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

(minimum 6 characters)

Stepmom Central Stepmom Central

Twist on firstborn versus later born for support

Posted by on May. 16, 2013 at 9:53 PM
  • 61 Replies
Hypo, law school style:
John and Sally were married in 1990. They had two kids, one in 1990 and one in 1996. John and Sally divorce in 2010. Neither asks for child support as they share custody and expenses. John has primary residency.
Two years pass. John remarries and has another baby in 2012. The oldest of John's children is not eligible for support, and the youngest is now living primarily with Sally. So NOW Sally files for child support.
John's state law has a multiple family application that is defensive in nature - meaning if the recipient seeks to increase support or change the order then subsequent children are considered in the amount the payor must pay.

Now what result should happen? For those who insist that first born children should not get "less" due to subsequent children, how do you handle this situation? The law is very clear, obviously. But since presumably you don't like it - how do you think it should be made "right" or "fair" in your opinion?
by on May. 16, 2013 at 9:53 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
kristen518-06
by Member on May. 16, 2013 at 10:16 PM
1 mom liked this

 i think its fair the way its written

shanlee42
by Silver Member on May. 16, 2013 at 10:41 PM
4 moms liked this
Am I understanding this correctly? Mom filed for child support for a 16 year old that previously lived with dad with no CS changing hands while the child lived with him?

I think it's unfair that she filed.

If he ends up paying it is fair to consider the younger children given the fact that dad wasn't trying to skate his responsibility.
fourandhoping
by Member on May. 16, 2013 at 11:03 PM
1 mom liked this
Yep. Child will be seventeen soon. Mom filed six months ago but so far no result due to other issues. Dad had the primary for 2.5 years with mom paying nada other than buying the kiddo some clothes and things on her time.

There's always some exception where the rule any party argues for doesn't seem right. In law school we did these "hypos" daily. I thought it would be fun to throw this one out since I know of this situation in real life. To add insult to serious injury dad has been paying mom's mortgage all along as "maintenance" - its about 1/3 of his income and it ends either this month or June, I can't recall which. Just a side note of interest to me as I am an ex wife and stepmom and bio mom and cannot imagine what makes this alright to the ex wife/mom in this story.


Quoting shanlee42:

Am I understanding this correctly? Mom filed for child support for a 16 year old that previously lived with dad with no CS changing hands while the child lived with him?



I think it's unfair that she filed.



If he ends up paying it is fair to consider the younger children given the fact that dad wasn't trying to skate his responsibility.

SassyMom25
by Silver Member on May. 16, 2013 at 11:08 PM

So, did they get this in writing, about no support? Also, kids only get more expense with age. Why did mom file?

fourandhoping
by Member on May. 16, 2013 at 11:11 PM
Yes, it is part of their decree and that decree contemplates an "expense sharing" model. Mom's motives are unknown to me. She is hard up for money after being fired for insubordination and that may be her motivation.


Quoting SassyMom25:

So, did they get this in writing, about no support? Also, kids only get more expense with age. Why did mom file?


fourandhoping
by Member on May. 16, 2013 at 11:14 PM
I should add that all along dad has paid for the child's extracurriculars, insurance (health and car), copays, and school fees including lunch. That hasn't changed regardless of where the child lived. I believe (but am not certain) that mom claimed the child on taxes even though their decree awarded the exemption to dad. (On that I may have my cases confused)
SassyMom25
by Silver Member on May. 16, 2013 at 11:15 PM

 

Quoting fourandhoping:

Yes, it is part of their decree and that decree contemplates an "expense sharing" model. Mom's motives are unknown to me. She is hard up for money after being fired for insubordination and that may be her motivation.


 

Okay, so was this 'sharing' model followed through on when the dad had custody? Just wondering if mom might be doing this because she thinks dad will screw her over too.

fourandhoping
by Member on May. 16, 2013 at 11:18 PM
I answered this already I think but dad has continued to pay ALL school fees, insurance etc - mom never followed through on her share but dad didn't push that issue and hasn't stopped paying any of those things for the eight or nine months the child has lived with mom (she filed six months or so ago).


Quoting SassyMom25:

 


Quoting fourandhoping:

Yes, it is part of their decree and that decree contemplates an "expense sharing" model. Mom's motives are unknown to me. She is hard up for money after being fired for insubordination and that may be her motivation.



 


Okay, so was this 'sharing' model followed through on when the dad had custody? Just wondering if mom might be doing this because she thinks dad will screw her over too.


orcawhales98
by Member on May. 17, 2013 at 12:34 AM
1 mom liked this

I think that if the BM is filing for cs now that she then should have to pay the back taxes for all the years that she claimed the child when BD was suppose to claim the child.  Heck BM would probably owe BD way more than BD should have to pay in cs.  Plus why is BM just now filing when the child is 16 she will only get it for 2-3 years anyway.

But I think if BD does have to pay cs it should be lowered because he has other children he has to pay for now that he didn't have when him and BM got divorced.  And it is just very convenient that BM is filing for cs after BD has a new baby.  Sounds fishy to me. 

Tinkerbellmama
by Platinum Member on May. 17, 2013 at 12:54 AM
1 mom liked this

I know a woman who had 4 children with her DH and was a SAHM. She homeschooled her two school aged kids and had 2 kids under 5. Her husband's income was JUST enough to meet their needs and be able to put a little into savings each month for emergencies or anything that would pop up.

Out of the blue they got a notice from the child support office in another state telling her husband that he had to submit to a DNA test for a 12 year old boy. Turned out that her husband was the father of the kid and that the BM had a one night stand with this guy when they were 18, she got together with her boyfriend and passed the baby off as his. The boyfriend had been paying CS up until one night she bragged to a mutal friend that the boy wasn't his, he requested a DNA test and it was proven that he wasn't the father.

This girl I know, her husband was hit with a $500 a month CS payment for a 12 year old son he never knew existed. They didn't take into consideration that he was the sole provider of 4 other children. They refused to consider the 4 other children he supported.

The CS system is never perfect. I've yet to hear of a state that manages their system well and fairly for all parties involved. 

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)