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.
So there is a huge disincentive for both partners to (re)marry, and presumably cohabitation is much more likely than (re)marriage. Surely conservative judges would disapprove and would consider this an outcome a disservice to the children.
Do conservative and liberal judges tend to address this outcome differently?
The reason I asked about "ex remarries" is that when ex remarries, the resources available to the ex typically increase. Since a child support award arguably is a function of the financial resources available to each parent, counting the income of a noncustodial parent's new spouse while not counting the income of a custodial parent's new spouse seems uneven, asymmetrical, and unequal.
I can't see why there would be any disincentive for the ex-wife to remarry.
No, there are strict guidelines. In fact, in CA, there is a computer program that figures it all out for the judge! () A judge can't use his own discretion at all.
And, no, I don't agree with you, from a legal and logical standpoint. These children are to be supported by the mother and father of these children. Why should the income of the new husband of the ex-wife need to be factored in? The new husband married HER -- he didn't marry her children from another marriage.
But, yes, from a purely human aspect, I agree with you. No matter what, the income of the new husband is helping to support those children.
Our legal system, in trying to be 'fair', has gone a bit crazy, to say the least. Just take a look at our state (any state) and federal criminal 'justice' codes -- -- but that's not a topic for this thread.
I can't see why there would be any disincentive for the ex-wife to remarry.
No, there are strict guidelines. In fact, in CA, there is a computer program that figures it all out for the judge! () A judge can't use his own discretion at all.
And, no, I don't agree with you, from a legal and logical standpoint. These children are to be supported by the mother and father of these children. Why should the income of the new husband of the ex-wife need to be factored in? The new husband married HER -- he didn't marry her children from another marriage.
But, yes, from a purely human aspect, I agree with you. No matter what, the income of the new husband is helping to support those children.
Our legal system, in trying to be 'fair', has gone a bit crazy, to say the least. Just take a look at our state (any state) and federal criminal 'justice' codes -- -- but that's not a topic for this thread.
I believe the only support payment that stops when an ex remarries is alimony. There may be some drop off if the child support payments take into account rent since that should be halved, but for the most part getting remarried doesn't significantly affect child support.
I agree that I do need to put some sort of timeline in place...I just hope to give him a few options to help himself in the process.
Right now, I just see that he can file for bankrupcy and try to get his child support reduced. Is there anything else that we might be missing?
He doens't eat breakfast / lunch out...I meant that he sometimes gets a bad of pretzels out of the vending machine and that is what he has for breakfast/lunch...or nothing at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacerta
For less than the cost of a bag of pretzels from the machine, he could probably eat a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and an apple that he brings from home, which is both more filling and healthier. So he is still continuing to make bad choices there.
From what you've described on his finances, every penny plus $400ish per month is going toward child support and debt, with nothing left over for living expenses. That means his child support has got to be wrong. And it sounds like, since he's been basically homeless for some time, it has been wrong for a long time, and he just doesn't care.
Honestly, the more you tell us, the more this guy sounds like a user personality. He will just continue to bounce from one person to another, whoever will take care of him, until they get sick of it and kick him out.
If he really does care and wants to change his life, he needs to do both the things you listed above (bankruptcy and adjusting the child support), to get to the point that he at least has more coming in than going out. Then he can start to be a contributing member of society, and help pay some bills for whoever he is living with. If he isn't willing to do those things, he isn't ready to change, and just wants to keep mooching.
Even a 5th grader knows that it is cheaper to bring a sandwich from home than to buy a hot lunch at school and that it is not healthy to skip breakfast and lunch. Why doesn't this grown man know that?
I had a friend who stopped at McDonalds every day on the way to work to get a fancy coffee and a breakfast sandwich and maybe a hash brown for $6 or $7 a day. And, she couldn't understand where her money went each week. Sure it doesn't sound like a lot, but each month that added up to $130 to $150. You can buy a lot of English Muffins, eggs and coffee for breakfast at home for that amount of money.
Are there any food banks in your area or soup kitchens? If he is skipping meals that will soon start to effect his health.
I bet that you boyfriend has a number of small expenses that add up, or that big expense of the car payment that he did not need. If he needed a reliable car for when he had his children on the weekends he could have bought a well maintained, much older, used car.
Of course, he should get a part time job. Only 10 hours a week, at $10 an hour would give him a gross increase of $400 a month. I am sure that 10 hours a week would not effect his job performance on his main job.
Maybe he can even do a few odd jobs for cash. Although, it is not a steady income every little bit helps. Does he have any skills that he can use for gigs? I recently babysat for someone who was coming from out of town to attend a wedding and needed a babysitter at their hotel. I received $80 cash for an evening that I would have just sat home and watched TV.
Frankly, he can only be saved if he wants to be saved. I think that he is looking for someone to "rescue him", perhaps he thinks that it is you.
PS. He should see if he can get his child support adjusted. In my state the maximum is (I believe) 35% of your income for four children. Can he get a hardship deferment on his student loans? He will still have to pay them, but will have longer to do it.
I can't see why there would be any disincentive for the ex-wife to remarry.
No, there are strict guidelines. In fact, in CA, there is a computer program that figures it all out for the judge! () A judge can't use his own discretion at all.
And, no, I don't agree with you, from a legal and logical standpoint. These children are to be supported by the mother and father of these children. Why should the income of the new husband of the ex-wife need to be factored in? The new husband married HER -- he didn't marry her children from another marriage.
But, yes, from a purely human aspect, I agree with you. No matter what, the income of the new husband is helping to support those children.
Our legal system, in trying to be 'fair', has gone a bit crazy, to say the least. Just take a look at our state (any state) and federal criminal 'justice' codes -- -- but that's not a topic for this thread.
The disincentive to remarry is borne entirely by the husband and all potential partners.
Child support formulae are inherently biased toward the custodial parent due to unequal costs of housing, which affords the custodial parent greater 'credit' for support provided without a comparable cash outlay.
Example, assuming both parents rent, 2BR costs $1000/mo and 1BR costs $800/mo:
C's marginal housing cost for child = $200, formula credits C with providing $500 housing support.
C is credited with proviidng $300 more support than the marginal out of pocket expense for the child.
And, frankly, his first ex probably took a good chunk of his income. Why did he get married AGAIN? And, if I understand correctly, he had even more children with Wife No. 2? Something is just not right here.
I believe the only support payment that stops when an ex remarries is alimony. There may be some drop off if the child support payments take into account rent since that should be halved, but for the most part getting remarried doesn't significantly affect child support.
Nope. CS always includes 'rent'/mortgage payments -- and there's no decrease.
As I said -- from a purely human standpoint, it's not fair. From a legal standpoint, I think it's fair.
The disincentive to remarry is borne entirely by the husband and all potential partners.
Child support formulae are inherently biased toward the custodial parent due to unequal costs of housing, which affords the custodial parent greater 'credit' for support provided without a comparable cash outlay.
Example, assuming both parents rent, 2BR costs $1000/mo and 1BR costs $800/mo:
C's marginal housing cost for child = $200, formula credits C with providing $500 housing support.
C is credited with proviidng $300 more support than the marginal out of pocket expense for the child.
CS is only inherently biased because the husband has to pay (often through the nose) and doesn't get to see his kids very often. Neither does ex-wife have to account for how she spends CS. It could go to a vacation for just her and her new husband. The custodial parent doesn't have to account -- not even to the court -- for how she spends CS. If the bio father thinks the child/children are being neglected -- he can take her back to court -- but he better have proof, and that's hard to come by.
The bottom line is that both ex-wife and ex-husband think they are being ripped off -- and to a certain extent, both are right. But there just isn't any truly fair way re CS and alimony.
Two marriages and 4 kids....some of those kids have to be getting close to adulthood right? Maybe that's when things get better. He should not have more children or marry again. I hope that fit's in with your life plans.
I didnt get that you were dating from your earlier postings, must have missed it.
If you are dating, he must move out. period.
If you continue dating, he must prove to you that he has his financial house in order.
Good luck and be wise...
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.