Burdensome Child Support

My question involves child support in the State of: Washington

Here's minimal history: Court denied DH downward deviation (residential credit---even though he shares 50/50 residential and legal custody---DH is designated custodial parent in even years). The court found DH's household to be in a financial hardship (DH was on L&I receiving less in wages for the past consecutive 9 mo.), yet raised DH's monthly child support. DH pays BM the max amount and as if he doesn't have his son. BM's household made over $100,000 in 2009, made $94,000 in 2008, while DH's household made approx. $44,000 in 2009 and $36,000 in 2008. DH asked for a reconsideration on a commissioner's order, which was denied. BM argued that if DH received residential credit than her household would suffer financially---which is bull after viewing her financial statements---and which the courts disregarded too. She also argued that DH already requested residential credit in previous order in 2007 and was denied---BM argues DH should never be allowed to ask for a residential credit again based on his previous denial. Previous request in 2007 DH was denied based on the fact his attorney asked for one to late, and OC made unsubstantiated claims BM's household was in financial hardship (no state assistance though)---yet recently when DH requested BM's bank statements it shows BM was lying in 2007 about a financial hardship. DH's CS went from $98/mo. to $550/mo---and just recently to $680/mo. DH can't afford to care for his child during his parenting time, yet the court doesn't seem to care. DH's dad had to help by loaning DH money to pay for bills---and BM wanted the court to use that money to be calculated as DH's income.

Can we ever fix this problem? Why do the courts not mandate residential credits? BM does not provide for her child during dad's parenting time---yet benefits from dad's portion $550 and her portion of $425 when she has her child only 1/2 the time.

You mean "Mom" and "Dad", right? Or CP & NCP?

So, WA child support is calculated using three main elements: the income of both parents (which may include the loan from Dad's father), the costs of daycare, and any health/medical insurance costs. The court may at its discretion consider other factors - but these are not mandated. Even if residential credit is applied, it generally won't be anywhere near as big of a factor as these other three elements.

So even if Mom has married a Kennedy or Rockefeller, the new husband's income is not necessarily going to be counted for the purposes of calculating support.

Ditto Dad.

I strongly suggest Dad find a way to obtain an attorney because frankly if he wants to fight the current order he's going to need one.

(For what it's worth, one does not need to be on state assistance to prove financial hardship)

I mean mom and dad. Both parents share joint residential time (alternating schedules every week---one week on, one week off) and joint legal decision making. Although, their parenting plan states for state and federal purposes---dad is designated custodial parent in even years, and mom in odd years. Dad tried to modify CS in 2007 and had an attorney who filed, appeared, and lied during the process. The attorney didn't ask for a residential credit (which dad was originally receiving since his 2000 order) and arbitrator denied it based on the attorney's late request. BM also testified without proof that she was in a financial hardship---yet her bank statements and spending behaviors indicate otherwise. Dad had an L&I that left him with less wages to support a 4 family household and he asked for a downward deviation based on his change in job status and the burden it places on our family. The trial court found our household to be in a financial hardship, but because dad previously requested a residential credit late in 2007 and it being less than 2 years to modify---they denied and actually raised his support to newer standards---so we are still in a dire financial hardship, and he's gone to the extent of giving up his 50/50 custody based on the fact he can't afford to provide for his child if the mom is getting the entire child support award. He's already paying as if he has a visitation schedule of 4 days/ per month or every other weekend. Mom refuses to help provide for child's care during dad's parenting time---she claims that if she doesn't receive more than $1,000 per month (both dad and her portion of support combined---court's monthly cs calculation) then she can't provide for the child during the 2 out of 4 weeks every month the child is with her. This is a lie, and there are financial documents to show mom is lying---yet the courts don't care. He asked for a reconsideration, and it was denied based on the same grounds. mom claimed dad is harassing her with litigation, yet he is truely trying to take care of his family. Mom was awarded more than $8,000 in legal fees in addition to the increase in support. She also wants dad to pay more than 50%of camp fees for their son (and he's obligated per child support order). How and when can we correct this? Mom's worksheets were incorrect in the 2007 order for dad's income, again, because his attorney was late. The arbitrator took dad's income, added what he could be potentially be making if he never missed work, and also added 10% cost of living expenses to it. How is this equitable and in the child's interest? Can dad ask for a residential credit next time to modify (2 years from now), or is he wasting his time?

Ummm... how much of the $100,000 is the mother's income? You seem to believe that her spouse is somehow responsible for supporting the father's child.

mom's income is approx. $48,000 annually---almost equal to dad's earning potential. Dad made less then mom last 2 years due to knee surgeries (on the job injuries), and now he has osteoarthritis in both knees limiting how often he works.

So let's paint the picture the way it is...

Mom and dad virtually make the same amount of money, not mom has 2 times the amount of money.

Do draw a line under that....

Mom's husband's income is not figured into the calculation because he has no requirement to support someone else's child.

He could make millions a year... could have won the lottery... and the calculation wouldn't show it.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

Do draw a line under that....

Mom's husband's income is not figured into the calculation because he has no requirement to support someone else's child.

He could make millions a year... could have won the lottery... and the calculation wouldn't show it.

---

I find it hilarious that we went into such great detail about mom's husband's income... but we made absolutely NO mention about HER income.

Well, I didn't mention that mom made all kinds of demands to show all sources of my income (which I don't have any), yet she wouldn't include her current husband's income to calculate her household expenses---and she included their child in common's daycare expenses, etc.---she made it appear as if she pays that child's entire expenses. She also included expenses from another child that she had with a different man (seperate from dad and her current husband). The Judge even inquired why I'm not working and helping with my husband's household expenses, yet they made no inquiries about mom's husband's income. Double standard!

Oh, and if mom and dad almost make virtually the same amount as each other, then why is dad having to pay mom the entire portion of his child support amount---why isn't he paying the difference instead????

You knew when you married him he had a child so don't go griping now that you don't like the bed you made. You CHOSE to marry him and since you did that, you CHOSE to deal with these kinds of issues, since these are the issues that come with people who have minor children with other people.

The good news is that indentured servitude was outlawed a long time ago. You don't have to stay in a marriage you don't want to. You're free to leave any day you're ready. If you CHOOSE to stay, then close your mouth about the situation because your complaining does nothing. If your husband chooses to hire and attorney and fight this out, that's HIS decision to make. If he chooses to leave it alone, then that's HIS decision to make. In any event, YOU are not required to support his child, just like mom's new husband isn't required to support him. If you just wanted to vent, then you did. Further venting needs to be done at the second wives support group.

wow, courtclerk I was looking for a little bit of legal opinion or options that might help our situation, not your rude criticism or bashing. And, actually I had no clue what married life would be like with a man and his baggage. I was 24 when I married my husband---I am now in my early 30's. Mom has been hell bent on trying to destroy my marriage and my relationship with my stepson---since that didn't succeed---she's trying to hurt us financially. Honestly, she doesn't NEED the child support she receives---yet my husband NEEDS a reduction! Please no more input from YOU!

It's no one else's problem that you married too soon and didn't know what you were getting into.

She may not need the child support, but she's entitled to it BY LAW. You don't like the law, go write your legislators. It may be more productive than writing here, it may not - but it'll never be productive to YOU because YOU are not a party to his case. You can't make any decisions, you don't have a say. Like I said before, since you're so young, impressionable and naive. If you don't like the situation you're in, leave.

And, my husband's not entitled to child support??? He's the custodial parent this year and every even year, and has his child 50% of the time. Why does mom have more entitlement than dad???

"She may not need the child support, but she's entitled to it BY LAW."

Seems to be spousal support than child support---why not label it that way then?

Tell your husband that if he had not CHOSEN her, then HE wouldn't have ended up with anyone telling him anything he didn't like. So in reality, it is he that screwed himself... looks like he did it once again.

Again, if dad is having to support his child during the ex's parenting time, then what funds are there for dad to support his child during his parenting time? You apparently don't get it....dad is being forced to provide for his child way beyond the court's calculations (which I believe to be WAY overinflated) and award---this is seriously affecting us financially and has diminished the child's standard of living at dad's, while living extravagently at the ex's. Dad's decision would be based on what would be in his child's best interest. If his ex is benefitting from the ENTIRE child support award, then it makes sense that she care for their child 100% of the time, not 50% of the time during her parenting time. Do you not agree?

P.S. Dad has considered letting the ex have full custody of their child, but he knows that too would be detrimental to his child's emotional well-being.

I will take one bit of advice from this thread---to get a fellow gathering, and bring our grievences to legislation. This child support extortion is hurting my family and many other families in America!

"Can we ever fix this problem? Why do the courts not mandate residential credits? BM does not provide for her child during dad's parenting time---yet benefits from dad's portion $550 and her portion of $425 when she has her child only 1/2 the time. "

So basically, you want the courts to flip-flop who receives the child support every year, right? In dad's residential year, he receives; in odd years mom receives. Is that the gist of things? Because if that's the case, then I suspect that you'll have a long uphill battle. There's just too much hassle involved in constant changes of that nature. And what happens if mom or dad falls into arrears???

Perhaps Dad should look at changing the custody ratio. Ask for more time with the child.

Quote:

---

Quoting csoutrage

---

Again, if dad is having to support his child during the ex's parenting time, then what funds are there for dad to support his child during his parenting time? You apparently don't get it....dad is being forced to provide for his child way beyond the court's calculations (which I believe to be WAY overinflated) and award---this is seriously affecting us financially and has diminished the child's standard of living at dad's, while living extravagently at the ex's. Dad's decision would be based on what would be in his child's best interest. If his ex is benefitting from the ENTIRE child support award, then it makes sense that she care for their child 100% of the time, not 50% of the time during her parenting time. Do you not agree?

P.S. Dad has considered letting the ex have full custody of their child, but he knows that too would be detrimental to his child's emotional well-being.

I will take one bit of advice from this thread---to get a fellow gathering, and bring our grievences to legislation. This child support extortion is hurting my family and many other families in America!

---

You're going to be back here in a couple of years asking why the child support he pays you for your kids is lower than the child support he pays for his first kid/s.

Extortion indeed. Not even close.

This isn't about the children. Can we at least be honest about that? This is about two parents trying to screw each other over.

I'm not saying the lower earning parent shouldn't receive child support, I'm saying the higher earning parent should pay the difference of the combined income and be given a residential credit when there's an equally shared residential schedule. It is not fair for the courts to assume that the obligor doesn't have overhead and child rearing costs too---just as much or more than the obligee. My husband wouldn't object to paying his ex what he's paying her now, had she been providing for their child's expenses in both homes (school uniforms, clothing, meals, lunch tickets, supplies, entertainment, etc. etc.)---BUT the fact is, she refuses to help and has told him on occassion she can spend the money however she sees fit, which is legally correct considering there are no laws mandating accounting on how child support is spent.

I don't have any biological children, but wouldn't mind one or two later in my life.

Quote:

---

Quoting NdK1009

---

[I]Perhaps Dad should look at changing the custody ratio. Ask for more time with the child.

---

A parenting evaluator that was assigned to his case in 2007-08 recommended that the parent's consider that their child will want to live primarily with dad and me at age 14 (currently a year away). Would this parenting evaluator's recommendations still matter in a year anyway?

This is only my 2nd post & I swear I'm not a troll (check my 1st post if need be), but in court on Friday, I swear the judge said that giving up rights doesn't negate support payments. My lawyer told me the same. If it were as easy as giving up rights, all NCP who don't want to pay would do that! she said. My own ex tried the same or at least threatened it. Courts do not like that threat IME. Not sure what the law is in WA as I'm in TN.

Dad would still be paying the same amount of child support to his ex---but without the significant expense he's having to pay when his child is residing with us. Right now, he's paying the max amount of support, plus 100% of the costs of raising his child in our home. He's got his child 1/2 the time, but he's paying his ex an amount you would normally see with a parent that visits with their child every other weekend or less!

How does a support order like this benefit the child?? The courts are always flaunting how they put the child's best interest at the forefront---I have to say they didn't in this case. One other member mentioned the mother has an entitlement to support because she's the "mother"---I disagree completely and am angered! The mother has no such entitlement to child support----the CHILD is the one entitled AND BOTH PARENTS HAVE A DUTY TO FINANCIALLY SUPPORT THEIR CHILD!!!!!!!----NOT JUST DAD!!!

Quote:

---

Quoting muddlingthrough

---

This is only my 2nd post & I swear I'm not a troll (check my 1st post if need be), but in court on Friday, I swear the judge said that giving up rights doesn't negate support payments. My lawyer told me the same. If it were as easy as giving up rights, all NCP who don't want to pay would do that! she said. My own ex tried the same or at least threatened it. Courts do not like that threat IME. Not sure what the law is in WA as I'm in TN.

---

Terminating parental rights generally does terminate a current support order though it does NOT necessarily waive arrears.

Terminating visitation rights however is a different animal ;)

Yeah, from what I've read it's very difficult to terminate parental rights vs. visitation rights. Usually someone has to be willing to adopt the child. Who is crazy enough to want to do that?? LOL

A stepparent who loves his/her stepkids enough....

...there are many of 'em around.

I believe this is the information you need for calculating support in your situation. You did not mention in your post who pays for any health care costs or daycare costs.

Also you mentioned that it was too early for a review? But then the raised his support? that sounds unfair.

Have you talked to the court facilitators yet? They were very helpful in trying to work the support in the way me and my ex felt best.

The Washington Child Support Schedule neither directly addresses shared nor split custody cases. There are two methods for calculating shared custody cases. Washington allows you to use either the "Sum of Days Squared" method, or the "Sum of Days" method. The "Sum of Days" method is similar to what is done with the "Arvey " method for split family cases in Washington. In the simple "Sum of Days" method, the ratio of the number of each child’s residential days per each parent is multiplied against the other parent’s child support obligation, and then subtracted from each other to determine the transfer. We feel that the "Sum of Days Squared" ratio or the "Sum of Days Cubed" ratio, as used in Michigan, is a better adjustment for shared custody cases, although there appears to be very little case law in Washington to support either method.

You can argue with the Judge that the purpose of WA support is to equalize both households, and unless one of the methods above are used, then the way the order stands now is disproportionate.

Quote:

---

Quoting mershu

---

I believe this is the information you need for calculating support in your situation. You did not mention in your post who pays for any health care costs or daycare costs.

Also you mentioned that it was too early for a review? But then the raised his support? that sounds unfair.

Have you talked to the court facilitators yet? They were very helpful in trying to work the support in the way me and my ex felt best.

In Washington, the generally accepted method to conduct a split family child support calculation is using the "Arvey" method. This method for adjusting child support in split custody cases was first outlined in a 1995 appellate decision (77 Wn App 817, 1995). The "Arvey" method takes the simple ratio of the number of children per parent, and applies that ratio to the child support obligation for each parent as if all the children were in one family. It then subtracts the difference between the two parent’s obligation to calculate the transfer.

---

Re-read the thread ;)

Ordinary health care costs less than $45 per month (approximately--but I think less) are paid by the ex and extraordinary are split 43% (mother) and 57% (father)---same pro rata share for summer camp---child is too old for daycare now. The mother uses summer camp every other week during her parenting time ($150 per week) and dad can't afford it during his parenting time so I or other family care for their child every other week during dad's parenting time---mother was offered free care during her parenting time but refused and insists in sending the child to camp until age 16 (outside her residential and work city, and at a more expensive one) at dad's expense as well. Draw your own conclusions. This doesn't include child support, which is being increased (incremently) to $680/mo. in a few months.

Oh, mom doesn't provide coverage through her employer as stated in parenting plan, but has stepdad provide it instead---Even though mom's employer can provide insurance coverage for her child less than the cap that the child support order states.

Ah I see - it's visitation vs. actual rights. That's what the sticking point Friday was for another couple - the child hadn't been adopted so the judge said the father was still responsible for support (substitute mother for father if need be; that was just the situation I saw - Don't want to bash fathers!)

Believe it or not, my ex tried the same. His plan was to run off to another state, mooch off...oops I mean live with another woman, and "give up all rights" to the children (his words, not mine). It takes a special person to love two small children (actually be a stay-at-home dad a portion of the time!) but be so willing to "give them up" to circumvent a little monetary hardship. Don't we ALL have monetary hardships - NCPs and CPs ALIKE? The difference is a CP can't just "give up". (Not that I would EVER in a million years want to!) I would transfer piles of sand with tweezers in the Sahara on a sweltering day for a dime a pile before I'd "give up" my kids!

Meant to add: I know several children as well as some of my own age peers who have been adopted by a very loving & wonderful step parent. Actually, I hope one day my children can have a step parent who loves them enough to at least consider adopting them as I don't think my exhusband has much of an interest anymore. :(

Quote:

---

Quoting muddlingthrough

---

I would transfer piles of sand with tweezers in the Sahara on a sweltering day for a dime a pile before I'd "give up" my kids!

---

This deserves quoting because if nothing else, it's the way you're supposed to feel about your kids....

Quote:

---

Quoting mershu

---

I believe this is the information you need for calculating support in your situation. You did not mention in your post who pays for any health care costs or daycare costs.

Also you mentioned that it was too early for a review? But then the raised his support? that sounds unfair.

Have you talked to the court facilitators yet? They were very helpful in trying to work the support in the way me and my ex felt best.

The Washington Child Support Schedule neither directly addresses shared nor split custody cases. There are two methods for calculating shared custody cases. Washington allows you to use either the "Sum of Days Squared" method, or the "Sum of Days" method. The "Sum of Days" method is similar to what is done with the "Arvey " method for split family cases in Washington. In the simple "Sum of Days" method, the ratio of the number of each child’s residential days per each parent is multiplied against the other parent’s child support obligation, and then subtracted from each other to determine the transfer. We feel that the "Sum of Days Squared" ratio or the "Sum of Days Cubed" ratio, as used in Michigan, is a better adjustment for shared custody cases, although there appears to be very little case law in Washington to support either method.

You can argue with the Judge that the purpose of WA support is to equalize both households, and unless one of the methods above are used, then the way the order stands now is disproportionate.

---

One teeny tiny point also worth mentioning.

OP cannot do one darned single thing about this. She cannot argue with anyone and frankly shouldn't even be in the court-room.

It's NOT her legal matter.

Jes' sayin'.

Thanks CourtClerk. I've had to become my children's biggest fan, supporter, coach, counselor...you get the idea...over the past two years. I refuse to have them be burdened because of the life choices of their parents. Yeah, I'm including myself because I made choices as well that led to this final outcome. I would never put my needs before theirs though, and unfortunately, it seems some parents can't get that notion. Sorry, but I knew once I became pregnant that I had a lifetime commitment to raise the healthiest, happiest, productive children I could possibly raise. :)

For others out there, I also think it takes a special kind of parent to be able to part with their child too, to ensure that, at the very least, their child's basic needs are met on a daily basis. I won't disagree families go through all sorts of struggles, as this is a part of life---and at this time we are trying our best to cope financially. We were to the point of being put out on the street---so as a parent you have to weigh your choices regarding your children carefully.

My biggest concern is the court found mine and my husband's household to be in a financial hardship, beyond our control, not the mother's household, yet they ended up increasing dad's child support---when in fact they could have offered relief by granting him a downward deviation based on his residential time. Why would the court do this, unless, of course they too have a financial gain. Why would the other parent (mother in this case) deny relief through a residential credit (with facts showing our hardship)? What's her motive? All are too quick to point the bad finger at dad.

P.S. DAD IS THE CUSTODIAL PARENT THIS YEAR---NOT MOM---THEY BOTH SHARE EQUAL RESIDENTIAL SCHEDULES (ALTERNATING EVERY WEEK) YET DAD PAYS HER CHILD SUPPORT IN THE AMOUNT OF $550/MO SOON TO BE $680/MO----AND THE LAST 2 YEARS HE MADE SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN HER! Where's equity in that?????

Quote:

---

Quoting csoutrage

---

A parenting evaluator that was assigned to his case in 2007-08 recommended that the parent's consider that their child will want to live primarily with dad and me at age 14 (currently a year away). Would this parenting evaluator's recommendations still matter in a year anyway?

---

It is unlikely that the courts would give much weight to a report that will be about four years old. So much can change in that time. The child may, hypothetically, develop a stronger relationship with mom. So, you'll need to have the situation re-evaluated when the time comes.

As an alternative solution, has your husband sought a consultation with a different lawyer to see if the disparity can be better explained?

Quote:

---

Quoting csoutrage

---

For others out there, I also think it takes a special kind of parent to be able to part with their child too, to ensure that, at the very least, their child's basic needs are met on a daily basis. I won't disagree families go through all sorts of struggles, as this is a part of life---and at this time we are trying our best to cope financially. We were to the point of being put out on the street---so as a parent you have to weigh your choices regarding your children carefully.

My biggest concern is the court found mine and my husband's household to be in a financial hardship, beyond our control, not the mother's household, yet they ended up increasing dad's child support---when in fact they could have offered relief by granting him a downward deviation based on his residential time. Why would the court do this, unless, of course they too have a financial gain. Why would the other parent (mother in this case) deny relief through a residential credit (with facts showing our hardship)? What's her motive? All are too quick to point the bad finger at dad.

P.S. DAD IS THE CUSTODIAL PARENT THIS YEAR---NOT MOM---THEY BOTH SHARE EQUAL RESIDENTIAL SCHEDULES (ALTERNATING EVERY WEEK) YET DAD PAYS HER CHILD SUPPORT IN THE AMOUNT OF $550/MO SOON TO BE $680/MO----AND THE LAST 2 YEARS HE MADE SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN HER! Where's equity in that?????

---

I'm not pointing the finger at dad. I know plenty of mothers who have "given up rights" as well. I work with children, so I see everything! But I do stand by my assertion that no one should "give up" their child because of financial hardship. The parent, unless incapable of feeling and regret, WILL come to hate that decision. And speaking from experience, losing a parent who has been in your life is a terrible, crushing blow to a child's psyche and confidence. I have the therapy bills to prove it! The only thing I can tell from your situation is that the court does not want to deviate from the original order. I do agree, if he has custody, paying a huge amount of support seems ludicrous, but we are only getting your side of the story, and you know what "they" ;) say - there are 3 sides to every story. I'm in no way saying you're wrong, just that I personally would lose my home (as you say you're in danger of) before losing my kids. A home is something material that can be replaced: A relationship with a child can never be regained or duplicated. But that's JMO and YMMV.

Quote:

---

Well, I didn't mention that mom made all kinds of demands to show all sources of my income (which I don't have any),

---

Why are you not working? If Dad is having all these financial issues....Why don't you get a job? :confused:

I have health issues

Quote:

---

Quoting csoutrage

---

I have health issues

---

Okay. Why are you not receiving SSI or SSDI? Why are you even considering having children when you "can't" support yourself? Why would you further burden your husband??? :confused:

Quote:

---

Quoting Baystategirl

---

Okay. Why are you not receiving SSI or SSDI? Why are you even considering having children when you "can't" support yourself? Why would you further burden your husband??? :confused:

---

Are we talking about the same ppl? I know that one wanted a child, and had a problem with her income being called into question, but not sure this is that same person......... As for the SSI or even SSAD, thats a good question.

Quote:

---

Quoting mamabear2102003

---

Are we talking about the same ppl? I know that one wanted a child, and had a problem with her income being called into question, but not sure this is that same person......... As for the SSI or even SSAD, thats a good question.

---

Quote:

---

Yesterday, 11:10 AM
csoutrage
Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: washington state
Posts: 13

Re: Burdensome Child Support
I'm not saying the lower earning parent shouldn't receive child support, I'm saying the higher earning parent should pay the difference of the combined income and be given a residential credit when there's an equally shared residential schedule. It is not fair for the courts to assume that the obligor doesn't have overhead and child rearing costs too---just as much or more than the obligee. My husband wouldn't object to paying his ex what he's paying her now, had she been providing for their child's expenses in both homes (school uniforms, clothing, meals, lunch tickets, supplies, entertainment, etc. etc.)---BUT the fact is, she refuses to help and has told him on occassion she can spend the money however she sees fit, which is legally correct considering there are no laws mandating accounting on how child support is spent.

I don't have any biological children, but wouldn't mind one or two later in my life.

---

Yes...I am referring to the OP that "wouldn't mind one or two later in my life".

I find it...baffling that any person would even CONSIDER having a child with absolutely no means to support said child and a hubby that is already under financial duress with his already born child/ren. :(

Sorry, I was the one confused.... thought we had cross referenced a different thread. My oops.

Actually if you read further on in my thread---I mentioned I wouldn't mind having a child later in my life. If my husband and I don't have biological children, then I'm fine with that too---but this will be our choice! My husband's outrageous child support payment ends in 5 years---whoohoo:D