child support question

[fairisfair]

IF they exist. OP is trying an end-around -- as a SAHM, she HAS NO child care costs.

Inq is right, see paragraph e, page 4, if income is attributed, child care shall be attributed as well.

Wow. but I guess it does seem fair. almost too fair.

 

[ceara19]

I don't see it as trying an "end run". An income is being imputed to her. I think its valid to also impute daycare costs. After all, if she was really working and bringing in that income, she would really have those daycare costs.

That's not necessarily true. I work and I don't have any daycare expenses. I know MANY working parents of young children that have no daycare expenses.

 

[Silverplum]

Inq is right, see paragraph e, page 4, if income is attributed, child care shall be attributed as well.

I always bow to LAW. And fully agree that this IS the law in AZ.

Wow. but I guess it does seem fair. almost too fair.

Doesn't seem fair to me at all, but that's not necessarily what the law is about.

 

[fairisfair]

I always bow to LAW. And fully agree that this IS the law in AZ.


Doesn't seem fair to me at all, but that's not necessarily what the law is about.

Just curious, why doesn't it seem fair to you?

 

[Silverplum]

Just curious, why doesn't it seem fair to you?

Eh, I already ranted my piece in my reply to Ldij. Post 15.

 

[CJane]

Just curious, why doesn't it seem fair to you?

I think it should be attributed only IF mom could show that it WOULD be necessary for her to have child care expenses if she was working.

The expenses related to the special needs child would be addressed under 'extraordinary expenses' here, not as daycare expenses.

 

[LdiJ]

Sounds like a dumbass system all the way around.

So Mumsie gets to sit on her behind and Dad has to work. Then, hypothetically, Dad has to pay 100% of all costs for the child/ren, because Mumsie doesn't have/want a job. She has NO responsibility in all of this? Puh-leeze.

Mumsie's husband has take on her share of the costs of raising the children, and there is nothing unacceptable about that.

And when Dad wants to impute income -- bare minimum for Lazy Mumsie -- she gets up off her behind long enough to come up with a FALSE "EXPENSE" for which she wants credit. Good one, Lazy Mumsie. Good one.

You and I will never agree on this one. However, I also don't agree that an SAHM is automatically "lazy" either. My mom worked darned hard as an SAHM mom. In fact, when she went back to work when I was in high school, she almost considered it a vacation...LOL.

 

[CJane]

My mom worked darned hard as an SAHM mom. In fact, when she went back to work when I was in high school, she almost considered it a vacation...LOL.

Heh. I was a SAHM for the last 5 years of my marriage - and going back to work IS like a vacation. I was just talking to a co-worker about that today... I sit on my a$$ all day at work... when I was home w/2 kids, I ran all day long.

 

[fairisfair]

Eh, I already ranted my piece in my reply to Ldij. Post 15.

Oh, I thought maybe you had a new rant. LOL. you know an after law rant.

 

[MillMan]

minumum wage

I'm not a lawyer but from my experiance... The court will base it on min wage. As for the after school stuff, you would have to prove he /she agreed to inroll them jointly. Other wise the funding is on you.

 

[BadDecision]

Heh. I was a SAHM for the last 5 years of my marriage - and going back to work IS like a vacation. I was just talking to a co-worker about that today... I sit on my a$$ all day at work... when I was home w/2 kids, I ran all day long.

Yep, I wouldn't say a SAHM is "lazy". I think that would be the best situation (for the kids) to have mom, at home.
Unfortunately most MOM's today do not have that opportunity. (thank you feminists) lol

I think if you can be a SAHM and NOT live off of the system... I am envious of you

It's the ones who do it and live on the system that really get me going. I hate being away from my little one, but you gotta do what you gotta do.

And if the OP can be a SAHM, more power to you.

The law is the law, but those are guidelines for establishing the CS amount, the judge is still allowed discretion (as you will see in the cs guidelines FAQ's for Arizona)

It seems to me that everyone is trying to "tweek" the CS system one way or another on both sides. Howevere, the system (generally) has big gaps, open for interpretation and very little enforcement... unless of course the CP has state benifits.

 

[Zephyr]

I'm not a lawyer but from my experiance... The court will base it on min wage. As for the after school stuff, you would have to prove he /she agreed to inroll them jointly. Other wise the funding is on you.

this depends greatly on mo's education and work history- if she is found to have the ability to go get a 60k per year job tomorrow....they are not going to imput her a minimum wage

 

[Silverplum]

Let me clarify, for those who think I wrote something I did not write:
I did NOT write that ALL SAHMS are lazy.

I wrote that I think OP is lazy. Because I think she is avoiding her responsibilities to financially support her kid/s and lay all responsibility on Dad. I also think she is laying her responsibility onto her current husband, and do not feel that is right, either.

Of course, whatever she works out with her current husband is their business.

 

[Inquiry123]

Sounds like a dumbass system all the way around.

When an income is imputed to a non-working CP, the support payor will often find themselves paying MORE support than they were previously. In the income-share support models that I'm familiar with, the more money that's available (both parent's working) the larger the pie for a bigger slice of support.

A support amount that was sufficient in November will definately be too small to meet the child's "needs" if the NCP wins the lotto in December.

In the OP's case, it seems obvious that a childcare amount would also be imputed given the needs of at least one of the children. The NCP's argument might then be that he would supply the additional childcare himself (if possible) to offset any add'l cost -- in the end, Mom's not really going to work, Dad's not really going to provide any add'l childcare.

 

[Inquiry123]

I did NOT write that ALL SAHMS are lazy.

I wrote that I think OP is lazy.

Parenting is not a job for lazy people -- I don't get the impression that the OP is "lazy". For the record -- I think that all SAHMS are sexy. I also think that all working moms are hot.

Did I cover all my bases?!