Keenly Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Prove this is true. I think we're done here. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Snipercatt Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 The part where the spouses income is added to determine CS baffles me. Being that the spouse (whether BS in this sitch or a 2nd marriage) is not a party to the legal action, no legal claims can be made against them for support, how can a court order them to provide financial records to an action that they aren't named in. The marriage to a wage earning "new spouse" is considered "life circumstances" by child support authorities. Improving, or downgrading, circumstances are also considered when considering child support. The courts regularly consider the non-affair-participating spouse's earnings when calculating child support. The courts are interested in what is best for the child. You don't have to be a party to the action for your income to be considered in allocating child support payments. If the courts determine that the bio-parent is able to pay more because they have a wage earning spouse they may do so, and frequently do. They don't actually require that the payment come from the bio-parent's spouse's money, specifically, they award a higher amount and the bio-parent is required to pay it. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
IfWishesWereHorses Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Since the posts I've made are being taken out of context and words are being put into my mouth I will not be posting about this any further. Is it wrong to consider her income in this? YES, Did I make the rules? NO I'm simply stated FACTS. Then for someone to say I planned this whole massacre....I'm too outdone. You all can have at it. Thanks for the comments, opinions, etc. Good day. Sorry your thread got hijacked. I know you'll be relieved to get some answers , hopefully Friday will bring those. I do wonder what he might pull since he now knows he has no control over the situation. It certainly shows you his true colors. good luck! Link to post Share on other sites
rumbleseat Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 Holy cr@p! All this back and forth and sniping on an internet forum when the one who will suffer the most from all of it is this little girl who never asked to be dragged into the world of adult relationships. Because of the actions and choices of her parents, she will be the one to pay. OP, please do your best to build a truly loving home for this precious little girl. Don't ever let her feel unwanted. try and be both mom and dad to her. I know this man has hurt you, but half her being comes form him. It may be hard, but try not to speak badly of him. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Trimmer Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Holy cr@p! All this back and forth and sniping on an internet forum.... Yeah, how weird - that almost never happens! 3 Link to post Share on other sites
Anne Boleyn Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 How did they come up with that amount? I have no idea what CS costs are, but that does seem high. He must make a shi.t load of money a month. That's about what my husband pays as well, per child, for two kids if we include his costs for insurance for the kids. That doesn't include the extras that they split 50/50, like sports fees, school fees, etc. Link to post Share on other sites
Anne Boleyn Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 No, what Im saying is, They will use her income along with his income to calculate how much he can pay. Example, he makes 50,000 a year, she makes 30,000. They will add those together and come up with an amount for him to pay. NOTHING will come out her paycheck. No, that's not how that works... It's actually unconstitutional for the court to take into account a new spouse's or live-in partners income when determining child support for a child they don't have custody of or legal rights to. We know this because my husband's ex tried to tack my income in while calculating her child support, and we finally got the judge to give her a verbal beat down on how she can't, under any circumstances, use my income to determine how much support she gets for the kids. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Anne Boleyn Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) Like I said before, do your research before you speak on it. Different states, different laws. I never said they would take MORE, what I said was, IF he gets an attorney they will look into both incomes and recalculate how much HE can afford to pay. He's also 4,000 behind in payments, IF, they file their taxes jointly, their refund can be garnished. It's not a matter of different states, different laws, it's unconstitutional to take into account another person's income for child support. Wife, live-in partner, or roommate. Their income contributing to a household pot does not determine the payout for one person's child. If there are other children in the household, they can ask on income paperwork what the other spouse's income is, but it's not used to determine how much more to pay in child support, it's to check what's called proportional income. IE, they are auditing to make sure that the child support-paying spouse isn't paying so much that the non-paying spouse is taking on the financial burden of the household and children. Basically, the court wants to make sure that what he's paying out means that his spouse isn't being burdened financially. If anything, taking into account her income has the potential to lower, not raise, your child support as she makes significantly less than him. And the whole of the refund wouldn't be garnished, only the portion that his income generated, minus credits/deductions earned from the children. Edited February 12, 2014 by Anne Boleyn 3 Link to post Share on other sites
Anne Boleyn Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 But spouses (and children) pay for transgressions (Rika, I don't mean that to be insulting) ALL the time! Your spouse is admitted to the ER. Five months later they still have not paid the bill. The small claims lawsuit filed by the hospital will include you as well. Your spouse gets a DUI, OWI. The fine, lawyer, court costs will cost $5000. Your spouse does not have money in a jar somewhere that he saved from the family that was just his. You both end up paying. That $5000 *could* have gone to something a lot better. You are not home. Your spouse gets into a heated arguement with a neighbor. Out of nowhere, your family dog bites the neighbor. Do you think he is going to sue Bowser? Nope, even though you weren't home, your named in the lawsuit...and when your homeowners insurance goes up, you really wish Bowser hadn't been outside! We pay when spouses play or misbehave. Why should this be any different? Because it's an issue of rights... A child that party A has with party B is between party A and B, and as such, they have rights with regard to the child. Party C, even if they live with party A have no rights to the child and, as such, cannot be held accountable for the care of the child financially. And the spouse isn't always held responsible for the financials of the other spouse. Debts are pursued jointly only if the debt is created jointly. So if my husband bought a car, only his name was on the loan, and he stopped paying? They'd go after him, not me. They'd be happy to take payments from me if I gave them, but just as I can't call and get information about that loan on the grounds that he's my husband, they can't call me and demand money just because he's my husband. All of this we learned the absolute hard way after my husband left his wife... She defaulted on her car, her credit cards, everything. She tried to say that it was because he left and he stopped paying, but the bank didn't care because it was all in her name, not his. They towed her car and didn't call him once. They even said that they couldn't call him... He didn't cosign. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Anne Boleyn Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 What should I do? Bench warrant issued for failure to appear in court for nonpayment of child support in Wake County, NC. - Avvo.com http://www.liftonline.org/guides/pdf/guide_126.pdf How to Clear & Remove California Bench Warrants There called bench warrants...you're kind of a joke at this point, so I won't bother to see how many of the 50 states can issue warrants from Family Court. To be fair, he said not showing up to a child support hearing. To my knowledge, that's not something one can be arrested for. Showing up means you lose representation in what's seen as a family matter, and it's seen as implied agreement to the terms that were or would be dictated by the court. Not paying child support, that's defying a judgment by the court that is a legal obligation... That you can be arrested for. Just like civil court, if you don't show up, it means you defer to the judgment of the court without representation. You can't be arrested for not showing up, but it's certainly not in your best interest. If a judgment is made and entered and it includes liability and financial payment/restitution, you can be arrested for not paying it as it's defying a court order issued to you. Declining to represent yourself in civil/family issues... That's not an arrestable issue. Heck, it's not even always an arrestable issue in criminal court. Ask Lindsay Lohan. It's only arrestable if it's an order from the court that you appear. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Trimmer Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 It's not a matter of different states, different laws, it's unconstitutional to take into account another person's income for child support. I'm not questioning the outcome of the case you're referring to, but I'm fascinated as to how this has been raised to the level of Constitutional law. Can you reference the passage(s) in the Constitution that your judge cited (or other applicable case law or SCOTUS rulings) that relate? Again, I'm not claiming I know it didn't happen - just looking for the support for the claim that "it would be unconstitutional." That statement brings with it a pretty high burden of proof. Link to post Share on other sites
krazikat Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 No, that's not how that works... It's actually unconstitutional for the court to take into account a new spouse's or live-in partners income when determining child support for a child they don't have custody of or legal rights to. We know this because my husband's ex tried to tack my income in while calculating her child support, and we finally got the judge to give her a verbal beat down on how she can't, under any circumstances, use my income to determine how much support she gets for the kids. That has been my experience as well. It is based on the responsible parties income vs. expenses. I have never seen it any other way. Perhaps some states may allow but not in the ones I have seen. I know this first hand. Link to post Share on other sites
Snipercatt Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) It is based on the responsible parties income vs. expenses. If the responsible bio-parent has a spouse that earns money, the responsible bio-parent's expenses are calculated to include the contributions of income, and expense sharing, from their spouse, thus leaving more for child support than if their spouse didn't have a source of income. I know this first hand. Edited February 13, 2014 by Snipercatt Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts