-
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.
Income Change (increase)
- Thread starter Yurgee
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
I AM ALWAYS LIABLE
Senior Member
Yurgee said:
My response:
Yes. A minor child is entitled to live the lifestyle of the wealthier parent.
IAAL
IAAL, a question. If the NCP has assumed the majority (orALL of it, like my husband did when he divorced his ex way back when) of marital debt, and uses most of the inheritance to merely pay off long term debt - which as you know is NOT considered when CS is calculated- so they can get back to working a regular 40 hour week and have time to also spend with their kid, is the NCP then considered the "wealthier parent"? Or merely now evenly indebted with the CP who didn't have the debt obligations of the marriage? I'm only talking about 20,000-30,000 here, not a retireable windfall.
After all "wealth" is also what one has left after paying their bills. I know people who now have a rather modest income, but are able to live a wealthier lifestyle in a wealthier neighborhood because of an almost non-existant debt load. I realize CS is calculated on various income sources, and not adjusted for debts, so if debt is removed, are they, for the purposes of CS, "wealthier"?
Of course, I realize that in the one year of reciept, that income would count, but does it count after that if it does not produce an income because it paid off all the long term debt?
After all "wealth" is also what one has left after paying their bills. I know people who now have a rather modest income, but are able to live a wealthier lifestyle in a wealthier neighborhood because of an almost non-existant debt load. I realize CS is calculated on various income sources, and not adjusted for debts, so if debt is removed, are they, for the purposes of CS, "wealthier"?
Of course, I realize that in the one year of reciept, that income would count, but does it count after that if it does not produce an income because it paid off all the long term debt?
Last edited:
I AM ALWAYS LIABLE
Senior Member
My further response:
A child's "need" for support is measured by parents' standard of living.
The statutory child support scheme implicitly directs that the parents' standard of living be a significant benchmark for child support awards. The Legislatures of many States have an intent on this point which is generally expressed as follows:
• In implementing a child support order, courts "shall adhere" to the principles that (1) "[a] parent's first and principal obligation is to support his or her minor children according to the parent's circumstances and station in life"; and (2) "[c]hildren should share in the standard of living of both parents."
• In developing recommendations for future revisions of the child support guideline, the courts shall be guided by the legislative intent that children share in the standard of living of both parents."
The general statutory directives effectively require child support awards to reflect a minor child's right to be maintained in a lifestyle and condition consonant with [his or her] parents' position in society.
Notwithstanding incidental benefit to custodial parent/family:
Where the supporting parent enjoys a lifestyle that far exceeds the custodial parent's living standard, child support must "to some degree" reflect that more "opulent lifestyle." This is so even though, as a practical matter, the child support payments will incidentally benefit others in the custodial household whom the payor parent has no obligation to support (e.g., custodial parent owed no spousal support, adult children, or children from custodial parent's other relationships). The fact that other members of child's family "who are unrelated to (payor parent) and to whom he owes no support obligation might be benefited by the payment of support beyond mere subsistence levels is not a special circumstance (warranting rebuttal revision of formula support)
The general scheme of the law is that children should share in the standard of living of both parents. Child support may therefore appropriately improve the standard of living of the custodial household to improve the lives of the children.
Allocation of "standard of living" support obligation:
Each parent is supposed to pay child support according to his or her ability and "circumstances and station in life". Thus, the parent with a higher standard of living has the obligation to ensure his or her children share in that lifestyle.
A noncustodial parent cannot be forced to pay child support beyond his or her means simply to match the custodial parent's new "station in life" (as where custodial parent remarries into wealthier social position).
Formula support increase based on obligor's special circumstance of "lavish lifestyle":
On the other hand, an obligor parent with little or no income but who has been living and continues to live a "lavish lifestyle" may be required to pay more than the formula support amount (special circumstances adjustment in child's best interest; e.g., obligor parent inherits money or wins a lottery).
Parents cannot escape their "paramount" child support obligations because of other indebtedness they have created. A parent's first and principal obligation is to support his or her minor children according to the parent's circumstances and station in life.
Therefore, the law, generally, provides court-ordered child support payments shall be made by the obligor before payment of any debts owed to creditors.
IAAL
A child's "need" for support is measured by parents' standard of living.
The statutory child support scheme implicitly directs that the parents' standard of living be a significant benchmark for child support awards. The Legislatures of many States have an intent on this point which is generally expressed as follows:
• In implementing a child support order, courts "shall adhere" to the principles that (1) "[a] parent's first and principal obligation is to support his or her minor children according to the parent's circumstances and station in life"; and (2) "[c]hildren should share in the standard of living of both parents."
• In developing recommendations for future revisions of the child support guideline, the courts shall be guided by the legislative intent that children share in the standard of living of both parents."
The general statutory directives effectively require child support awards to reflect a minor child's right to be maintained in a lifestyle and condition consonant with [his or her] parents' position in society.
Notwithstanding incidental benefit to custodial parent/family:
Where the supporting parent enjoys a lifestyle that far exceeds the custodial parent's living standard, child support must "to some degree" reflect that more "opulent lifestyle." This is so even though, as a practical matter, the child support payments will incidentally benefit others in the custodial household whom the payor parent has no obligation to support (e.g., custodial parent owed no spousal support, adult children, or children from custodial parent's other relationships). The fact that other members of child's family "who are unrelated to (payor parent) and to whom he owes no support obligation might be benefited by the payment of support beyond mere subsistence levels is not a special circumstance (warranting rebuttal revision of formula support)
The general scheme of the law is that children should share in the standard of living of both parents. Child support may therefore appropriately improve the standard of living of the custodial household to improve the lives of the children.
Allocation of "standard of living" support obligation:
Each parent is supposed to pay child support according to his or her ability and "circumstances and station in life". Thus, the parent with a higher standard of living has the obligation to ensure his or her children share in that lifestyle.
A noncustodial parent cannot be forced to pay child support beyond his or her means simply to match the custodial parent's new "station in life" (as where custodial parent remarries into wealthier social position).
Formula support increase based on obligor's special circumstance of "lavish lifestyle":
On the other hand, an obligor parent with little or no income but who has been living and continues to live a "lavish lifestyle" may be required to pay more than the formula support amount (special circumstances adjustment in child's best interest; e.g., obligor parent inherits money or wins a lottery).
Parents cannot escape their "paramount" child support obligations because of other indebtedness they have created. A parent's first and principal obligation is to support his or her minor children according to the parent's circumstances and station in life.
Therefore, the law, generally, provides court-ordered child support payments shall be made by the obligor before payment of any debts owed to creditors.
IAAL
LdiJ
Senior Member
nextwife said:
Actually I disagree with IAAL's interpretation of the law. An inheritance may not be touched for child support (however it can be attached for arrearages)...only the regular income that the inheritance provides.
If someone inherits 50,000 from a deceased parent that money cannot be touched for child support. However if the parent invests that money and recieves a yearly income from it, then that yearly income is included in child support.
A lottery winning would have pretty much the same effect...only with a larger effect on income, therefore a larger effect on child support.
It is a very important consideration for any spouse of a NCP who has their OWN children with them. Obviously, we want whatever we leave if we die to be available as a replacement of the support we provide our child while alive. My estate is intended for my home and my child. His kids would have a living mom if I die and mine would not. How it's handled has a significant impact on our minor child's welfare (of course the CS laws don't give a hout about their lifestyle being maintained-even if we leave a "replacement salary" behind to support our child after our deaths, CS wants a part of it.
I believe, however, to offset some income that our estates may produce, we could instruct in our wills that all debts of our household, including the mortgages, be paid off BEFORE the estate is allowed to distribute any inheritance. And leave a chunk in a trust for the child, instead of to our spouse, so the income it generates is not that of the NCP.
I believe, however, to offset some income that our estates may produce, we could instruct in our wills that all debts of our household, including the mortgages, be paid off BEFORE the estate is allowed to distribute any inheritance. And leave a chunk in a trust for the child, instead of to our spouse, so the income it generates is not that of the NCP.
Last edited: