Burdensome Child Support

[csoutrage]

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!

[CourtClerk]

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.

[csoutrage]

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?

[CourtClerk]

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.

[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!

[NdK1009]

"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.

[Dogmatique]

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.

[csoutrage]

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.

[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?

[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.

[csoutrage]

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!!!