Relayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 03/13/07
Posts: 9506
Loc: Moorglade Mover
|
|
[quote]No, in my experience they will impute her. I know several people in California that have had their income or their ex's income imputed.
Also, the law in California is that if you are a stay at home parent for the second spouse, that if the judge chooses to do so, he/she can use the stepparent's income. They rarely do so, though, and usually choose to impute instead.
Cinder [/quote]
As much as I think they SHOULD, I still think it is very unlikely they will impute income on a stay at home Mom with 4 kids. Ain't going to happen.
--------------------
GO CUBBIES!!!!
|
almostheaven
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 10468
Loc: West Virginia
|
|
>>>>>Me: 150K per year (I still can't afford an attorney, sad)
expenses are 6.5K per month (this includs current child support of $600)
me: pay our son's insurance (med/dental/vision) $50 per month
tax: I have never been able to claim him...but with this new order I'd prefer to claim him for the next 5 years.
her: 65K per year (5 years ago, she hasn't worked since 2003)she is re-married with 3 other kids all under 5 (4, 2, 1) so working is not in the future for her.<<<<<
CS is based on income. Yours is higher than hers. You're going to pay. Did you at least get hers imputed to what she's shown she's capable of earning? If not, you need to.
>>>>>her husband: 95K
expenses: 5.5K per month<<<<<
Irrelevant. Go marry you a rich woman. Get someone who earns $300K and maybe you can make your ex jealous of you.
--------------------
Char Fox
|
almostheaven
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 10468
Loc: West Virginia
|
|
The benefit benefits her and her child as well. Because her new hubby is voluntarily paying her expenses...including her share of supporting her child. This IS her income of a sorts. He pays her bills and living expenses. But the support of the child is STILL being taken care of in their household, whether she earns it directly or gets it from the new hubby.
--------------------
Char Fox
|
Miranda
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/05
Posts: 20822
Loc: North of Mexico
|
|
No it is not irrelevant as many on here have stated. The husband's income is used to establish the CP's tax bracket, as that is a factor is CA child support computations.
--------------------
13.1...because I am only half crazy!
|
Relayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 03/13/07
Posts: 9506
Loc: Moorglade Mover
|
|
[quote]The benefit benefits her and her child as well. Because her new hubby is voluntarily paying her expenses...including her share of supporting her child. This IS her income of a sorts. He pays her bills and living expenses. But the support of the child is STILL being taken care of in their household, whether she earns it directly or gets it from the new hubby. [/quote]
Even though it's legal, its wrong.
--------------------
GO CUBBIES!!!!
|
spinnerdegrassi
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/20/06
Posts: 7952
|
|
My issue is that in taking on the SAHM role, what she did was in effect, flatline what she thought was her expected financial obligation. Basically saying that if the ex husband's salary goes up, he's going to have to pay a higher % of costs, because I can ensure that mine won't go up by stopping employment.
If she uses support based on figures of what she was making 6 or so years ago, he should be able to do the same. If he is being assessed based on his income increases, it's ludicrous to think she shouldn't also based on a comparable rate.
|
092895
enthusiast
Reged: 04/03/08
Posts: 226
|
|
I don't know the rules there, but the other kids will still be taken into account when figuring CS, so even if she does work he may still pay more because she will get credit towards the other children.
|
Relayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 03/13/07
Posts: 9506
Loc: Moorglade Mover
|
|
[quote]My issue is that in taking on the SAHM role, what she did was in effect, flatline what she thought was her expected financial obligation. Basically saying that if the ex husband's salary goes up, he's going to have to pay a higher % of costs, because I can ensure that mine won't go up by stopping employment.
If she uses support based on figures of what she was making 6 or so years ago, he should be able to do the same. If he is being assessed based on his income increases, it's ludicrous to think she shouldn't also based on a comparable rate. [/quote]
I agree but she will march into court and play victim as usual.
--------------------
GO CUBBIES!!!!
|
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
CA courts MAY consider a subsequent spouse's income under the following circumstances :
4057.5. (a) (1) The income of the obligor parent's subsequent
spouse or nonmarital partner shall not be considered when determining
or modifying child support, except in an extraordinary case where
excluding that income would lead to extreme and severe hardship to
any child subject to the child support award, in which case the court
shall also consider whether including that income would lead to
extreme and severe hardship to any child supported by the obligor or
by the obligor's subsequent spouse or nonmarital partner.
(2) The income of the obligee parent's subsequent spouse or
nonmarital partner shall not be considered when determining or
modifying child support, except in an extraordinary case where
excluding that income would lead to extreme and severe hardship to
any child subject to the child support award, in which case the court
shall also consider whether including that income would lead to
extreme and severe hardship to any child supported by the obligee or
by the obligee's subsequent spouse or nonmarital partner.
(b) For purposes of this section, an extraordinary case may
include a parent who voluntarily or intentionally quits work or
reduces income, or who intentionally remains unemployed or
underemployed and relies on a subsequent spouse's income.
(c) If any portion of the income of either parent's subsequent
spouse or nonmarital partner is allowed to be considered pursuant to
this section, discovery for the purposes of determining income shall
be based on W2 and 1099 income tax forms, except where the court
determines that application would be unjust or inappropriate.
(d) If any portion of the income of either parent's subsequent
spouse or nonmarital partner is allowed to be considered pursuant to
this section, the court shall allow a hardship deduction based on the
minimum living expenses for one or more stepchildren of the party
subject to the order.
(e) The enactment of this section constitutes cause to bring an
action for modification of a child support order entered prior to the
operative date of this section.
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
almostheaven
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 10468
Loc: West Virginia
|
|
How so?
Saying something is wrong and showing HOW its wrong are two different things.
--------------------
Char Fox
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
