Daycare support question

[sddad]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

My Ex and I currently have shared joint physical custody of our children. She will be moving away within the next month or so. At that time she will see our children only on designated weekends.

Our current court order arrangement is that we split 1/2 on Daycare expenses, 1/2 on school related bills and 1/2 on Medical bills. I was advised by my Ex that upon the move she will not be responsible for the Daycare expenses as she won't be utilizing it. One of our children is at the age of still needing before and afterschool care which runs about $200-$300/month. Moreover, she also stated that she will not be responsible for the children's annual bus passes (which runs about $800) for the same reason. Is what she saying just her own personal belief and not what she should be responsible for?

To me moving away doesn't remove your responsibility for your children and unless a new court modification is in place I can go collect arrears if she doesn't pony up correct?

TIA.

 

[jbowman]

Yes you are correct. Until the order is modified, she is still responsible for 1/2 of daycare. It matters not that she isnt utilizing it. THAT is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

As a matter of fact, because CA bases child support on the income of both parents and the percentage of time each parent HAS the child, i would suggest you run the numbers in a CA child support calculator. You could find out that she will have to pony up some more child support. After all, you WILL have the children in your care more often--that will cost more money for you.

 

[sddad]

Yes you are correct. Until the order is modified, she is still responsible for 1/2 of daycare. It matters not that she isnt utilizing it. THAT is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

As a matter of fact, because CA bases child support on the income of both parents and the percentage of time each parent HAS the child, i would suggest you run the numbers in a CA child support calculator. You could find out that she will have to pony up some more child support. After all, you WILL have the children in your care more often--that will cost more money for you.

I hear you jbowman. I don't know what it is with CA but it seems the courts here really favor the women (at least in my case). Let me elaborate a little more by what I mean. We were in court back in April of this year because my Ex petitioned to have our children move away with her. We came to an arrangement during mediation of having our children stay at their current school in their best interest whenever she decided to move out of the area. At the time she was only working 1/2 time of about 20 hours as she wanted to stay home with the baby that she had with her new husband back in July 07. The judge ruled that because she is only employed 1/2 time her income is much less therefore I had to pay more for child support for the difference of two incomes even though we split 50/50 on joint physical custody. Furthermore, whenever she moves she will only have to be imputed 75% of full time income for calculation of child support. Can you believe it? I am being penalized for her having a child in another relationship? Unbelievable!! Our children are 9 and 12 and surely do not fall into the category of needing either one of us to be home to care for them. The ruling is very favorable for her and of course she has no incentive to go back to work full time while milking the system.

Any senior members or knowledgeable folks out there who can comment on when is a reasonable time to go back to court and ask for this to be reviewed? Her kid has to grow up some day and since the judge left it without any time frame reference I would be foolish to keep this arrangement forever. December of this year would make her child 1 1/2 years old. When we had our children she was back at work full time in 6 and 9 months. Go figure.

 

[sddad]

Any senior or knowledgeable members can comment on this? TIA

 

[mtngal]

This is so wrong to hear. I can't believe what I'm reading here. Your ex had a child with her new husband and you end up having to make up the differences in income for child support because of this? Both of your children with your ex are of school age so I don't see any excuses for her to be home. The judge granted for her part time income for C/S calculation support when you had nothing to do with her baby? That is totally BS. Now she's going to get a break of 75% of her potential income when she moves away? Now..I'm getting upset. WTF?? I'm sorry but the judge needs to back to law school. Common sense tells me that at the least keep C/S the same for you in the current situation and when she moves away use 100% of her potential income for C/S calculation. If she is not working full time that is her problem. Why should you be penalized?

Your two children with your ex do not deserve less just because she decided to start a new family. For you to make up the differences for her not working full time is absolutely ludicrious. Someone else out there tell me I'm wrong. Sorry about your situation. Hope you can get some good advise out there. Why is she moving away anyway? Doesn't she want to be near her children?

 

[Isis1]

wow, i have to say that i am lost too. i am a stay at home mom and a full time minimum wage job was imputed as my income.

not that i contest it either.

 

[nextwife]

wow, i have to say that i am lost too. i am a stay at home mom and a full time minimum wage job was imputed as my income.

not that i contest it either.

Out of curiousity;

Why only minimum wage?

Odds are, were you working all this time, you'd be earning more than minimum wage. MINMUM WAGE IS WHERE MOST PEOPLE enter THE WORK FORCE, NOT WHAT THEY EARN after some time there.

If NCP gets CS increased due to raises, why is no consideration given to the fact that a non-working parent creates a scenario in which they CANNOT be granted a raise?

 

[Isis1]

Out of curiousity;

Why only minimum wage?

Odds are, were you working all this time, you'd be earning more than minimum wage. MINMUM WAGE IS WHERE MOST PEOPLE enter THE WORK FORCE, NOT WHAT THEY EARN after some time there.

If NCP gets CS increased due to raises, why is no consideration given to the fact that a non-working parent creates a scenario in which they CANNOT be granted a raise?

sorry for the hi-jack OP.

i was imputed by the attorney general. my working history was part-time to accomodate my children's school schedule prior to marriage. which was only $800.00 a month.

and to be honest, you have a point nextwife. if CP is unemployed by choice, the the option of increasing child support should be scrutinized,

 

[stealth2]

Our children are 9 and 12 and surely do not fall into the category of needing either one of us to be home to care for them.

Just for argument's sake... if this is your belief, why do either of them need to be in daycare/afterschool care?

 

[sddad]

Just for argument's sake... if this is your belief, why do either of them need to be in daycare/afterschool care?

I work early in the morning @ 7:30AM and do not get back until around 5:30PM or so daily. The only time I need any help is before school starts which is 9:00AM and after school which is roughly around after 3:30PM. There is the before and after school care for our younger child which helps me get to work on time and a safe place for him to be until I get back to pick him up. The before and after school care for our younger child is conveniently located at his school which works out perfectly for all of us. For our older child the after school and before daycare is free so that is not a problem. My ex's current location is only 5 minutes away from the school so this arrangement also works out for her too when she goes to work. The current order states that we share this bill so until a new modification is in place it stands. I do have to agree with jbowman about her excuse of not paying because she is not using it is so lame. Just because you move away doesn't mean your responsibility ends there.

 

[sddad]

Your two children with your ex do not deserve less just because she decided to start a new family. For you to make up the differences for her not working full time is absolutely ludicrious. Someone else out there tell me I'm wrong. Sorry about your situation. Hope you can get some good advise out there. Why is she moving away anyway? Doesn't she want to be near her children?

My ex decided to move away because she wanted her new husband to not have to drive too far to go to work and also to an area that she can maximize her $$ for a new house. She says she doesn't want to stay in the local area because housing is too expensive for her. I asked her what about the children not being to see her much and what about getting something reasonable locally instead of a six bedroom place ninety miles or so away from the children. She didn't have a good reason accept one that she is tired from living in a rental for the past 5 years. I still don't understand her priorities but nothing I can do about it. It is her loss to miss out on the time with our children.

I just need some guidance as to when is appropriate to go back to court to get this reviewed and modified so that our children can be equally supported by their mother who chose better housing/shorter driving distance for her new family over quality time with our children. I hate to say this but I feel like her action speaks clearly that our children are not her priority.

 

[hearts41]

wow, i have to say that i am lost too. i am a stay at home mom and a full time minimum wage job was imputed as my income.

not that i contest it either.

Yes same here. It has been that way for awhile too. I wouldn't contest either. Perhaps now because I can't work but in the beginning that was not the case.

 

[Frusterated3]

If she moves and doesn't pay, you can collect arrears from her. The modification has to come from the court, she just can't decide one day that she's going to noe assist you, you're right just becuase SHE is moving doesn't mean the kids still don't require care. Be cautious though if you file for a modification, make sure you and she are in a position where it is not going to work in HER favor.

 

[mtngal]

I just need some guidance as to when is appropriate to go back to court to get this reviewed and modified so that our children can be equally supported by their mother who chose better housing/shorter driving distance for her new family over quality time with our children. I hate to say this but I feel like her action speaks clearly that our children are not her priority.

As a mother of two my jaw just dropped reading this. I can't believe any one who would do something like this. In a heart beat I would choose to be involved with my children 100% of the time if given the opportunity over better housing any place any time any where. I'm steaming from the ears reading this story. Maybe there are other women out there that feel she is doing the right thing but I certainly don't. Her reasonings are down right beyond comprehension.

With regards to when you should go back to get this modified I can't answer it as I don't know the law and what the requirements are. There are senior members out there who might be able to help. Good luck with everything.

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

I would probably wait 4-6 months before going back to court. I'm thinking status quo on this one. If the children are with you for an extended amount of time, she won't have much leverage when she tries to counter for custody.

I would ask for full-time income to be imputed for mom.

Then get her for contempt if she isn't paying.