why she does not want us to get SS. It is not because she would struggle, but she would have to tone down her life style.

At this level you bet you it is all about money. What did you think it was about? Bring in all the multi millionaires then it is a whole different game isn't it.

yes, it is all about the money and usually is... and that is a crock in itself. And there is no way that I would be the one to tell him that it didnt work out.

Ima and Sieryn, is there no redress in the court system in your state for a ncp who is voluntarily underemployed? Everywhere that I have ever lived, if someone quits their job, or takes a lesser paying job to avoid paying support, they have income imputed to them. It works regardless of which parent is custodial. If they are not supporting their children, they are very much in the wrong, and you have a good case to get a decent support order from them.

the court imputed minimum wage to BM. She tried to fight it but it didn't work. She is still capable of earning EMT wages which is more than $8 hour. She could earn $13-15 an hour or more if she worked (as the longer you work in a field, you get raises).

What I really disagreed with is when the court gave her any support at all when they were sharing custody 50/50. The reasoning is that she was living with her mom at the time. She admitted in deposition that her mom paid all the rent, bought all the groceries and paid all the bills. She paid for her truck, cell phone, and tae kwon do lessons. She used her child support from her older child to pay for that. On top of that, she is a smoker and was out partying at bars and concerts almost every weekend (which is expensive & DH shouldn't be subsidizing that). Now, I would have felt differently if she were working, had her own house/apt. where she had to pay rent & other bills, and was buying her own groceries. Then, yes I would think she deserves some help, even though they were both taking their daughter equal times. I still think she could earn as much as him but she is now 35 years old and has never had a real job. She worked as an EMT for six months and quit to be a nursing student. She has been a student for five years, with no degree. That wouldn't be a big deal if she didn't live with her mom (who babysat for her to go barhopping, so she could have babysat for school/work). Every year that she gets older and she's likely to have health problems sooner because of her smoking/drinking & party lifestyle, the less likely she will be able to make a decent income. Then, she will have yet another excuse why she can't work and why she shouldn't have higher income imputed to her.

Now that she lives with her BF, she has no kids there and no reason to not work. I like how kkny can't say she's a deadbeat. Any man that did what she's doing would be called worse.

PS. Not to mention, she went out and bought all five kids (her two and his three) new ATV's for Christmas. Those cost between $2000-5000 EACH. (plus all the safety gear, which also is very expensive) but in the meantime, I'm paying for her daughter's medical/counseling bills. BM refuses to pay $10 per visit, which is half the co-pay. (and don't think that I'm in any way jealous of them buying ATV's, we bought SD an ATV three years ago and I got mine two years ago. DH already had his when I met him.)

How many ATV's does one child need? (I would say zero, but that is beside the point).

Kathline,

The magistrate told my exH and me that he was "too old" to find a job (in his mid-fifties). Even my exH seemed to think that statement a little odd.

I don't think it's in the best interest of the child to have one rich parent and one poor parent. Generally one reason men have more money is because women dropped out of the job/education plan to bear and raise children. It puts them behind. And they stay behind, sometimes forever.

Women generally do the majority of the childcare, married or divorced. (*GENERALLY*). They change more diapers, clean up more vomit, get less sleep, go to more doctors' appt, etc... There should be some compensation from the parent who benefits by doing less--and having more time to invest in money making activities.

State guidelines are mandatory, everyone in similar circumstances pays/gets the same child support--male or female. It is meant to work out so that each parent pays roughly the same PERCENTAGE of income to supporting their child. Those who invested in career and earning more, will be rewarded with more non-support discretionary income. Only about 60% of court-ordered support is ever collected (only about 30% of non-court ordered support is collected). Child support is notoriously unreliable. Payers stop on a whim, pay partial amounts, delay, etc... Maybe not YOUR spouse, but enough do that CS non-payment is a major reason for dependency on state assistance. It's not in a child's best interest to be neglected because one parent must work so many extra hours to make ends meet. Nor is it fair for custody to simply go to the parent who earns the most. That parent may not be the most attentive or nurturing.

If you think that the ex is exploiting child support to provide herself a luxurious standard of living, remember also that CS is limited--it does end. And if there is something worse than being 35 and suddenly finding yourself having to support yourself for the first time; it's being 53, and suddenly on your own, kids grown, CS cut off, and without the intelligence to have looked to the inevitable future.

All that being said, there is no formula that is fair to everyone in every situation.

I can see all sides on this very thorny issue, actually. And I agree with forms' summation: "All that being said, there is no formula that is fair to everyone in every situation."

I guess I'm most inclined to agree with the following statements:

-Kathline: "If its not proportional, then you can have the situation of one sibling living in a nice house with dad and the other one in a ratty slum with mom...or any variation thereof." And: "Support money is for the children, not for the ex spouse."

-Sieryn: "why should Dad in that situation be responsible for Mom's standard of living?...she shouldn't be able to stiff her kids..."

-Ima: "the kids have the right to benefit from both parent's standard of living. If dad has a higher income, even if they share custody, the child should get something to bring his/her standard of living up a little."

I think the crucial thing to remember here ---which seems to get most often forgotten--- is that CS is for the KIDS. Remembering this *not only* means that the CP has an obligation to make responsible choices and not squander their kids' money... but it ALSO means that the NCP with a larger income shouldn't be a cheap-a$$. The way it SHOULD be is that the NCP with more money says to him/herself: "I am doing well materially, far better than the parent my child lives with. There are very few things more important to spend money on than making sure one's own child has a happy life... It is still my child, even though I am no longer married to his/her other parent and my kid doesn't happen to live with me in my new house. I WANT my child to benefit from the fact that I do well, not to spoil him/her but to be able to give him/her what s/he needs to have a full happy life with as many options as possible. I WANT to be able to help ensure that my kid's living situation is as good as I would make it if s/he lived with me in my house." But I guess the sad part is that this awareness of parental responsibility (and just plain loving care) somehow gets forgotten. The mentality too often becomes "out of house, out of mind", or that somehow the child is LESS their child because of the divorce with the child's parent. So, hence, "less obligation" in their mind, which is why legally-mandated CS exists in the first place! Sometimes, too, there are greedy CP's who spend all the CS on themselves. This is how it so often happens that there are deadbeats (custodial AND non-custodial!) who skip out on CS (or squander it all) and rationalize to themselves why they should go cheap on their own kid, or do the bare minimum for the kid that's demanded of them by law. After all, "The kid's OTHER PARENT isn't helping the kid... why should I?" Meanwhile, there's the kid, in the middle, being denied all sorts of things as retaliation to the other parent. Both parents see the other as not giving the kid enough, so they feel like giving even less, and then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: the kid IS being cheated!!! Clearly we can't always trust parents to do right by their kids, to be unselfish and responsible, so we do need a system.

But the problem seems to be mostly with THIS SYSTEM as it currently stands. Was it Organicmaria who recently said that in some countries the CS-like fund is set up to ONLY be accessible by the children? I can see where the realities of that would be hard to implement (i.e. a 4-year old shopping for his/her own groceries), BUT I basically agree with the intention of making sure it's going to the kids. If there was some, more practical, way of having more tight control of exactly where the money's going, I think many more NCP's with more money would feel more comfortable sharing the wealth. (Not to let them off the hook from doing so, regardless of the system!) The saddest thing is when these NCP's are so loathing of the idea of CP getting thier grubby mitts too much on it that they'd rather see their own child go without. The system REALLY needs to address this problem b/c it's frankly disgusting and heart-breaking.

In our situation, we do not have problem with the BM getting the money. And we have also accepted the fact that she is a shopaholic because she does spend on the kids and they are well taken care of in that respect. But what we do have a problem with is that SS is having major problems in school and at home and she calls my DH when things get out of hand and she wants him to step in.

She has also admitted that SS acts better after he has spent time at our house, but she will not let him come and live with us or release custody because she will loose the money that goes along with him. And SS has expressed to her and us that he would rather live with his dad.

At 13 he may be old enough in the courts eyes to make that decision regardless of what mom thinks.

I'd let him come live with dad and continue to pay her... then, once he's settled in & established, petition to stop the CS (as well as establish that he lives with you). If he doesn't want to move back to mom's, the court won't make him. He's a teenager and the court isn't going to care that mom misses the CS... they will want her to pay. At that point, your DH can maybe get her to agree to let him stay if DH gives up asking her for child support.

Part of her reluctance to release custody and give up child support, may be that she knows that she will be expected to pay. IMO, that's hypocritical when the mom expects to receive the money (because they know how expensive it is to raise kids and they know it's the father's responsibility to pay when they are the custodial parent) but when the child lives with the father, they don't want to pay. They don't care if it's expensive for the father to raise the child, he makes more anyways.... he can afford it. Why should she have to pay him when he makes more than her? But, they don't see that it doesn't matter who makes more, the child is entitled to be supported by BOTH parents. That backwards philosophy does get under my skin.