Can You Reduce Child Support Based on a Child from a Prior Marriage

My question involves child support in the State of: Kansas

I am trying to run numbers here and I am confused as to how to calculate my son that lives with me.

I was married and had a son. He is now 13. I have legal custody of him, but the mom does not pay me child support. I agreed she did not have to pay and it was filed in the court that she would not pay. So no worksheet was done.

I was remarried and have a 7yo son that lives with his mom. I pay her child support and we are going back for an increase. I did not have custody of my 13yo when it was calculated the first time.

How does that work? Since she does not pay do I get some kind of credit/deduction or does the court not recognize the expense of him?

Kansas appears to consider any previous child support obligations. You don't have any, so it won't be counted.

http://www.kscourts.org/rules-proced...elines/faq.asp


But you absolutely should file for child support for your son's Mother. Handy dandy forms here:

http://www.dcf.ks.gov/services/css/Pages/default.aspx

That's what I was worried about.

How does the court justify that? One kid has living expenses and the other doesn't just because I was nice to his mom?

What options do I have here other than making her pay me child support? She does not make much and I don't want to put the hardship on her.

Justify what?

You chose not to pursue child support for the 13 year old - why is that Mom #2's problem?

File against 13 year old's Mom.

I appologize for coming across as selfish.

I pay her $1,200 a month in child support right now. She lives in a small house that costs her $250 a month in morgage. We live I a small community. I have paid for all of his clothes for the past 2 years because she will send him to school in rags. I pay for his school lunches.
She takes 2 trips a year to Europe for vacation without him.
So I am a little frustrated with her wanting another increase

My 13yo son lives with me and with the money his mom makes I would get around $50 a month.
So it's frustrating to me that the court says one kid costs $1,200+ and the child that lives with me costs $50 or less.

Quote:

---

Quoting shilohhawk

---

I appologize for coming across as selfish.

I pay her $1,200 a month in child support right now. She lives in a small house that costs her $250 a month in morgage. We live I a small community. I have paid for all of his clothes for the past 2 years because she will send him to school in rags. I pay for his school lunches.
She takes 2 trips a year to Europe for vacation without him.
So I am a little frustrated with her wanting another increase

My 13yo son lives with me and with the money his mom makes I would get around $50 a month.
So it's frustrating to me that the court says one kid costs $1,200+ and the child that lives with me costs $50 or less.

---

Dad, the thing is, is that if you had an official child support calculation for your 13 year old, it would show YOUR obligation to support him as being much higher than 50.00 a month, therefore the credit that you would get in your child support calculation for your other child would be based on your share of his support, not his mother's share.

However, because you don't have that child support calculation, you are SOL. Therefore, even if you get a child support order against your 13 year olds mom and gave it back to her every month, you would be better off than you are now.

That does make sense. I was not understanding.
I will get ahold of my lawyer and see if we can jump on that.

Yeah, unfortunately courts know that trick. The other child's support order is primary.

With all due respect, how is that a trick? My 13yo is not free. I feel that he should be accounted for. I am not trying to pull anything over on anyone. I just feel it should be fair for both boys.
I only have so much money. And I spend my money on my children. I am not a dead beat dad.

Quote:

---

Quoting shilohhawk

---

With all due respect, how is that a trick? My 13yo is not free. I feel that he should be accounted for. I am not trying to pull anything over on anyone. I just feel it should be fair for both boys.
I only have so much money. And I spend my money on my children. I am not a dead beat dad.

---

Why not give both $1200?

That's fair, right?

You don't think that's fair - I can guess.

I am just saying I don't think it's fair to give one everything and not acknowledge the cost for my 13yo that lives with me. I'm not sure what I am missing.
If my 7yo costs that much a month according to the court how can they not also asses the cost of both. It seems like common sense to me. He is not free just because he lives with me.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

Why not give both $1200?

That's fair, right?

You don't think that's fair - I can guess.

---

To answer that, yes, I think that does sound fair. If I was paying child support for my 13yo, I would be paying more than $1200. Right? So why should the court not acknowledge that?

I suggest you reread #6.

All of your children need to be fed, clothed, housed, educated, etc. The fact that you did not pursue child support for your 13 year old was your personal decision. That decision does not change the younger child's needs, and the mother of that child is not obligated to accept less in support merely because you decided to be a "nice guy" and not insist on support for the older child. The two obligations are not related in any way. She has no obligation to you at all in this regard, no matter who else you are supporting. Honestly, that's not child #2's problem. That child deserves support. Period. Your choices don't enter into the equation.

I believe the "trick" in filing for child support for kid 1 is that mom and/or lawyer of kid 2 might see that as an attempt to get out of the increase?

Quote:

---

Quoting wess1881

---

I believe the "trick" in filing for child support for kid 1 is that mom and/or lawyer of kid 2 might see that as an attempt to get out of the increase?

---

Let's break this down.

Dad has an obligation to support child #2. He's due an increase, so Mom of #2 is bringing the matter back to court. Child #1 doesn't enter that equation since there are no existing obligations to any other children.

Dad has custody of child #1. Neither he nor Mom #1 are currently paying child support. This means that if Dad does file against Mom #1, he'd get credit because there's already an order in place for child #2 - but it won't affect Mom #2 at all. She'll get the increase per guideline support.

That seems very strange, would it be different if dad was still with mom 1? Just curious how the calculations are made, it would seem even if there are no orders in place, obviously someone is supporting kid 1 and one would think the court would acknowledge that and assume it to be the custodial parent? Or is that too much to assume?

Quote:

---

Quoting wess1881

---

That seems very strange, would it be different if dad was still with mom 1? Just curious how the calculations are made, it would seem even if there are no orders in place, obviously someone is supporting kid 1 and one would think the court would acknowledge that and assume it to be the custodial parent? Or is that too much to assume?

---

Way, way too much to assume.

There's a reason the state wants PROOF of such an obligation.

Good to know Dogmatique thank you

This article might help:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-s...-by-state.aspx

I understand what you are saying, but it still seems to lack logic.

The state of Kansas does give a credit for both children if I am paying CS for both. So in a very logical sense the mother of my younger child is not responsible for my older son, other than the fact that the state does give a credit on my income to acknowledge the cost.

Child Support is based on my income and her's.
When I did not have custody of my older son I was paying child support to his mom. And therefor I did receive a credit on the worksheet for my younger son. I understand that there was a worksheet done in that situation, now there is not.
The court gave the credit to acknowledge the cost/obligation for both children before. So now just because there is not a worksheet in place they don't? The state is effectively failing my older son. The cost of him does not disappear just because there is no worksheet.

I do not feel comfortable having her ordered to pay child support and then not accept the money. I don't want the order.

I am not trying to get out of the increase. Its going up regardless. But I take issue with the fact that they will not acknowledge the cost of him simply because there is not a worksheet for him. Ordering my older sons mom to submit income info so a mock up worksheet can be fairly calculated seems to be very logical and fair.

Quote:

---

Quoting shilohhawk

---

I understand what you are saying, but it still seems to lack logic.

The state of Kansas does give a credit for both children if I am paying CS for both. So in a very logical sense the mother of my younger child is not responsible for my older son, other than the fact that the state does give a credit on my income to acknowledge the cost.

Child Support is based on my income and her's.
When I did not have custody of my older son I was paying child support to his mom. And therefor I did receive a credit on the worksheet for my younger son. I understand that there was a worksheet done in that situation, now there is not.
The court gave the credit to acknowledge the cost/obligation for both children before. So now just because there is not a worksheet in place they don't? The state is effectively failing my older son. The cost of him does not disappear just because there is no worksheet.

I do not feel comfortable having her ordered to pay child support and then not accept the money. I don't want the order.

I am not trying to get out of the increase. Its going up regardless. But I take issue with the fact that they will not acknowledge the cost of him simply because there is not a worksheet for him. Ordering my older sons mom to submit income info so a mock up worksheet can be fairly calculated seems to be very logical and fair.

---

I suggest you speak with a local attorney.

I don't think you're actually understanding how this works.