Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Other kids and support

Posted by on Jan. 2, 2013 at 7:23 PM
  • 81 Replies
How is child support determined if the BF has children with his current wife? Do they still take 17% regardless or are the other needs of the children taken into account
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
by on Jan. 2, 2013 at 7:23 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
soonergirl980
by Gold Member on Jan. 2, 2013 at 7:25 PM
1 mom liked this

It depends on the state, but if we are talking about personal opinions on the subject I don't think future kids should effect support for kids already born.

MommySabs
by Gold Member on Jan. 2, 2013 at 7:25 PM
In our state other children on either side are considered.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Tinkerbellmama
by Platinum Member on Jan. 2, 2013 at 7:27 PM

It depends on your state. Each state does things differently. I'm in Washington, and it's based on the income of both NCP and CP and some other numbers. The CP gets a "discount" on child support for other children they support, ONLY if they have a current CS order or if they are the sole provider (meaning the other biological parent of the child doesn't work) for the child/children.

When CS was figured for DH it went from $360 a month to $266 a month because DH supported DS. DH lost his job and CS was set down to $50 a month, when he was working again CS was set back up based on his income, BM's income, and they took into consideration that we had two more children at that point. DH's CS was set at $150 a month (he was also making less than when it was first set at $266). DH didn't ask for our DDs to be included, BM demanded that when DH got a new job that DCS would do another administrative hearing. When they did, they asked BM and DH if either of them had any other children, DH listed our children, and the adminstrative law judge decided what the amount would be set at. Honestly, I think she was pretty pissed with BM by that time. We have a recording of the hearing, BM and her lawyer appeared by phone, as did DH. BM and her lawyer kept interrupting the judge and talking about how disabled SD was, the judge asked if SD got social security and they said no. DH said that SD was receiving social security but that it was stopped. The judge asked if SD had an IEP or anything else that proved her disability, BM said no. So the judge refused to take SD's disabilities into account.

Tpayne2011
by Bronze Member on Jan. 2, 2013 at 7:29 PM
What state are you in?


Quoting MommySabs:

In our state other children on either side are considered.

Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Tpayne2011
by Bronze Member on Jan. 2, 2013 at 7:31 PM
I think that makes sense, why should a husband and wife not have children because the husband or wife pays support for a previous child.


Quoting Tinkerbellmama:

It depends on your state. Each state does things differently. I'm in Washington, and it's based on the income of both NCP and CP and some other numbers. The CP gets a "discount" on child support for other children they support, ONLY if they have a current CS order or if they are the sole provider (meaning the other biological parent of the child doesn't work) for the child/children.

When CS was figured for DH it went from $360 a month to $266 a month because DH supported DS. DH lost his job and CS was set down to $50 a month, when he was working again CS was set back up based on his income, BM's income, and they took into consideration that we had two more children at that point. DH's CS was set at $150 a month (he was also making less than when it was first set at $266). 


Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Tpayne2011
by Bronze Member on Jan. 2, 2013 at 7:32 PM
I disagree, so if a man moves on and remarries he should not have kids because he can only support one child? Why shouldn't it be split? I think it should be


Quoting soonergirl980:

It depends on the state, but if we are talking about personal opinions on the subject I don't think future kids should effect support for kids already born.


Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Tinkerbellmama
by Platinum Member on Jan. 2, 2013 at 7:33 PM

It's a double edged sword. On one hand it's not "fair" to the new wife who may want to have children. On the other hand, it's also not fair to the first child because money is being taken from them to support their siblings.


Quoting Tpayne2011:

I think that makes sense, why should a husband and wife not have children because the husband or wife pays support for a previous child.


Quoting Tinkerbellmama:

It depends on your state. Each state does things differently. I'm in Washington, and it's based on the income of both NCP and CP and some other numbers. The CP gets a "discount" on child support for other children they support, ONLY if they have a current CS order or if they are the sole provider (meaning the other biological parent of the child doesn't work) for the child/children.

When CS was figured for DH it went from $360 a month to $266 a month because DH supported DS. DH lost his job and CS was set down to $50 a month, when he was working again CS was set back up based on his income, BM's income, and they took into consideration that we had two more children at that point. DH's CS was set at $150 a month (he was also making less than when it was first set at $266). 



soonergirl980
by Gold Member on Jan. 2, 2013 at 7:33 PM
5 moms liked this

you should only have kids you can afford to have. if you can't afford a child because you are supporting previous children then you wait till you can afford it.

Tpayne2011
by Bronze Member on Jan. 2, 2013 at 7:34 PM
1 mom liked this
Well if it was a case of bf and BM staying together and they had other children, the child would have to share with their sibling right? I don't see the difference


Quoting Tinkerbellmama:

It's a double edged sword. On one hand it's not "fair" to the new wife who may want to have children. On the other hand, it's also not fair to the first child because money is being taken from them to support their siblings.



Quoting Tpayne2011:

I think that makes sense, why should a husband and wife not have children because the husband or wife pays support for a previous child.





Quoting Tinkerbellmama:

It depends on your state. Each state does things differently. I'm in Washington, and it's based on the income of both NCP and CP and some other numbers. The CP gets a "discount" on child support for other children they support, ONLY if they have a current CS order or if they are the sole provider (meaning the other biological parent of the child doesn't work) for the child/children.

When CS was figured for DH it went from $360 a month to $266 a month because DH supported DS. DH lost his job and CS was set down to $50 a month, when he was working again CS was set back up based on his income, BM's income, and they took into consideration that we had two more children at that point. DH's CS was set at $150 a month (he was also making less than when it was first set at $266). 





Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Tpayne2011
by Bronze Member on Jan. 2, 2013 at 7:35 PM
I agree, totally. I just don't think that a child getting a 1000 in support and the bf or BM can't have another child because of it.


Quoting soonergirl980:

you should only have kids you can afford to have.


Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)



Featured