Modification of Child Support Due to Ex-Wife's Marriage

[Lawrence084]

That will be one law that will never change, because it would cause a large percentage of child support cases to increase and new laws would be created directly because of this one new law.

For example. If this rich guy has an ex and he paying child support. His salary would go up because he married your ex so his child support to his ex would be higher. So two new court case are created. Now if you marry another court case is open and if the woman you married has a child another court case is created.And if her ex get married...

Also if you can modify a child support case for remarry it has to go both way. Marriage that results in more income and then the person with the additional income loses their job. Or get a higher paying job.

It would open up the door for a ton of new child support court case modifications. Lawyers would be the only ones who love it and the small few who don't remarry but their ex spouse does to a wealthier person.

That law will never change.

[aardvarc]

This Law Firm's FAQ seems to disagree with the responses

No. Their FAQ doesn't differ from what you've been told.

A permanent modification may be awarded under one of the following circumstances:

* either parent receives additional income from remarriage

SHE isn't receiving additional INCOME. It's important to understand what INCOME means in a child support case.

* changes in the child support laws

Florida's haven't. That means you're bound by what the current law and formula says. It's all there in black and white for you to read at your leisure.

* job change of either parent

Mom's job hasn't changed.

* cost of living increase

Mom's job hasn't given her a cost of living increase which could alter the formula.

* disability of either parent, or

Neither parent has become disabled since the original order.

* needs of the child.

This was outlined above - "needs of the child" in relation to child support alteration refers to a specific few instances where unusual circumstances such as sudden medical issues, chronic or prolonged treatment is determined to be needed, etc. have occurred after the initial order was entered.

Again, nothing from the law firm's website contradicts what you've been told here.

Again, Florida uses a VERY simply guideline (Florida Statute 61.30) to determine the amount of child support to be paid by the non-custodial parent. This amount is based on the number of children and combined income of both parents. The obligation for child support is divided between the two parents in direct proportion to their income and earning capacity. The key words being INCOME and EARNINGS. That her new hubby is rich is irrelevant to EITHER of those elements within the formula. If mom quits her job due to being married to a gazillionaire, or if mom quits her job and works for his business, you may have recourse, or the court can impute and income to her that it feels she is CAPABLE of earning, but again, that hasn't happened, so the formula stands on mom's earnings and income, period.

Go READ the statute at http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...s/0061.30.html. It will tell you EXACTLY what things are considered "income" and "earnings" - and hubby's money and amounts for living expenses isn't in the mix in Florida.

[Michael44]

That law will never change.

Yeah, well, and "heavier than air flight is a physical impossibility".

A radical overhaul is needed in the child support area. "Men have responsibilities and women have rights" isn't cutting it anymore.

And morally, if a woman is in the lap of luxury - especially due to no work on her part - maybe she should help a struggling ex-husband who is paying a hefty percentage of his income over to her. I can't see it any other way. Women "marry up" - men not so much - and that has to also be taken into consideration. Money without work is great, ladies, but spread the wealth. A morally bankrupt law is not going to stand forever.

Aardvarc:

For whatever reason, you are trying to argue this case - with your obvious agenda.

1. You are not a lawyer

2. You have never experienced "try it in court - sometimes (invariably at the trial level - appellate judges are too smart for that) you get lucky"

3. The discussion seems to now be beyond the laws and into advocacy

You are really biting in and not letting up that HE DAMN WELL IS GOING TO PAY. Even if it is morally reprehensible. You might be reincarnated in your next life as a man (maybe not as great as you think). Let up a little bit, dumpling.

[aardvarc]

She will be living in a waterfront mansion, so she doesn't "need" the additional support anymore.

Child support isn't based on what the custodial parent needs. It reflects an amount due to the CHILD, based on earnings. Whether those earnings are minimum wage, or both sides each own half of Saudi Arabia.

While the law may say differently, the totality of each parent's financial situation should be considered.

No one is disputing that. But what SHOULD be doesn't matter. What DOES matter is what the statute says, because that is what the court is bound by. When enough people want that law to change, they'll have to take the steps to do so. We're not debating what's right, or fair - we're simply telling you what the LAW says and how the court is going to act upon that law.

Basing child support solely on income is ridiculous, because income is only one small piece of the equation and it can be easily manipulated by many different means.

Again, no one is arguing that. If you want the law to change to use a different formula, the place to change that is with your elected representatives. But until that happens, all we can do is give you the realities of what you're up against with the law as it currently stands.

[Dogmatique]

Yeah, well, and "heavier than air flight is a physical impossibility".

A radical overhaul is needed in the child support area. "Men have responsibilities and women have rights" isn't cutting it anymore.

And morally, if a woman is in the lap of luxury - especially due to no work on her part - maybe she should help a struggling ex-husband who is paying a hefty percentage of his income over to her. I can't see it any other way. Women "marry up" - men not so much - and that has to also be taken into consideration. Money without work is great, ladies, but spread the wealth. A morally bankrupt law is not going to stand forever.

Aardvarc:

For whatever reason, you are trying to argue this case - with your obvious agenda.

1. You are not a lawyer

2. You have never experienced "try it in court - sometimes (invariably at the trial level - appellate judges are too smart for that) you get lucky"

3. The discussion seems to now be beyond the laws and into advocacy

You are really biting in and not letting up that HE DAMN WELL IS GOING TO PAY. Even if it is morally reprehensible. You might be reincarnated in your next life as a man (maybe not as great as you think). Let up a little bit, dumpling.

Oh, okay. I'll edit my original response.

But we get it, Michael.

We get you. We KNOW your agenda.

[Michael44]

Shut up, Michael. You're making a complete ass of yourself here.

I'm really giving my honest opinion on this situation. I'm trying to balance fairness to all people. I think a radical change in the law is justified. What you are engaging in is called "shaming tactics". Sorry, it doesn't work on me.

[aardvarc]

A radical overhaul is needed in the child support area.

No one has argued otherwise.

"Men have responsibilities and women have rights" isn't cutting it anymore.

No one has split sides based on gender. Everyone posting here has and does tell dads getting screwed by moms the same things, and they don't like to hear it either.

And morally, if a woman is in the lap of luxury - especially due to no work on her part - maybe she should help a struggling ex-husband who is paying a hefty percentage of his income over to her. I can't see it any other way. Women "marry up" - men not so much - and that has to also be taken into consideration. Money without work is great, ladies, but spread the wealth. A morally bankrupt law is not going to stand forever.

We're not talking morality. We're talking about what the law says. They are often radically different things, and in all areas of family law, more so than in almost any other area of law.

For whatever reason, you are trying to argue this case - with your obvious agenda.

My "agenda" was to explain Florida law. Which I did. And even provided means for the OP to read it for himself.

1. You are not a lawyer

Nope. Most here are not.

2. You have never experienced "try it in court - sometimes (invariably at the trial level - appellate judges are too smart for that) you get lucky"

If the circumstances lent themselves to that response, that would have been the response. They don't. And it wasn't. And you have no basis to speculate or opine on what I've experienced.

3. The discussion seems to now be beyond the laws and into advocacy

Don't know what post you've been reading.

You are really biting in and not letting up that HE DAMN WELL IS GOING TO PAY. Even if it is morally reprehensible.

Again, you're making the mistake of mixing morality with law. My personal opinion, yours, or the OPs, isn't relevant - the statute is clear, and Florida has one of the simplest support structures of all 50 states.

You might be reincarnated in your next life as a man (maybe not as great as you think). Let up a little bit, dumpling.

I can't help that the law doesn't support his position.

[Dogmatique]

I'm really giving my honest opinion on this situation. I'm trying to balance fairness to all people. I think a radical change in the law is justified. What you are engaging in is called "shaming tactics". Sorry, it doesn't work on me.

No, you're not.

That's not what you're doing.

[Michael44]

We're not talking morality. We're talking about what the law says.

No, I was clearly talking about advocacy. You are so hell bent on busting this guy's chops that you can't pause and see that. Go back and read the context.

My "agenda" was to explain Florida law.

I don't have a problem with interested amateurs, only when they are hell-bent and bit-in on pushing a particular view, supported with whatever they can find in the Internet. As a side note, you missed my wonderful comment about dopey trial courts and getting lucky sometimes. Incompetence can be your friend.

I already gave my opinion on his chances above. Then I talked about activism, morality and possible changes in the law. They do occur.

[aardvarc]

No, I was clearly talking about advocacy. You are so hell bent on busting this guy's chops that you can't pause and see that. Go back and read the context.

I didn't bust anyone's chops. I clearly laid out exactly what is in the statute. No more. No less.

I don't have a problem with interested amateurs, only when they are hell-bent and bit-in on pushing a particular view

What view? My personal view and the language of the statute differ pretty radically. My post only addressed the statutory issues at hand. If anyone is interested in my personal opinion on the matter, I'll be glad to give it.

Incompetence can be your friend.

Next time you two meet up, say "hi" for me.