You are here

OT - Proof the courts believe the SM should contribute monetarily!

advice.only2's picture

Submitted by advice.only2 on Thu, 09/28/2017 - 1:25pm

I work with this woman who has three kids with three different baby daddies...not judging. Last year she was all upset about having to go back to court because her ex was trying to get CS lowered since she was working at a better job...this is for her second kid who is school aged. Here are the court orders verbatim (well copied from the website)

The court finds the following:

The petitioner (the woman) has the right to seek attorney fees.

Petitioner makes half of what the respondent makes

Respondent (the guy) has relief because his WIFE BRINGS IN MONEY (Yep you read that right!)

There is a disparity in income.

The fees that are being asked for a reasonable.

Respondent has the ability to pay.

The court orders the following:

Respondent to pay child support in the amount of 1,193.00 per month...and on it went.

My jaw hit the floor when I read that...1193.00 dollars for one kid! Holy crap, and this kid is in school during the day and not in daycare. The fact that the judge had the balls to say that the guy has relief because his wife works...WTF!!! I don't know how much CS she gets for the other two kids, but DAMN!!!

Comments

advice.only2's picture

Submitted by advice.only2 on Thu, 09/28/2017 - 1:48pm

But she is paying, if her spouses income gets slashed in half now she will have to cover where his paycheck no longer helps cover. Say they have a house payment of 4500, and he was contributing half, now she will have to make up where he loses having to pay half of his paycheck to CS.

Either way no judge should ever state that a person can "afford it" because their spouse (not the child's parent) is working.

ldvilen's picture

Submitted by ldvilen on Fri, 09/29/2017 - 6:52am

This is so true, and often a very forgotten factor with SMs. Personally, I had no issue with my husband paying child support, as he should. This is not a specific comment to the case above, but in general just about everyone seems to forget that because DH has to pay child support, this lessens the income for the entire household, and yes, this means SM, especially if she has no children of her own or makes more money than DH, has to take up the slack somewhere. This can even carry over into adulthood, where DH may have to fork over $10,000 for a wedding, for example, so that may mean no vacation or driving around the old-beater care for another year or so for BOTH DH and SM.

One of the huge ironies is that many people go around thinking that most SMs married DH just for his money! What a joke. This certainly does not apply to the bulk of us. What is even worse, is while all of this going on, a whole boatload of people jockeying for DH's money, SM (dad's wife) gets no say in it whatsoever even though it will impact her. And, what is her big thanks? Being told over and over that she has done nothing for DH's children and they don't have to acknowledge her. So, she gets either thrown under the bus or gets to sit at the back of the bus, so to speak, at family events or worse. Thank you America.

advice.only2's picture

Submitted by advice.only2 on Thu, 09/28/2017 - 1:38pm

Just checked it went up, he was originally ordered 703.00 per month, which included 120.00 for child care at the time, another document show they dropped that amount at a later date. So it want down to 583.00.

He has pretty much EOW visitation, with 2 weeks in the summer and a holiday schedule.

DaizyDuke's picture

Submitted by DaizyDuke on Thu, 09/28/2017 - 1:38pm

Surprised this chick is working with CS coming in for 3 different kids!! and you're correct, SM's income should have ZERO to do with CS. Total bull crap

ProbablyAlreadyInsane's picture

Submitted by ProbablyAlready... on Thu, 09/28/2017 - 1:45pm

Sooooo.... If she's having to pay the CS... Did she magically get legal rights to the kid she now has to legally support apparently?

strugglingSM's picture

Submitted by strugglingSM on Thu, 09/28/2017 - 1:48pm

So much for women being equal...apparently, the courts still fall for the "damsel in distress" routine.

MoominMama's picture

Submitted by MoominMama on Thu, 09/28/2017 - 2:09pm

It's the same here but not as harsh. Here it is considered that if you live with someone (married or living partner) then costs such as Rent or Mortgage are shared and so that gives you more disposable income to pay cs with. CS is rarely anywhere near that high here though.

I think that in such a situation I would be fighting for 50/50 if possible.

TwoOfUs's picture

Submitted by TwoOfUs on Thu, 09/28/2017 - 2:18pm

That judge was just being a dick.

Divorced dads better not EVER question the CS amount...even if the ex remarries, starts making tons more money, or they lose their jobs. fFrom what I hear, it almost always goes up in retaliation.

It is beyond maddening that SM's income is considered in the calculation but that live-in boyfriend's contributions are just more free money for BM. Seems fair. I've also been curious...in situations like this. So, typically, the amount of CS for 1 kid is more than it would be for each kid if you had 2 or 3. What I mean is - we used to pay about $500 per kid when we were paying CS for all 3. Now that we're paying for just one, it's not been divided in three and we're paying about $650 for one. So...when BM has 3 kids with 3 different guys...does she get that paying for just one bump from all 3? That seems highly unfair.

advice.only2's picture

Submitted by advice.only2 on Thu, 09/28/2017 - 2:32pm

I know for CA they run everything though the disomaster and first born child gets more money. So if each child is the "first" child with each individual guy, then when they run the disomaster that child would always be listed first. So in reality yeah she could be getting the max for each child, but only if they are first with each guy. If he's got any other kids he's paying CS for and they were born first, then her kid would be place 2nd, or 3rd, or 4th etc.

I couldn't find any other paperwork on the two other baby daddies, but she was never married to them, she was only married to the second baby daddy.

TwoOfUs's picture

Submitted by TwoOfUs on Thu, 09/28/2017 - 2:36pm

Oof. That poor guy was dumb enough to make it legal with a BioHo.

Wondering how long his second marriage will last after this CS order.

GhostWhoCooksDinner's picture

Submitted by GhostWhoCooksDinner on Thu, 09/28/2017 - 2:36pm

Is their money joint? Holy crap, that's scary. I'd live in a separate household than my husband before I'd pay one red cent to That Which Birthed the Skids.

ProbablyAlreadyInsane's picture

Submitted by ProbablyAlready... on Thu, 09/28/2017 - 4:18pm

This is why DH and I still keep our accounts separate... BM continues to throw financial crap at us... So it's safer just in case...

thinkthrice's picture

Submitted by thinkthrice on Thu, 09/28/2017 - 2:39pm

I've been warning about this for YEARS! SM's income may not figure in dollar for dollar, however, if the courts believe that because of SM's income, bio dad pays less in household expenses they consider that freed up to pay more CS to the CP BM.

In New York state they are concerned about every last penny that is coming into the ncp's household; even if it's the local paper boy who is rooming with you. They couldn't care less if the CP remarried Bill Gates. They wouldn't count the CP's spouses income.

WalkOnBy's picture

Submitted by WalkOnBy on Thu, 09/28/2017 - 2:46pm

Medusa tried to play that card here waaaaay back when DH and I first got married. She even found an attorney who sent me interrogatories demanding my financial information.

I had my attorney respond. Never heard another word about it UNTIL about a year later in court.

Medusa said "your honor, SHE makes money and HER income should be included."

Judge said "no. I only make people support children they had a hand in creating."

advice.only2's picture

Submitted by advice.only2 on Thu, 09/28/2017 - 3:02pm

California is very much a BM state!! When meth ex kept getting arrested the court would order her more time, or less restrictions on her visitations because they felt that by rewarding her each court appearance she would strive to be better...never happened!

Pharlap's picture

Submitted by Pharlap on Thu, 09/28/2017 - 3:16pm

Yup, I'd be moved out and filing for divorce so quick neither BM or DH would know what hit them. I'm fine providing things for SK in MY home. The hell if I will be subsidizing their "standard of living" at the cow's house as well. Not my fault she's a 40 year old women who dicked around her entire life and is behind financially and just managed to finally keep a job for more then 6 months.

notsobad's picture

Submitted by notsobad on Fri, 09/29/2017 - 6:33am

This rarely happens and in the one case that I know of, the bio father hadn't been in the child's life since the child was 2 months old. The mother had sole custody and full care and control. When he met and married her, her son was 2 years old. They were married for 12 years and had 2 more children.
When they divorced he had to pay CS for all 3 children.

Yep, it sucks to be him but in those 12 years he was that child's father, he provided for him, he disciplined him, the kid was part of all the family vacations and activities with the fathers family. The skid called him Dad. No different from his two bio kids.
He wasn't that upset about it. He looked at the skid as his own and didn't want him to feel different from his siblings. He loved him the same.

That's about the only way it happens. The child has no contact with his/her BM/BF, is young (under 5) when the stepparent comes into their life and is treated as a bio.

The stepparent also gets visitation rights and can sometimes get custody of the child depending on the circumstances. The guy I knew got all 3 kids eow and for a month in the summer.

I don't think the courts ever take a spouses income into account when figuring out CS. There is a chart based on your province, your income and how many children you have. Quebec may be different, they have some wacky laws there.

thinkthrice's picture

Submitted by thinkthrice on Fri, 09/29/2017 - 8:23am

Again, not "dollar for dollar" do they take NCP SM's income into account but to the fact that NCP BIODAD has FEWER obligations BECAUSE he has SM's income to help him. Then the judges feel perfectly comfortable with upping the CS to CP BM (despite that she too may be relying partially or soley on her new partner's income--which is NOT counted)

They are only concerned about the income from the payor not the payee. In the same way as a judgment against party 1 to party 2 would be only concerned about the income and assets of party 1 and not the recipient (party 2).

lintini's picture

Submitted by lintini on Thu, 09/28/2017 - 11:15pm

I'm in Cali and I first read here about 3 years ago that my income could be taken into consideration in this backwards state.... it blows my mind!