(recently joined)

01/08/11 03:55 PM

Washington State - new children of NCP

Hi there, I am the CP and live in another state from my ex. Our child support order was put in place in 2003 when our children were 4 and 6. They are now 12 and 14. I have never sought a CS modification and he currently pays $450 for two children.

My salary has been reduced lately by 25k and I finally need to deal with the c/s situation. I've tried so hard not to 'go there' with him because quite honestly, I just don't want to deal with him but I just can't do it any longer.

He won't tell me exactly what he makes and is often 'unemployed' so it's hard to know really what to put in the calculators but I guestimated a bit low and it's calculating at around $1000 a month. Quite a difference.

My question is this, he recently had twins with his new wife. Does anyone know if that will be a factor in the calculation at all? It did ask in the calculator if he had other children and I plugged them in but it didn't change the amount. But I KNOW he will fight this and try to claim he can't afford any type of increase.

Does anyone have experience in Washington State on this issue?

(Carpal \'Tunnel)

01/08/11 04:29 PM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

Why was your salary reduced and for how long has it been that way ?

If he has been unemployed and hasn't sought a modification, I would be desperately seeking my own solution to increasing my own salary back to where you need it to be.

(veteran)

01/08/11 05:22 PM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

Is your support order from WA? What state are you in now? Finally, who moved?

(veteran)

01/08/11 09:41 PM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

Washington state will take the new children into consideration but your children will come first - it is not a huge deduction for his new children but if he is unemployed I would try to raise my own salary some how - the modification will be based on his unemployment versus your income and you could end up with less then what you have now.

(recently joined)

01/09/11 07:38 AM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

Thanks for the replies. Let me clarify a few things..he's currently working. He works in the construction industry and claims to not always have steady work. I would guestimate that he works 75% of the time. He has told me that he could work 100% of the time but he would have to drive 1 1/2 hours to the 'city' to do so. The times that he is without work, he is working on building his own home.

My income was reduced by my employer...everyone in the company received a reduction..it was either that or the company would fold. The reduction was made Dec 2009. I have been seeking other employement but the job market for what I do is not so good right now. I have been getting some side jobs here and there to help supplement the income.

(Carpal \'Tunnel)

01/09/11 07:46 AM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

Construction, being done outside, is seasonal. You losing income is not a reason to raise HIS child support.

(recently joined)

01/09/11 07:48 AM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

And you said they would take his children into consideration which surely makes sense. Do they use a percentage or some sort of calculation...do you know?

Thanks again for any help or advise.

(recently joined)

01/09/11 07:53 AM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

gr8Dad..the child support hasn't been changed since 2003. I have never sought to modify it and BOTH of our salaries since that time have changed considerablly...both of us making a lot more and the percentages are much different.

The children are both 12 and older and according to the c/s website, just that fact alone is reason to have the child support modified (or at least looked at).

Here are the criteria:
The amount of change must be:
•At least $100 and at least a 25% change up or down, or

•An increase in current support of less than $100 would
allow your family to stop receiving public assistance.

•It's been three years since the order was entered or last reviewed by DCS for modification,
or
•There has been a significant change of circumstances since the order was last modified.
Some examples that may be a significant change in circumstances include:
•You are now in Jail.
•You have become permanently disabled or now receive public assistance.
•You have new children you must support.
•You have lost your job and are unable to find employment at the same wage.

Although I didn't lose my job, I am definitely unable to find employment at the same wage I was making before.

(recently joined)

01/09/11 07:55 AM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

Actually...here is another set of criteria from their website:

I want DCS to review my support order. I want it modified because (check the boxes below that affect your case):
3.
1. My wages changed.
At least one of the children in my case is:
2. The wages used in the current order are more than my actual earnings.
4.
The other parent's wages changed.
a. Twelve years old or older. This is a change from the current order.
b. Living in a different home.
c. Not going to school or living at home.
6.
5. A health insurance requirement needs to be added to my order.
I am disabled or imprisoned.
7. Other (give details):

(Carpal \'Tunnel)

01/09/11 07:58 AM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

Okay, I am not talking about the LEGAL sense of should child support be raised, I am talking about the ETHICAL sense. Yes, it should be in line with what he and you are making, but not because YOU are making less money. Lets be honest, if you were making MORE money, through YOUR hard work, would you be seeking to have him pay LESS because of that? A loss in your career is not really his responsibility.

(recently joined)

01/09/11 08:06 AM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

It's not a loss in my career...it's the effect of the economy...the same as why he's sometimes not working. Why is it different for me and not him?

I could have asked for a modification about 5 years ago and his c/s would have gone up to $750 a month (had the papers drawn up to do so). I chose not to because I was trying to do the right thing because at the time, I was making good money and the increase would have made him incredibly angry and so I made the ethical decision NOT to increase it on him.

Now, the kids are older, my income has been reduced and I am struggling at making ends meet but it's unethical for me to ask for a change in c/s? Wow.

I didn't see HIM running to c/s enforcement asking for the change in modificaton when he started making almost twice what he declared on our 2003 order.

(Carpal \'Tunnel)

01/09/11 08:47 AM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

I said he should be paying in line with his income. What you need to consider is that the same economy that is having YOU make less, is effecting the construction industy even harder. You may find that he is making less as well.

(Carpal \'Tunnel)

01/09/11 09:05 AM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

What about his ethical repsonsibility to report his income over the last 8 years? Forget the reason, 8 years is TOO LONG to go without a modification.

(recently joined)

01/09/11 09:24 AM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

He's not making less as far as his hourly rate goes. What has changed for him is that he has stated to me that although there isn't as much local work for him right now, that he *could* drive to the city which is 1.5 hours away to stay gainfully employed but that he chooses not to do that now that he has two baby twins and is building a new home. He wants to stay close to home so that he can head over to the property after he gets off work to continue working on the house.

I agree..a lot has changed in 8 years and it's time to have the support modified.

The orignal question though is how do the new babies factor into the calculation? The reason I ask is to be perfectly honest, if after all is said and done, if the support will only go up by $100 or so, it's not really worth it to me to get him all irritated and ruffle his feathers.

(Carpal \'Tunnel)

01/09/11 09:33 AM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

Well, yes, he could drive the extra 1.5 hours. And YOU could get a second job to make up for the loss in YOUR income. Lets be honest, with gas at $3 a gallon, driving 150-200 miles a day, may end up being a wash on the income.

(recently joined)

01/09/11 09:35 AM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

And yes Gr8Dad, I do understand that economy is effecting the construction industry. My fiancee is also making about 16k less this year and is very thankful to even have a job at the moment. So total, our family income (we live together) is down $40k.

We are scrimping and cutting corners as best we can.

(recently joined)

01/09/11 09:43 AM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

Uh...I do try and get side work whenever possible...I already mentioned that. My finacee also has also gotten another source of income as a ref for youth sports to help supplement our lost income.

There are really only so many hours in a day. My main job is a critical one...if I screw up something because of lack of sleep as an example, people's lives are at stake. I can't risk losing that job OR making a small error because I'm working as a bartender at night or whatever.

He chose to have more children and chose to build a custom home and is choosing to not work all the time because he wants to be nearer to the home project.

There is nothing unethical about getting the support modified to be inline with our current incomes, older children, etc.

(Carpal \'Tunnel)

01/09/11 12:04 PM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

8 years is too long to not have sought a recal. of child support. CS should be based on both you and your ex's current income...whatever that may be.

I understand that you've just let it slide because you didn't want to deal with your ex, but now you are at a point when you must.

Don't let anyone make you feel guilty for that.

If I were you, I'd go see an attornye who offers a free consultation, and get the ball rolling.

It sounds like your ex is voluntarily underemployed, so you want to make sure that his income is based on what he is capable of making if he were working 40 hours...i.e. you want to impute his income based on full-time wages.

Good luck. Please don't hesitate any longer. Your kids deserve the full support of both of their parents. Please come back and let us know how this turns out.

(Carpal \'Tunnel)

01/09/11 12:17 PM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

Can you file for a mod with the state's dept of Child Support Enforcement?

(Carpal \'Tunnel)

01/09/11 12:35 PM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

"Okay, I am not talking about the LEGAL sense of should child support be raised, I am talking about the ETHICAL sense. Yes, it should be in line with what he and you are making, but not because YOU are making less money. Lets be honest, if you were making MORE money, through YOUR hard work, would you be seeking to have him pay LESS because of that? A loss in your career is not really his responsibility. "

So because she was nice all these years and didn't ask for a mod, she somehow lost the right, at least ethically, to ask for one in your eyes?

(veteran)

01/09/11 01:00 PM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

I don't expect the court will impute his income to 40 hours unless they impute her income to her former income at the same time. A 90 minute drive is probably considered unreasonable for just another shift each week, and it could be difficult to consistantly work at a job like that. What I've seen some courts do is to impute minimum wage for the remaining hours up to 40 in these cases.

However, with what the OP has said, CS will increase simply due to an increase in his hourly wage.

(Carpal \'Tunnel)

01/09/11 01:09 PM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

I would agree that if one income is being imputed the other would be imputed as well, but a 90 mile commute for work is not out of the ordinary.

(recently joined)

01/09/11 05:19 PM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

Yes..I can go through C/S Enforcement to get the modification and that's exactly what I plan on doing. I filed a form on Friday with them to request his earnings. He has 30 days to respond and if he doesn't, they will then use their records and/or tax info and assign him an income.

They are just a bit slower than going through an attorney..but I do not have the funds to hire an attorney and I figured I waited all this time so what's another 2 months or so?

Thank you to the others that have chimed in...I'm so glad to hear other's opinions. I'm not saying I only like to hear opinions that are the same as mine...and I'm not sure Gr8dad's deal or situation but obviously he seems jaded about certain things. I would like to ask him when, in HIS opinion, is it ethical to ask for a support modification?

I agree that my children need this extra money. I have to start saving for saving for college for them. Hopefully the increase will be substantial enough to allow me to put $ aside for them each month (I used to do that a few years ago) for their college funds.

I regret not seeking a modification earlier. :(

(Carpal \'Tunnel)

01/10/11 03:22 PM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

It's been over three years, if you want a modification or to have the courts review the current support order, you are within your right to do so. You do not need to explain anything further.

I would suggest reading up on the forms you fill out for modification of support and the questions that will be asked of both parties. You should decide if you want to go it alone or with the assistance of an attorney. And if/when your ex takes issue with the request, you can explain that you are within your right to request a review and in three years, he can re-request the review himself.

(Carpal \'Tunnel)

01/10/11 07:51 PM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

I think you should go for the modification. Circumstances have changed, and you have not gone for one when you could have before. I think if he is working the same amount he has always been working then him driving for extra work should be no more of a consideration than you getting a second job....

(recently joined)

01/11/11 06:22 PM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

Well I talked with the CS Enforcement rep and she did explain that yes, the 2 new children will indeed factor into the calculation. There is a nifty little chart that clearly defines how much c/s is calculated based off of income, number of children in family and if the children are 12 and older.

So the good news is, I waited until the kids were 12+. The bad news is...I waited until the kids were 12+ and he had twins. I understand the calculation, makes sense to me.

She also explained how they do the income thing and even if I just put in their imputed salary based on a male of his age, it will still be an increase of over $200 so it's looking positive.

The process is slow but at least I'm not wasting money on an attorney.

Now to deal with my tax issue with him. I'll post in the tax forum because I have been through hell and back with him on our tax situation and I will post the long, drawn out story. There are a lot of misconceptions about who gets to claim the kids and hopefully my experience will help others. Let me warn you...it's not pretty.

(recently joined)

01/11/11 06:32 PM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

Here is the link if anyone wants to check out the calculation and how it all works. Page 11
[censored]://[censored].dshs.wa.gov/pdf/esa/dcs/WSCSS_pamphlet.pdf

Our combined monthly net income will be somewhere in the range of 8300 - 8900. We have two kids both 12 or older and it looks like we (or at least he) will be using the 4 family column. Remember each number is PER child so basically double the number. Also, his % will be approx 40% I'm guestimating but again, I really don't know. It's interesting to play with the numbers, that's for sure.

(Carpal \'Tunnel)

01/13/11 10:43 AM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

[quote]What about his ethical repsonsibility to report his income over the last 8 years? [/quote]

I didn't read that there is an order to do so, and if no order to do so, there is no ethical responsibility for him to report his income to anyone.

(Carpal \'Tunnel)

01/13/11 10:48 AM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

[quote]There are really only so many hours in a day. [/quote]

Okay, I wasn't going to say anything, but now I sort of have to. Yes, there ARE so many hours in a day and you're expecting your children's father to spend at least 3 of them driving to/from a job that he will likely work at for 8-10 hours. Sure we all drive and many commute, but remember that's putting yourself at additional risk (that is why auto insurance rates are higher for commuters). He is opting to work closer to home, where he is building a home for his FAMILY - which includes the children he has with you, rather than working himself into the ground to where he isn't much good to anybody.

(Carpal \'Tunnel)

01/13/11 10:53 AM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

[quote] Remember each number is PER child so basically double the number. [/quote]

Are you sure? Most states don't calculate the support for one child and double it for a second one. Admittedly, my knowledge is limited, but I've read on this site for many years and have never hear of a state that does.

(recently joined)

01/13/11 05:08 PM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

Yes, I'm sure...it states it clearly on that form. Each number is PER child.

And to comment about your other remarks...he can refuse work because he has to drive 1.5 hours but I should have to get another job? Sorry, your logic doesn't make a lot of sense to me. One is not any better than the other in my opinion.

He can build his home during the evenings and weekends like I'm doing with my side jobs (when I get them).

My fiancee and I are both working extra to make up the difference for our $40k decrease of income this year. He's voluntarily being under-employed.

(veteran)

01/13/11 05:37 PM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

It would be unreasonable for a person to be imputed to their full income, if they are working .75 already, and the one day a week job is 150 miles away. It would be reasonable to impute the final day to minimum wage.

If he was unemployed, the above would not apply.

Does that make better sense?

Whether you get another job or not to make up for lost income is up to you. It's a matter if you want to maintain your present lifestyle or not.

(recently joined)

01/13/11 05:54 PM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

DD..the topic of me getting another job was basically raised by someone saying essentially don't raise HIS c/s, YOU should go get a second job.

There are many reasons why I am asking for a modification..we haven't EVER had one in 8 years, we both make substantially different amounts than previously calculated and yes my income has dropped. I should have modified it a long time ago..but I just didn't want to ruffle his feathers ..he's a very difficult person to deal with and gets VERY angry at any discussion of money for the kids. He has claimed for years that he can't afford to help out in my son's extra curricular sport (VERY expensive) and that he can't afford to pay more c/s. But he can afford to have a vasectomy reversal (not covered by insurance) and to have a new baby (not cheap).

Being the nice guy didn't help me at all in this situation. Oh well. We will see what the cse folks come up with.

(Carpal \'Tunnel)

01/13/11 06:10 PM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

"the topic of me getting another job was basically raised by someone saying essentially don't raise HIS c/s, YOU should go get a second job"

I raised that subject, but that is NOT what I said. I said that if YOU think he is making less than he could, and are suggesting that he COULD make more, then YOU should get a second job to make up for the loss YOU have.

I have maintained from the VERY beginning that he should be paying a proper amount based on what he is making.

Editted to add: Yes, his should go up to what he SHOULD be paying based on his current income, and YOUR income should be imputed at what you WOULD be making, not the reduced amount. My point being that he should not have to pay MORE than what the CURRENT amount should be, based on the fact that YOU make less.

(recently joined)

01/13/11 10:22 PM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

Mine should be IMPUTED to what I WAS making? Ummm....no. It should be based on what I am making now at my full time position. I am not underemployed..I am employed full time and this is my current salary.

What's interesting, is that in your calculation, if MY income goes up, his C/S amount will go up.

"My point being that he should not have to pay MORE than what the CURRENT amount should be, based on the fact that YOU make less. "

No one has ever said he should pay more because I get paid less.

(Carpal \'Tunnel)

01/13/11 10:25 PM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

If YOUR income is figured into the equation, in an incomes shares type model (assuming, as you have said, that your income will affect the amount) YOUR income going down will increase the amount HE has to pay, and that is not right.

(veteran)

01/13/11 10:29 PM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

"Mine should be IMPUTED to what I WAS making? Ummm....no. It should be based on what I am making now at my full time position."

Actually, it's not done that way. Your previous income will most likely be used. Why? Because too many folks before you that made a large income quit and went to work at Mcdonalds to reduce their CS to nothing....and ruined it for you.

(Carpal \'Tunnel)

01/14/11 02:40 AM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

"No one has ever said he should pay more because I get paid less. "

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

Your OP did imply that you wanted a CS review just because your income was down.

In your subsequent posts, you did clarify that both of your incomes have changed over the years and you have never had a review. Because of that, I think a review is more than fair, but I would be careful how you phrase things. It did sound like you wanted him to pay more because your salary was lowered.

Similarly, I would not go off on tangents about how your job is so critical you cannot risk being overtired by working another job, but you think it's reasonable to insist that he had 3 hours to his commuting time each shift.

I also wouldn't talk about your household income being down by 40%. Your SO's income really should not come into play here. If your SO were a millionaire, would you be offering to lower your ex's CS ?

I'd keep it to the basic 'no review in 8 years' and go from there.

(Pooh-Bah)

01/14/11 06:17 AM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

CS should be recalculated since it has been 8 years. Period.

(Carpal \'Tunnel)

01/14/11 08:17 AM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

How he earns the money to pay his child support isn't your concern. If you feel you should request a review to have it raised, so be it, but YOU do not get to decide what his full earning potential is, where he earns it or how he earns it. (he's an idiot to be sharing that information with you, it's not your business). YOU do what YOU need to do to raise YOUR household income and HE does what HE needs to do to raise HIS household income. As long as he's meeting his current CS obligation, YOU have no business in his working choices.

(Carpal \'Tunnel)

01/14/11 10:33 AM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

How he earns the money to pay his child support isn't your concern. If you feel you should request a review to have it raised, so be it, but YOU do not get to decide what his full earning potential is, where he earns it or how he earns it. (he's an idiot to be sharing that information with you, it's not your business). YOU do what YOU need to do to raise YOUR household income and HE does what HE needs to do to raise HIS household income. As long as he's meeting his current CS obligation, YOU have no business in his working choices.

++++++

This is all such horses@it.

She is NOT underemployed. She is working to her full capacity, 40 hours a week. Her CS will be based on her current income...as she is working in the same job she has always worked and took an income reduction through no fault of her own.

Her ex is NOT working to his full capacity. Therefore, he should be imputed at what he is capable of making if he were working 40 hours a week.

I can't believe that anyone is arguing this with her.

When other people suffer an income reduction, through no fault of their own, they are advised to try and get CS modified to reflect their new income.

When other people are working less than 40 hours a week, they are advised that their CS will be imputed to 40 hours a week.

This poster is no different.

CS should be recalculated based on their CURRENT income and if EITHER of them are underemployed, their income should be imputed to what they are capable of making in a 40/hr per week job.

(Carpal \'Tunnel)

01/14/11 10:46 AM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

CS should be recalculated based on their CURRENT income and if EITHER of them are underemployed, their income should be imputed to what they are capable of making in a 40/hr per week job.
_______________________

Exactly. Add to that the length of time between the original order and today, she is within her right to request it.

(Carpal \'Tunnel)

01/14/11 11:04 AM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

<<How he earns the money to pay his child support isn't your concern. If you feel you should request a review to have it raised, so be it, but YOU do not get to decide what his full earning potential is, where he earns it or how he earns it. (he's an idiot to be sharing that information with you, it's not your business). YOU do what YOU need to do to raise YOUR household income and HE does what HE needs to do to raise HIS household income. As long as he's meeting his current CS obligation, YOU have no business in his working choices. >>

Some states have standard clauses in court orders that give both parents the right to know where the other works, what they make, etc. Unfortunately, sometimes you DO need to go after those things if the OP is being dishonest about their income, which makes a difference in how the CS is calculated.

(Carpal \'Tunnel)

01/14/11 11:06 AM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

Should have read ahead :). Agreed!

(recently joined)

01/16/11 09:19 AM

Re: Washington State - new children of NCP

Thank you!

Divorce Source Home

UBB.threads™ 6.5.1.1

Resources & Tools

	Start Your Divorce Several Options to Get Started Today.		Online Divorce Tools Keeping it Simple to Get the Job Done.
	Download Center Instantly Download Books, Guides & Forms.		Discount Books Over 100 of the Best Divorce & Custody Books.
	Negotiate Online Settle your Divorce and Save.		Custody Scheduling Make Sure You Document Everything.

Easily Connect With a Lawyer or Mediator

Have Divorce Professionals from Your Area Contact You!

Site Map About Us Monthly Newsletter Terms & Conditions Privacy Statement Link to Us Contact Us Advertising

Official PayPal Seal

The information contained on this page is not to be considered legal advice.
A local counsel or professional should always be consulted in regards to any legal matters.

"a passion for a better divorce℠" - established in 1996

© 1996 - 2013 Divorce Source, Inc. All Rights Reserved.