Can Child Support Guildlines Be Changed?

[stealth2]

And WTF does this have to do with my priorities - which you haven't the vaguest clue about?

 

[LdiJ]

That's bullcrap! Biomom chose to have another bchild. Remember what they say "If you can't afford to support the one you already have, you shouldn't have more".

They would NEVER allow an able bodied man to get away with less than guideline CS because he had another child with someone else and his wife was not working! How sexist!

Actually I have seen both fathers and mothers get hardship reductions from time to time. It really depends on how credible the judge finds their story.

 

[nextwife]

But mom is VOLUNTARILY unemployed. That is not a hardship- it's a CHOICE. A hardship is NCP having a heart attack or losing their job because of their company shutting down, not NCP chossing to have another child and then stay home. How many judges allow a NCP (male) a hardship reduction because they have had a child in another relationship and have CHOSEN to be a SAHP?

 

[stealth2]

If she is a legal stranger to the child and has no obligation, why does she have her big fat nose stuck in the middle of it. She needs to butt out!!!
You are probably right, Dads always get the short end of the stick. But obviously you don't have you prioritites in order either. Right now, most important of all, that child needs a mother figure in their life and all she seems to be concerned with is the money. When you marry someone that has children, it comes with a price and it' called sacrifice! I'd be interested to see how many parents would fight for custody these days if they did away with support!!!!

I couldn't care less about YOUR priorities!!! If you take time to read the posts, you'll realize that comment was directed at someone else!!!!

Let's see..... You posted the first directly below my post that mentioned OP is a legal stranger, and started your diatribe there. Maybe if you took some time to post your thoughts in some coherent manner, you might actually be able to clarify who your comments are directed towards. So the process is (I'll type this s l o w l y for you):

1. Read
2. Think
3. Post

 

[stealth2]

Aack, that's scary! Okay - I will apologize as VG sounded exactly as I would have and I posted something this morning exactly like that (which I will now have to assume is on a different thread). So my apologies to you.

But quit jumping VG, 'cause you've now done it on 2 threads. And she does have more credibility tahn you.

 

[SM5NY]

I've had my reality check when I married a man with a child. I have taken on the roll and supported the child physically and emotionally. I'm the one who huges and kisses her, feeds her meals, baths her, gets her ready for school, reads to her at bed, tucks her in at night, me and her father. (not looking for a pat on the back either). That is my responsibility as a step-mother and a women who married a man with a child. I buy the child things she needs in her daily life and them some like all parents. But do not have my hand out for a reimbursement on this stuff. I just do it out of love, concern, and responsibility for the child. (mmm I can do all this because of marriage, but I don't have any legal say so).... CAUSE I'm not the unresponsible BIO Mom.
Ya that makes since.
BUT, I ask you, why should a bio mom get to scream I'm her mother, I'm her mother, but except absolutely no responsibility for her child. I once got told by the bio mom that and I quote "I squeezed her from between my legs". Will I'm sorry, but it takes more then that to be a mom. Not just have another child and play replace a kid, and forget about your first one.

As everyone knows it take love, time,and (yes) money to raise a child. This women needs to own up to her responsibilities. A man would never get that type of relief from a court "cause he has bills and another family and his wife doesn't work. Will I'm sorry, but everyone has bills and make the lazy husband get a job and support his own kid. Why should our child have to suffer cause she has a new family. (Gee, first kid first) don't have another if you can't afford the first.
So it's not all about the money, it's about what is right and the state set guildlines that have not been served.

Oh and I think I have every right to stick my big fat nose into the situation I MARRIED AND TAKE CARE OF! REMEMBER I EXCEPTED THE RESPONSIBILITY WHEN I SAID I DO. SO I think it is my business.

*and thank you Veronica*

 

[LdiJ]

But mom is VOLUNTARILY unemployed. That is not a hardship- it's a CHOICE. A hardship is NCP having a heart attack or losing their job because of their company shutting down, not NCP chossing to have another child and then stay home. How many judges allow a NCP (male) a hardship reduction because they have had a child in another relationship and have CHOSEN to be a SAHP?

No, the mom in this case isn't unemployed. She has a "slacker" husband, as the OP put it, that isn't working. I know of a case that is identical to this one, but the gender's are reversed. Dad got a hardship reduction in his child support because he is the sole support of his second family (his wife is a sahm) and has some extraordinary financial difficulties.

 

[gryndor]

I don't mean to jump anyone, and I don't want to sound like I am trying to give anyone life changing advice, only my opinion. If you knew my whole story (which would take a forum of its own to explain)you would better understand my reasoning. I just think it is unfortunate that the world revolves so much around money. Life is a struggle for most, especially financially, and I think that the kids too often become second priority with money coming in first.

Just because your situation sucks a$$ doesn't give you the right to project your experience on to the OP's. It sounds like you were on the wrong end of a bad deal, and the step-parent was the one who reaped all the benefits.

Just because the step-parent in this situation mentioned money, doesn't make her the uber-demon that you seem to have been screwed by. You're getting all high-and-mighty just because you assume you know what the heck is going on, and in reality you have derailed this post.

To the OP: Stick with it, and don't worry about this poster's personal experiences or let them muddle up your questions.

My 2 Cents

Gryndor

 

[nextwife]

Normally, if the SPOUSE of a NCP loses their job, the NCP is NOT entitled to have a reduction in CS! Heck, many NCPs who lose their OWN jobs can't even get a reduction.

I make about the same as my husband - if I lost my job, using the courts logic re: this NCPs CS obligation, my hubby should be able to get his CS lowered? Gee.

 

[SM5NY]

Thanks. Like everyone, we just want what is right by our state guildleine and to nit have the the first child suffer cause her mother had to have another she and the current husband can't afford.
Like said before, a man would never get away with it. The court would never lower their guildlines cause a man has bills to pay, another family to support and one of them did work. They would say... quit your b*t#cin, here you judgement of 17% and by the way get another job to support you other family.
On antoher note, my husband and I talked last night and he is going to object to the order with his 30 days. In a way by having her (his ex's new husband) not work and because of that we get less then 17% to get THEM a break...... Doesn't it seem like my husband is support his kid????
Why should we pay for there child by taking a decrease.
They also took in account my pay... the step-mother. (and my pay is written in the order). I'm not obligated to pay for the child. I do out of love but I do not have legal obligations. They can take my pay into account but not my bills I have to pay with that money ( I mean can I go cry like she did)
All I know is this judgement is ludicrous and if it were a man.... HE"S BE RAKED THROUGH T
HE COALS.

 

[SM5NY]

Thanks. Like everyone, we just want what is right by our state guildleine and to not have the the first child suffer cause her mother had to have another child she and the current husband can't afford.
Like said before, a man would never get away with it. The court would never lower their guildlines cause a man has bills to pay, another family to support and one of them didn't work. They would say... quit your b*t#cin, here's your judgement of 17% and by the way get another job to support your other family.
On antoher note, my husband and I talked last night and he is going to object to the order with his 30 days. In a way by having him (the ex's new husband) not working and because of that we get less then 17% to give THEM a break...... Doesn't it seem like my husband is supporting his kid while he there jobless????
Why should we pay for there child by taking a decrease.
They also took into account my pay... the step-mother. (and my pay is written in the order). I'm not obligated to pay for the child. I do out of love but I do not have legal obligations. They can take my pay into account but not my bills I have to pay with that money ( I mean can I go cry like she did)
All I know is this judgement is ludicrous and if it were a man.... HE"S BE RAKED THROUGH THE COALS.

Man, I shouldn't do 2 things at once... Sorry for the mistake. I tried to fix them in the quote.

 

[gryndor]

Man, I shouldn't do 2 things at once... Sorry for the mistake. I tried to fix them in the quote.

You can always edit your old posts... just go to the end of the offending post and click "edit" then when you're done, hit "save changes."

 

[gryndor]

Gee Gryndor, you're close. Like from here to Pluto!!!!

Actually, your 2 cents is more like 1/2 a cent, IN MY OPINION.
The only thing you got right was that there is a remarried ex.
I noticed you didn't have a useful contribution to the posters problem or any type of advice to add. Maybe you're the one sucking A$$ and trying to cause conflict with an ex. Don't take the greed thing so personal.

Gee, that really struck me... right to the core

Why don't you get a life and stop bothering the OP with your obviously biased and inaccurate opinion of her situation. I'm not a lawyer which is why I don't dole out advice. I just read and people like you really irritate the hell out of me, and the OP, I'm sure.

Hey, maybe we could take a vote? Who's all for 2Cents here, to take a long walk off a short pier?

Me me me!!

 

[gryndor]

What lame comeback are you typing up now?

 

[gryndor]

Because you're an idiot who assumes the OP is just out for money. Maybe that happened to you, and you're just projecting your frustrations.

Any way you look at it, your posts are way too emotional and angry to be objective.

Gryn

Edit: I don't have children.

Way to turn it around, by the way... my hat's off to you!