Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But that's the point. If a rich biological parent isn't automatically granted custody by virtue of their income, what makes you it would automatically happen in the case of a rich step parent? It won't.
I'm not saying the courts will order it. I'm talking about people reaching agreements. The law requires biological parents pay child support to biological parents. There's no financial motivation to relinquish custody because the custodial parent will receive child support from the biological parent. The step parent situation is different because most state laws do not require step parents to pay. As a result, there is financial motivation for the parent to relinquish custody for the best interest of the child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinawina
Kevin Ferdiline had 2(?) kids by a TV actress when he married Britney Spears. The actress wasn't poor but she wasn't rich either. Kevin was a dancer that worked sporadically. Guess who paid large child support checks for Kevin's kids? Britney. Why? Because once he married her, his household income had changed dramatically. He went from working spordically as an entertainer to living full time as Mr. Spears. That's the logic followed in some states. His lifestyle had changed, so his kids were upgraded accordingly. The mom did not send her kids to live with Kevin.
That's because that case was settled in a state with laws that took step parent income into consideration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinawina
Now, IN THE OP's PARTICULAR CASE I don't know if it's appropriate because as has been said, army sergeants don't make all *that* much, and the OP was not very clear how well she's doing raising the daughter on whatever income she already has. All I'm saying is that I would not dismiss the idea outright because every case is different and can imagine a scenario where the disparity is so large that it would be nuts (IMO) not to take the spouse's income into consideration.
The OP's particular case only depends upon one thing: The state law where her child has residency and this will be heard in court.
I'm not saying the courts will order it. I'm talking about people reaching agreements. The law requires biological parents pay child support to biological parents. There's no financial motivation to relinquish custody because the custodial parent will receive child support from the biological parent. The step parent situation is different because most state laws do not require step parents to pay. As a result, there is financial motivation for the parent to relinquish custody for the best interest of the child. .
And I'm saying that is not a workable solution for a lot of people, because they will never give up custody over money, nor would they consider the other parent the better parent by virtue of income. If someone is thinking the other parent is irresponsible or whatever and the step parent unsuitable, they are not permanently turning over their kids. You are talking as if that's the simple. easy solution, and it's not simple or easy in real life. Good luck making that happen in most cases without a law demanding it. No law, no dice. And there will never be such a law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopes
That's because that case was settled in a state with laws that took step parent income into consideration.
I know, that's why I posted the example. It happens even in states without the laws where there is a dramatic change in circumstances. These things go to court and are decided based on the particulars. And usually, the other parent isn't getting anything less than joint custody if they are otherwise a good parent, especially mothers. I'm sure there have been examples otherwise here and there but it is by no means the standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopes
The OP's particular case only depends upon one thing: The state law where her child has residency and this will be heard in court.
I know. We agree on that.
And as I said, ironically, I don't even think this case is a good example of someone who would get an increase.
I don't even think it's worth pursuing if it's going to cause friction in relationships down the line, especially if they are doing fine the way things are and the daughter is seeing some benefits already even if they aren't "official".
I am a single working parent and I have a teenage child with ex- husband. The ex has been happily married to new spouse who is an Army Sergent who has a steady income. I want to know if it's worth fighting and going to court to see if new spouse income could be factored into the child support calcualtion. This would give the ex no excuse that he has no money. If new spouse loves him enough to take care of him, give him a place to live, and her car to drive, then her funds should be factored into child support. No I am not looking to get an increase I'm just looking for ways to get him to do what is right. Surely if I was to remarry my new husband and my income would support my child and no need to go to court for that this would be automatic. That's why I believe the new spouse's income should be factored in child support. The ex and new spouse should do the same and provide income for my daughter. When 2 people marry they become as one. If ex has an obligation to provide for his daughter and fails to do so then the new spouse should share in this responsibility since the two are now one. I just notice how ex's are jumping ship in not taking care of their children and living it up by being taken care of by their new spouse. If there was a law that stated new spouse's income would be highly considere and /or included for the dead beat parent's financial obligation (child support), they would think twice about marriage or they could encourage the deadbeat parent to become responsible!
What are your thoughts?
My thought is, a deadbeat will stay a deadbeat. If you have filed child support on him already and he is not paying, why do you think his spouse would pick up the slack for him? Two become one? Um, no. Furthermore, you should get out of their pockets and simply do what you can to take care of your child. Ex-spouse will reap what he sowed in the long run, but you're wasting your time with this convoluted way of thinking.
My income was absolutely calculated with my husbands in his ex wifes child support judgement.
We paid more in child support per month than I made.
That is sad. I have known people who paid more in child support or even alimony than what person made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by linicx
In my state, IL., income is a factor. Talk to your lawyer or Child Support Office. In my state most parents pay support to the county court house.
That is true. While posting about my refusal to date dads (mostly because of this issue along with drama)I posted an article I found about Ill and they definitely take stepparents income in consideration and am now passing through a bill where people who weren't even married to the parent who got stuck paying because they were considered a parent. It should scare anyone knowing that their money could go towards another family they had no part in starting.
May depend on the state. In California the new spouces income is used for one thing, and it does not work as you would think.
Here is how it works in California. The income of both parents is figured out. If both make the same then nothing gained there.
The time spent with the child or children is determined. If both share the time 50 50 then nothing is gained there.
Here is where it gets interesting.
Tax implications that both face. To determine the tax bite they figure the entire household income. So lets say the Ex is now married and the new wife has a nice income. They would use that income to determine the tax bill for the Ex. So the more that the new wife makes the more of a tax bill. That is balanced out if they happen to own a home, are paying into a retirement plan. Anything that may happen to change the tax liability of the ex. So a home may mean that they have less of a tax bill. Paying into a retirement account means that the tax bill is softer as well. The more taxes paid the less is paid in support.
What this means for Child support payments: The more money that the new wife makes the less money the ex husband has to pay in child support. Remember they only figure support from the parents income and not from next husbands or next wifes income. This only works if both are figuring their taxes out as married. If they are figuring the taxes out as seperate then the next's income is not a factor at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
