My bf has a 50/50 parenting plan so neither parent pays support. Recently bm has started holding up the divorce saying she has an issue that needs to be discussed... The only thing we can think of is that she changed her mind about netIher parties paying support and now she wants it... I get it if one household makes substantially less than the other... In our case bm makes less but not a lot... Bf says if money is her issue he is going to offer her $300.00 per month ($100.00 per kid). Does that seem fair? Bm makes more than bf per hour but she also works less...
Anyway... I don't get why your dh would have to pay anything if they share custody... And if you know have to pay more because you are not working so the tax bracket thing... That tells me the court considered your income when determining child support... So why aren't they using bm's dh's income?

has 50/50 custody and we have to pay CS ----- he did make a little more than her, but he also took about 20,000 in credit card debt (hers -- but b/c they were married he was responsible for 1/2 -- he paid it all, just to get the divorce final).......... if the courts tried to use my income to justify increasing CS i would divorce him in a heart beat.......... so i agree if you have 50/50 custody no CS should be exchanged, but i am a strong if not passionate believer that the new SP should not be shafted for CS......

good luck in getting the cs DH pays reduced or eliminated..

My skids bm found out when she took us back to court to lower HER cs that it's not about household income. Cs is based on the income of the two shared parents of the children. I don't think any of us want the system to start including sparents income.

Me too. We live in limited income housing and scrimp and pinch to get by (luckily we got a lot of wedding money and were able to buy the skids new stuff right before we all moved in together). BM makes almost TWICE what my H does and we have them every day (including the evening meal) and EOWeekend and pay for clothes, shoes, school supplies, books, toys etc... and we have to pay her CS. It makes me sick. The courts don't care about the actual details of a situation. In our situation, they calculated the CS based on how many overnights we have rather than how much money we fork out for the skids in reality (as in feeding them every day as well as everything else). BM is a greedy pig and when H asked her why she was being so unreasonable and making it difficult for us to even buy milk, she replied, "because you left me for stepmadre." The catty sow even admitted to being this nasty and vindictive! Anyway, my blood pressure is no doubt spiking because of thinking about this, so i'm signing off on this one.

"A lot of people are afraid to tell the truth. That’s where toughness comes into play. Toughness isn’t being a bully, it’s having a backbone.” ~Robert Kiyosaki

First lets point out that his ex's husband has no obligation to take care of your husbands kids. Do you think he should? Even if he buys a yacht what does that change? Your husband made them - he pays for them.

Second if physical custody really 50/50 or just decision making? If the kid(s) live with Mom pretty much full time then she has the expenses of raising the kids. Of course she should be paying 100% of the expenses such as clothing, school costs, dental care, etc.

Don't let jealously of someone elses financial success stand in the way of allowing your husband to fulfill his financial obligations to society by paying for his children. Allow him to do it without complaint from you. You married into this No one else, no matter how well-to-do, is obligated to finance these kids..

*********************

Since no one else will thank you for what you've done I will do so now. Thank you for being important in a kids life. Fifty years from now its the only thing that will matter about your existance.

Listen the kid is fed, clothed, sees a Doctor and has a roof over her head right? You're helping pay for that NOT FOR THE EX'S VACATIONS ON THE RIVERIA.

Why is Dad competing financially in the first place? Do you really think that material things are more important than being a parent?

Which do you think is more important to a kid in the long run. Oh sure its nice to have those $100 sneakers and parade around the school but when she grows up she'll recognize that what is important in a parent does not revolve around what material things the parent can give.

And if she does become one of those few who do think that money is the most important then she'll have broken off contact and you'll be better off without her.

Be careful you're not jealous of this womans money and that's clouding your judgement of what is important in this kids life.

Let me speak to your spouse for a moment. Sir you can't compete with this womans money. Even if you could to do so you would only teach your kid that they should give love, devotion and loyality to whoever has the most money. Is that how you want your daughter to grow up? To marry the guy that has the coolest sports car? Or the guy who will be a true father to her children? She is still in her formitive years.

You have a unique oppertunity here to demonstrate to your kid what is important in life. By quietly going about your business and showing her what's really important: spending quality time with your kid. Take her camping - not to a beach front hotel. Volunteer with her to feed the folks at the shelter rather than attend a banquet for the Red Cross.

And while you're doing these things don't be bad mouthing what your ex is doing. Just quietly show her that there is another aspect to life. By doing so you demonstrate another road in life which is in fact the more nobler one.

Be prepared for her to turn her head at first, adolescense is notorious for that, but stay the course and in the long run it'll be your time and effort that will shape her life and be remembered. The luster of that pair of sneakers will be gone in a few months. Your love will be remembered even to your grandchildren and perhaps more.

As far as I know, CS doesn't depend on what tax bracket you are in. There's an online tool at https://www.cse.ca.gov/ChildSupport/cse/guidelineCalculator

It doesn't matter that the bm is married to a wealthy man. His income isn't taken into consideration because they aren't his kids. They are your husbands and he has to pay for those children no matter what. My FH paid 6k a mponth then lost his job and still had to pay her a ton of cash and now is in major debt, so I get your frustration.

I can totally understand your aggravation with the situation you are in. But like everyone else has said, your DH is responsible to financially support his children. And it does not matter that his ex is remarried to a very wealthy man. They don't use his income or yours to determine the amount.

Now with that said....the reason I understand your aggravation is because my DH has 2 children. 1 lives with us and 1 lives with BM. But they are still making my DH pay CS for the 1 who lives with BM. DH & I don't feel it is right. Because 1 of his children lives with us and by him still paying CS to BM for the 1 living with her, that takes away from the one who lives with us. DH & I feel that because they each have one, there shouldn't be any exchange of money. But there is for now. DH has to wait 6 months to go for a decrease. And hopefully by then, we will have DH's adoption of my son done and then they will have to include him in when they determine the amount. Because even though I don't receive CS for my son and my DH supports him 100%, they won't include him. So, I totally understand why you are so upset. But eventually it will work out.

If you pay child support, BM should be buying the kids clothes, school books etc with that. If she doesn't then she sucks. That is a total lack of accountability. Grr, I feel for you.

I understand too, it's horribly frustrating. BM has a medical retirement (includes insurance and cola's) from the state of CA which is more than BF makes alone. But since it is a tax free retirement the courts compare his gross to hers and because she doesn't pay taxes she doesn't have a net income she gets to keep it all. BM also now has another job so she basically makes double what BF makes and 1/2 she doesn't have to pay taxes on. They have 50/50 custody and split all expenses down the middle right down to haircuts & school supplies. BF also has to pay the insurance on the kids because the court order says whichever parent can get it cheapest has to pay for it and since BM's retirement won't let her have dependents on her insurance that's us, so that's another 100$ a month. The greedy cow also had the nerve to take 1/2 of BF's retirement when they split, he couldn't touch hers (not that he would) because she was medically retired before their marriage. I just cannot understand how she can make more money pay 1/2 the expenses have 50/50 custody and we still have to pay (not a tremendous amount but it's the principle.)

We are always trying to save and just ordered some frigidaire parts to fix our fridge instead of buying a new one were saving a few hundred bucks.

The new CA distomaster now computes Stepparent's income if its the main source of income to the parent.

A reason you could be paying is the extra expenses....ie extra curriculars and what not. XH and I have equal custody but I've been given the task of signing them up for sports,getting their bus passes, replenishing school lunch accounts, medical/ dental co-pays and meds, you name it. I pay for all of it and he reimburses half which equals out to about $100 a month for two kids. Now if he allowed me to have the tax break on both kids it would be nill.

I'll try to find the revised discmaster and get the link for you.