Child Support Reduction

[STEPMOM-MISTY]

What is the name of your state?Arkansas. Me and my husband have 3 children together, but he also has 2 from a previous marriage. Could we get his child support payments reduced since he does now have another family to support? Just wondering. Thanks

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state?Arkansas. Me and my husband have 3 children together, but he also has 2 from a previous marriage. Could we get his child support payments reduced since he does now have another family to support? Just wondering. Thanks

Go to your state government website. There normally is a section regarding child support that should be able to answer your question. Some states give credit for subsequent children and some don't.

 

[prettyredhead]

Just cant wait to shove them out of the picture, can you. No, in most cases he cannot get it reduced. The court sees that he willingly made a new child/children and without regard for costs. The money going to child support is the childs money, it isnt counted as you husbands anymore. It doesnt matter what he has been paying, it wont "be lowered" just because more irresponsible people had more kids that they cant afford.
In short, no. Probably not. It may backfire if you go to court, and he could end up paying more..... better leave it be. It really isnt going to make or break you. Dont be petty.

 

[audster]

No, probably not. It is a sad fact in this world that most (not all, but most) members of the legal proffession and certainly the lawmakers that make the system have lobotomies as a condition of their degree. Relevant factors should preside in a custody/CS case, but they often don't. Sad as it is, most states will not count subsequent children unless a redetermination is done, and then oftentimes, if the father has had an increase in income, he may end up paying more.

 

[stealth2]

The money going to child support is the childs money,

This isn't entirely accurate. It is the CPs money, to be used for the child's needs. It is not the CHILD'S money.

 

[prettyredhead]

Which is it then, her money or the kids money. Quit flip flopping . Dont dare bitch when a Mom uses the money then, for whatever reason.
Chances are, they dont CARE if he has 10 more kids. Dont have them when you cannot equally support all of them. Women never cease to amaze me in their rationale in choosing to marry a man with kids, and then they go and have MORE kids and then belive that the first born should shoulder the burden for his father/mother who had more kids that they cannot afford. WTF

 

[stealth2]

Which is it then, her money or the kids money. Quit flip flopping . Dont dare bitch when a Mom uses the money then, for whatever reason.
Chances are, they dont CARE if he has 10 more kids. Dont have them when you cannot equally support all of them. Women never cease to amaze me in their rationale in choosing to marry a man with kids, and then they go and have MORE kids and then belive that the first born should shoulder the burden for his father/mother who had more kids that they cannot afford. WTF

WTF are you talking about?

 

[frylover]

. Women never cease to amaze me in their rationale in choosing to marry a man with kids, and then they go and have MORE kids and then belive that the first born should shoulder the burden for his father/mother who had more kids that they cannot afford. WTF

And with every post I read by you it amazes me even more that ANYONE would WANT to get close enough to you to make a baby with you.

 

[AHA]

Take the "who's money is it" bitching outside, it's beside the point.
The thing is, as long as someone deliberately makes kid after kid, it's assumed he can support them financially. Why should previous kids live on nothing while the other parent is doing nothing but making new kids?? It's so stupid a question, it's not even worth discussing.
YOU KEEP HAVING UNPROTECTED SEX, YOU KEEP HAVING KIDS LIKE THERE'S NO TOMORROW......YOU HAVE TO PAY THEIR WAY.

 

[audster]

Which once again is a case of the worlds skewed logic when it comes to relationships. The popular opinion, according to psyc....er....prettyRedhead is that men have no right to a normal life after the end of a relationship....I don't mean to go off on a rant here, but really! I see alot of "oh how iresponsible....he met somone else and now has a happy family, how dare him be happy when i want him miserable....lets drive the new family into poverty" OK, yes that was melodramatic and sarcastic, and even I must admit that there is merit to the root philosophy here Buuuuuuuut (there's always a "but") I also see plenty of "Oh your honor, my new man and I are having babies now and it is sooooooo expensive that i might actually have to go and get a job instead of eating ice cream and watching Passions.....can't you just maike my ex pay more?" And many times, judges do! I always thought judges were required to show judgemet. Just palying devil's advocate here.

 

[stealth2]

I also see plenty of "Oh your honor, my new man and I are having babies now and it is sooooooo expensive that i might actually have to go and get a job instead of eating ice cream and watching Passions.....can't you just maike my ex pay more?"

The corollary of which is "Oh your honor, my new man and I are having babies now and it is sooooooo expensive that i might actually have to go and get a job instead of eating ice cream and watching Passions.....can't you just make my new man not have to pay so much?"

It cuts both ways. The long and the short of it is simple. You want to have kids? BOTH parents should support them.

 

[AHA]

The corollary of which is "Oh your honor, my new man and I are having babies now and it is sooooooo expensive that i might actually have to go and get a job instead of eating ice cream and watching Passions.....can't you just make my new man not have to pay so much?"

It cuts both ways. The long and the short of it is simple. You want to have kids? BOTH parents should support them.

And if you can't afford to support them, learn how to use a condom!!
If many teens know how to use one, surely adults would be able to........although it seems to be too much to ask from some here

 

[audster]

As I said, playing Devil's Advocate.....In all reality I firmly believe that every family law case involving children should be judged individually by it's own merits with both parents given a fair shake, but this rarely happens! Take it more as a statement against a skewed system that rushes most cases out the door as quick as it can with the judge usually taking the path of least resistance....Mom with kids, dad pays through the nose. I don't really have a problem with child support per se, but wish the court would be less biased....you rarely here of visitation arrearages being assigned. Most CPs recieve a slap on the wrist.

 

[mrrippey]

Which is it then, her money or the kids money. Quit flip flopping . Dont dare bitch when a Mom uses the money then, for whatever reason.
Chances are, they dont CARE if he has 10 more kids. Dont have them when you cannot equally support all of them. Women never cease to amaze me in their rationale in choosing to marry a man with kids, and then they go and have MORE kids and then belive that the first born should shoulder the burden for his father/mother who had more kids that they cannot afford. WTF

So if things dont work out with the first wife and he remarries, he is not entitled to have children because of the previous kids. Give me a break. CS calculations are messed up, no wonder there are so many deadbeats out there.

 

[nextwife]

Actually, in intact families, most parents no longer spend the same amount of disposable funds on the firstborn after the birth of subsequent children.

Just as a first born should not "suffer" because of the birth of siblings, neither should a latter born child, who themselves have no say in their birth order, be treated as far less entitled to support from their parent. In intact families, children recieve roughly equivilant support by parents - who do adjust spending on earlier children as they provide for later ones. Not Most to the first, and little to the latter-born.

Heck, I'm a first born and darn tootin my parents spent less on me when my sibs came along.