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

[Michael44]

We KNOW your agenda.

Sure - my agenda is that I feel that a particular law is unfair to a sub-group of humanity and I think a change is in order.

Nothing hidden there. I'm saying it right out front. I'm not doggedly trying to bring up statutes that may apply to hammer some guy caught by an unfair law. Pretty straightforward.

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

Ah-ha - a straight-up insult. OK, I guess I'm done. You win the Internetz.

[aardvarc]

No one's "doggedly trying" to bring up statutes. There's ONE statute on the issue. Not a lot of choices. If there is "hammering" within the statute, that's an issue to take up with legislators. WE didn't make the formula, so whether we wanted to hammer or spare anyone isn't at issue - the formula says what the formula says - regardless of gender or agenda of the deliverer of that information.

Michael, no one is arguing the rightness or wrongness. Most of us would AGREE with you that all 50 states have antiquated, unfair, non-comprehensive, and easy to manipulate laws on child support. The current system often costs parents more in court and attorney fees than they end up paying in child support! (Note that it's the LAWYERS who come out on top, at the expense of the parents and ultimately the children.) But complaining about how antiquated, unfair, non-comprehensive, and easy to manipulate they are doesn't CHANGE that they ARE the applicable laws. This OP has been given correct information on what the law says.

If your agenda is to CHANGE that law, well and good. It's change that's way overdue - but let's be very clear that YOU are the only one "pushing" an agenda here, and as noble as it may be - it's NOT providing current and accurate answers to the poster's question. Telling someone what SHOULD be doesn't arm them with the reality of what they'll face in an actual court room under the existing law.

[Dogmatique]

No one's "doggedly trying" to bring up statutes. There's ONE statute on the issue. Not a lot of choices. If there is "hammering" within the statute, that's an issue to take up with legislators. WE didn't make the formula, so whether we wanted to hammer or spare anyone isn't at issue - the formula says what the formula says - regardless of gender or agenda of the deliverer of that information.

Michael, no one is arguing the rightness or wrongness. Most of us would AGREE with you that all 50 states have antiquated, unfair, non-comprehensive, and easy to manipulate laws on child support. The current system often costs parents more in court and attorney fees than they end up paying in child support! (Note that it's the LAWYERS who come out on top, at the expense of the parents and ultimately the children.) But complaining about how antiquated, unfair, non-comprehensive, and easy to manipulate they are doesn't CHANGE that they ARE the applicable laws. This OP has been given correct information on what the law says.

If your agenda is to CHANGE that law, well and good. It's change that's way overdue - but let's be very clear that YOU are the only one "pushing" an agenda here, and as noble as it may be - it's NOT providing current and accurate answers to the poster's question. Telling someone what SHOULD be doesn't arm them with the reality of what they'll face in an actual court room under the existing law.

Co-sign please, every which way I can.

[Michael44]

If there is "hammering" within the statute, that's an issue to take up with legislators.

That's exactly what I've been talking about above. Activism. Taking it up with legislators. Changing society's viewpoints.

Michael, no one is arguing the rightness or wrongness.

I am. Have you actually read what I wrote above? I told him a change in his support was unlikely under the law, then I went on to activism to change the law. I also expressed empathy with him.

I just don't know what else to say - you are simply intentionally ignoring what I write.

Cool.

Telling someone what SHOULD be doesn't arm them with the reality of what they'll face in an actual court room under the existing law.

And that's going to be ... you ... explaining it to him, having never represented *anyone* in any court anywhere at any time.

__________________________________________________ _________________________

A possible test of morality: Picture that at random intervals, when you sleep, you could be transferred into someone else's body/situation.

If I were transferred into the situation of a woman living off a rich man's money, I would have a moral problem with forcing an ex-husband to fork up a considerable percentage of his money to pay me for (in reality) extra shopping money.

That's reality.

If the same woman were transferred into the situation of the ex-husband, she may feel unfairness at having to live on such meager means - and having to work so hard, which the woman does not have to do - to transfer so much money to a woman in the lap of luxury.

That's reality.

I don't have a tribal association with "men", much like feminists have a tribal association with women. I just think that fair is fair. The reality (in contrast to a point that was expressed above) is also that women "marry up" to a very great extent. That's how it works.

[philslyn]

I must say in order to make your dream come true ( LOL) is for that guy to marry your ex and give his last name to your kids,

[Michael44]

I must say in order to make your dream come true ( LOL) is for that guy to marry your ex and give his last name to your kids,

What a needlessly confrontational solution to a real inequity.

Surrender your kids / identity to the richer man - or unfairly pay money that comes dear to you, but cheap to your ex-wife.

I don't even understand why "solutions" / confrontational dilemmas like this are offered. What's the purpose of it? Why not just: a little more fairness in life?

Edited to add: The "LOL" doesn't come across well. It comes across as a sneering insult, but contains more information about you (and possibly your fears of "men richer than you") than the recipient.

[MrNiceGuy99]

Well, it turns out this is a moot point for me because the wedding has been canceled. Imagine that, a relationship grounded in adultery couldn't withstand the light of day for very long. Poetic justice is better than no justice at all...