"The logic is people shouldnt create baby number 2 unless they can take care of baby number 1. In my state, it is called, first in time, first in line by the attorneys. Hopefully I will never have to deal wiht this.'

I know you didn't write the rules KKNY so this isn't attacking you but I have gotta say......
The logic is f****** retarded. It's OK to rate the importance of a child by birth order and let the last in line do with out but it's not OK to "snip snip" the guy and tell him "You've planted enuf trees Johnny Appleseed"?

I do not see the logic in that at all. I think it is ass backwards. I think the children suffer and I think it is ridiculous and frankly it pisses me off.

I agree that no child should suffer or get less than any other because of this type of situation. I was mainly addressing the idea that some NCP's seek a reduction in child support for their pre-existing kids when they choose to have additional children. And frankly, I have seen a lot of written accounts (not very much on this forum though) of mostly stepmothers who state point blank that they want to have another kid to 'even the score' or to provide a reason why a CS amount being sent to the stepchild should be lower because they just can't stand the fact that x number of dollars get sent to 'the other house' every month. These types of accounts disturb me deeply for many reasons, but most especially that a baby becomes a pawn in a wretched game and that the situation is not only created but *desired* where the existing kid gets less. So really I'm just addressing that idea of a *reduction* being sought. However I can also see it from the other side (like the scenario Lovehadley most recently posted) and agree that an additional kid shouldn't receive less in case of an additional divorce. I guess I feel like the situation should be that the existence of no one kid ---pre-existing or additional--- should impinge upon the rights/needs of any other. No kid should have to go without anything for the sole reason that there exists another kid in the mix, present or future. (Bad economy or other bonafide hardships occuring after the kids' births is another issue, and in that case ALL family members probably have to go without some things.) Which means that when PLANNING on future kids, there needs to be enough resources to go around to ensure that forseeable iniquities will not happen. The kids should all be equally, adequately provided for. But as I said before, that balance and harmony is pretty hard to maintain when you have some parents literally wanting to have kids just to 'stick it' somehow to their exes or to 'even the score', or even to have their future kid be 'more important than' the pre-existing ones. Again, we don't hear too much of that mentality on this forum, but I've been doing some reading on some other forums and that is disturbingly common with many folks. But anyway, I do think we can all agree here on the idea that the kids should be treated equally and fairly, and that people shouldn't PLAN on having an additional kid if they won't be able to afford them all. (And yes, I do very much see a difference between a situation where the additional child is 'planned' vs. 'unplanned'.)

"No kid should have to go without anything for the sole reason that there exists another kid in the mix, present or future."

My husband and I are currently expecting a baby (planned) and as such my two stepdaughters (just like me and my husband) will need to adjust to a tighter household budget, etc. There will come a time when all of us will have to forfeit a "want" because my husband and I chose to have a baby. Just like I had to adjust when my parents decided to have my brother.

LP--

Yes, big difference between "wants" and "needs"... And presuming that the three children will all have to sacrifice equally, then yes, that is called 'family life' regardless. What I'm talking about is a situation where, for example, there is not enough money to go around to make sure that a young crooked-tooth tyke who NEEDS braces can get them AND an older kid who NEEDS a piece of equipment for his/her sport can get that too. Or where there isn't enough to go around to make sure that Christmases and the like are equal enough, or that every kid in the family can pursue interests/activities which they are passionate about and which they excel in. Or where there isn't enough to go around to make sure that every kid in the family who works hard to get good grades and saves for years to chip in for their own college education can't get the remainder of the college education expenses paid for by their parents as promised. Or that one kid can but the other can't. Or that an older kid has to work 35 hours a week on top of school to completely pay for his own car, gas, insurance, clothes while precious li'l sis gets equestrian lessons complete with 6 equestrian outfits and a little sparkly pink bracelet that says "Horse Princess" not for a special occasion but just for being cute. Or that little sis doesn't get to go on the very educational class trip to Washington D.C. because big sis just got a nose job. That's the kind of nightmare scenario I'm talking about, and you can see it's mainly got to do with potential ***inequality***, not a case of everyone having to stick to a certain budget more or less equally. And you can also see that the potential for perceived inequality is rife. That's why I say that ANYONE ---whether in a blended or intact family or as a single parent--- should seriously consider making sure that there are plenty of resources to care for and provide for any/all kids fairly. If the rule is that NO KID in the family gets any help with college, so be it. If you are rich enough to provide nose & boob jobs to all 10 of your daughters, so be it. My point is that it should be fair and as close to equal as possible. If it can't be (or if 'fair' and 'equal' can't be determiend because everyone in the blended family is defining those terms diferently) then I'd really question if it's worth it to have the additional kids and knowingly walk into a potential hornet's nest where one kid gets certain advantages and another doesn't.

It is a different situation when all the children are in the same family, versus when there are two families with conflicting priorities. Theoretically, at least, (though I am aware that this isn't always the case) all children with the same two biological parents are loved equally, and their parents will distribute their resources equitably among their children. When the children only share one parent, it is far more likely that even if the mutual parent wants to share his resources equally between his children, both of the other parents will want more resources allocated to their child. It is not fair to family A to have fewer resources for the child when one parent had no input into the decision to bring more children into the mix. On the other hand, the other parent in Family B normally does know going into the marriage that her/his spouse has another child.

The first in time, first in line doctrine has a VERY long history - if it bothers you so much, it is a good thing none of you are members of the aristocracy.

I have sympathy for a woman who marries a man, and then they both find out later he has children from a previous relationship, but where the man was married, both he and his new wife should take his obligations into account when deciding how many more. Its no different than other obligations.

"but where the man was married, both he and his new wife should take his obligations into account when deciding how many more. Its no different than other obligations."

I completely agree. Just as new wife has to marry with eyes open to the fact that hubs has a child already, she has to marry with eyes open to the fact that could limit their ability to have a child together. It really should be something discussed at length PRIOR to marriage, IMO. If new wife MUST have kids and hubs fears he can't support more kids than those he already has, they may not be quite as good a match as they thought.

If only all people were this responsible . . . we wouldn't have so much to discuss on here . . . .

Just suppose, Family A has dad, mom & 3 kids. Mom & dad divorce & dad pays mom $1500 a month in support based on HIS income (when he's single). Two years later, he gets remarried. His new wife makes twice as much money as he does. (whether they have kids together or not)

The two previous posters might argue that he should pay more now because his wife makes so much money, he has more net disposable income because now his new wife is contributing to the living expenses. (never mind if she has kids from a previous relationship that she's supporting) or what if his income goes down, but his wife still makes a lot of money??? Why should family A benefit from the new wife's income/resources???? (especially if she's going to get less child support for her kids if things don't work out!)

TOS, you aren't seriously saying that it's the SM that prevents the dad from sharing with family A, are you??? You mean, dad says "I want to give family A ____" and his wife says no??? Gosh, I didn't know I had so much power!!!! I thought the courts determine the obligation parents have to their children.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with first in line... previous kids should not suffer because parent keeps making babies. However, I don't think second or third families should suffer. If dad pays $500 per kid from family A, when he leaves family B, he should pay the same amounts for those kids... get another job! But, then again the court takes into account what mom A makes and what mom B makes, as well as time share. It is actually a penalty to the CP that works versus one that doesn't, which I also feel is unfair. But, it is what it is.

There was a time that I was having to pay support to my son's dad because he couldn't hold a job & I had a good job. It wasn't much, a little more than a hundred dollars a month & I paid for health insurance. At the same time period, the family support reviewed my other case with my daughter's father & found out he also wasn't working & had gone on welfare with his wife & four kids. The court dropped his support obligation from $72 a month down to zero (reserved) because he was on welfare/not working. I was livid. Here I was, a single working mom with young three kids... and I was the only one paying child support and supporting my kids. That's probably why I refused to date a man that complained about his ex or paying for his children. It's quite an insult to all SM's when a generalization like this is made...

"even if the mutual parent wants to share his resources equally between his children, both of the other parents will want more resources allocated to their child."

I think it is awful that your children's fathers received child support because they couldn't hold a job, or didn't have to pay because they were not working. I know in my state that there is a minimum amount the NCP is required to pay even if he/she has no income, and they typically impute at least minimum wage.

You mean, dad says "I want to give family A ____" and his wife says no???

Absolutely I am saying that - not specifically with child support, since that is determined by the court as you say, but with anything "extra" and a lot of things that most people wouldn't consider extra. Do you expect me to believe that it was all my exH's idea to hire a lawyer to go to court to fight contributing a mere $1000 to our child's college tuition? Even the lawyer thought it was stupid, and told me that she had told him that that was the last time she would go back to court for something like that.

Yet when we were waiting for the judge to come in during the divorce proceedings a year or two before that, he had suggested that our child transfer to a good, but fairly expensive, college after she finished her associate's degree.

Yes, a lot of SM's do have the power to make their husbands limit what they contribute to their children. I have seen numerous posts here where stepparents complain about what the fathers are contributing to their children beyond mandated child support (and often even complaints about the mandated child support itself). If they are complaining here, the husband is probably hearing it too - and a lot of men will refrain from giving their children as much as they wish to in order to avoid arguments from their current spouse.

Yes, if his wife makes a lot of money and he chooses not to work or to take a job that pays less than what he could be earning, the value of his housing/whatever else she is paying for should be counted as income. If you are a minister and you get a free house, that is counted as income. How is this any different?

why did you pay child support when your kids always lived wiht you not with their fathers? this makes no sense.

FD, child support is based on income & time share. My son was in year round school... one month off, two months on. That was a 35/65 split. I had a good job, his dad had zero income. It calculated in his dad's favor. I think it was $136 a month. I had no problem paying toward my son's support, but it was a slap in the face to pay to someone that wouldn't work because HE didn't want to have to pay me. He eventually stopped seeing my son & I had 100% custody, so that stopped.

TOS: That may have been YOUR experience where your exH's wife changed his mind about your child's college. It could also be that he wanted to send the child to a better college and two years later, his financial circumstances changed to where he felt he couldn't do it. There could be other reasons, besides his wife's influence. Or his wife very well may have told him not to do it. That's possible. But, it's unfair to make a general statement that suggests ALL SM's wield the same power over their husbands.

My son is in college now. I help him out but my husband gets upset because we are paying our bills & it gets tight at times. It's not because he doesn't want my son to have an education. I'm sure he would feel differently if my son was working & contributing to his own education. Before I met my husband, I told my kids that if they attend college, I will continue to support them but they must take college seriously (good attendance & good grades)& work part time. I don't have a college fund sitting there for them... so they are responsible for part of it & I will help out. We have had arguments over this because it does affect our household. I don't refrain from giving to my son because I want to avoid an argument. I might refrain from giving to my son when it means I won't be able to buy groceries, pay the utilities or make my payments. When there's extra money, it's not a problem. When gas was $4.65 a gallon & I am self employed and business gets slow... there are times I don't have any extra money to spare. Plus, my son is NOT doing what I expect him to do... work part time. So, when I tell my son no... it's MY decision, not my husbands. If I were asking to use his money and he said no, then it's his decision. If I am able to pay my share of our bills & I have extra money, what I do with it is up to me. Perhaps after a year or two, your exH decided he didn't want to work & support his kids or help pay for college. That's a decision HE made. My husband, I don't care how persuasive he is, is NOT going to tell me I can't work if I really want to.

Also, stepparents that complain here about fathers contributing to first family... when it affects the household, then of course I would complain. If my husband gives his ex $200 he doesn't need to and in turn, can't make his car payment so I have to give him $200... then of course I would be upset. Essentially, I am paying his ex. (it would also depend on what it's for. I could tell you about the year we spent $100 on SD's costume because BM picked one out and demanded he buy it. We later found out her mom also bought her a different one for almost $100 so she could wear one to a party and the other to go trick or treating. A seven year old does not need 2 costumes at $100 a pop. Sorry!!!) If he pays his bills & has extra money, he can give her whatever he wants. (or do whatever he wants with his own money) When funds are co-mingled, then it is a joint decision. Then, it becomes the parent's responsibility to make sure their child is provided for, even if their new spouse objects. If the new spouse comes here to complain... so what? That's what this forum is good for, venting & complaining. She may be complaining because he paid for things, but the bottom line is: HE PAID.

As for counting new wife's income... it IS different than a minister that gets free housing. The minister is being given free housing as payment for services rendered. If exH makes 50k when he leaves and quits his job or lowers his income after he remarries, CS should be based on 50k, not what he 'chooses' to make later. Imagine if an ex-husband is making 50k at the time of divorce... he remarries two years later and his wife makes 100k but he still makes 50k. CS should not go up just because HIS wife makes so much more money. That would be like saying... if he married a woman that didn't work, he should have to pay less. His CS should be based on HIS income/earning potential. I completely disagree with courts that allow a parent to lower support by making less than they are capable of.

I do not understand how your DH could ven be upset about you helping your son. According to your previous posts you litarally support your DH and his daughter, you make it possible for him to pay off his debt (that he acquired prior meeting you). So he even dare to start arguments? for G_d sake! You supporting this man and his kid and he dares to talk about money being tight. not only he lives off his wife he complains that she supports her kids!

"It could also be that he wanted to send the child to a better college and two years later, his financial circumstances changed to where he felt he couldn't do it."

Actually, it was the other way around. When he said he wanted our child to go to a better college, he was unemployed and two years later he had a job so his financial situation had improved. The child in question had a 3.99 average, worked the maximum hours allowed by work-study, and worked 50 hours a week during the summer. Somehow I don't think he was questioning her work ethic when he refused to pay.

Wow FD, I thought you don't even read my posts!!! ha ha

My husband does not complain about me supporting my kids. We have had arguments because my son won't get a job. My son got a car, I paid over half. He lost his job & couldn't put gas in his car. Son wants me to put gas in the car, which I think is fair... for him to go to school. Son wants to drive his friends around... husband doesn't want us paying for gas for him to drive his friends around. He has a point, so I tell my son I will put gas but he can only drive to & from school until he gets a job. He agrees but then when I put the gas in his car, he takes off to drive his friends around. Next time my son wants gas, I tell him no. Well, he continued to drive his friends & started getting money for gas from them. Now, his car is sitting in the garage because he didn't maintain it & needs a new radiator. He still has no job & I am not paying for it to be fixed because he is being irresponsible. I now drive him to and from school. The biggest conflict is really with my son, because I want him to have a car & I want him to act responsibly... so there are times I want to fix his car and 'help' him out. But, then it's not really helping him if I am enabling him to be irresponsible. We are not going to take money away from our bills, groceries or living expenses, just so my son can have fun driving his buddy's around. That's the ONLY time my husband argues with me over giving my son money... when I don't have the extra money. Otherwise, it's MY choice to say yes or no.

I don't think my husband is unreasonable at all and I am not supporting him. He works & contributes to our household. I do have more spendable money to buy the 'extras' for his daughter that he would not be able to afford, that isn't me supporting him. And is my money supposed to control him??? because you say how dare he start an argument with me supporting him? Of course he has an opinion about our finances, HE'S MY HUSBAND & PARTNER. He does not live off me... geez, you make him sound like a bum that doesn't work or contribute at all. If he were the only one working and supporting me, does that mean I don't get an opinion or vote? What is this? 1940's?

My SC's BM earned over $100,000 in 2005 and 2006, quit that when she found out how much CS she was going to have to pay ... Got a job making $50,000 got laid off from that and is now on welfare...

Hubby told the judge he didn't want CS just wanted her to do right by her kids ... all she heard was no CS. But she still owes $2500 in back support.

But in court she tried to have my income added to the mix ... and the judge told her his wife's income does not matter. Hubby's lawyer in his statement said if she wants to include all household income she should disclose what her live-in boyfriend's income is. She shut up at that point. Can't be on welfare and have a live-in BF.

I do now when I see something out of this world in them. which is very often. lol

But that's what you said before, not me! But you said you support your DH and his daughter because all he makes he pays towards his debt he acquired before he met you. You said he spends 95% of what he makes on paying his debts, so you do support him. That's what you said. It is fine by me. It is too funny though when you critisize other people's exspouses (whom they obviously are not married anymore, don't care about and cannot control anythign what they do) and yet you are being married to a guy who takes financial advantage of you. wouldn't a woman rather support her kids through their education than support grown men?

"you are being married to a guy who takes financial advantage of you"

Is it then your opinion that every SAHW is taking financial advantage of their working husband? lol, that means my SD's mom is taking financial advantage of her BF because he works & she doesn't. It must also be HER fault he won't buy his kids anything extra either. You're too funny!!!

Where does it say I would rather support a grown man than my kids through their education??? or is that just a generalization? My son is in school & we're supporting him.

Ima, I would have the same reaction toward a SAHM who complains about her DH paying CS, which we have seen here. Gender doesnt matter.

I agree with kkny that gender does not matter. If a woman stays home and man supports her it is their business. But if that same working man also pays CS or wants to pay for college or some other ways supports minor or grown kids from previous marriage, then i do not think SAHM has any rights to complain. Same way as your DH should not be even mentioning how you support your children with your own money.

if he is the only one working, of course you still can vote. hahah It does not effect your political rights. but if he is the only one working I don't think you would have much ground to complain if he wants to spend extra money on his kids. that's my opinion.

"Ima, I would have the same reaction toward a SAHM who complains about her DH paying CS, which we have seen here. Gender doesnt matter."

KKNY, I agree. That comment was to show how ridiculous I think FD is when she says my husband, who makes good money and has worked at his job for 22 years... never even takes a day off unless he's deathly sick, is 'financially taking advantage of me' because we have an agreement to sacrifice for a few years so we can be nearly debt free. However, I do agree that someone that isn't contributing AT ALL should not be able to complain about how the working party spends their money on their kids. I thought I made it clear that my DH only objects when money is tight because I don't have extra money & if it's going to be used for something 'frivolous' like gas to drive his friends around. We're not talking about tuition, books, or medical care. My husband pays for my son's health insurance through his employer. But, it's also my rule that my son is breaking... and I sometimes struggle with parenting out of guilt & giving in when I know it's not going to teach my son to take responsibility. And that's my goal.. for him to be a responsible adult... my husband does help me with being more consistent. I guess that makes him the bad guy.

Just to add too (as in the situation between my Dad and SM) that it's the same diff if both partners actually *work* and *earn income* but one pays all the household bills for both, leaving the other to only have to spend their earnings on... er, whatever... the tanning salon. The end result is that the one partner is still paying for the other and providing a life that the other could not have without him (OR HER, if the gender tables are turned); and since that taken-care-of partner is also not contributing anything financially to the children of the partner-who-takes-care-of-everything, then it's the same situation where they really don't have any business to complain about what expenses are incurred by/for those children. This is of course somewhat different when the taken-care-of partner contributes by having an active, long-term, very frequent responsibility for the child's upbringing/care, but in many or most cases where NCP sends CS, logistically this doesn't necessarily happen.

ima,

But it is YOUR money that is yours to decide how to spend.

I think it is likely that you are being taken advantage of, again - just like your former BF used you to take care of his children so he could be a workaholic. If you were loaning your husband money at a favorable interest rate, with an agreement in writing, that would be one thing - but you have no guarantee that he won't leave once his debt is paid off, leaving you with nothing. I am sure you don't think he will, but neither do all those women who put their husbands through medical and law school only to have them leave as soon as the ink was dry on their diplomas. If your husband has no such agenda, he should be happy, even insistent, on giving you some kind of guarantee of financial security.

"he should be happy, even insistent, on giving you some kind of guarantee of financial security."

While I appreciate your concern, I am not worried about it. We live in a community property state & our marital contract is enough guarantee for me. I'm not putting him through law or medical school, he's established in his career before he met me. Of course there's no guarantee that he won't leave me, but if I needed one, I would have stayed single. He will never leave me with nothing, I have my own business & I am an independent woman that can attain my own things... I care very little about material possessions anyways. I am planning for my own retirement, I have learned not to depend on a man or anyone else to take care of me. That won't change. and you are correct, it is MY money.

Let me rephrase that - instead of "leave you with nothing," I should have said "leave you with no way to recoup all the money you put into paying off his debt (by providing support so he could put almost all his income toward the payments).

I think it's what you do in a partnership, and some of it requires a little blind faith. I make over double that of DH, and for the first couple years we were together we were paying off his marital debt, massive attorney fees, and child support. I didn't question that my income made this possible. Now we are in a good financial position (well, as long as the stock and housing markets don't get any worse!) Should we divorce, I wouldn't think to ask for anything I contributed toward his debt from his prior marriage back. That was the arrangement we made. I did it willingly. End of story.

Thank you for rephrasing that. However, I don't expect to recoup anything. I consider it an investment in my life with him. If he leaves when his debt is paid off, then I guess I would cherish the wonderful memories of our time together because so far, he knocks my socks off everyday!!! He's one of the most wonderful guys in the world... otherwise, I wouldn't put up with dealing with his ex.

So, as an investment... I guess if I had put all my money into the stock market or real estate, well look where that is, I'd probably lose it all.... at least my investment cuddles me up every night and kisses the back of my neck. The last four years with him have been the happiest by far. Nobody knows what the future holds... regardless I have no regrets.

I used to feel more or less the same way about the blind faith thing, and I was the one who supplied the sizable downpayment for the first house we owned after we were married. However, after my husband left and proposed that I keep the house for 15 years till the youngest turned 18, paying all the mortgage myself, and then sell it and split the equity with him 50/50, I didn't feel quite the same way. I didn't even hear about his tidy little investment proposal (half the profits without having to put any money in - can't get much better than that) until after my lawyer had basically questioned his and his lawyer's collective sanity.

It is easy to say NOW that it is worth the risk - you may look at it very differently in retrospect.

I think too many older women end up in rough shape financially. Just as we raise our daughters to be independent, we should be taking care of ourselves, including putting away adequate money for retirement. Statistics show far too few women do. I think to say your doing fine, except for health insurance, except for retirment, et. etc. is a big mistake.

TOS, there is a special place in He** for your x and the woman who enables him. IMHO.

We went to court yesterday and of course since my husband did not have an attorney the judge would not let him say anything... About child support, DH and BM have 50/50, DH pays for everything, and I mean everything. BM and her attorney went to court and lied and DH got thrown in jail, mind you he has always paid for what ever his son needs, but she is bitter and lied, YES we have proof and the judge did not want to hear it. They have an agreement that neither one pay child support But DH went to jail, The judge would not even hear the case, if you go by the child support guidelines she would have to pay him. We live in FLORI-DUH go figure.

I think it fine if we want to help whoever financially but if we have children I think they come first. if you help all three kids thorugh college, i am not saying pay 100% but help, it is still better investment (I can't think of a better word) than to help a grown man who is not your child.

i would expect a man to spend his extra money on his kids' education rather than paying my cerdit card debts or college loans that i acquired prior to meeting him. if somehting is left after helping kids, maybe, other than that kids and their education have to come first.

"I have sympathy for a woman who marries a man, and then they both find out later he has children from a previous relationship, but where the man was married, both he and his new wife should take his obligations into account when deciding how many more. Its no different than other obligations."

This is a really good point. How many "First wives" would be livid if a child crawled out of the woodwork making their children "less important". That persons kid would have been "#1" for years and all the sudden be bumped down to a secondary status because daddy unknowingly knocked up some one night stand back in the day. It doesn't sound fair but what's good for the goose........

why is it always the new wifes/girlfriends responsibility to not have children with the DH? Why is it always "she knew he had kids so she shouldn't of gotten pregnant"? Why can't daddy be expected to keep his pee-pee in his pants? Why can't the man get a VC if he knows he can't afford any more children? The woman may have none of her own so why should she have to be the one to sacrifice? It's tha man who has the failed marriage with kids so he is the one who should make that responsible decision, not the woman.

I also still believe that the first children should not by any means suffer but neither should the children from the second marriage/relationship. There is no such thing as a more important child. In our case we have custody so it's a none issue really but if bio mom had the girls I would be livid if she demanded a ridiculous amount that kept J from helping out with Layla. I would never want those girls to want for anything and I would expect my child to be given the same consideration. The girls are no more precious or no less J's daughters than Layla will be.

doodle, that's exactly what happened to my son's father. I wasn't a one night stand, but we broke up before I knew I was pregnant. I foolishly put someone else's name on the birth certificate but he knew the child existed. His wife also knew but he was able to legally deny it because someone else had been adjudicated the father. When I filed a case on the temporary law to set aside the wrong father's default judgment, he fought me tooth & nail. He knew DNA would prove he was the father & claimed I never told him, even though I had filed court papers when my son was 2. His wife was LIVID and I'm sure she is not happy that the court ordered him to pay arrears, but what I can't understand is how she could turn a blind eye and support him denying his child all those years. She knew all along and came with him to my apartment when my son was an infant. They came to tell me to stop telling people that he was the father... I told her, 'well, he is the father.' and eighteen years later, I was finally able to legally prove it. (I'm sure they have told their kids that my son 'crawled out of the woodwork')

Sounds like it was common knowledge to everyone that this guy was your childs father...they just miraculously expected you to not say so which takes a ton of balls! How dare they.

The cases I am mostly refering to would be the ones where the child existed for years without the father having zippo knowledge of his/her existence.

like just for an example: Say a woman divorces a man and the man remarries. He has two children from the previous marriage and has a baby with the new wife. Now say three years later this man divorces AGAIN and first wife is raising hell that the divorce shouldn't lower her childs CS because her children were "born first" so the new EX wife's child gets less CS even though she feels her child deserves the same support from his father.

First Wife wins and gets higher CS and feels triumphant...but UH-OH. This woman from 12 years ago pops up claiming that SHE has a child from the man which would now make THAT child First in line. Would triumphant first wife still be preaching the first in line story or would her views now change to that more of the second wife because her child is no longer the first? Would her standing go from first in line to my child deserves equall? My guess would be yes it would.

"The first in time, first in line doctrine has a VERY long history - if it bothers you so much, it is a good thing none of you are members of the aristocracy."

LOL! Good point except it should be noted that there is/was an exception if the first born was born outside the sanctity of marriage (i.e., illegitimate) or of the female persuasion (although there have been some notable exceptions).

"The first in time, first in line doctrine has a VERY long history - if it bothers you so much, it is a good thing none of you are members of the aristocracy."

By this thoery TOS's kid would be screwed too because if I remember correctly she is a SHE. Her daughter would have no rights to any inheritance whatsoever. The first SON would get everything. AM I to understand that this is supposed to be a FAIR way of doing things??? UMMMM...no. I don't think so. I really don't see any point except to further my POINT of how outdated and unfair the first in line rule is.

doodle says:

"This is a really good point. How many "First wives" would be livid if a child crawled out of the woodwork making their children "less important". That persons kid would have been "#1" for years and all the sudden be bumped down to a secondary status because daddy unknowingly knocked up some one night stand back in the day. It doesn't sound fair but what's good for the goose."

well it goes back to my suggestion to not marry people who have one night stands and have children wondering somewhere unaccounted for. IRl i do not know anyone who have children appearing from nowhere after one night stands. sane people would not have one nightstands and unprotected sex nowadays with all the risks of STDs and HIV.

so there is a very little chance to have some unknown children popping up here and there unless you hook up with some risky individuals.

FD,

I agree, you may not be able to eliminate risk, but you can reduce it. A decent time of an engagement. Getting to know fiancees's family, friends, etc. And realizing that someone who engages in risky behavior may have some issues that have to be dealt with.

TOS - that is one of the most insane propositions I've heard yet; it wins the Idiot Award for the day! I understand what you are saying and appreciate that you have a 'been there, done that' knowledge I don't. Where DH to come to be with an idea like that I might not be so 'willing'. But, out situation is a little different as though it was my income that pulled him through, it was his house we we lived in and then sold to buy our next after we had our first son. I doubt he would think to question those proceeds in a settlement discussion though . . . but I guess one never knows.
Isn't it sad how much one 'remembers' about their financial history in a divorce?

"Isn't it sad how much one 'remembers' about their financial history in a divorce?"

haha JNM, my mom remembers being the rock in her marriage to my dad. She claims she was the voice of reason and if he had just listened to her sage advice, he would never have gone into bankruptcy during the recession in the late 70's, early 80's. It's all HIS fault!!!

I know I was just a kid and I was 12 around the time all this went down, but I can remember from the time I was 6 or 7, my mom sleeping in, getting up and going into work around noon while my dad went in every day to open up at 7. He'd leave at 6:30, as we were getting ourselves up. I remember times my mom didn't come home because she and her girlfriend drove up to Lake Tahoe for the afternoon to gamble... this was just as the economy was crumbling. She didn't come home on my 12th birthday because she was in Lake Tahoe, pawned two expensive rings & her watch, lost the money and didn't want to come back until she won enough to get her jewelry back. My dad took us out to dinner without her to celebrate my birthday. The next day, she came home. I guess he got the rings back but refused to send her the money. Not sure how he did it, but probably wired it to the pawn shop. She'd have gambled it away... in retrospect, I think she had a plan to win it big BECAUSE the economy was so bad.

and 20+ years later, dad has been back on his feet because he's worked hard, made some good investments & has no vices. Mom is still running to the casino's, trying to win big. Yet, she still says it's all dads fault they ended up bankrupt & if not for her hard work, they would never have had as much as they did before they lost it all. And of course now that he's accumulated much more than they had when they were married, she feels entitled to part of it... or at least she wants to make sure her kids get their fair share of dad's money. As one of her kids, I think it's none of her business.... and it's dad's money to do with as he pleases.

JNM and IMa - why are using remembers in quotes as to TOSs statement? I have never find her inconsistent as to what she says?

Well IMA as a second wife TOS is probably trying to "warn" you what its like because she probably supported her dead beat of a husband through the tough years to get back on his feet only to leave her for a much wealthier woman .... I am sure she is using her wisdom to help you protect yourself 20+ years from now when hubby decides he needs more financial security than you can provide.

If its coming off as mean spirited I am sure those are not her intentions only looking out for your finances!

kk, I wasn't quoting TOS. I was responding to JNM and quoting JNM. I wasn't even talking about TOS whatsoever in my post, I was talking about my mom... and her skewed memory. I'm sure we all remember things the way we do, even if others remember them differently. It's called 'perception'.

pseudo, I'm sure that's what it is... I know she would hate to see me taken advantage of... financially that is. As I was talking to my husband about this thread, he laughed... makes him feel like a gigolo... of course, he reminded me that one of the first things he did when he moved in was to pay off a credit card in my mom's name that I had used before I met him. It was a higher interest rate so he transfered it to his low rate card... nearly 5k. I'd forgotten about that... no, he didn't make me sign a contract or repayment agreement & we weren't even married yet. I could have stiffed him I guess. He also refinanced my car a month or two later with a low rate... he has a very high credit score, mine at the time was under 500 because of medical collections when I was ill & being a struggling single mom, couldn't pay. He helped me pay them off. Now, I have a pretty good credit score, most of the bad stuff has been paid and fallen off. I guess it might piss me off if he left me after his debt was paid and I was left in debt. But, since his credit gets the lower rates, even some of the things we've bought together are financed in his name alone. Of course, my name is on the title with him... on everything. (I guess my husband has some of that blind faith too... since he's titled me on the things he is paying off that he bought before he met me) Of course, I tell him that it's HIS truck & trailer when it comes time to wash them...lol)

I know TOS means well and I appreciate her concern. It is thoughtful the way she and KKNY care enough to share their wisdom with me. I'm touched, really. It's also very sweet that FD cares so much about my son's education. I told him how she stood up for him and he said to tell her thank you. Then he asked me for money to fix his car & I told him to get a job.

I wasn't quoting TOS, KK. I was being sarcastic - that it seems in a divorce one party 'remembers' that they loaned the other $20 when they were dating and wants it back, with interest. That all the things that were just assumed pieces of the partnership suddenly become hers and his and create a laundry list of things to consider in a settlement.

It's just sad.

JNM, I hardly think a downpayment on a house is $20. And considering that TOSs X provides virtually nothing for their numerous children is indicative of someone who has not been fair. And with divorce, things become his and hers.

KK - my post, and subsequent explanation, had NOTHING to do with TOS. If I am talking to or about someone I will address them. It was simply a statement that it's sad how many of the financial dealings done without much thought when married are given a lot of thought during a divorce, and it was directed at NO ONE in particular. Relax already.

It's okay KK - no apology needed for always jumping to the worst conclusion about a person and their motives.

New to all this and especially trying to understand CS.

What if the Ex-husband and new wife have a new baby and the new baby is special needs? Can CS for the 1st child be modified? We are bi-coastal parents.

S.Dee, that's a very good question. I haven't had any experience with either paying CS or caring for a special needs child, but I'd venture to guess that this WOULD be a legitimate circumstance for modifying CS. Simply because there would be whole host of official documentation and clearly quantifiable dollar amounts for what is required in the special needs child's care that is above and beyond the expenses of raising a non-special-needs child.

I suppose if someone wanted to get really picky about it, the parents and their doctors may be asked to verify that they had no prior awareness of above-average risk factors for potentially birthing a special-needs baby. I really don't know how that works, though... I just know that many doctors will, for example, advise against a mother getting pregnant after a certain age because of the much higher likelhihood of certain birth defects, or in cases where there are previously-indictated genetic markers in the parents which show that they have, say, a 1-in-4 chance of birthing a baby with cystic fibrosis. Also the increased likelihood of multiple births resulting from fertility programs, risk factors from alcoholism, drugs or other known teratogens. Not sure how these more 'forseeable' risks weigh into decisions about CS modifications, but I'd be curious to hear about it from anyone who may know more about it.