Start Your Divorce Today - Premium Divorce Online

Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#219971 - 04/23/07 11:46 PM Re: Yes [Re: Susanf31]
061212 Offline
recently joined

Registered: 04/23/07
Posts: 10
Dee78 is right on! She really sounds like she knows what she is talking about.

Top
#219972 - 04/24/07 12:31 AM Day care and AFTer care [Re: 061212]
Melody Offline
Carpal \'Tunnel

Registered: 06/03/04
Posts: 10102
Loc: California
are the same thing! As long as the children are being cared for by some individual or corporation while the parents work, there is a cost associated that should be shared by both parents. The name for it is not relevant. Daycare implies a full day before the children are school aged. After care implies a program that runs outside of the school hours because many parents don't get off work by 3pm (or dismissal time)

When you have three children already, it usually isn't the best financial decision to have more unless you have a great financial situation. I'm sorry your child seems to get the least, but the other three were born first and he has a duty to them BEFORE any other children.

As for wanting the children to be supported equally...well I want to win the lottery, but I probably won't. It just doesn't work that way. The three children that were born of their marriage get first crack at his income. You and your child get what remains after the support guidelines have been calculated. Some states do allow for a minor reduction when a child is born in a later marriage. But honestly, it is his ex's fault that you and he decided to have more children? Why should HER children have less because YOU two decided to get pregnant? I'm not saying it to be mean...just looking at it from an unbiased perspective.

Top
#219973 - 04/24/07 01:39 AM Re: Yes [Re: 061212]
TGSM Offline
Carpal \'Tunnel

Registered: 02/07/05
Posts: 5856
What state are you in? That will really help with the answers. In CA afterschool care is now FREE for children in public schools...thank God too, it saves me about $1500 a year!
_________________________
Faith-a f*rm belief in something for which there is no proof...complete trust.~Merriam Webster

Top
#219974 - 04/24/07 01:42 AM Statewide, TGSM? [Re: TGSM]
Melody Offline
Carpal \'Tunnel

Registered: 06/03/04
Posts: 10102
Loc: California
I've never heard of that!

Top
#219975 - 04/24/07 01:48 AM Re: Yes [Re: TGSM]
Dee78 Offline
Carpal \'Tunnel

Registered: 06/02/05
Posts: 11820
Loc: TN
Wow, I wish it were free here. I pay $70 a week for the girls' care.

Top
#219976 - 04/24/07 02:11 AM Re: Yes [Re: 061212]
Cassie23 Offline
Carpal \'Tunnel

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 14784
Melody's answer is the way it is and in some cases that is unfortunate. Just like PM stated above the courts consider FIRST CS orders first. He will have to pay daycare if he leaves in a state that allows it, from what it sounds like he does.

CS will most likely NOT be modifed just because he has other children to support- that's just the way it goes. I don't agree with it, it's just the way it is...

Top
#219977 - 04/24/07 02:13 AM Re: Yes [Re: Cassie23]
jsp Offline
Carpal \'Tunnel

Registered: 10/01/05
Posts: 4197
$70 a week is a bargin here.

Top
#219978 - 04/24/07 03:09 AM Re: Yes [Re: Dee78]
preemiemom Offline
Carpal \'Tunnel

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 19391
[quote]Wow, I wish it were free here. I pay $70 a week for the girls' care. [/quote]

I'd give my left arm for it to cost that. I pay $250 a week for my daughter, and that's on the low end. The daycare nearest where I work is a whopping $360 a week/$1,564 a month.

Top
#219979 - 04/24/07 03:18 AM Re: Yes [Re: Cassie23]
preemiemom Offline
Carpal \'Tunnel

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 19391
[quote]Melody's answer is the way it is and in some cases that is unfortunate. Just like PM stated above the courts consider FIRST CS orders first. He will have to pay daycare if he leaves in a state that allows it, from what it sounds like he does.

CS will most likely NOT be modifed just because he has other children to support- that's just the way it goes. I don't agree with it, it's just the way it is... [/quote]

Again, depending on where you live. Here in NY, the only consideration is a NEGATIVE towards subsequent children, since the amount of basic child support for each child (and alimony if applicable) is deducted from the non custodial parent's GROSS income (also minus an allowance for FICA). So, the more children receiving child support, the less children down the line get in child support.

Here in NY, there is the "Self Support Reserve", which is the category my stbx fits in. Although his POSSIBLE income is close to $40K, his ACTUAL 2006 income was only about $20K. Deduct out FICA, deduct out child support paid to first child... and he is left below the self-support reserve (which is about $13,500). The law won't allow (again here) the non-custodial parent to fall below the poverty level. That's why my daughter is only entitled to $300 a year, versus the $7,392 a year the first child gets.

The "system" further sucks in that: While my daughter's child support is FORCED to be calculated based on the actual 2006 income (I can't use what he "might" make this year based on his "current salary"), conversely, stbx can NOT go to court on his FIRST order and ask for a reduction based on his actual 2006 income.

Why?????? Because 9 out of 10 lawyers here will tell you it is a waste of time. Most judges will say "well, while you're paying more than you should NOW.. someday your income may increase ABOVE what your cs is calculated at, and just as YOU'RE not going to get a reduction NOW, your ex won't get an INCREASE later, just b/c your income increases".

Now, folks from other parts of New York State (like Cassie I think, and someone else) could show examples where that's not true, as it appears the courts in different parts of the state apply the law differently; however, here on Long Island I've never seen it work any other way.

NOW, once my stbx's cs is set at that level... I am putting in language in our agreement that states he has to show yearly tax returns and all backup wage statements (1099's and W-2's) and his calculation he would AGREE to adjust OUT of the self-support reserve rate, when/if, his income warrants it. However, now that he KNOWS that, it would be just as easy for him to hide his income (ie: work for cash, hide under a business identity) therefore NEVER causing his income to "increase".

So, I have 100% financial responsibility for our daughter. But that said? I never would have gotten pregnant with her, and this is my main point, had I not felt that I would be ABLE to provide for her 100% if need be. "Need be" just came about much sooner (or really I never hoped for it) than one would have expected.

Top
#219980 - 04/24/07 04:19 AM Re: Statewide, TGSM? [Re: Melody]
TGSM Offline
Carpal \'Tunnel

Registered: 02/07/05
Posts: 5856
It's actually based upon prop 49...here is a link to a site that explains it.

http://www.childrennow.org/assets/pdf/issues_education_afterschool_prop49_factsheet.pdf
_________________________
Faith-a f*rm belief in something for which there is no proof...complete trust.~Merriam Webster

Top
Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >

Moderator:  dsAdmin 


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

Easily Connect With a Lawyer or Mediator
Have Divorce Professionals from Your Area Contact You!
Enter Your Zip Code: