Bonus payout

Posted by: jeff123

Bonus payout - 02/04/10 01:08 PM

My ex is coming after me for bonus information. Stating that I have not provided notification / documentation of bonus payout or not. The decree states that I must provide documentation. I do not receive a statement if I am not paid for it. My questions:

1.) Is email and / or verbal enough?
2.) I really dont want the court to but can they request some kind of statement from my company? I prefer that my company not be harassed.
3.) It does not state in the decree that I need to provide W2, but legally can the court request that I provide my W2 to my ex.?

Thank you!!
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 02:33 PM

Yes, the courts can require you to provide your W2. Why drag this out? Why not just give her your W2 and be done with it? If you didn't get a bonus, your W2 will prove that.

No need to involve lawyers or the courts in this. It can be easily resolved.
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 02:55 PM

I'm not sure the gist of your post. Are you saying that you did receive a bonus, but you don't want your ex to know about. Or you did not receive a bonus?
Posted by: Sherron

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 03:00 PM

What I got was that he doesn't get a statement when there is no bonus, so how does he provide his ex with "documentation" he doesn't have.

The best way would probably be to give her a copy of the w-2; as far as I know, bonus info would be listed on there as income, so she can see for herself if there is or isn't a difference between your hourly wages and your total income. And yes, the courts can request that.
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 03:48 PM

The best way would probably be to give her a copy of the w-2; as far as I know, bonus info would be listed on there as income, so she can see for herself if there is or isn't a difference between your hourly wages and your total income. And yes, the courts can request that.

++++++

Agreed. But then why is he so hesitant to give her his W2. You'd think he'd be INSISTING she look at it to see that there was no bonus paid. Unless, of course, he did get a bonus or it's laden with overtime or something like that.
Posted by: Avaya

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 04:28 PM

Susan, your bias is showing. Perhaps some people are private. It is NO ONE'S business what his W-2 shows. You think it's the ex-wifes business simply because she bore his children - WRONG. IMO, "What does it take to raise your children?" "Can both parties provide that support?" If so, what one's W-2 shows is MOOT!
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 04:30 PM

Actually, at least here - the majority of court orders give each parent permission to see the other person's W2 and tax returns upon request.
Posted by: Sherron

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 04:42 PM

"If so, what one's W-2 shows is MOOT!"
It isn't if he's trying to prove to her that there was no bonus. If he's supposed to give her bonus documentation, and this is all he has, then that's what he gives her. Odds are, if he has to give her bonus info, he also has to give her info when his wages change, so the other information on the w-s shouldn't be a surprise to her. If he doesn't want her to know how much he's had taken out in retirement or what not, I guess he can make her a copy of the w-2 and black out any info that's not related, i.e., leave his name, company name, and wages, and give her that.
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 04:59 PM

Exactly. Yes, having babies together and then getting divorced means that you have to share income information. He has to provide bonus documentation. His W2 *is* that documentation. At the same time, he should be asking for his ex-w's income documentation.

Not sure how the "can't revisit CS for 3 years" plays into this. Is that a state law that CS can only be revisited every 3 years? If so, her income is moot. His income is moot. The only thing that he's court-ordered to pay is a percentage of his bonus and he is court-ordered to provide documenation in regards to his bonuses.
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 06:03 PM

Gal - I think in some states you can only modify every 3 years? I think that's what he meant..not sure.
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 06:09 PM

That's what I was thinking too. If that's the case, it doesn't matter what she is making or if she changed jobs.

The only thing that matters is him providing proof of his bonus, whether he got one or not.
Posted by: Avaya

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 06:09 PM

[quote]Actually, at least here - the majority of court orders give each parent permission to see the other person's W2 and tax returns upon request. [/quote]

Nothing but PURE nosiness! Nosy, nosy, nosy.
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 06:15 PM

<<Nothing but PURE nosiness! Nosy, nosy, nosy.
>>

Actually it has nothing to do with nosiness. Courts don't order things just out of nosiness. And even so? Heck, I'm nosey - I'll admit it. But no - it isn't about being NOSEY, it's about parents being HONEST about their income in order to calculate CS.
Posted by: Sherron

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 06:17 PM

"Is that a state law that CS can only be revisited every 3 years?"
No, NH allows for mods every 3 years OR if there has been a significant change in circumstances. A new job can qualify as a SCIC, provided there is a change in pay.
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 07:57 PM

<<Nothing but PURE nosiness! Nosy, nosy, nosy.
>>

Actually it has nothing to do with nosiness. Courts don't order things just out of nosiness. And even so? Heck, I'm nosey - I'll admit it. But no - it isn't about being NOSEY, it's about parents being HONEST about their income in order to calculate CS.

--------------------

I only agree with that if they are BOTH ordered to show their income. H was ordered to show his W2, but BM wasn't. How fair is that? I think it could fall on the side of nosy when the expectation isn't equally shared, in a state where incomes of both are taken into account.
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 07:58 PM

Oh I totally agree Cassie.

XH and I are BOTH ordered so submit ours to each other upon request, and we live in an income shared state.
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 08:06 PM

I knew you were. I just wonder if that is the case with this guy? Is his X CO'ed to show how much bonus she received this year?

Sucks to have to pay a percentage of your bonus, straight out. I think Yes_Dad had to do the same, in his state of IL.
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 08:07 PM

<<Sucks to have to pay a percentage of your bonus, straight out>>

I agree. I don't know why it wouldn't just be averaged out in the monthly CS payments. Guess that's how they do it there :).


<<I just wonder if that is the case with this guy? Is his X CO'ed to show how much bonus she received this year?>>

--If he's required to, I agree she should be as well.
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 08:23 PM

Well my guess is he had a crappy mediator who made sure it was like that for his XW (to get copies), but not him.

He needs to go back and this time with a lawyer. I was soooo surprised on all the things my brother's X was getting away with through their mediator. It wasn't until I brought up a few things, and he mentioned it to his mediator that things changed.

Oh BTW, my brother's X is taking him back to court because she wants more money now- 6 months after their CO. She no longer has a job (she quit) and my brother actually makes less now, but sold his house.
Posted by: Avaya

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 08:24 PM

This man pays $1500 per month in CS on a 50/50 arrangement - IMO it doesn't Matter HOW much money he makes - obviously he's taking care of his children financially and his income should NOT be scrutinized and the amount certainly shouldn't be available to the other parent.
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 08:40 PM

<<obviously he's taking care of his children financially and his income should NOT be scrutinized and the amount certainly shouldn't be available to the other parent. >>

While I agree with you in this particular instance, the court apparently says otherwise :(
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 08:41 PM

<<Oh BTW, my brother's X is taking him back to court because she wants more money now- 6 months after their CO. She no longer has a job (she quit) and my brother actually makes less now, but sold his house. >>

Wow. Can she file for a modification already?
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 08:48 PM

Not the court, it was figured out by the mediator. My guess is the guy didn't think about getting a lawyer to look it over first :( My brother's mediator tried to tell him he was on the hook for WAYYYYY more...
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 08:53 PM

Well she can. I would hope it gets laughed outta court.

They were living in the martial home, while pending divorce. Once the house sold they would each take 50%. They were fighting, she was inviting new BF (guy she cheated on him with during marriage and HIS co-worker over). So brother decided to BUY her out of her half. Gave her CASH (off their sale of land, so she received her 50% from their land and he used his HALF of that to buy her out of the house).

Well he remodeled house and sold it, Dec. 30th. She is PO'ed and wants HALF of that now, even though he bought her out of her half months before.

She is asking for more CS because she quit her job. Even though brother was paying for 1/2 of everything on TOP of CS. 1/2 of new winter jackets, halloween costumes, etc. He kept saying it was for the kids- so he did it.

Brother has serious GF now and I think that pisses her off. She wanted new GF's name, number and address just in case. Brother said NO. That and him selling the house started this. She said that she didn't know he was going to fix it up and sell it. If she knew that, she wouldn't have let him buy her out of her half. Whatever. CRAZY.
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 08:58 PM

UGH. Some people truly amaze me!
Posted by: jeff123

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 09:32 PM

Wow..thanks for all the responses..I have been in meetings today trying to make money to pay for my ex to live. Really sucks!!

So te issue is yes I received bonus and I have not paid her the amounts, so she has decided to take to court over contempt. My question is what do I have to provide.

I have all kinds of questions like I get a gross payment statement then that goes into my check and they take taxes for it, but what happens at the end of the year if I owe taxes based on my level of bonus.

The other question is what if I have been working to pay off debt she and the mediator stuck me with so now I dont have the amount owed to her.

Sorry to deceive some of you with the not earning bonus, but I signed a shitty agreement as it was my first marriage...nice guy finishes last..

I do take care of my children..I have them sunday to sunday every other week, pay for insurance, pay have of extra expenses, and now 30% of my bonus.

The only thing is I have learned that she left bonuses out of her agreement with the mediator. I am going to have a lawyer send her a letter that she must provide. then I guess go after a modification.

Again Thank you for all the responses...
Posted by: Maury

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 09:34 PM

Provide your [email protected] You need credible evidence as to the amount of the bonus. Your naked assertion or an email lack foundation to be credible evidence.
Posted by: jeff123

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 09:38 PM

What about pay stubs that match the dates of the quarterly statements from work? Will that work in court?
Posted by: Sherron

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 09:41 PM

"So te issue is yes I received bonus and I have not paid her the amounts, so she has decided to take to court over contempt. My question is what do I have to provide."

The 30% you owe her and the w-2 as proof. Or give it to her now and hopefully avoid court.

I get the feeling you were trying to avoid paying her the co'ed shared of the bonus...?
Posted by: Maury

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 09:42 PM

Paystubs could work as well. However, if I were on the other side, I would wonder why the total income picture was being avoided. What was being hidden in the months not produced?
Posted by: jeff123

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 10:00 PM

Nothing but I really don't feel like I should have to provide her my W2 it is kind of the principal behind it. Plus it does not say on my decree that I have to provide W2.

I feel that statement from my work corresponding to pa stubs should work
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 10:04 PM

Nothing but I really don't feel like I should have to provide her my W2 it is kind of the principal behind it. Plus it does not say on my decree that I have to provide W2.

I feel that statement from my work corresponding to pa stubs should work
++++++

So is your plan really to deceive her into thinking that you did not get a bonus when you really did?

You are playing fire to openly defy a court-order. I would pay her the 30% and be done with it. It's what you agreed to do. You signed it. The court ordered it.
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 10:10 PM

The only thing is I have learned that she left bonuses out of her agreement with the mediator. I am going to have a lawyer send her a letter that she must provide. then I guess go after a modification.
+++++++

During your divorce you had the opportunity to have her bonus's written into the agreement. Sounds like you either had no lawyer or not a very good one. You signed this agreement your state law says it can only be revisited every three years. If you wanted her bonus included in the calculation, you needed to insist on that back when you were still negotiating your divorce.

I still don't quite get what you are wanting. Sounds like you want to give her some paystubs that don't show your bonus???? Or does she already know that you *did* get a bonus and still have not paid her the 30% like you agreed to do. You can't let this go to court. You don't have a leeg to stand on. You agreed to pay 30% of your bonus and now you need to pay it.

Now is not the time to decide you no longer like the terms of what you agreed to. It doesn't work that way. If you buy a car and then a year down the road, decided that you think you paid too much for it, you can't go back and rewrite the loan or contract. You agreed to pay that amount, now you have to pay that amount.
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 10:32 PM

Seems to me he is saying he doesn't have the money to pay her the 30% of the bonus. Thing is whether he goes to court NOW for a modification he will still owe the 30% of the bonus because he received the bonus during the time that the current CO is in effect.

As for 3 years before a modification can be done. It's three years or a change in circumstance. She has a new job- change of circumstance. I am wondering (poster could you answer this) if the original court order/signed agreement had you and her sharing 50/50 of the time? If not then that is a change if circumstance as well (since he now has them every other week- 50% of the time), and should be not paying $1500/month and 30% of your bonus with that time share.
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 10:35 PM

Although was bonus received in 2009 or 2010? If bonus was received in 2010 then maybe he won't have to pay the 30% in its entirety if the modification does go through.

Poster- what does your lawyer suggest you do? Did he tell you to pay the 30% of the bonus now and modify the order? Or did he tell you to hold off on paying the 30%?
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 10:41 PM

As for 3 years before a modification can be done. It's three years or a change in circumstance. She has a new job- change of circumstance. I am wondering (poster could you answer this) if the original court order/signed agreement had you and her sharing 50/50 of the time? If not then that is a change if circumstance as well (since he now has them every other week- 50% of the time), and should be not paying $1500/month and 30% of your bonus with that time share.
+++++++

The new job is only significant if she has received a significant change in pay, which is highly doubtful in this economy/job market.

He hasn't mentioned if the thinks her pay has increased.

If it hasn't increased, then there is no change in circumstances. He's just decided that he no longer likes what he agreed to. If that's the case, then he is going to have to wait 3 years and pay 30% of his bonus to her.

He says he doesn't have it. He should have paid it immediately when he got it.
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 10:43 PM

Did he say how long it's been since the order was put in place? And where he lives? I may have missed it.
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 10:45 PM

NH and end of March. Seems as though if it's on his W2 it's from 2009. I think that bonus money should have been prorated then since the CO didn't go into effect until end of March. But hey what do I know? I would have never agreed to 30% of my bonus in the first place ;)
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 10:47 PM

LOL I wouldn't have either. I feel kinda bad for the guy...well, really bad for the guy actually. He's definitely supporting his kids, that's for darn sure!!
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 10:53 PM

The new job is only significant if she has received a significant change in pay, which is highly doubtful in this economy/job market.
___________________________________________________________

Not at all true. A friend of mine just accepted a new job, with a significant increase over what he was making before. Most people move jobs because of pay increases.

Don't know if hers is an increase or not, but there is nothing wrong with trying. If the time share is 50/50 and that wasn't in the order previously that is definitely a change of circumstance.

Regardless the guy is paying $1500/month and 30% of his bonus for a 50/50 timeshare split. Hopefully a judge will listen and base his CS accordingly.
Posted by: jaiye

Re: Bonus payout - 02/04/10 11:53 PM

My SO's X tried to price their house based on what it would have been worth if all of the repairs and remodaling the house needed were done. He had to have 2 appraisals done and actually took pictures of all the work that was needed to prove to the judge it was only worth $75,000 as apposed to the $130,000 she was claiming it was worth. She didn't get anything out of the house. She sounded REALLY stupid on the stand saying it would be worth $130K if HE does all of the work to fix it BEFORE she would get her half.
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 01:52 AM

Yup sounds like brother's X... She just can't stand that he sold the house. I think she was hoping it would tank and he would have to foreclose because he wouldn't be able to afford it. She's a hateful person.
Posted by: Avaya

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 02:11 PM

[quote] I would have never agreed to 30% of my bonus in the first place ;) [/quote]

I hope the OP realizes this would be 30% of the bonus after applicable taxes are withheld - i.e. 30% of the NET bonus. Maybe that'll help his feelings a little bit.
Posted by: jeff123

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 06:26 PM

Ok..so yes..I should have paid her probably when the money was given to me and yes the bonus will be prorated as I really only hit two quarters this last year. Was it a stupid agreement..yes.

I am reviewing with a lawyer today but they are going to send notice to my ex. to obtain what her sal. w bonus is. If it is more than 20% then we will go after a modification, but I will end up paying the bonus.

My question if I owe her 8K and I can only pay 2K at the time of the court date what then? Can I work out a payment plan to pay the rest off?
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 06:30 PM

Well they can't force you to pay something you don't have. You will fall into arrears and you should be able to come up with a monthly payment for the bonus/arrears, until it is paid off.
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 06:31 PM

My question if I owe her 8K and I can only pay 2K at the time of the court date what then? Can I work out a payment plan to pay the rest off?

++++++

You'll need her cooperation on that. I would try to work out a payment plan with her BEFORE sniffing after her new job. If she knows you are looking into her new job, she might not be as willing to work with you.

How sad that you had to get lawyers and the courts involved in this. You owed the 30%. If you couldn't pay it, try to work it out with her directly. Now you'll not only pay the 30%, but you're paying a lawyer too. Doesn't make sense.
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 06:35 PM

Even if she filed contempt, SHE doesn't have say on how much he will pay if he is in arrears. The judge (or CSE if involved) will discuss and decide that.
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 06:42 PM

Well they can't force you to pay something you don't have. You will fall into arrears and you should be able to come up with a monthly payment for the bonus/arrears, until it is paid off.
+++++

I think a bonus is different, because he definitly *HAD* the money. He just choose not to pay her with it. He spent it on something else and doesn't have it anymore.

Hopefully the courts will work out a payment plan. It's just a shame it all had to come to this. The CO is clear. He had the money at one point. Now he has forced her to get a lawyer and utilize the courts to get money he clearly owed her this entire time. Cases like this is why our court system is so overloaded.
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 06:43 PM

Jeff, have you approached her and tried to work out a payment plan with her? Seems like you are trying harder to make sure she doesn't see your W2 than you are trying to pay her.

Try to work this out between you and stop paying lawyers.
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 06:44 PM

I completely agree Gal.

Waste of money to use attornies and the court for this if you don't have to.

Jeff, most likely the judge will put you on a payment plan anyway. I'd try to negotiate something with your exwife before it gets to that point.
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 06:50 PM

From what I understood, Jeff would take his X to court IF she has a 20% increase in pay with her new job, if she doesn't I don't think he will seek modification... She would have to file for contempt if he doesn't figure out how to pay the bonus. It would be a waste of the court's time if he doesn't figure it out. Jeff will receive a federal refund this year? Maybe you can use that to put towards the bonus money you owe X?
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 06:50 PM

Good idea Cassie, about the return if he recieves one.

Yeah...I'd hold off asking for the modification until he pays what he owes.
Posted by: jeff123

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 06:51 PM

I love it..I am a bad guy for payingher 1500 a month, etc. because I had the money and now do not. She is a pain in the ass and it is only her way, so I think I will just go to court and work a plan out with the judge based on my affadavit.

the reason our court system is overloaded is because so many people get screwed and people that rec. child support do not have to prove in any way shape or form what they are spending money on. She makes more than me per year now with the bonus payment and she is the one that cheated and lied.

The court system honestly sucks!!
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 06:51 PM

Why should she see his W2? That is not court ordered. No reason for her to see his W2.
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 06:52 PM

No, you aren't a bad guy at all jeff. I think you're paying way too much if you ask me :) BUT, you still have to hold up your end of the agreement that YOU agreed to, KWIM?

<<the reason our court system is overloaded is because so many people get screwed and people that rec. child support do not have to prove in any way shape or form what they are spending money on.>>

Yes, that is the case in some situations - on the other hand, there are just as many custodial parents who get screwed b/c their X's play the system to get out of paying CS.
Posted by: Sherron

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 06:52 PM

"I think a bonus is different, because he definitly *HAD* the money. He just choose not to pay her with it. He spent it on something else and doesn't have it anymore."
Doesn't make a difference in my state. When ex works and doesn't pay cs, he *HAD* the money and chose not to pay cs. CSE decides how much a month he is supposed to pay on arrears, and if he calls them and says that's too high, they'll drop it lower yet. Doesn't matter at this point to him, he's not paying on arrears or current, so he doesn't care if the arrears payment is set too high, but that's the way CSE has handled it in the past. Not saying NH will handle it that way, but it apparently IS an option in some states. Yeah, he fvcked up, should have paid it when he had it, shame on him for not doing so. Unless anyone can borrow him their time machine, he can't undo it.
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 06:53 PM

Yeah...I'd hold off asking for the modification until he pays what he owes.
_____________________________________________

Oh I wouldn't. I would take it to court and he can figure out the arrears then, since he is already in court for a modification. No waste of time there. If he doesn't seek modification then he needs to figure something out with her (payment plan) so that she doesn't file contempt.
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 06:54 PM

I suppose I just think it's somewhat silly to ask for a modification when he still owes her...I don't know, I suppose you may be right...especially if it would go down significantly.
Posted by: Sherron

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 06:56 PM

"I suppose I just think it's somewhat silly to ask for a modification when he still owes her...I don't know, I suppose you may be right...especially if it would go down significantly. "
Not sure why. If he can't afford what he's paying, it would make sense for him to ask for a mod. It would also make sense for him to be in arrears, no?
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 06:57 PM

Same in NYS- you can lower the arrears payment if it's unaffordable to you.

Thing is for a CP and NCP, if a NCP cannot afford to pay CS, then there is no way around- he/she owes it. If a CP cannot afford something that month, the CP can lower her/his contribution to the child(ren) because CP's are not held accountable for what they financially give towards the child(ren). So I can see Jeff's frustrations. It does suck for both parties under certain circumstances.
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 06:57 PM

Yeah :)
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 06:57 PM

Not sure why. If he can't afford what he's paying, it would make sense for him to ask for a mod. It would also make sense for him to be in arrears, no?

__________________________________________________________

That would have been my point :)
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 06:58 PM

<<So I can see Jeff's frustrations.>>

I can too, he's paying a buttload of CS, and apparently mom's making more than him now, if I read that correctly?
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 06:59 PM

I wonder if he met more than him, or more than she was at the time with the bonus she makes now? Confused...
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 07:01 PM

Does he mean MORE (than him) when adding what he pays in CS and the 30% of his bonus to her? So when he subtracts that from his income and adds it to hers, she has the higher income for the year?
Posted by: jeff123

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 07:04 PM

Sorry for the confusion I mean that with the CS and then now my bonus % she just about makes more or the same as me. doesnt really seem fair..and of course I can not sleep for fear of the unknown. I have probably 2K that I could cut a check for tomorrow. I would then work on paying her an extra $300.00 a month until it was paid off. Which may even happen in the two months if I hit bonus again. I have had a lot of issues to rebuild over the last year..to many to go into.

I guess it just makes me sick to my stomach that she created this on a 11 year marriage and I have to pay.

Not only that my son comes to me last night and says he doesnt want to go backto moms this week. Pretty common discussion, but I do support it and tell him he needs to spend equal time with his mother.
Posted by: jeff123

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 07:05 PM

I forgot to mention does that seem like something the court would agree to?
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 07:10 PM

No, she doesn't make more than him. He makes $110k BEFORE his bonus. He hasn't said how much his bonus is, but it puts his income well over $110k.

She makes $45k. He said that her bonus is between $6k and $10k. Even with CS @ $1500 a month, that puts her income at $45k + $10k + $18k = $73,000. He makes $110,000 plus bonus, which makes his income, not even including his bonus at $110k - $18k = $92k PLUS BONUS!

You really think the courts are going to take a look at those numbers and do anything, especially if his bonus is significant?

Jeff, approx. how much are your bonuses?
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 07:19 PM

I think he says he owes her $8k, so around $27k? But don't forget he pays insurance on kids too. And apparently he took on more on the marriage debt too. My guess is that is where he feels it isn't fair.

Really not much he can do except seek modification if he can, and feels he can get the CS modified. Can't really get much worse.
Posted by: Sherron

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 07:21 PM

"I guess it just makes me sick to my stomach that she created this on a 11 year marriage and I have to pay."

Whoa... slow down... this is not on her... BOTH OF YOU created a child, the length of the marriage does not impact cs. You AGREED to the terms originally, again, this is not on her. If circumstances have changed, file for a mod, and be prepared to cut a check for what you can and a plan on how much you can afford per month to pay on the arrears. If the judge asks for higher, be prepared to explain to him why you can only pay the $300. This may involve bringing in your monthly budget, as well as as proof; i.e., if you say that your mortgage payment is $x, bring your statement to prove that it IS $x. May not be needed, but it's a lot more convincing to show the judge your numbers.
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 07:22 PM

Ok, so $27,000 + $110,000 = $137,000. After CS, his gross income is $119,000.

Her income: $45,000 + $10,000 + $18,000 = $73,000. $46,000 difference. It would make sense that he is paying the health insurance and took on more of the marital debt.

Plus, I maxed out her bonus, even though he said it could have been $6,000.

I don't think $18,000 a year is an enormous amount of CS to pay when you make $137,000. It's less than 15% of his income!
Posted by: Sherron

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 07:24 PM

"I don't think $18,000 a year is an enormous amount of CS to pay when you make $137,000. It's less than 15% of his income! "
Personally, I think it's outrageous on a 50/50 arrangement. And if he's correct that she's making at least equal to him on her new job... yeah, I'd say a mod is in order. Remember, this is cs... not alimony.
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 07:27 PM

And if he's correct that she's making at least equal to him on her new job... yeah, I'd say a mod is in order. Remember, this is cs... not alimony.

++++++

He never said that she makes nearly as much as him on her new job. He said that with CS and 30% of his bonus she makes near what he makes.

He has also said he has no idea what she makes on her new job. He's basing his numbers off of her old job.
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 07:28 PM

Where do you get $18k for CS Gal?? It's 18k PLUS 30% of his bonus for CS. So if he owes her $18k PLUS $8k (for this bonus) that is at least $26k for CS/year plus what he pays for health insurance and he should get credit for it unless she has them on insurance too.

So $26k/year in CS based on a 50/50 parenting schedule.
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 07:29 PM

<<Personally, I think it's outrageous on a 50/50 arrangement. And if he's correct that she's making at least equal to him on her new job... yeah, I'd say a mod is in order. Remember, this is cs... not alimony.
>>

I completely agree.
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 07:32 PM

Where do you get $18k for CS Gal?? It's 18k PLUS 30% of his bonus for CS. So if he owes her $18k PLUS $8k (for this bonus) that is at least $26k for CS/year plus what he pays for health insurance and he should get credit for it unless she has them on insurance too.

So $26k/year in CS based on a 50/50 parenting schedule.
+++++++++++

$18,000 is $1,500 a month.

If he pays her $8k in bonus then that makes her income $81,000 and his income $111,000.

I'm curious is that 30% in bonus is truly a CS thing or more of an alimony/family support thing.

Could be the 30% is based on the amount he earned prior to the divorce and is more of an alimony thing.

Jeff, is that 30% on your bonuses something you have to pay EVERY year or just this year?
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 07:34 PM

I got where you got the $18k from, I just meant that was only PART of his CS since he has to pay 30% of his bonus. ;)
Posted by: Avaya

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 07:35 PM

[quote]I don't think $18,000 a year is an enormous amount of CS to pay when you make $137,000. It's less than 15% of his income! [/quote]

So FREAKING WHAT? They live with him half the time AND that is more than is necessary to raise a child! Who cares how much he makes? Oh yeah, Susan cares, and judges who are completely clueless.
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 07:36 PM

I got where you got the $18k from, I just meant that was only PART of his CS since he has to pay 30% of his bonus. ;)
++++

The 30% bonus might not be part of CS, it might just be part of the overall, divorce settlement.

I'm interested to know if he has to pay it every year or just this once. If it's just once, then it's probably part of the overall settlement since they were married part of the year, no?
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 07:39 PM

That's possible. In his other posting, "CS Modification", it made it sound like that was the CS agreement. I guess we will have to wait till poster clarifies?
Posted by: jeff123

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 07:46 PM

no CS every year if I hit bonus. It was not part of alimony...No Alimony was ever discussed.
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 07:50 PM

Ok, so you have to pay 30% of it every year if you receive it and it *is* CS.

I ran your numbers through the Colorado CS calculator just for fun. It says (assuming $200 in child health insurance), you should pay $1680 with less than 50% custody and $880 with 50/50 custody.

You made an agreement that was unfavorable to you. Unfortunatley, unless you can show a compelling change of circumstance, you cannot get it changed for 3 years. THis is the deal you made. You signed it. It was not ordered by the courts.

I'll just advise you again to try to work something out with your ex-w.
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 07:52 PM

One more thing...in an 11 year marriage, you definitly would have been looking at some alimony. I wonder if the higher CS and 30% bonuses was in liew of alimony in her mind. In that case, she will fight you tooth and nail to get it reduced.
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/05/10 08:15 PM

If the judge considers the amount unfair or unjust, she can fight all she wants. Hopefully he can modify with either the new guidelines as reason or her increased income (if that is the case). He really can't do much worse, with your numbers (including when he bonuses) he is overpaying over $1000/month.
Posted by: Redlegg

Re: Bonus payout - 02/06/10 04:11 PM

What I find unusual is the fact that for some it is oh well, too bad, he made an agreement, in other cases, people are told to lie to their benefit.

He owes the money. He should talk to ex, try to make the payment plan, if he cannot, then off to court it is. He should try for a modification if he thinks it is warranted, and if it is lowered, he can pay extra against any payment plan, if it is raised, lesson learned. It is not BM's fault for wanting him to stick to the agreement. If he wants, he could get her a certifed copy of his W2 and black out the information he does not wnat her to see.

The whole entire process just needs to go by the rules. Good bad or ugly. If it is not fair now, and no one can agree, then off to court it is.
Posted by: Goodmom

Re: Bonus payout - 02/06/10 05:15 PM

[quote] I would have never agreed to 30% of my bonus in the first place ;) [/quote]

Well, it was either:

1. Agree to pay a percentage when/if received
or
2. Have an average added to income and then have child support calculated.

The first way would mean that he would only have to pay IF he got it.

The second way, he has to pay even if he doesn't get it.

He's in contempt. And he's not going to get out of showing his ex his W-2. A court will order it.

And a court then may decide just to calculate child support based on #2 above rather than have to deal with him not paying what is in the court order.

Him not paying was a very stupid move on his part.
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/06/10 10:18 PM

No, not really. This was at mediation, he didn't have to agree to anything he didn't find fair. He was pushed into because he said she threatened that he wouldn't have 50/50 or see his kids. Just as my brother's X tried to do to him. The mediator didn't play fair--- mediator is supposed to WORK for BOTH parties. If it went to court and a judge ordered it the BONUS on BOTH side (his and hers) would have been counted along with the time share. He got screwed because of a poor mediator.

So when I say I never would have agreed to it, I wouldn't have. I would have taken my chances in court because his order is not standard.
Posted by: Goodmom

Re: Bonus payout - 02/07/10 12:40 AM

[quote]No, not really. This was at mediation, he didn't have to agree to anything he didn't find fair. He was pushed into because he said she threatened that he wouldn't have 50/50 or see his kids. Just as my brother's X tried to do to him. The mediator didn't play fair--- mediator is supposed to WORK for BOTH parties. If it went to court and a judge ordered it the BONUS on BOTH side (his and hers) would have been counted along with the time share. He got screwed because of a poor mediator.

So when I say I never would have agreed to it, I wouldn't have. I would have taken my chances in court because his order is not standard. [/quote]

It's standard to average a bonus over a period of years and have it added to income. It is not to have his paying child support on it only if he gets it. But if he had gone to court, her bonuses would have been averaged and added to her income.

Personally, I think that if a bonus is going to be averaged and added to the CP's income,even if the CP doesn't get it every single year, then it should be averaged and added to the NCP's income, even if the NCP doesn't get it every year. The way he has it set up now, he only pays child support on it IF he actually gets it. I do think that they should come up with a way to only count the CP's bonus if s/he gets it that is as easy to do as it is with the NCP.

BTW, they didn't have a poor mediator. It isn't the mediator's job to get a "fair" agreement. It's the mediator's job to GET an agreement. And that is just what the mediator did.
Posted by: raider

Re: Bonus payout - 02/07/10 01:30 AM

"Ok, so $27,000 + $110,000 = $137,000. After CS, his gross income is $119,000.

Her income: $45,000 + $10,000 + $18,000 = $73,000. $46,000 difference. It would make sense that he is paying the health insurance and took on more of the marital debt.

Plus, I maxed out her bonus, even though he said it could have been $6,000.

I don't think $18,000 a year is an enormous amount of CS to pay when you make $137,000. It's less than 15% of his income!"

Okay maybe i missed something, but wth did you get these numbers from?
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/07/10 02:24 AM

You apparently have never been in mediation where the mediator actually takes the side of one spouse. My brother's mediator told him that what his W wanted was absolutely fair and reasonable and it was what the court would order. Brother spoke to me first, and thank god. I told him to mention the CSSA to the mediator. He did and the mediator had no clue what he was talking about. CSSA stood for Child Support Standards Act. My brother told him he was having a copy emailed to him and that he would bring it at his next meeting. He did and the mediator completely changed his position on what was 'fair' and reasonable.
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/07/10 02:28 AM

27k (bonus) plus 110k (salary) equal total of 137k Father
Subtract 18k for CS end up with 119k

45k (income) plus 10k (her bonus) plus 18k (what she receives in CS/year with a 50/50 split equals 73k Mother

Although this doesn't take into account father pays 30% of his bonus to Mom.
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/07/10 02:41 AM

You could be correct on this Goodmom, maybe W wanted this and that, Jeff ok'ed it and that was that. Mediator didn't really have to be a neutral party and mediate because Jeff agreed to what she first suggested.

MY question is at mediation do they give you the CS guidelines? I would assume they HAVE to. I mean there has to be a foundation. I guess Jeff didn't consider he shouldn't have to pay FULL CS when he has teh children EQUAL time.
Posted by: Goodmom

Re: Bonus payout - 02/07/10 12:28 PM

[quote]You apparently have never been in mediation where the mediator actually takes the side of one spouse. My brother's mediator told him that what his W wanted was absolutely fair and reasonable and it was what the court would order. Brother spoke to me first, and thank god. I told him to mention the CSSA to the mediator. He did and the mediator had no clue what he was talking about. CSSA stood for Child Support Standards Act. My brother told him he was having a copy emailed to him and that he would bring it at his next meeting. He did and the mediator completely changed his position on what was 'fair' and reasonable. [/quote]

The mediator isn't supposed to give legal advice. That's what lawyers are for. The mediator is there to present the offer between the two sides and try to get them to agree. Telling your brother that the court would absolutely order it was overstepping his/her bounds as a mediator.
Posted by: Goodmom

Re: Bonus payout - 02/07/10 12:34 PM

[quote]You could be correct on this Goodmom, maybe W wanted this and that, Jeff ok'ed it and that was that. Mediator didn't really have to be a neutral party and mediate because Jeff agreed to what she first suggested.

MY question is at mediation do they give you the CS guidelines? I would assume they HAVE to. I mean there has to be a foundation. I guess Jeff didn't consider he shouldn't have to pay FULL CS when he has teh children EQUAL time. [/quote]

Given how much he is making, I doubt he is paying full child support. But he is paying the higher percentage, which is common when you make more than the other party.

It's not the mediators job to give the parties the child support guidelines. Their job is to get an agreement.

Anybody who goes into mediation without first learning what the child support guidelines are is just plain stupid. As soon as my ex and I had a 4 way scheduled with our lawyers to try and come up with an agreement, I read the child support guidelines. Because child support is pretty much going to be what the guidelines state unless both parties agree otherwise. It's not as negotiable as some people like to think it is.
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/07/10 03:11 PM

I always thought that anyone who goes through mediation SHOULD have a lawyer look over the agreement before signing it and making it a CO. It's too bad Jeff assumed that the agreement was fair.

In my brother's case- he felt as though he was being railroaded into agreeing to something that wasn't fair. It was only when he brought the CSSA in, that the mediator changed his story.

They also are back in court now, because his X wants more money.

Hopefully Jeff's lawyer let's him know if he is paying close to guidelines or way beyond (given their circumstances of incomes and equal parenting time)?
Posted by: gr8Dad

Re: Bonus payout - 02/07/10 04:10 PM

Has anyone consider that the ONLY reason her "threat" of no 50/50 and not seeing the kids only worked because she knew she could DO that through the courts?

And isn't it a shame THAT statement couldn't be used to show that she is willing to use the KIDS to get MONEY?

Anyone else see the ex as a money grubbing B!TCH?
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/07/10 08:50 PM

<<Anyone else see the ex as a money grubbing B!TCH?
>>

Yes :)
Posted by: Sherron

Re: Bonus payout - 02/07/10 09:05 PM

"Anyone else see the ex as a money grubbing B!TCH? "

I dunno. I asked for everything and then some so I'd have room to negotiate. I never anticipated ex would just sign off on the papers.
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/07/10 09:23 PM

good point Sherron....I suppose that mom could have felt the same way?

I didn't ask for more than I wanted, I didn't want him to get screwed. Maybe that was my problem :)
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 12:11 AM

I would be more along the same lines. CS is about MONEY to SUPPORT the children. Who thinks a parent who has her kids HALF time/completely equal needs $1500 (and another $600 with bonus) a month for CS?

My brother's X whined that he should pay 1/2 of winter clothes, entertainment, Halloween costumes, etc. after the CS agreement was done. So he was paying CS PLUS the other stuff because "it was for the kids" and she made him feel bad that he wasn't contributing. He IS contributing with CS. Sometimes parents are so worried about their X looking at them as someone who isn't for the kids they go beyond and the X takes advantage :( Sucks big time.
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 01:42 AM

I agree Cassie, I think it's ridiculous to even expect.

Wow...half of clothes and all that on top of the CS? that's crazy.
Posted by: gr8Dad

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 04:05 AM

Slight difference between asking for more MATERIAL items or stuff, and THREATENING to reduce time with the kids to a MINIMUM unless you get MONEY.
Posted by: Sherron

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 04:13 AM

"Slight difference between asking for more MATERIAL items or stuff, and THREATENING to reduce time with the kids to a MINIMUM unless you get MONEY. "

Actually, I asked for full physical and legal. We didn't really have any material $hit when we were married.
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 03:25 PM

I would be more along the same lines. CS is about MONEY to SUPPORT the children. Who thinks a parent who has her kids HALF time/completely equal needs $1500 (and another $600 with bonus) a month for CS?

+++++++

I don't see it as a bad thing. Both household have the kids 50/50 and now both households have similar incomes on which they support the kids.

If it's truly "all about the kids" then you would see it as a good thing...that the kids will have consistent lifestyles in BOTH homes and both parents are able to provide for the kids in basically the same manner.

It's hard on kids to live a "split life" where lifestyle are dramatically different, especially in 50/50 situations.
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 03:41 PM

<<If it's truly "all about the kids" then you would see it as a good thing...that the kids will have consistent lifestyles in BOTH homes and both parents are able to provide for the kids in basically the same manner.>>

I disagree. I don't believe CS should be used to equalize the income in both homes. One parent shouldn't have to work their butt off to support the other's lack of income.
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 03:44 PM

I just don't see that as a good thing, personally. This guy didn't win the lotto, he WORKED for where he is at. I don't think that his income level should be evened out with an X spouses just so that a child is living in two separate household with the same means.

I just find that plain annoying. If I were to marry someone 10 times smarter/more gifted than I and he makes $100k more a year...he should give me HALF of that so our incomes are EQUAL so our kids live in two households where the incomes are equal for a true 50/50. Puke.

It will be interesting to see if XW marries someone making $100k a year. Then the 'household' changes and that household will be $100k richer than Dads. There is nothing really fair about it IMO.
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 03:46 PM

I disagree. I don't believe CS should be used to equalize the income in both homes. One parent shouldn't have to work their butt off to support the other's lack of income.
+++++

Let's say that BOTH parents are working their butt's off, full-time, to their fullest capacity? I think making incomes equitable in 50/50 situations is in the best interest of the kids.

If neither parent were "greedy" that is what they would want for their kids, so the kids could have as consistent lifestyle as possible.
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 03:47 PM

I still completely disagree. I do NOT see CS as a way to equalize the income in both homes.
Posted by: gr8Dad

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 03:51 PM

Funny how a man wanting to keep his earnings is GREEDY, but you separating YOUR higher income from RAY's is merely financially prudent.
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 04:00 PM

I'm totally sick of all of the divorce laws. If you marry someone and make an oral contract of "till death do us part", you should be held to that, especially if you have kids. It takes a 50/50 effort to make a child. Therefore, you are "in it" 50/50 until that child is an adult. Financially, physically, 50/50.

I'm sick of parents being able to walk away from their kids. I'm sick of parents not paying CS and forcing a CP to spend years trying to collect.

It's all screwed up. It should be much more simple. You created that child together, you raise that child TOGETHER...in every way. No walking away. No putting the kids through the ringer of "you have a nice house with mom, but you live in squalor when you are with dad." Noone in their right mind can think that's good for the kids. It might be good for the richer parent, but certainly not for the kids.

If they stuck to a true "50/50" till the kids are grown, it would make people much more careful who they married, who they had children with.
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 04:21 PM

I'm totally sick of all of the divorce laws. If you marry someone and make an oral contract of "till death do us part", you should be held to that, especially if you have kids. It takes a 50/50 effort to make a child. Therefore, you are "in it" 50/50 until that child is an adult. Financially, physically, 50/50.

--I agree in 50/50 in most cases, absolutely. But you also have to keep in mind not all parents WANT 50/50.

--Financially 50/50? I believe that means financially 50/50 for the children, not for incomes.

I'm sick of parents being able to walk away from their kids. I'm sick of parents not paying CS and forcing a CP to spend years trying to collect.

--I agree there.

It's all screwed up. It should be much more simple. You created that child together, you raise that child TOGETHER...in every way. No walking away. No putting the kids through the ringer of "you have a nice house with mom, but you live in squalor when you are with dad." Noone in their right mind can think that's good for the kids. It might be good for the richer parent, but certainly not for the kids.

--And yet you can't force all parents to do that.

If they stuck to a true "50/50" till the kids are grown, it would make people much more careful who they married, who they had children with.

--Most divorced parents I know do have 50/50. The only cases are when one parent doesn't want that responsibility.
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 04:27 PM

--Most divorced parents I know do have 50/50. The only cases are when one parent doesn't want that responsibility.
__________

Doesn't matter. You take your 50/50 and you do it well or you go to jail for child neglect.

How many people WANT to pay income taxes? Not very many, so they made it simple. "File your taxes or you go to jail." If you don't, you incur penalities and fees so high that you'll find it easier to pay than not to pay.

Parenting needs to be the same. You WILL take your 50/50. You WILL show up during your parenting time, or you WILL go to jail for child neglect.

What is being allow to go on right now is BS. No child should be sitting there wondering if their parent will show up or not.

If you don't show up for a court date, a bench warrant for your arrest is issued immediately. If they can enforce that, they can enforce parenting time.
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 04:31 PM

Parenting needs to be the same. You WILL take your 50/50. You WILL show up during your parenting time, or you WILL go to jail for child neglect.

--I wouldn't want my X having 50/50, therefor I don't think it should be forced on parents who don't want it.

What is being allow to go on right now is BS. No child should be sitting there wondering if their parent will show up or not.

--I agree, but I also wouldn't want someone, or the courts, to FORCE my son's father to show up for visitation he doesn't want.

If you don't show up for a court date, a bench warrant for your arrest is issued immediately. If they can enforce that, they can enforce parenting time.

--Here, that does happen, at least in my case.
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 04:35 PM

Susan I also think your 50/50 idea is flawed in that not even all married couples who have children share in 50/50 of the financial AND emotional responsibilities of raising their kids. And that isn't always a bad thing. Why should a parent be expected to do 50/50 of the financial/emotional parenting AFTER a divorce when they weren't doing it when married?
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 04:38 PM

Why don't we just make DIVORCE ILLEGAL then? I mean if we want to make someone who refuses 50/50 go to jail, let's make divorce illegal. If a parent REFUSES 50/50- **I** as the OTHER parent who would want that parent FORCED into a 50/50 timeshare.

We make each household equal in incomes, how can we be sure teh ONE receiving the CS (or the income to equalize their household with the other) would even USE it on the kid(s)??

And what happens when ONE parent remarries and now that household makes more? Should the new Step parent give half of what they earn to the other household?
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 04:42 PM

Susan I also think your 50/50 idea is flawed in that not even all married couples who have children share in 50/50 of the financial AND emotional responsibilities of raising their kids. And that isn't always a bad thing. Why should a parent be expected to do 50/50 of the financial/emotional parenting AFTER a divorce when they weren't doing it when married?

++++++++

It should be a "given" in divorce, CLEARLY spelled out prior to obtaining a marriage license. "In the event of divorce, parenting time WILL BE 50/50 and will be enforced."

It might make people think twice about having children with someone if they know they are "on the hook" for 18 years. Just like once you get a job, you are "on the hook" for income taxes. It's a "non-negotiable" and the penality for not complying is extensive jail time and financial penalities.
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 04:43 PM

<<It should be a "given" in divorce, CLEARLY spelled out prior to obtaining a marriage license. "In the event of divorce, parenting time WILL BE 50/50 and will be enforced."
>>

And like ANY contract, things can and do get changed.

And likely, we will see more unwed couples having children.
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 04:43 PM

Let's say that BOTH parents are working their butt's off, full-time, to their fullest capacity? I think making incomes equitable in 50/50 situations is in the best interest of the kids.
__________________________________________________________

Okay, but let's say they are NOT. Then what? My H's X is a perfect example. Had FREE daycare, quit her jobs left and right. Didn't CARE about supporting her kids because if the state wasn't doing it, she had CS. Now she is CS from FOUR different MEN. Talk about equalizing her income ;)
Posted by: gr8Dad

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 04:43 PM

You know, I was wondering if Susan thinks Ray's ex should have an EQUAL household income, including adding in SUSAN's income?
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 04:47 PM

We make each household equal in incomes, how can we be sure teh ONE receiving the CS (or the income to equalize their household with the other) would even USE it on the kid(s)??

And what happens when ONE parent remarries and now that household makes more? Should the new Step parent give half of what they earn to the other household?
++++++++++++

50/50 parenting time and 50/50 financials could be enforced by each parent submitting finacials to the courts to show that the money is being spent on the kids.

Yes, household incomes should be made equitable, even in the case of remarriage. When someone married a person with kids, they are marrying into a family, not just the spouse.

My h's income was used on my D18's FAFSA and will reduce the amount she receives for college. Same should go for divorce situations.

Furthermore, I think the house should stay with the kids and the parents come and go.

We'd never inconvience ourselves by packing our lives up every week or EOW, but we ask our kids to do it all of the time and then get frustrated at them when they leave things at the other parent's house or aren't allowed to bring things back and forth.

I call BS again! The kids should stay put and the parents should be the ones coming and going.

That is, of course, if we are truly "all about the kids." But we aren't. We are all about ourselves and our money and making sure NO ONE benefits from our money but ourselves.
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 04:48 PM

Okay, but let's say they are NOT. Then what? My H's X is a perfect example. Had FREE daycare, quit her jobs left and right. Didn't CARE about supporting her kids because if the state wasn't doing it, she had CS. Now she is CS from FOUR different MEN. Talk about equalizing her income ;)
+++++++

She loses custody of the kids. If you don't comply, you lose custody of your child(ren) and 50% of your income goes to the other parent.
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 04:50 PM

Maybe people should consider that when they marry someone? WHY marry someone you believe wouldn't want 50/50 time share?

Needless to say you don't have CP's jumping left and right to OFFER that 50/50 either Gal.

According to OP in this scenario his X wanted him to pay and then she would allow him to see his kids.

My brother's X isn't allowing his extended parenting time RIGHT NOW because she didn't get the $$$ she wanted after he sold his house for more than she thought he was going to.

Some parents ARE sick and those are the parents we want to force them into having 50/50 timeshare? Some parents ONLY see themselves and their needs and can't look past that.

You Gal, surely use your CS monies on your children, but some DON'T. For some you would be equalizing incomes to each household, but you can't force the other household to USE that $$$ on the child(ren).
Posted by: Sherron

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 04:55 PM

"Furthermore, I think the house should stay with the kids and the parents come and go."
Yeah, I can't wait wait for ex and wife# 3 to fvck in my bed.

How would subsequent children handle this, by the way? Would they get to stay in the house as well, and bm parents them during her 50%? Since it's not fair that the kids should have to pack up? This way all the half and steb sibs live in the house, and the parents rotate, dad and sm could pay mom cs for parenting his and sm's kids, and sm could pay bm cs for any kids that are just hers?
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 04:56 PM

True Gal and I agree with some of what you wrote. In a perfect world you have two parents who want the best for their children- but most times that just isn't the case...

Especially in the heat of a divorce, if I recall correctly you didn't offer up 50/50 to your X right away. You didn't WANT him to have 50/50, you did offer it at whatever point and then he refused... But it wasn't a given going in. And maybe it was because you didn't think he could handle 50/50 or you were pissed about the way the marriage ended--- but I think MOST times you have situations like yours. You don't have to two clear conscious minded individuals making the best decisions for their kids TOGETHER. Either because one doesn't WANT to, or one won't allow it.
Posted by: Sherron

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 04:56 PM

"WHY marry someone you believe wouldn't want 50/50 time share?"
Why marry and have kids with someone who you're gonna divorce?
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 04:57 PM

<<"WHY marry someone you believe wouldn't want 50/50 time share?"
Why marry and have kids with someone who you're gonna divorce? >>

Exactly.
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 04:58 PM

You Gal, surely use your CS monies on your children, but some DON'T. For some you would be equalizing incomes to each household, but you can't force the other household to USE that $$$ on the child(ren).
+++++

Yes you can. The gov. can force people to pay income taxes and file tax returns. They can easily force people to produce financials to show how CS is being spent.

50/50 custody. 50/50 split of household incomes. You produce financials to prove it. You jerk around, you go to jail, lose custody of your kids and 50% of your income.

THey don't screw around with DUI's. You get caught, you go to jail, you lose your license, you pay fines, etc... You cheat on your taxes, you go to jail, you pay fines. But then people act like parenting time and CS can't be enforced. It can be.
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 04:59 PM

How would subsequent children handle this, by the way? Would they get to stay in the house as well, and bm parents them during her 50%? Since it's not fair that the kids should have to pack up? This way all the half and steb sibs live in the house, and the parents rotate, dad and sm could pay mom cs for parenting his and sm's kids, and sm could pay bm cs for any kids that are just hers?

+++++++

THey need to think about that and consider that BEFORE having subsequent children.
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 04:59 PM

"Furthermore, I think the house should stay with the kids and the parents come and go."
Yeah, I can't wait wait for ex and wife# 3 to fvck in my bed.

How would subsequent children handle this, by the way? Would they get to stay in the house as well, and bm parents them during her 50%? Since it's not fair that the kids should have to pack up? This way all the half and steb sibs live in the house, and the parents rotate, dad and sm could pay mom cs for parenting his and sm's kids, and sm could pay bm cs for any kids that are just hers?

--------------------
I am not opposed to this idea. I think separate rooms for each of the parents- LOL. But I do think this seems more possible in cases where the kids only have a few years left in school and either parent is looking to remarry and have more kids.

Now BM and H were only together for 6 months before they ended their marriage and they were renting. There was no 'family home'. I don't think the 2 bedroom apartment they had would fit all of us and her and all her kids now ;)
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 05:02 PM

Sure- they can, but that would mean more manpower and the government isn't going to shell out money for that or CP's right now would be held accountable in contributing to their child's financial well beings, just as NCP's are.
Posted by: Sherron

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 05:03 PM

"THey need to think about that and consider that BEFORE having subsequent children. "

Fine, no subsequent kids. What if sm already has kids, she has custody.
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 05:03 PM

<<THey need to think about that and consider that BEFORE having subsequent children. >>

So basically - NO remarriage or subsequent children until the kids are 18.

Yeah...I disagree.
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 05:03 PM

In a nutshell, this would make people be very careful about who they marry, who they have children with, who they remarry and if they decide to have subsequent children.

NO ONE should be having subesquent children until all of the needs of the existing children are met.

Getting divorce and "moving on" is too easy right now. People are getting remarried, having MORE children and then complain about how they can't support their existing children. It's all crazy and warped.

When people get divorced, the needs of THEIR CHILDREN TOGETHER should be the only thing that matters. They need to "move on" shouldn't be a concern at all until the exisiting children are grown.
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 05:03 PM

Right, but hell someone like BM with 4 kids from 4 different people she will be equalizing her household with all 4 Dads. She be rich and I think that is her intent ;)
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 05:05 PM

"THey need to think about that and consider that BEFORE having subsequent children. "

Fine, no subsequent kids. What if sm already has kids, she has custody.
++++++++

If they can't accomodate the parent's need to go back and forth to his/her existing children's home, then they need to not get married if they can't make that work.

It's simple.
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 05:05 PM

Gal - you're wanting to fix the problem AFTER the problem starts. Why not fix the problem BEFORE it starts?

Mandatory 6 months of counseling before marriage. Mandatory 6 months (or more) of counseling before divorce.

Forcing parents to share the same home and to parent more than they want isn't going to "fix" this, nor would it be good for kids in many situations IMO.

There is NO WAY this would work in my situation. And had that been the consequences of marrying XH? I wouldn't have married him (ETA - I say that NOW - Sherron you have a good point in what you posted below this - at the time? I didn't know XH very well and thought the same). And things really wouldn't be much different had I not had.
Posted by: Sherron

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 05:06 PM

"In a nutshell, this would make people be very careful about who they marry, who they have children with, who they remarry and if they decide to have subsequent children."

Bull$hit. I was an idiot when I married ex, ignored the red flags, cause, hey, we were in looooove. I would have never considered that. As far as I knew, we were getting married until death bla bla bla, and as far as I knew, ex was on the same page. Young, stupid, and in looooove does not consider this kind of $hit.
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 05:07 PM

Gal - you're wanting to fix the problem AFTER the problem starts. Why not fix the problem BEFORE it starts?
+++++++

Exactly my point. Cover people on these laws prior to marriage.

I get a job, I better become informed wth income tax laws or I could find myself in big trouble.

Same with having babies or getting married.
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 05:08 PM

I don't agree with telling someone how they will parent before they've even had kids (or after, for that matter). I do NOT think the court system needs to FORCE divorced parents how to live, how to parent, etc. At least not to the extreme that you are suggesting.

While I think there are things that could be done to better a lot of situations, I don't think forcing people into parenting or forcing divorced parents to share a home is going to help anything.
Posted by: Sherron

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 05:08 PM

"If they can't accomodate the parent's need to go back and forth to his/her existing children's home, then they need to not get married if they can't make that work."

So in your world, I shouldn't get remarried as long as I have children living with me? Btw... how fair would your plan be to MY kids? The house I live in is all ds's ever known, we moved in when he was one.
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 05:11 PM

Ahhh NM
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 05:11 PM

So in your world, I shouldn't get remarried as long as I have children living with me? Btw... how fair would your plan be to MY kids? The house I live in is all ds's ever known, we moved in when he was one.
+++++++

It would be very fair. DS would never leave his home. YOu and your ex would come and go and contriubte 50/50 to the your DS's home.

You are fine to get remarried as long as your commitment to your existing children isn't altered.
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 05:12 PM

<<She brings in $92500 while first H who was making $100k, has $65k. Yeah some people could make a pretty sweet living off this kind of deal :) >>

That's crazy.
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 05:12 PM

<<You are fine to get remarried as long as your commitment to your existing children isn't altered.
>>

And who decides what alters my child's life? You?
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 05:13 PM

Yeah I deleted it, because there would have to be a way to neutralize the cost with each new household. HOW it could be done, but would be a HUGE PITA, and would keep changing with each new Dad. LOL
Posted by: Sherron

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 05:14 PM

"You are fine to get remarried as long as your commitment to your existing children isn't altered. "

Doesn't divorce by default alter the commitment to exisiting children?

Are you telling me that you and Ray would move out of your house every other week so your ex can stay there? What about Ray's kids? Funny, but it seems to me that you're not living this plan yourself.
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 05:14 PM

Thing is I get what Gal is saying and if you have 2 parents willing to do that, I understand it. YET forcing it, would be ridiculous. Mine as well just force them to remain married and BOTH living in the same household ;)
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 05:17 PM

Exactly. I find nothing wrong with that kind of a situation - but I do NOT think it should be forced.

Can you imagine if my X was forced to have 50/50 and we were forced to share a home? No. Not gona happen. That would NOT be good for my son.
Posted by: Avaya

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 05:22 PM

[quote]If neither parent were "greedy" that is what they would want for their kids, so the kids could have as consistent lifestyle as possible. [/quote]

And what happens after the kids are grown? They're forced to see the lower wage earner slip into a lower standard of living. Susan, it's just not right - AND it feeds the problem with men earning less than their potential when they know their efforts wont benefit them, it'll benefit their former spouse that can't/wont/doesn't earn as much as they do. AND if the recipient spouse marries a billionaire, that isn't factored into CS, therefore the recipient is receiving $$ to supposedly equalize the standard of living when in fact it's not affecting the receiving standard AT ALL while diminishing the paying person's standard of living.
Posted by: Sherron

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 05:24 PM

"Can you imagine if my X was forced to have 50/50 and we were forced to share a home? No. Not gona happen. That would NOT be good for my son. "
Forget about ds for a second. Do you not have a right to move on, have more kids with SO? According to Susan's plan, you couldn't, unless you were okay shuffeling kid#2 around EOW. It seems it's okay to do that to kid#2, but not kid#1.
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 05:25 PM

Absolutely Sherron, that's why earlier I responded to that as well - it would NOT work. I do NOT think people who are divorced should have to wait until their kids are grown to move on with their lives.

And you make a good point - while kid #1 is getting what Susan thinks is fair, subsequent children would be shuffled around in the mix, which isn't fair to them.

I'm just glad Susan isn't our judge or decides what's right for me and my family.
Posted by: Avaya

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 05:25 PM

[quote] Financially, physically, 50/50. [/quote]

You don't believe that. You believe that whoever makes more should pay more.
Posted by: Sherron

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 05:28 PM

"And what happens after the kids are grown? They're forced to see the lower wage earner slip into a lower standard of living."

Okay, not agreeing with Susan, but that's a strange argument. It would be okay for a household to remain at a lower SOL while the kids are there, but not to go back to it after the kids are grown? And I would argue that under most circumstances with "normal" amounts of cs being paid out, the cp' SOL is not really affected all that much.
Posted by: Sherron

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 05:30 PM

"I do NOT think people who are divorced should have to wait until their kids are grown to move on with their lives."

I am making that choice, because I believe it works for me and my family, under our circumstances. But it should remain a choice.

"I'm just glad Susan isn't our judge or decides what's right for me and my family. "
Well, considering Susan isn't living the plan herself...
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 05:33 PM

<<I am making that choice, because I believe it works for me and my family, under our circumstances. But it should remain a choice.>>

Exactly. You have the choice though. I agree, it should remain a choice.

I am choosing to remarry and have subsequent children. That should be my choice.
Posted by: Sherron

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 05:35 PM

What's funny is I remember threads where I was put down for making that choice. Admittedly, my memory can be fuzzy, but I don't recall Susan rallying to me defense?
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 05:36 PM

I do remember you being put down for it, but I think it got lost in greeneyes mess for pretty much saying it was wrong TO move on.

I honestly don't remember who was on what team :).
Posted by: gr8Dad

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 06:38 PM

Also, she, in her TYPICAL ELITIST SPOILED manner to suggest a LAW that would FORCE people to, instead of supporting TWO houses, support THREE houses. She has ABSOLUTELY no idea what it is to live on a limited income. She has been pampered and spoiled her ENTIRE life, and her advice is such that it shows.

She is a HYPOCRITE, who separates her every DIME from Ray's money, in case HE leaves, so she will not have to pay him anything, but VILIFIES someone who is trying to protect THEIR money as being greedy.

As usual, she is two faced.
Posted by: Sherron

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 09:10 PM

"Also, she, in her TYPICAL ELITIST SPOILED manner to suggest a LAW that would FORCE people to, instead of supporting TWO houses, support THREE houses."

You could still make 2 houses work. After all, the house would be empty when one parent exercises their time with the kids, and the other parent could stay there for the week until the next switch.
Posted by: gr8Dad

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 09:21 PM

Right, so now you are sharing TWO houses.

So, on the GUYS week, he takes down all the flower prints and puts up deer heads, and on the woman's week, she has to wash ALL of the dishes he left behind.

Yeah, no RECIPE for DISASTER there.
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 09:24 PM

You could still make 2 houses work. After all, the house would be empty when one parent exercises their time with the kids, and the other parent could stay there for the week until the next switch.
+++++++

Yes, it could absolutely work as long as the kid's best interest was your #1 priority. But we are all too selfish for that. We'd never really put our kids first, would we. Our money, our homes, our right to "move on", our own comfort, all more important to us than our kids??
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 09:30 PM

<<Our money, our homes, our right to "move on", our own comfort, all more important to us than our kids?? >>

UGH. This is complete bullsh*t Susan.

It would NOT be in my son's best interest if his dad and I shared a home. It would NOT work. It would NOT work if we had 50/50, b/c I would never FORCE him to see his son more. Sorry, but not everyone's life and situation fits into your perfect little alternate reality.

And by saying THAT?? YOU are insinuating that I am NOT putting my child first b/c I am NOT living in your jacked up view of what a pretty little divorced family should look like.

Sorry, but this just irritates me. It's stupid. It wouldn't work for everyone.

(I still love ya, but I soooo disagree with you on this - and I'm cramping like hell, so pardon my crabiness :))
Posted by: gr8Dad

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 09:37 PM

The REALLY funy thing is that her HUSBAND can't hang a deer head on the wall, but she is claiming she would have NO problem with SHARING a house, decorations and all, with her EX HUSBAND.

So, day 1 & 2 would be spent changing the sheets and cleaning the house, days 3 and 4 would be making the house "yours" again, and 5 and 6 would be spent packing.

Yep, LOTS more time with the kids, huh?
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 09:43 PM

I'm not saying YOU, Jenny. I'm saying ALL OF US. Some people call the Jeff's wife "greedy." Why? Because she gets a nice amount of CS...an amount good enough to offer her kids a much better lifestyle than a salary of $45k could afford?

But Jeff is not greedy for wanting his kids to have a better lifestyle 50% of the time...over what? MONEY.

If we are going to throw around the word "greedy" it's a two-way street. We are all greedy in the world.

I look at one posters H who has 3 kids and he makes very little money. Then he married a woman with a child and has another child, and now can hardly afford to support his "first" kids at all. His desire to "move on" has come before his desire to be able to fully support his first set of kids.

I think when you get married and have a child with someone, you should be "on board" with that person, financially and physically until the kids are grown. And you DON'T "move on" if it means you can't be there for the kids who are already here and still need you in every way.

Too many people are putting themselves first, "moving on" even if it means taking away from the kids you already have. It's wrong. It's greedy. It's selfish.
Posted by: Sherron

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 09:49 PM

"But we are all too selfish for that. We'd never really put our kids first, would we. Our money, our homes, our right to "move on", our own comfort, all more important to us than our kids??"

Scuse me... I haven't been on a date in [email protected] near 10 years... you, however, have remarried. According to YOUR ideology, which one of us is putting our kids first, and which one of us is the selfish one?
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 09:57 PM

I'm not saying YOU, Jenny. I'm saying ALL OF US. Some people call the Jeff's wife "greedy." Why? Because she gets a nice amount of CS...an amount good enough to offer her kids a much better lifestyle than a salary of $45k could afford?

--Yes, in a perfect world - all of us could have 50/50 with our X's and share a home and everything would be daisies and roses. But the fact is - it's NOT a perfect world. That is NOT going to happen.

I think when you get married and have a child with someone, you should be "on board" with that person, financially and physically until the kids are grown. And you DON'T "move on" if it means you can't be there for the kids who are already here and still need you in every way.

--True, and then accidents happen. My situation is a prime example. I was 23, had most of my education behind me, but was unwilling to abort, and I wasn't going to give up my son, b/c I knew I could make a good life for him. Obviously the marriage to his father didn't work out. The fact that his father and I are divorced doesn't mean my son isn't on the VERY TOP of my priority list. Because I am getting remarried and will have another child one day, doesn't mean my son isn't being put first. In MY world? His dad is basically a NOTHING. I don't mean that hatefully, it's just the way it is. DS sees him a few days a month. Other than that? He doesn't hear from him. Why should I NOT move on with my life and remarry and have another child with my fiance? How is that NOT putting my son first? Sure, I could have a better life for my son if XH was paying what he owed - but, I will ALWAYS provide for my son whether or not his father ever does. I honestly can't imagine what more he NEEDS. Does that mean he doesn't need his father's CS? No, b/c if I were receiving the CS he is obligated to pay, less would come out of my SO's pocket, and more would go from his pocket to a new child. We make it OK, we don't have a lot of debt, we have savings, and we make a decent amount for where we live. We're careful with our money, and don't have to live paycheck to paycheck. But if we didn't have SO's income? DS's life would be MUCH different. But I wouldn't be able to FORCE his dad to step up and do more...and at the rate he's at now? I don't WANT him to, other than financially. Why? Because it's been this way for 5 years, and I don't expect it to change.

So while obviously I'm not remarrying b/c of my son, I can definitely say my son would have much less if SO were not in our lives. Most likely? I wouldn't be able to afford my own place, on top of medical, daycare, and everything else. DS wouldn't have a constant male figure in his life (not saying children who don't are in a bad place by any means). Just stating what my son gets out of my marriage, pointing out it isn't all negative.

OK, got on a rant there...sorry...irritated w/ X as of late :).

My point being - my son will be provided for with or without the help from his father. *I* have learned - especially lately, that I CANNOT force my son's father to be there. I wouldn't WANT him to be forced to have 50/50 visitation. Some parents simply DON'T want it. Some people simply AREN'T emotionally mature enough to be the type of parent a child deserves. Sure, you could say it's my fault fo rmarrying him, for getting pregnant, for not giving my son up for adoption, etc. But, life is what it is - what it is NOW. No one can turn back time, we can only deal with the cards we are dealt.

Too many people are putting themselves first, "moving on" even if it means taking away from the kids you already have. It's wrong. It's greedy. It's selfish.

--Yes, too many people do put themselves first. I just don't think remarrying and having a previous child has to be negative. It isn't in many cases. One can be selfish and greedy and not put their child first without remarrying. That isn't what makes a person who they are.
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 10:05 PM

Scuse me... I haven't been on a date in [email protected] near 10 years... you, however, have remarried. According to YOUR ideology, which one of us is putting our kids first, and which one of us is the selfish one?

++++++

We are all greedy. We are all selfish. I'm getting tired of seeing the lower wage earner, who receives a nice amount of CS being called greedy, while the higher wage earner is not greedy.

ESPECIALLY in a 50/50 situation. I think in a 50/50 custody split, there should also be a 50/50 income split so the kids have have a consistent life no matter where they are each week.

Jeff's ex is working full-time. I assume she's making as much as she's capapble of making. With his current CS and bonus payout, her income is still slightly less than his, but in the same ball-park. Both parents working to their full ability. Both parents raising the kids equally. Both parents paying for the kids clothes, etc.. equally. Income is roughly equal. Sounds ideal to me FOR THE KIDS.
Posted by: Avaya

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 10:08 PM

But the fact is, circumstances change. One might be perfectly capable of 'moving on' and having more kids with money to spare after supporting all of the children. Then boom......something happens that hinders that. You cannot account for every 'what if' in life.
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 10:09 PM

<<You cannot account for every 'what if' in life. >>

Nor can you expect every "what if" to happen. I choose not to live my life based on the worst possible scenarios.
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 10:10 PM

Good point Sherron.
Posted by: Sherron

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 10:12 PM

"In MY world? His dad is basically a NOTHING. I don't mean that hatefully, it's just the way it is. DS sees him a few days a month. Other than that? He doesn't hear from him. "

Last time ds10 saw his dad was September of last year. If ds doesn't call him, there is no contact. Despite all that, ds idolizes his dad... he's definitely not a "nothing" to him, and he would be tickled pink to see him "a few days a month".

"But I wouldn't be able to FORCE his dad to step up and do more...and at the rate he's at now? I don't WANT him to, other than financially. Why? Because it's been this way for 5 years, and I don't expect it to change."

You seriously don't "WANT him to" step up? No offense, but I find that sad. A child needs both their bio parents. MY ex is about as flawed as they come, but I know ds10's life would be happier if his dad was in it on a consistent basis.
Posted by: Sherron

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 10:13 PM

Nice side-stepping of my question, Gal.
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 10:14 PM

But the fact is, circumstances change. One might be perfectly capable of 'moving on' and having more kids with money to spare after supporting all of the children. Then boom......something happens that hinders that. You cannot account for every 'what if' in life.
++++++

Agreed. But apples/oranges. I'm talking about a low-wage earner who is already struggling to get by. He marries a woman with a child and then has another child with her...and she does not work. He's added 3 more mouths to feed, which further limits his resources for his first set of kids. To me, that is selfish and wrong. He put his own desires above his ability to even support his existing children minimally.
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 10:14 PM

"In MY world? His dad is basically a NOTHING. I don't mean that hatefully, it's just the way it is. DS sees him a few days a month. Other than that? He doesn't hear from him. "

Last time ds10 saw his dad was September of last year. If ds doesn't call him, there is no contact. Despite all that, ds idolizes his dad... he's definitely not a "nothing" to him, and he would be tickled pink to see him "a few days a month".

--I realize how that sounded. No, he's not a NOTHING to my son. And the only "thing" he is to ME, is my son's dad. Nothing more, nothing less. My son adores his father. My son also adores chocolate. Doesn't mean he needs to eat it every day.

"But I wouldn't be able to FORCE his dad to step up and do more...and at the rate he's at now? I don't WANT him to, other than financially. Why? Because it's been this way for 5 years, and I don't expect it to change."

You seriously don't "WANT him to" step up? No offense, but I find that sad. A child needs both their bio parents. MY ex is about as flawed as they come, but I know ds10's life would be happier if his dad was in it on a consistent basis.

--I have absolutely realized that kids don't need both parents to be there for them 100%. Would that be ideal? Absolutely. But my son's life would not be any better if his dad were around more. In fact, I have no doubt it would be worse. I know that doesn't sound ideal - and it isn't. But it is what it is. And that's life.

I can't live my life based on the hope that my son's father would be a different man. So no, I don't wish that he would step up. I wasted too many years doing so.

(And ETA - no offense taken, I think it's sad as well)
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 10:19 PM

I can't live my life based on the hope that my son's father would be a different man.
+++++++
And in MY perfect world of new divorce laws, parents like your ex would have 2 choices. #1, take 50/50 custody OR lose all custody and hand over 50% of his paycheck to the person he is literally dumping his parenting responsibilities on...and spend some time in jail for child neglect.

You start putting laws like that in place and you'll see parents "figuring out" their priorities.

Just like income taxes...no one would pay if there weren't obsecenly stiff penalities for not paying. I think you would see lots of moms and dads "stepping up" if our courts didn't make it so easy not to.
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 10:21 PM

<<And in MY perfect world of new divorce laws, parents like your ex would have 2 choices. #1, take 50/50 custody OR lose all custody and hand over 50% of his paycheck to the person he is literally dumping his parenting responsibilities on...and spend some time in jail for child neglect.>>

But see - I also wouldn't be for that Susan. I wouldn't give my son's father the choice of 50/50 or NOTHING.

And I don't think all parents should be given those 2 choices (and only those 2 choices) either. Just b/c one doesn't have 50/50 doesn't make them a bad parent.
Posted by: Sherron

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 10:23 PM

"My son adores his father. "
Thanks for clarifying, jl.

"I have absolutely realized that kids don't need both parents to be there for them 100%."
The stats don't lie. Hopefully, your ds will be an outlier, but there is plenty of evidence that states otherwise.
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 10:25 PM

"I have absolutely realized that kids don't need both parents to be there for them 100%."
The stats don't lie. Hopefully, your ds will be an outlier, but there is plenty of evidence that states otherwise.

--And statistics are just that - statistics. I refuse to believe my son will have a worse life b/c his father chooses not to be a constant in it. As his mother and the person solely responsible for him, I will do everything in my power to be sure my son isn't one of those statistics. If his father weren't the person he is? I would absolutely 100% agree with you.
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 10:25 PM

But see - I also wouldn't be for that Susan. I wouldn't give my son's father the choice of 50/50 or NOTHING.

And I don't think all parents should be given those 2 choices (and only those 2 choices) either. Just b/c one doesn't have 50/50 doesn't make them a bad parent.
+++++++

Parents should get 50/50 or nothing. If they choose nothing, then it's up to the CP how much time the NCP will get with the kids. BUT the kids and the CP are no longer held to the WHIM of the NCP, if and when he/she decides to see the kids.

If they don't want 50/50, fine. Hand over 50% of your pay for CP and cover your share of the parenting costs. And CP will let NCP know when it's convienent for the children to see them, NOT the other way around. Again, no child should have to sit at teh window wondering if their parent is going to show up this time. NO CP should have to plan their time around an NCP who may or may now show up this time.
Posted by: Sherron

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 10:26 PM

"And in MY perfect world of new divorce laws, parents like your ex would have 2 choices. #1, take 50/50 custody OR lose all custody and hand over 50% of his paycheck to the person he is literally dumping his parenting responsibilities on...and spend some time in jail for child neglect."

How would that work with the father of your children? You know, the one who is off on business trips to further his career? Would you put him in jail for child neglect, since he's not willing to make 50/50 work?
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 10:27 PM

<<Parents should get 50/50 or nothing. If they choose nothing, then it's up to the CP how much time the NCP will get with the kids. BUT the kids and the CP are no longer held to the WHIM of the NCP, if and when he/she decides to see the kids.>>

I wouldn't be against this. I do feel that if a parent doesn't regularly exercise his or her visitation, the discretion should be up to the custodial parent in most cases.
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 10:30 PM

How would that work with the father of your children? You know, the one who is off on business trips to further his career? Would you put him in jail for child neglect, since he's not willing to make 50/50 work?
++++++

That's the point of the whole argument. THe courts make it too easy to not have 50/50. If the penalities were stiffer for not taking 50/50 you can bet my ex would have figured out a way.
Posted by: Sherron

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 10:32 PM

"--And statistics are just that - statistics. I refuse to believe my son will have a worse life b/c his father chooses not to be a constant in it. As his mother and the person solely responsible for him, I will do everything in my power to be sure my son isn't one of those statistics. If his father weren't the person he is? I would absolutely 100% agree with you. "

The stats are true BECAUSE some parents are the type of people your ex is. I do hope your ds will be the outlier, but just because you don't believe in the stats doesn't make them any less true.
Posted by: Sherron

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 10:34 PM

"That's the point of the whole argument. THe courts make it too easy to not have 50/50. If the penalities were stiffer for not taking 50/50 you can bet my ex would have figured out a way."
So you'd rather your ex sit in jail than exercise the parenting time he HAS been exercising? How would your dds feel about this? And if he can make it work, it would likely mean a different career. Would you be willing to lower the cs so he can flip burgers for 40hrs a week to exercise his mandated 50/50?
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 10:39 PM

<<The stats are true BECAUSE some parents are the type of people your ex is. I do hope your ds will be the outlier, but just because you don't believe in the stats doesn't make them any less true. >>

No I 100% believe in the statistics. My point is that the statistics don't show 100% of all children are worse off without both parents being involved.

<<The stats are true BECAUSE some parents are the type of people your ex is.>>

It depends on what stats you're talking about. If a child grows up without seeing a lot of a manipulative, abusive, violent parent? I don't think the stats are going to show the child would have been better off had the parent been more involved. Which is exactly why I don't pressure my son's father to see him more.
Posted by: 1966Gal

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 10:44 PM

So you'd rather your ex sit in jail than exercise the parenting time he HAS been exercising? How would your dds feel about this? And if he can make it work, it would likely mean a different career. Would you be willing to lower the cs so he can flip burgers for 40hrs a week to exercise his mandated 50/50?
++++++

If the parents, TOGETHER, decide they don't want 50/50 and are CAPABLE of working something out themselves, then so be it. But in that case, not only should child support come into play, but so should some time of spousal mainentance - because then CP is doing all of the "work" the NCP should be doing their half of the time. And that spousal support should not end for as long as the CP is doing the majority of the work the NCP should be doing but has chosen not to.

However, if one parent wants 50/50 then that should be the presumption. It's UNFAIR to pawn off your parenting duties on a CP, and then call them greedy for getting a good amount of CS or spousal support. Afterall, how is NCP able to go out and earn that money? It's because CP has their parenting-bases covered.
Posted by: JennyLynn

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 10:45 PM

If the parents, TOGETHER, decide they don't want 50/50 and are CAPABLE of working something out themselves, then so be it. But in that case, not only should child support come into play, but so should some time of spousal mainentance - because then CP is doing all of the "work" the NCP should be doing their half of the time. And that spousal support should not end for as long as the CP is doing the majority of the work the NCP should be doing but has chosen not to.

--And yet that's how it is in many cases Susan, if you think about it. Obviously I don't receive spousal support b/c of the short length of our marriage - but if he saw our son 50% of the time, he would be responsible for less CS. So technically, he is paying more b/c he chose to see him less.
Posted by: Sherron

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 10:46 PM

"It's UNFAIR to pawn off your parenting duties on a CP, and then call them greedy for getting a good amount of CS or spousal support. "

Which brings us full circle to Jeff. He HAS 50/50, he's not pawning them off, yet mom IS getting a good amount of cs. Greedy?
Posted by: Redlegg

Re: Bonus payout - 02/08/10 10:48 PM

ESPECIALLY in a 50/50 situation. I think in a 50/50 custody split, there should also be a 50/50 income split so the kids have have a consistent life no matter where they are each week.


Tough call, perhaps if we made sure all children in the country had the same standard of living , it would work, Sure, some would come down, some would go up, but the children would be the first priority. We could actually make every adult pay into the standard of living for children fund, and no one pays CS. You get everything you need from this agency. I think it is a good idea. I know i feel personally responsible for my ex's standard of living after we divorced. I should pay for the rest of my life, because I thought at one time, we would be married until one of us died. In fact, this is the motivation I need to try to better myself, so everyone can share in the fruits of my labors, and be better off than they would be if they had to do it alone. it is not important that I have no input on the choices my ex makes, that she may choose to live in a mobile home and sock away for her retirement, what is important is that I have no choice, I have to subsidize her choices, because she has custody of a child that I am the parent of. It is the cost of procreating, and giving to the general fund is the cost of being a good citizen who is concerned for the welfare of all children. I know it may mean my child had to go to a government school, or a few less vacations every year, but I am not selfish, I can do this, for the betterment of our country as a whole. I am proud to serve my country, to give to it, when it needs it the most.
Posted by: gr8Dad

Re: Bonus payout - 02/09/10 12:04 AM

GOF DAMN you are ignorant. Tell me, if he HAD figured out a way to make the 50/50 work, and it included taking a cut in PAY, would YOUR GREEDY ass have taken a cut in that BIG FAT ALIMONY check you got from him? Of COURSE not, because you think alimony is OWED to a spouse.
Posted by: Avaya

Re: Bonus payout - 02/09/10 02:18 PM

[quote]Agreed. But apples/oranges. I'm talking about a low-wage earner who is already struggling to get by.[/quote]

I know who you think you're talking about, and you're wrong. And since they're not in Colorado and not on welfare, it's none of your business.
Posted by: Avaya

Re: Bonus payout - 02/09/10 02:20 PM

[quote]Tell me, if he HAD figured out a way to make the 50/50 work, and it included taking a cut in PAY, .... [/quote]

NO way. She'd have backed down so fast his head would have spun!
Posted by: Yes_Dad

Re: Bonus payout - 02/15/10 01:33 PM

I went through this EXACT scenario for many years.

[quote]My ex is coming after me for bonus information. Stating that I have not provided notification / documentation of bonus payout or not. The decree states that I must provide documentation. I do not receive a statement if I am not paid for it. My questions:

1.) Is email and / or verbal enough?

>>>No, you need a statement from your employer


2.) I really dont want the court to but can they request some kind of statement from my company? I prefer that my company not be harassed.

>>>> Yes they can. You are better off asking for it. A simple note from your direct boss would be OK

3.) It does not state in the decree that I need to provide W2, but legally can the court request that I provide my W2 to my ex.?

>>> Absolutely.

Thank you!! [/quote]