Is there anyone that can help when it comes to Child Support?
It is so fustrating. We share custidy 50/50, we have them no more than she does and we pay for everything already!! The ex-wife is trying to make our marriage disolve. I have never in my life met a a man as wonderful as my husband and I know he was sent to me from up above. I just get so "ill" sometimes because of all the mess. I know it is not his fault, but I take it out on him sometimes. He is a very loving man, we just want the ex to stay out of our life.We are getting ready to buy a house and I know when we get ready to go to court for the child support, I have read that most of the times the women win the child support total. Our calculated "owed" child support, because she chooses not to work is $390.00 a month for 2 kids and we cannot afford that? For $390.00 a month, we would have to move out of our home that we our in. After all of our bills, we only have $450.00 a month to last us for gas, food and any other necessities for school, etc. If this is granted to her, we wouldn't have but $60.00 a month to eat and get gas for our cars and that is not feasible? What options to we have? Is there anyone that knows of anything we can do?
- FustratedStepmom's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
I hate to tell you this
But the support depending on your state is based on his gross income. The courts do not care what DH situation is. This is harsh but it is the truth. My DH lost his job after 23 years and the courts say "to bad" and are taking it out of his unemployment. And I feel for you about BM not working, DH ex does work but she choses to work at a minimum wage job and our CS pays her house payment so why should she get anything better.
Keep you chin up, things will work out.
I am in TN
and they take both parent incomes and if one parent willingly does not work they have a median amount that they base her on. Do you have record of all the extra you pay for like insurance, extra ciricular activites?
me too..
In TN they go by how many days each party spends with the child, how much money each party makes, and you get credits for insurance, reoccuring expenses and the like.. My SD's BM has a college degree and refuses to get off her lazy butt and get a job. There is a stipulation that you can "impute" a woman's income at around $27000 per year in our state if she has no good reason not to work. Check your state's website, maybe it can help..
Yeah, sorry but
His first responsibility is to his children. In most cases, child support is set at a percentage of income - so regardless of if your DH makes a little or a lot, CS will always remain that percentage. Occasionally, the courts will exercise their authority to "downward deviate" from the state guidelines, but you will have to go to court and request a hearing for that. And be prepared to prove that you have just as equal responsibility for those kids as BM does.
I am a SM and a BM. And I argue with my BK's father about this all the time. He claims that he shouldn't have to pay me as much as he does because his mortgage payment is this, his car payment is that, etc...My argument back to him is that I didn't tell him to buy a new, more expensive house and I didn't tell him to buy a newer car. I tell him that CS is decided by the state, not by me, and that he will just have to adjust his lifestyle to accomodate that.
I do feel bad for his new fiancee though. It's not her fault (just like it isn't YOUR fault) and she ends up getting the short end of the stick since 28% of her new hubby-to-be's paycheck comes straight to me. But I guess my response to that is she knew this before getting involved with him. And I'm guessing you did too.
No, it has recently gotten bad
No, she has not always been like this, she has just recently gotten bad. She things she is owd the world, when all that matters is the boys. Us and our church is praying for earnestly that God will soften her heart.
In MO
CS is based on your income, but both bioparents have SOME type of obligation. So if the statute in MO says it costs $600 a month (for example) to raise SD, DH has some of that responsibility and BM has some. How much (the percent) depends on your income. In our case, BM does not work. So she has no income. BM tried to argue that DH thus owes her that entire $600. We argues that BM chooses not to work (she's remarried and her husband supports her and their kids). She could get a job if she wanted, and she made an amount equal to DH when they were married. In MO they "impute" an income to a parent who is not working. Unfortunately, it is only minimum wage. So, in our case, DH has responsiblity for about 70 percent of that $600, or $420. If BM worked and made the same amount as DH, our responsibility would be $300. Does that make sense?
"choosing not to work"
Was your skid's BM working when she and DH were together? Because if she was a SAHM then, why should she have to give that up and go back to work just because they aren't together anymore? If they had agreed, as parents, that she would SAH to raise the kids then it is up to your DH to maintain that even though they aren't together anymore. Just because they are divorced or whatever does not necessarily mean that BM should hop right up and get a job. Raising kids IS a job.
I may be speaking out of turn since I don't know the specifics of your situation - the BM may be a crackhead for all I know (LOL) - but assuming she is a decent mom that is my opinion.
And regardless of what kind of mother she is, it is still DH's responsibility to provide for his children before himself...and ultimately before you. I know it sucks, but that's the way it is.
You took the words
right outta my mouth!!!
Don't agree on this one I am afraid.
2B,
Why should a SAHP retain the benefits of a marriage that is dissolved? CS should never cover 100% of the cost to raise a child if both parents are alive. Even a someone who has been a SAHP has the potential to earn money to support their kids. Why should the choice of a former SAHP to not work adversely impact the NCP?
Why should the NCP be liable to support the XSpouse? CS is not spousal support it is CHILD SUPPORT. If following a divorce a former SAHP chooses not be responsible and support their children why should the NCP be punished for the decision of the SAHP to not be financially responsible for their children.
I am not making a judgement on why the marriage failed just an opinion that both parents are responsible for the financial support of their joint children regardless of the existence of a marriage. The responsibilities of the marriage cease when the marriage ends though the responsibility of both parents to the children does not.
Since many if not most states are No Fault Divorce states there should be no requirement for spousal support unless mitigating circumstances apply and the CS should be calculated with what the CP could earn based on qualifications if the CP was working or at the very least what the CP could earn full time on minimum wage. I do not consider one parent being a SAHP within the context of an intact marriage to be mitigating if the marriage dissolves
After a divorce one former spouse should not be subject to decades of indentured servitude to the other based solely on who the kids are placed with.
My Wife and I have only my SS as children in our household. My Wife receives CS and my SS's BioDad is a complete waste of skin. However, he should not have to pay 100% of the costs to raise my SS even if my wife was a SAHP. My Wife's choice to be a SAHP (though she is not one)should not be funded by BioDad beyond what his CS obligation is based on his income and my Wife's income potential applied to the the CS formula.
I agree that parenting is arguably the most important job there is. However one parents choice should not result in a liability to the other parent if no marriage exists.
Just my thoughts of course.
Best regards,
I was not implying that
the exH should support the exW. Nor was I talking about spousal support. I believe I was addressing comments from a SM from the perspective of someone that is both BM and SM. I deal with ex's on both sides, which means I receive CS from my ex and my DH pays CS to his ex. So I have a fairly relevant point of view to BOTH sides of the issue.
I was simply saying that in states where CS is based on a % of the NCP income, it doesn't matter what kind of house the NCP lives in, what kind of car the NCP drives, etc. It is still the NCP's obligation, first and foremost, to pay the court-ordered level of CS...whatever that maybe...and that at least in IL it doesn't matter whether the BM is working outside the home or not. My ex would live high on the hog in the biggest house on the block and driving the fanciest car in town if it meant that he could cry to a judge and get his CS reduced because his "expenses" were so high. And that wouldn't be fair to our kids. And I believe that is why the law are written as they are - as a % of income.
I was also addressing the comments made by the "new wife" about the BM (former wife) being "too lazy to get a job" and others of that nature. I am a working mom, so by no means am I advocating people that are truly too lazy to get a job and expect others to take care of them. I'm just saying that it shouldn't be automatically assumed that the BM get a job outside the home just because of the divorce. The BM working or not should not be criticized for her choice just because the "new wife" is bitter that she can't have the bigger house or nicer car because her new hubby pays so much to the ex. Remember...those kids were there FIRST and it is the SM's choice to be with that man, knowing what his obligations are to his FIRST family before starting a SECOND family.
Trust me...when I put on my SM hat, I feel many of the same things you are saying here. My DH's exW is a troll. But I made the choice to be with this man...so I have to deal with it the best way I can. And I don't get to live in the style I would like to or would be able to if he wasn't paying so much CS to his ExW. And it seems so coincidental that every time we get a little extra cash saved up for something for ourselved, his ExW comes out of the darkness and demands it for some child-related expense. But ultimately, I picked him. So I have to deal.
Then I put on my BM hat, and look at the level of CS I get from my ExH and how I have to fight him tooth and nail to get him to pay his share of daycare or medical expenses...and how his new fiancee complains that she can't have this or she can't have that because he is paying for this or that for MY kids...and I just want to tell her the same thing. You knew he had kids by another woman and you picked him anyway...so deal.
The statutes in IL specifically state that CS is ordered in order to allow the children to maintain the lifestyle that THEY had prior to the dissolution of marriage. In other words, if mom got to stay home with them then, she should get to stay home with them now. If they had pony lessons then, they should have pony lessons now. Granted, these are generalizations and every case is different. But the bottom line is this...It is supposed to be based on the best interests of the children...and I think we all lose sight of that when we are the ones writing out that check every month.
Thanks for the clarification.
2anB
The interpretation of the courts intent for the child(ren) to maintain their prior lifestyle I think is the sticky wicket in the current system. Does child lifestyle include having the CP home all of the time? I don't think so but I am not a judge.
Someone earlier (on this thread or another) commented that when the kids got to school the CP goes to work. I think this is a fair perspective in divorce or non married parent scenarios.
I may even be persuaded to the perspective that in a divorce or unwed parent situation that even if the kids are not yet at school age that both parents are obligated to provide income for support of the kid(s) regardless of the situation in play during the marriage. Many families raise children to viable adulthood using day care for the kids during normal work hours.
Though I have never been in a situation where I have to pay CS I don't think that an NCP should be accountable for 100% of child related costs while the CP has no financial obligation to the child. As the spouse of a CP who receives CS I also believe that the NCP should participate equitably in supporting the child.
I like the 50/50 cost model with CS determined by % financial responsibility due to income (with some income based on qualifications ascribed to a parent who chooses not to work) with a second calculation based on parenting time. CS calculations should be completely gender neutral.
I agree that the cost of living of one parent or another should not be considered. The calculation should be based on income. Though I do think that in situations where a second family is involved that the total $'s available to support children should be equitable and both initial and subsequent children should have equitable access to BioParent income.
In the case of my SS, he is the oldest of BioDad's four out of wedlock children. As BioDad's brood has increased my SS has been eligible for a smaller percentage of BioDad's income. I am OK with that as long as SS's share is equal to the shares of each of the other three half sibs. My Wife's income (and mine) should be irrelevant as far as the support allocated for the other three of BioDad's spawn and my income should not be considered at all when calculating BioDad's CS for my SS. But, the Judges in the Peoples Communist State of Oregono seem to think that because I am an employed professional that BioDad should get a break on CS.
Oregon is a beautiful state IMHO. The problem with it is that it is full of Oregonians who are firm in the belief that someone else should pay their bills and their legal obligations to their kids. (Sorry for the little rant!)
You situation is very complex. As I understand it you receive CS from an XH and your DH pays CS to his XW. Your income is irrelevant to the CS your DH pays to his XW and DH's income is irrelevant to the CS you receive from your XH. (I think I got my thoughts right on that :? )
I also agree that it should be about the kids. The big issue is how to maintain focus on the best interest of the kids while keeping the solution as close to equitable between the parents and not screwing one parent significantly more than the other. (figuratively of course)
Thanks again for the clarification.
Best regards,
Yet when times are tough, a
Yet when times are tough, a family gets unexpected medical bills, get laid off, or whatever the case may be, and they're not divorced, they are not legally expected to maintain the lifestyle those kids are accustomed to. But as soon as a marriage fails all the sudden the state tries to make the parents legally accountable for a lifestyle they had before. Unexpected medical bills, lay offs, AND divorce, are things that happen in life and they change our lifestyles. SO DEAL WITH IT!
"Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes. There's too much fraternizing with the enemy"
Why is it that it would be
Why is it that it would be DH's responsibility to provide for his children, before himself, yet the same wouldn't apply to BM? BM is equally responsible for providing for those children, which means she needs TO GET A JOB. If she chooses not to, oh well, but the courts will still use a presumed income for her portion of providing FOR HER KIDS. Dads should not be reduced to purely an ATM.
"Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes. There's too much fraternizing with the enemy"
chosing not to work????
Come on now.... are you kidding me about the BM having the right not to work? The BM needs to get a job and support the children. If she does not do such you can request a downward modification of child suport and have income imputed on her (in NYS).
Hey BM's..... Get a life, get a job, and support your children!!! Child support should be 50/50. You don't deserve to live the lifestyle you did before divorce, only your children do and believe me they do when they are with their fathers!!!!
And guess what??? when the kids are old enough to understand i bet they will live with their dad for a nice "Allowance". That allowance will be every penny from you (the BM) for the child support you will have to pay when they move in with us. EVERY PENNY WILL GO DIRECTLY TO THEM.......EVERY SINGLE PENNY PLUS!!! THEY ARE ALMOST TEENAGERS NOW.... WE CAN'T WAIT!!!!
It all depends on how
your documents are written I guess. While CS is set as a %, it can and should be modified downward quickly in the case of job loss. I'm in IL - and this is usually handled within 2 weeks as long as the NCP gets right into the courthouse to file the motion right away. And it can all be done pro se as well so no extra legal expenses are incurred.
And in my case, all "niceties" are written in as "as agreed to by the parties" so neither one can force the other to pay for extra curriculars that they can't afford.
IL does not rock. Same as
IL does not rock. Same as other states. A solid 20% of income (no taxes taken out for BM) for one child. I'm sorry, when does it take ,then, almost 1/3 of the family income to raise a child-- no questions asked?!!!!! Also, the ExH must pay 1/2 of everything else----daycaqre, school stuff, activities, etc. NUTS
how many kids does he have
how many kids does he have with that woman?
Oh, that'll come back
to bite her in the ass someday. For sure. And hard. lol
Check the CS laws in your state.......
In the state of Oregon, CS is based on number of days in the case of joint custody. My H originally had joint physical and legal custody of his daughter when he and the BM first split up. I know he paid some child support based on the number of days spent with his daughter vs. number of days with her BM because I don't believe the time was spent 50/50.
When BM threatened to move out of state with her new H and all of the children(3 girls, including my SD) he and one of the other dads took her to court for full custody. Both dad's lost and she ended up with full physical and joint legal. At that point he ended up paying a large percentage of his income (about $500) to BM for support.
A few years ago my H received emergency custody of his daughter (very long story I haven't blogged yet) and he was awarded full physical custoday a few months later. Because of the emergency order, they shared 50/50 custody through out the summer and he was still paying full support. BM was furious to find out she had to repay half of the support that went to her during the summer because it was considered an overpayment.
After H was awarded full physical custody, BM refused to negotiate payments or even send CS to my H for their daughters care, my H asked her when she was planning on sending CS for their daughter. She said and I quote "do it through the state". Dumb. Now the state is going after her for all of the arrearages (the overpaid CS and the CS she didn't pay for a year) as well as monthly support. And even dumber on her part, because she had a salary increase the state made the CS amount retro-active to the start date of her new salary range.
I would check the laws in your state. If your H and the BM share custody 50/50, then it would stand to reason that neither one of them should be paying support to the other.
Never eat more than you can lift.
Miss Piggy
$8K a month???
How many children did they have together???? That is insane!
They do that here too
Problem is, they "impute" a minimum wage if BM hasn't worked in so many years. In our case, BM did work while she and DH were married. She didn't stop working until she remarried and found a guy who was willing to work two jobs to support her sitting at home on her backside. And believe me, that's what she does. Even though she's been at home since SD was 4, she never volunteered at her school or did anything except eat, watch soap operas, and think of ways to screw DH. When BM was working, she made as much as DH. She stops working, suddenly she's only capable of earning minimum wage. Hmmm...
I hate when people say that
I hate when people say that being a parent is a "job" NO... it's a way of life. The ones that say it is are the ones that sit around and wait for there paycheck (CS) to come in the mail. I so badly want to send my SS home to BM in a t-shirt that says "mommy's little paycheck" because that's what he is. CS should be for the child. Not to pay BM's house payment or new shoes! BM should take care of that with a paycheck from a job that she get's out of bed and goes to.
Why should the father "change in lifestyle" ? looks like BM "change in lifestyle" is to not work and feel like the father should owe BM for something and make him pay?
I stress every month paying CS and get so upset mailing that check and seeing what it is taking away from my own child. And then to see SS get in my car with a game boy from his mommy,(who does not work and thinks her job is to be a mom) no really it's your daddy's money. As my daughter sits in the seat next to him asking if she can see it and for him to say no and then when my daughter ask's if she can have one I have to tell her maybe someday. I'm not going to tell her I can't pay for one of those.
I feel really bad for you. with 60 to run on i would say that BM is going to have to drop off and pick up. You need the gas to go to work.
Good luck
Well, I do agree that
Well, I do agree that staying home isn't a job, because the only money you "earn" is the money you save in daycare. I do, however stay at home and collect $800/mo in cs from my ex for one child. But this isn't court ordered, its actually about $150/mo higher than what a court would order. BUT, this is his choice to contribute extra because my husband covers my son's medical, dental and vision insurance. There sorta a reason he pays extra. One, he only sees him a few days at a time, about 3-4 times a year. He doesn't pay any money to support him besides cs (as in doesn't have to have an extra room for him, bigger car, any extra cirriculars, not a dime more than cs. Second, he can afford it easily. After his bills and cs, he still has $2000/mo to do whatever with, and he's single. Third, he will be gettingout of the coast guard soon and if it takes him a while to find a job (which I'm assuming it will due to the economy) than he will be living off unemployment and won't be paying me anything. So we work it out amongst ourselves,when he's doing fine he pays a hefty amount, if he's having trouble, he'll pay nothing. As long as either one doesn't go on too long, it all evens out. Now I'm sure if he ever gets remarried, things will change drastically! And if he ever has another kid, I would expect him to pay a little less...not half, but less. I stay home because of the child I have with DH and because I go to school 3/4 time, so that is our family decision and I don't believe that should affect my ex's obligation...as in he shouldn't have to pay more because I stay home with someone else's child. I just thank god that, for now at east, we are able to work it out with eachother as opposed to going through the courts!
"Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes. There's too much fraternizing with the enemy"
Well I am one of the ones...
That say that SAH parenting IS a job...however, I am a CP BM and also have a full-time PAYING job. I am perfectly capable of supporting myself and my children - and I DO. I think that BM's who "sit around and watch soap operas all day" instead of interacting with their children are not DOING their job...in which case they should be "fired" so to speak.
Ok...so I work...and I make pretty darn good money...However, that does not mean for one second that I am going to allow my children's father to pay less than what the courts have ordered - just because he or his new wife wants a bigger house and think that SHE is entitled to some fancy lifestyle. If they can afford to have both the fancy lifestyle AND fulfill BD's financial obligations to his children, then great! More power to them...but if not, the KIDS come first... not the new wife. Sorry.
And if and when my new DH and I have another child, I will likely quit my good-paying job and stay home with that child. Does that mean that my ExH should get a reduction in his CS? I don't think so!! I don't now and will not then expect him to support ME...just his kids.
I think this argument got started because SM's often make the generalizations about BM's being lazy, collecting a paycheck, etc...without stopping to think that maybe that sounds a little selfish on their part too. Yes, there are BM's out there who purposely quit their good-paying jobs post-divorce to try to screw their ex out of more money...and that is revolting. Just as there are BD's who quit good paying jobs for lesser paying ones to try to avoid paying CS. But there are also many BM's who work, or have remarried, or both - NONE of which should matter when determining how much a NCP does or doesn't pay. I think we should STOP all the generalizations about BM's, SM's, BD's, etc...and just focus on individual, specific issues.
And I'm sure it is difficult for you to tell your BK that you can't afford something that SK has. But guess what? That is part of life. You chose to have a child with a man who already had an obligation to other children. Does that make your kid any less important? No, of course not. But it was YOUR responsbility to determine whether or not YOU and DH can provide for YOUR child in the manner that you would like to - knowing full well that a portion of his income automatically goes out the door.
There is no perfect solution to the CS calculation - and I think most courts do a pretty decent job of making it fair. Of course there are always people that over or under-pay...but the generalizations made about either side is just fuel for the fire....and completely unproductive.
How old is your
How old is your daughter?
"Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes. There's too much fraternizing with the enemy"
Sorry I still don;t think
sorry Arianna i didn't mean to sound bi**hy to you. it's was nothing you said
that got me started on that subject.
Sorry I still don;t think parenting is a job. It's your life! is a job your life? if your get fired or quit, you go get another JOB, you can't go get another child. If parenting is seen as a job then your Job is to go get a job and show your child that you have to work for everything you want in life and nothing get's handed to you.
Mustang1, you and another another women ( her husband writes on here also) He talks really great of her about being a single young mother. That's great when you say "I can do it with or without" "a mother's first priority is to her child...if that means getting a job and working to help feed, cloth and provide medical care for her child, then she needs to get off her butt and do so."
very strong!!
mom2anb sorry but it sounds like you have a problem with the new wife? and because of it you want to nail your ex to the wall with child support so the ex hubby and new wife have a hard living?
So, when you get your child support it just goes right back out the door to your new H ex wife sorry, child? If you and your new H have a child why would you even think your ex would pay less or more for that matter? That's a whole new book, different man supporting you and your child together. Will you use child support on your new child from your ex, yes I'm sure. If your ex and new wife want a bigger house, why not they work for it, anyway your kid will be over there?
Or is it some women don't want the dad to do well or better than them because the child might want to be with daddy more and not mommy?
Does anybody put any money up for the child so they can someday go to college or is that another fight between two parents 18 years from now.
Don't you think so many parents would get along better without all the 'money'? If the courts came out and said "ok mom and dad you both pay half to the child account and use it when the child needs it.
If a parent has a job they should be able to pay for there bills, really 420.00 for one child? really tell me what four hundred and twenty dollars is being used in one month for one child? no daycare! I dont use that much on my one child in one month!
Sorry to get a little out of hand on this FustratedStepmom but I really feel for you and your husband. It can really mess up a marraige.
Yes when we first fall for these wonderful men with there children everything is great intill both your incomes come together, you get nice things , new house, kids get new things , you get married THEN the BM sees all this and think the EX H is making more or hidding money and thinks his life is so great! and then feel's child support needs to go up! For what?
I have no problem with BM's that bust there ass and take care of there own.
there was a lady on tv that did not work and the H took care of everything. Then one day he took off and she could'nt find him, she had no money of her own and ended up being homeless and broke! Kid or no kid this is another reason to work and have your own money!
Wellbutrin...
I have no problem whatsoever with my ex's new wife...in fact, I try very hard to take her feelings into consideration before I say/do things to my ex. I let a lot of things slide - because I don't want to unnecessarily ruffle anyone's feathers over little things. I have no need to "mark my territory" or be controlling or any of that other nonsense that many ExW's (BM's) do. I do this out of respect and because I am also the "new wife" where my DH and his ex are concerned...and I hope that someday my DH's ExW will treat me with a modicum of respect as well. I have no desire to "nail" my ex for anything. I'm not at all bitter toward him or his new wife. I don't care if he does "better than me" or has a bigger house than me, or anything like that. I am perfectly happy with the choices I have made in my life and I wish nothing but the best for him and his new wife. I just expect him to follow the established court orders as they are written, pay the CS and other expenses that the court has ordered, and to not cry poormouth to me about it. I didn't write the laws...I just follow them. And I expect my ex to do the same. I don't overspend. I don't live beyond my means. I work hard for what I have and I share in the support of my family. But I don't want to hear my ExH or his new wife crying about how they can't afford this or that because of what he has to pay in CS. Their expenses or lifestyle are not my problem.
I do not receive or even ask for exorbitant amounts of money from him - nothing more than what the IL state statute requires. I think that in our situation, what he pays is fair. It is strictly based on a % of income. And what my new DH pays in CS is based on the same %. So effectively, yes...for the most part, what comes in one door goes right back out the other door. But whatever - that's just the way it is. I knew when I married my new DH that he had obligations to his child from his previous marriage. And I just expect that my ExH's new wife acknowledges the exact same thing. And I have heard stories (and experienced first-hand) of BD's who think that when the BM remarries or has children with a new guy, that BD's CS should be reduced because the new DH is now contributing toward BM's (and therefore, the child's) household expenses...I think that is absolutely ridiculous...and that's why I mentioned it. If my new DH's income allows me to stay home with my kids instead of working full-time, that does NOT mean that the BD should not have to pay as much CS. My DH's income should have NOTHING to do with my ExH's CS payment.
My point was that the laws are the laws. And unless we are writing our congressmen to try to change them, we just have to deal with them. And we DO get to choose who we marry. So if a woman has a problem with her new man paying $ to his ex, then that woman should not marry that man. If you marry him, you live with it too. Second wives do not get the luxury of living like or acting like the first marriage never happened. That is just life. Plain and simple.
Likely, the BM's are never going to change. If you are a SM, hope you get a good BM. If not, you are screwed. And you can bitch and moan and complain all you want (that's what these sites are for!) but it isn't going to change much...and SM's should know that when they sign up.
Right or wrong non-joint children can add or decrease CS.
The formulas for most states require each party to enter the number of joint and non-joint children.
If the CP adds a non-joint child the % of CS obligation each parent of joint children can shift and increase the amount paid by the NCP. In this case the CP would get a credit for adding a non-joint child and their % of obligation to support the joint child would go down.
Conversely if the NCP adds a non-joint child then the %CS obligation can shift more heavily to the CP and CS received by the CP from the NCP can go down. In this case the NCP would get the credit for adding a non-joint child and the NCP % of obligation for support to the joint child would go down.
If either side adds a non-joint kid then the % obligation of the other parent for joint children goes up.
This can increase the CS an NCP pays for joint children with an X.
If in our case my wife and I had a BioKid together then my wife would get a credit in the CS calculation which would offset one of BioDad's credits (he has 3 non-joint kids)for my SS's CS. BioDad's CS obligation would go up because my wife chose to have a child with me.
Ceteris Paribus - All else remaining equal.
Best regards,