V
vmvolatile
Guest
What is the name of your state? massachusettscan my income be included in figuring my husband's child support. he has been divorced for 3 years and his ex now wants to modify the order.
-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
If it were me, I'd hire my OWN lawyer before I shared MY income info with my husband's ex. They are not my kids, I have no legal rights regarding them. I have my own kids that I am responsible for. I was not a party to either the procreation nor the divorce.
Just as her husband's or boyfriend's income is irrelevant. And I'd black out my income on any Jt tax return provided.
Just as her husband's or boyfriend's income is irrelevant. And I'd black out my income on any Jt tax return provided.
R
renda
Guest
http://www.divorcenet.com/worksheet.html
This is how it is calculated. Nowhere is NCP's spouse's income listed.
This is how it is calculated. Nowhere is NCP's spouse's income listed.
VeronicaGia
Senior Member
She can go ahead and try, but remember, HE will be under a court order to provide HIS income, but YOU will be under no such order.
Tell her to take a flying leap.
Tell her to take a flying leap.
I
itsallgood
Guest
I'm not an attorney; however; what I have 'understood' by being an advid memeber of several step family forums; and being a mother with an EX who is remarried is:
If you DH(dear husband) is UNemployeed (after being gainfully employeed); or UNDERemployeed(again; after setting a precident of being gainfully employeed); they CAN look at your income; IF YOU are the "breadwinner" in the household; which allows DH the luxury of not working.
I've heard from many stepmom's that this has happened to; and it only happened when DH either became unemployed; or underemployed.
Also; it goes the other way too. If the MOTHER marries 'up' so to speak; and no longer has an income; then they can look at 'household' (stepdads)income and redjust support.
If DH was paying an obscene amount of CS after the divorce due to BM not working; then she marries; and her husband works; and there is no NEED for BM to work; again; they can (and do it often); look at 'household income'; and lower your DH's payments to her.
And by underemployeed I mean; if DH/BM was in a salary postition full time; and then decided he wanted to work part time at a local WA WA: he/she is now 'underemployeed".
For the record; not expressing my 'opinon' on the matter; just explaining what I have heard other stepfamilies go through.
Please understand this is not 'legal advice'; I am not a 'legalise person'; I have just heard of this happening a LOT. And sharing with you what I have seen.
If DH has a job; and CS was set on that fact; as long as he remains employeed; then they should never look at 'your income' in figuring CS.
If BM has a job; and marries; and keeps her job; they will not look at SF's income.
Only when one of them STOP working; (either willfully or through no fault of their own) the 'household income' CAN reflect the the CS order.
If you DH(dear husband) is UNemployeed (after being gainfully employeed); or UNDERemployeed(again; after setting a precident of being gainfully employeed); they CAN look at your income; IF YOU are the "breadwinner" in the household; which allows DH the luxury of not working.
I've heard from many stepmom's that this has happened to; and it only happened when DH either became unemployed; or underemployed.
Also; it goes the other way too. If the MOTHER marries 'up' so to speak; and no longer has an income; then they can look at 'household' (stepdads)income and redjust support.
If DH was paying an obscene amount of CS after the divorce due to BM not working; then she marries; and her husband works; and there is no NEED for BM to work; again; they can (and do it often); look at 'household income'; and lower your DH's payments to her.
And by underemployeed I mean; if DH/BM was in a salary postition full time; and then decided he wanted to work part time at a local WA WA: he/she is now 'underemployeed".
For the record; not expressing my 'opinon' on the matter; just explaining what I have heard other stepfamilies go through.
Please understand this is not 'legal advice'; I am not a 'legalise person'; I have just heard of this happening a LOT. And sharing with you what I have seen.
If DH has a job; and CS was set on that fact; as long as he remains employeed; then they should never look at 'your income' in figuring CS.
If BM has a job; and marries; and keeps her job; they will not look at SF's income.
Only when one of them STOP working; (either willfully or through no fault of their own) the 'household income' CAN reflect the the CS order.
stealth2
Under the Radar Member
A lot depends on the exact circumstances. Your income could come come into play wrt how it offsets his other expenses. For example, since you apparently work, he has greater available income than if he had to pay all of the expenses - housing, food, utilities, clothing, etc - by himself. Presumably you share living expenses with one another. So he would need to offset his claimed expenses by your contribution.
Another factor would be (as someone else mentioned) if he is voluntarily un- or under-employed. Your income could then factor in.
But otherwise, your income isn't part of the CS calculation, per se.
(edit) but I see the fancy schmancy new format didn't include fixing the HTML codes.
Another factor would be (as someone else mentioned) if he is voluntarily un- or under-employed. Your income could then factor in.
But otherwise, your income isn't part of the CS calculation, per se.
(edit) but I see the fancy schmancy new format didn't include fixing the HTML codes.
It's an interesting concept. I've always been intrigues by the logic of this.
If NCP DIED, for example each mom (NCPs spouse and CP) would then be responsible to support their own kids and own households. But if NCP LOSES his job, or maybe can't pay CS because he's temporarily disabled (I lived this with my father after his brain tumor surgery and long recovery period), then NCPs spouse is expected to not only be the sole support to her family, but to support spouses family as well? Hmmm. Now if spouse is facilitating a DELIBERATE unemployment, it may be different. But I think it's a crock and bad public policy to create a legal DIS-INCENTIVE to marriage, instead of having the law encourage merely shacking up- by punishing the spouses of ill or currently unemployed NCPs for being spouses (instead of being roomates or girlfriend/boyfriends).
If NCP DIED, for example each mom (NCPs spouse and CP) would then be responsible to support their own kids and own households. But if NCP LOSES his job, or maybe can't pay CS because he's temporarily disabled (I lived this with my father after his brain tumor surgery and long recovery period), then NCPs spouse is expected to not only be the sole support to her family, but to support spouses family as well? Hmmm. Now if spouse is facilitating a DELIBERATE unemployment, it may be different. But I think it's a crock and bad public policy to create a legal DIS-INCENTIVE to marriage, instead of having the law encourage merely shacking up- by punishing the spouses of ill or currently unemployed NCPs for being spouses (instead of being roomates or girlfriend/boyfriends).
stealth2
Under the Radar Member
nextwife said:
No. The key word is VOLUNTARILY. If the NCP decides to quit work and go back to school fulltime (for example) - his/her spouse could very likely be expected to step up to the plate for CS for a child from another relationship. However, when there is an INvoluntary decrease in income, the courts will take it into account if a modification is filed in a timely manner. I seem to recall that with your Dad, he was unable to file due to his medical problems - not knowing all the details, I'd suspect that it had to do with noone having power of attorney to file on his behalf... Unfortunately, even when a modification is filed, the other side can (and often does) stall and drag their feet.
I
itsallgood
Guest
From what I understand nextwife; is this does not happen often; and again; it only is in extreme circumstances where CS was a 'set amount'; and DH becomes unemployeed; and he CAN AFFORD to be unemployeed due to his spouse working and supporting him.
Also; in the matter of DH passing away; doesn't the child get benefits from the state....
So; for the 85% of folks; there is no real 'DISincentive" to marriage; income from the spouse is really only looked at in extreme cases.
also; I think it takes a while for it to happen. Meaning; at the start of DH's illness; or unemployement; CS can be 'deferred'; yet still 'added up' to pay back AFTER he has found a job.
If one is on unemployement; it is meant to help support DURING the job search. If 2 years go by; and DH is STILL unemployeed; yet still able to LIVE due to his WIFE paying the bills; then the BM has a case where YOUR income can play into CS.
I dunno..........just talking from examples where SM's have posted about this very issue.
Also; in the matter of DH passing away; doesn't the child get benefits from the state....
So; for the 85% of folks; there is no real 'DISincentive" to marriage; income from the spouse is really only looked at in extreme cases.
also; I think it takes a while for it to happen. Meaning; at the start of DH's illness; or unemployement; CS can be 'deferred'; yet still 'added up' to pay back AFTER he has found a job.
If one is on unemployement; it is meant to help support DURING the job search. If 2 years go by; and DH is STILL unemployeed; yet still able to LIVE due to his WIFE paying the bills; then the BM has a case where YOUR income can play into CS.
I dunno..........just talking from examples where SM's have posted about this very issue.
Thanks, Stealth and All.
In Dad's case, he went under the knife with all sorts of assurances from his doctor that he would be back at work in a month. He woke from surgery with most of his language ability gone and limited use of his left side (and he was a lefty). So, had he been a NCP, he would have been unable to communicate to request a modification until months of rehab had passed. He did eventually return to work, in a limited capacity, but was never able to be what he was before. He died after the remainder of the tumor grew back, while I was finishing school.
What bugs me is the unequal application of these laws. A woman remarries and her ex has custody. She and new hubby have another couple of babies and they choose for her to stay home. She often gets away with having no or minimal CS awarded to the CP. We've seen so many posts where the male CP was not even awarded any CS. Yet, if a NCP MALE parent made that choice, to stay home to parent a new child, they'd imput up his CS anyway, and for more than minimim wage, in most cases..
In Dad's case, he went under the knife with all sorts of assurances from his doctor that he would be back at work in a month. He woke from surgery with most of his language ability gone and limited use of his left side (and he was a lefty). So, had he been a NCP, he would have been unable to communicate to request a modification until months of rehab had passed. He did eventually return to work, in a limited capacity, but was never able to be what he was before. He died after the remainder of the tumor grew back, while I was finishing school.
What bugs me is the unequal application of these laws. A woman remarries and her ex has custody. She and new hubby have another couple of babies and they choose for her to stay home. She often gets away with having no or minimal CS awarded to the CP. We've seen so many posts where the male CP was not even awarded any CS. Yet, if a NCP MALE parent made that choice, to stay home to parent a new child, they'd imput up his CS anyway, and for more than minimim wage, in most cases..
Your income has nothing to do with your husband's child support to his ex-wife (I live in Massachusetts too). The court does take into consideration how much he makes and as you probably already know he has to file financial information each and every time he goes into probate court to file a modification, etc. But most of the time the court will use his income and the age of the child in the determination of how much he has to pay. He can contest it, but it won't do him much good unless he can prove a significant drop in his "gross" income (that's before taxes..), which is what they base the child support on, such as losing a job. Even then, he may have to pay something from his unemployment or accrue the amounts while he's unemployed and pay back CS once he's re-employed. If she's looking to modify the support order, and he's not making any more than he did three years ago, I doubt she'd get much.
But bottom line, you should not be responsible for any of his child support obligations to his ex-wife. She can bitch all she wants, you have your own income and that's that. If the court does take your income into consideration - (1) I'd be surprised; and (2) I'd see a lawyer - FAST!
But bottom line, you should not be responsible for any of his child support obligations to his ex-wife. She can bitch all she wants, you have your own income and that's that. If the court does take your income into consideration - (1) I'd be surprised; and (2) I'd see a lawyer - FAST!
I have a real problem with the courts taking in to consideration the step-parents income in any situation. That step-parent has no legal right to the child. That's what the courts have been saying for years. The step-parent didnt have the fun that made the child. If the NCP chooses not to pay child support than the NCP should face the consenquences not a person who has no legal right to the child. I am a CP and if the NCP ever got married I would never require the step-parent to pay child support. I would have the courts go as far as sending his butt to jail over having someone who had no control over the child being conceived having to pay for the child.