Mother Refusing to Work

[wouldn't you like to know]

State of California.

Custodial parent was making a lot more than initially stated in her income and expense declaration (A difference of $2,200 per month). After many continuations, custodial parent conveniently becomes unemployed and judge overlooks the deceit on the income and expense delcaration.

She has been unemployed for one year now. At first judge took into account the custodial parents unemployment compensation at the time. Following another modification (via motion for reconsideration) for the non-custodial parent three months later, the custodial parent/mother was assessed at half her husband's income (which is the biggest lie of the century) $900 per month. Upon an increase in custodial time for the NCP in June, the judge lowered the support order by $30 but assessed the CP/Mother's income as $0. The NCP would have raised the issue at the time, but did not want to upset the judge.

The custodial parent is now going to school full-time and is not even bothering to look for a job. It is obvious she does not want or have the desire to go back to work. There is a CA family code that says each parent is equally responsible to support the child according to the appropriate age of the child. While the judge cannot force her to quit school, is he able to assess her at $0 per month when it is her choice not to work. The child is 7 and she has a three year old from her current husband. Should the non-custodial parent have to pay for a freeloader and the appropriateness of a child that is not his? The NCP only grosses $2,000 per month and spends $300-$400 a month in travel expenses plus the $356 in support (which includes a WHOPPING $50 credit for travel expenses) and spends 18% soon to be 29% of time with the child. All this while the CP lives it upon on $4,000 per month in household expenses at least on a claim that the household income is $1,800 per month.

Thoughts, codes, precedent, anything?

[Antigone]

State of California.

Custodial parent was making a lot more than initially stated in her income and expense declaration (A difference of $2,200 per month). After many continuations, custodial parent conveniently becomes unemployed and judge overlooks the deceit on the income and expense delcaration.

She has been unemployed for one year now. At first judge took into account the custodial parents unemployment compensation at the time. Following another modification (via motion for reconsideration) for the non-custodial parent three months later, the custodial parent/mother was assessed at half her husband's income (which is the biggest lie of the century) $900 per month. Upon an increase in custodial time for the NCP in June, the judge lowered the support order by $30 but assessed the CP/Mother's income as $0. The NCP would have raised the issue at the time, but did not want to upset the judge.

The custodial parent is now going to school full-time and is not even bothering to look for a job. It is obvious she does not want or have the desire to go back to work. There is a CA family code that says each parent is equally responsible to support the child according to the appropriate age of the child. While the judge cannot force her to quit school, is he able to assess her at $0 per month when it is her choice not to work. The child is 7 and she has a three year old from her current husband. Should the non-custodial parent have to pay for a freeloader and the appropriateness of a child that is not his? The NCP only grosses $2,000 per month and spends $300-$400 a month in travel expenses plus the $356 in support (which includes a WHOPPING $50 credit for travel expenses) and spends 18% soon to be 29% of time with the child. All this while the CP lives it upon on $4,000 per month in household expenses at least on a claim that the household income is $1,800 per month.

Thoughts, codes, precedent, anything?

Wow, you pay a whopping $356 in child support for your child and you're complaining??? You can't feed a kid on $356 per month.

[wouldn't you like to know]

Actually, I am not the paying party, but the point is that the NCP pays $356, $300-$400 a month in travel expenses, PLUS the time spent with the child and clothes. When you pay out almost $800 per month and only net $1,600 per month what is left to live on? Why isn't the child's mother working?

Antigone, I have seen deadbeats go to court to pay for two children and only have to pay $90 per month. You must be a freeloader too!

[wouldn't you like to know]

Also, I just want to say I don't know what you feed your kids or how you shop, but as a grown adult I can live off of $250 per month of food (including sack lunches) and have leftovers every night.

[mrshiggins]

My family of 3 eats on $325 a month. In June I actually kept track and was told by a debt relief company that a family of three is usually about 4 - 5 hundred a month. My dad paid $450 per child ($900 total) but he grossed over 80 grand a year.

Anyways, you can't force the mother to work, but what you could possibly ask the court to do is ask for her potential income, which could be calculated at minimum wage, I think this is considered imputed income. Going to school is voluntary and that doesn't reliquish her responsibility to support her children. It's a choice to go to school... not a requirement. Bring this back to court...

[jmjens2]

The custodial parent is now going to school full-time and is not even bothering to look for a job. It is obvious she does not want or have the desire to go back to work.

If she's going to work full time, I think that's actually proof that she does inted to work in the future. A CAREER vs. a JOB.

Be real people, let her go to school get a good education. Very few people go to school just so they can more child support money. She's going to school so she can provide a better life for her family.

I did the same thing, got hounded by my ex for going to school instead of working. Well guess what? I now make more than twice what he does!

Leave her alone, let her get her education.

Besides, $356 (or what ever the amount is) is hardly anything for child support.

[jmjens2]

The NCP would be ordered by the court to quit school and get a job to support the child so why should the CP be favored in this situation?

The court can not order you to quit school.

Your issue isn't with her going to school, the issue should be the amount that she is claiming as income. She does still have to provide food, clothing and shelter for this child? And I'm certain all of that costs more that the $356 a month that you pay. Although it sounds like the current husband is picking up the slack while she is unemployed.

For your ex to get unemployment benifits you ex was involuntarily out of work, it wasn't a job she QUIT. If you wer involuntarily out of a job, your child support would be adjusted because of it. When your career field opportunities dry up, you go to back to school. That's just the smart thing to do.

[wouldn't you like to know]

I am not the NCP (btw). The CP has stated that she does not want to go back to work. I would imagine the costs are more than $356 a month to take care of a child but the NCP is also obligated to keep an extra room in his home which is paid for monthly for the child too so shelter is questionable. Food (yes), clothing (NCP pays for too in addition to CS), utilities (yes), I know there is more, but each parent is responsible and income should be calculated according to each parent having a full-time job even if it is minimum wage.

P.S. When NCP was out of work the child support was NOT adjusted.

[pavvintz]

I think under CA guideline 4057.5 if a CP choses not to work her subsequent spouse's income can be considered in determining child support" if it is an unusual case and there is hardship present.

Otherwise a subsequent spouses income is not used in calculating CS. But the CP's potential income can be imputed with her job skills.

Frankly , you are a man and are screwed by the system that doesn't care anything about the situation for fairness except for their FED dollars for DCSS collecting support from non custodial parents. It's all a ruse for government employment.
DCSS acts like ACORN organizers, milking the system for who it thinks are victims, which are usually women who can't sustain relationships with men who father their spawn.