DH got a raise...question about CS
Great news for DH! He's worked for this company for 5 years and this is his first raise! My question now is...DH just received a letter saying it's been 3 years and he can have his CS case reviewed. I told him he should file bc BM took SS out of preschool and DH is paying $200 a month towards his daycare/preschool. It sounded perfect since he had no income change since then but now, I don't know. I don't want him to file and them raise the support since BM (voluntarily) quit her job and now he has a raise...I do think it's unfair that he is paying for education and she took him out without consulting him and decided to "home school" and be a SAHM. She took a part time job at a clothing store where she works "as needed" but her income won't show much. Any suggestions? BM fully acknowledged that DH is paying for school that SS doesn't go to. I told DH maybe if he did it right now, he wouldn't have to show new paystubs. I don't think it should matter. But I know if he files, BM will file also for an increase. Why should he have to pay for school that he doesn't go to and why would SS need MORE money just bc DH got a raise?
Well "if they were still
Well "if they were still together" then Sk would benefit by the increase if money. Bm may not have had to work - so why should she just because they are divorced? Please read the sarcasm in my statements.
Look at the state guidelines. See if it is cheaper to go back and adjust or to continue to pay. Our Bm decided that dh was making more money and she should get more. What she forgot was that she went after daycare expenses in the begining and didn't have those during the adjustment (kids were much older) AND she was making more too! DH support didn't change but his percentage went from 75% to 57. Loved that aspect.
You should be able to refigure support on the old calculations
Sure...my son did not benefit
Sure...my son did not benefit cause daddy got a raise...crazy witch took most of that darn raise!
PS many fathers put that raise in the retirement or savings, not their kid's pockets...my dad did
I agree! My DH pays so much
I agree! My DH pays so much support that he won't have anything to save until SS is 18 (14 years from now!) It's funny bc BM said about her DD's bio dad, he wasn't spending all of of his visitation with DD bc he went back to college. BM said she is ok with him not being around all the time bc he is doing this for "their daughter. to better her life" I said to DH that may be true BUT really, he is doing it to better his life and BM is happy about it bc she thinks she will get more money. The system doesn't give our DH's the rights they deserve as fathers/men. They make the decisions for them on where there money will go. It's so unfortunate.
But really...I don't see how
But really...I don't see how my DD and our DS are benefiting from this raise. BM takes a huge chunk of pay and we lived paycheck to negative paycheck...so now we will have a bit extra to cover all of our bills. Our kids will never directly see anything from this. So why should BM get it? I dk. I guess I really don't know what to do. I was really hoping to get that 200 off of there but when I did the calculation, with his raise, it put child support right back at the same spot since BM isn't working. I wish I knew for sure what would happen!
See, THIS is the inequity I
See, THIS is the inequity I HATE.
In our state, if custodial parent "chooses" not to work, it causes the support to go UP for the NCP. Makes me grind my teeth because BM has "choosen" NOT to work since the SK's were very small (>14 years ago). So all this time, DH's CS has been "higher" because of that.
I scoff at the statement that CS is meant to give the SK's a similar living environment at both homes... where is the responsibility of the custodial parent??? Pretty much, my DH supplies all for the "similar living environment" in both homes.
Although I am not against child support, as I truly believe parents have the responsibility to support their children I am against the totally socialistic method in which it's calculated.
But then again, I'm just the evil stepmother and trashy second wife. What do I know....
Maybe I should have used the
Maybe I should have used the term "communism" - "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" - meaning, zero ability to have an income = need for higher CS?
And I was referring to a socialist concept in my situation only -- that my DH bears a higher financial obligation simply due to the fact that his ex chooses not to work and have an income. If she was employed, his CS would actually be lowered. I just don't understand why/agree with how it works the way it does especially when the unemployed status is a choice. If my DH were to lose his job tomorrow NOT by choice, there would still be a requirement for him to pay support regardless of whether or not he actually has an income.
Again, I'm not bashing the fact that the whole theory of child support exists. It just seems a little lopsided when I think about the reason (maintaining a certain standard for the child(ren)in both households) and then applying to my situation -- that my DH is not only maintaining that standard in our home (with my financial assistance), but because of the calculation is the only one maintaining the standard in the custodial parent's home.
Just makes me wonder.
OMG! That is crazy!I feel a
OMG! That is crazy!I feel a little more fortunate now knowing that we don't have to go through that every 2 years. The system is set up for the failure of men. I really can't believe it goes up every 2 yrs regardless!
I think that Texas checks
I think that Texas checks your wages...no matter what anyone says. The fact is that when crazy witch lied to the courts, the state of Texas requested my DHs wages from his company. They called them directly. My DH is aware because he knew the HR person very well and she told him. She also told my DH that she told the idiots at CSE that 60% was commissions and 40% of that was salary, which meant it would probably vary greatly from year to year. That is the figure the CSE idiots used for calculating CS. My DH took paystubs and all that other bs they ask him to, but obviously, what was the point if the Texas CSE idiots asked for the wage info directly from the company?
At the same time, it has been more than 3 years and idiot BM a couple of years ago told DH..."I am BEING NICE because I have not asked for a review although 3 years have passed..." My DH at the time "believed it". I reminded him how the CSE idiots checked his wages without him knowing it before and that probably the ONLY reason idiot witch had not requested a review was because CSE knew EXACTLY what he was making...I bet at the 3 yr mark they DO check with the employer, just like they did before and when they realized there wasn't enough to merit an increase per the guidelines, they probably let idiot witch know...which is THE REASON she did not want to risk going for more support...as she could end up with less if there was something that he could actually have deducted that he didn't have deducted the first time. She also risked my DH making a fool of her in court, since he now knows so much about what a loser she is. She ALSO risked her DH being taken to court, as my DH did advise her that next time she took him to court, to make sure she also took her DH who owed money for 2 CS cases and she was hiding him. I believe THAT is the true reason she never asked for more. Instead she had her daughter call and ask for more.
Sigh, pathetic courts...
Here they only do an
Here they only do an adjustment every 3 years if it is requested by either party. BM had been harping about going after more money every time she saw DH, for some reason thinking she should get $1000 per kid in BM math. So DH went along and adjusted CS based on the state guidelines (which was more like $500 per kid). What she didn't know was that he was due a major promotion not even three months after everything was finalized. Now we have three years of CS calculated on his old salary. Hopefully in three years one of the SD's will move in with us and the CS will decrease even more.
I can't believe there are states that take into account what the BM makes. It really shouldn't matter. Isn't that just like paying a BM to not work if they get more money from the BD? BM should have a responsibility to get off her ass and get a job. It takes two people to get a divorce and it's not fair that only one person should have to pay.
Stepmonster - read my post
Stepmonster - read my post above. I live in one of those states. Yup, since BM chooses not to work, DH's obligation is higher. If they would even impute minimum wage for 40 hrs a week (as some states typically do), his obligation would drop by a little over $200/month.