need a little more advice please

[ave321]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?California
I had previously asked if my new husband's income would affect the child support ex is paying, because i wanted to modify the support ( 2 Kids) to reflect his time spent with them over the last couple of years he has seen them less and less last year it was down to 52 day no holidays, he provides for them in no way he has never purchased clothing or paid for a haircut the child support is all he'll do. He will not spend one more penny on them,(i am grateful to get the little child support i get). what ever extra activities or events the children have or would like to do, my new husband and i provide. Anyway... I went to court with a lawyer, calanders to prove the time, confident that at the very least i would get an extra 50 what happened next was unimaginable! The judge counted my new husband income, with mine and even put it a the high average (months fluctuate sometimes)then counted the 52 days out of 365 as 32% for ex's time and wouldn't even aknowledge that my new husband and i have a child, a dependant or hardship as they called in court, he said " I hardly call it a hardship she lives with the father".. I work part time because cost of childcare for three exceedes what i would earn in the long run... keeping childcare cost down also saves money for the ex. If my wages were calculated to reflect full time for argument sakes, the income that the judge included excedes that by far, at full time i could not earn what my new husband makes....
i thought maybe if i went through th child support department I would have a better chance that they would be more fair and at least aknowledge that i have another child in the home. it seemed to me in court that i was being railroaded, because the father even admitted to not taking his kids regularly or for holiday in years. i need advice

 

[betterthanher]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?California
I had previously asked if my new husband's income would affect the child support ex is paying, because i wanted to modify the support ( 2 Kids) to reflect his time spent with them over the last couple of years he has seen them less and less last year it was down to 52 day no holidays, he provides for them in no way he has never purchased clothing or paid for a haircut the child support is all he'll do. He will not spend one more penny on them,(i am grateful to get the little child support i get). what ever extra activities or events the children have or would like to do, my new husband and i provide.

Well guess what...he's not obligated to pay a penny more than he is ordered to. Haircuts should be paid using child support. So should clothing. WTH do you think child support is for??!

"He has provided for them in no way"??

Stop doing drugs before you post. He's paying child support, so he's paying PERIOD!!! Whether you think it's enough or not is not for you to decide. Maybe YOU need to cut back your expenses.

Anyway... I went to court with a lawyer, calanders to prove the time, confident that at the very least i would get an extra 50 what happened next was unimaginable! The judge counted my new husband income, with mine and even put it a the high average (months fluctuate sometimes)then counted the 52 days out of 365 as 32% for ex's time and wouldn't even aknowledge that my new husband and i have a child, a dependant or hardship as they called in court, he said " I hardly call it a hardship she lives with the father".. I work part time because cost of childcare for three exceedes what i would earn in the long run... keeping childcare cost down also saves money for the ex. If my wages were calculated to reflect full time for argument sakes, the income that the judge included excedes that by far, at full time i could not earn what my new husband makes....
i thought maybe if i went through th child support department I would have a better chance that they would be more fair and at least aknowledge that i have another child in the home. it seemed to me in court that i was being railroaded, because the father even admitted to not taking his kids regularly or for holiday in years. i need advice

The judge most likely counted your hubby's income because you are working PART-TIME!!!! You are considered under-employed, period!!! What in the hell makes you think you shouldn't be as financially responsible as the other parent??

Going through CSEA would not be any different. The courts and CSEA are mandated to go by guidelines. Plus, your state might not take other children into account. If they do, it might not be enough to reflect a change. If you need to get daycare, then you do. BOTH parents will be financially responsible for that. The entire cost is (usually) not dumped entirely onto the other parent.

You weren't railroaded. You were being held responsible for supporting your children you had from a previous marriage/relationship. If you aren't willing to fully support your previous children to the fullest extent, then I would suggest researching effective methods of birth control.

 

[ceara19]

The judge most likely counted your hubby's income because you are working PART-TIME!!!! You are considered under-employed, period!!! What in the hell makes you think you shouldn't be as financially responsible as the other parent??

While I agree that BOTH parents are responsible for providing for the kids, the step parent isn't. They should have NEVER included the new huuby's income. If they felt as though she were underemployed, they should have imputed HER income and used the amount that she could make if she were to work full-time.

OP- Why the hell didn't your lawyer object to adding in your new husbands income???? You need a new lawyer.

 

[betterthanher]

While I agree that BOTH parents are responsible for providing for the kids, the step parent isn't. They should have NEVER included the new huuby's income. If they felt as though she were underemployed, they should have imputed HER income and used the amount that she could make if she were to work full-time.

OP- Why the hell didn't your lawyer object to adding in your new husbands income???? You need a new lawyer.

If she was found to be under-employed and failed to seek full-time employment, that very well could be the reason.

Also, I am wondering if the judge went by their tax returns if they filed jointly & didn't have W-2's. Unless it's still within the time-frame to appeal, the OP is stuck.

 

[ceara19]

I agree that she is technically underemployed, but courts cannot use a step-parents income when figuring CS. I doubt if they added dad's new wife's income with his when they set the support. (I don't even know if he has a new wife.)

As far as mom having another child, some states take that into consideration, some don't.

Even if the time limit to file an appeal has past, it MAY be possible for her to still get one if she hired a new lawyer. It could be argued that the original attorney failed to do his job protecting the interests of his client. It's a very thin argument, but if the difference in CS is that great, it would be worth a try.

 

[Zephyr]

when was the order made?

if it was a while ago, op might be better off to wait for the review.

 

[ave321]

sound like you're a little angry

Honey maybe you need to get off the drugs and what is with all the hostility sounds like you got issues, and you weren't paying attention to what you read. He Never Paid HALF OF THE 2 KIDS CHILD CARE EXPENSES, HE STOPPED TAKING HIS KIDS ACCORDING TO THE SUPPORT ORDER AND THAT SHOULD REFLECT THAT! That is how support is calculated....and i was married to him when i had these kids not out sleeping around. And if the court wanted to put my income to fulltime it still doesn't add up to what the judge put with my new spouses income an BELEVE ME i was the one to cut back on expense and my kid and i had to deal with that 365 days for years that man wouldn't even buy his son a pair of shoes when i couldn't. DO NOT PRESUME TO KNOW EVERYTHING AND DON'T ASSUME ANYTHING BECAUSE WHEN YOU DO YOU MAKE AN AS OUT OF YOURSELF.

 

[ave321]

When Order Was Made

I t was made back in september, the lawyer did try to object but said that the new spouse income most certainly did count, I hear both that it does and it don't I still don't know which is it.
thanks

 

[stealth2]

If your order doesn't require him to pay for a portion of the childcare, he doesn't have to do so. The other expenses are to be covered by the support you receive. I agree that it's possible the reason your husband's income came into play was due to your underemployment. It's a shame that your lawyer didn't ask that you be imputed an income that you would likely earn if you worked fulltime. The court is not necessarily required to consider your new child.

Since you've been to court, I doubt CSE is going to overrule what the judge ordered.

 

[ave321]

step parent new incom

The lawyer did object and he said that it most certainly did count i was married to him and living in the same house, So i wonder if i married a milionair would he not have to pay child support? And while i could blame the lawyer i was sitting in the court room and and saw everything go down like i said he even admitted to failing to take his kids according order and that he has never taken them for hoidays vacations, it was like the judge wasn't hearing it, my impression that because i remarried and that person makes decent money what hell was i doing there...I would give up what little child support i get if he would be a father to his kids...thats largely why i divoreced him... He's not physically or verbly abusive just to clarfify that, he is just not there for them, sad yes but step is so I am good and so are my two kids.
thanks for the input

 

[stealth2]

So then why DID you bother to take him back for more $$?

 

[rmet4nzkx]

What county ?
Was your attorney from the same county?
How old are your children, all of them?
How much an hour do you make? Lets see, you work at Costco and Costco pays higher than average wages — $17 an hour perhaps more in CA, so a judge is going to impute at least a 40 hours week wage of $680-$800 or monthly wage of $2924-$3440, more if your usual occupation pays more. Child care is not going to count because your children with your ex are in school and you are working part time to save child care expenses on your child with your husband.
Is this your usual type of employment?
What exactly are the parenting time orders, not what he uses?

 

[justmom611]

This does not make sense. I am also in California. I'm looking at my child support orders right now. Although my husband's salary is included in my income and expense declaration as part of our household income, it is not taken into consideration on the actual calculation at all. Only my own salary is listed in the calculation. There are other lines on this calculation form that could be filled in (which would be deductions to the total) for child support paid to other children from other marriages/relationships, spousal support paid to others, hardships, etc. I've never heard of a stepparent's income being taken into consideration in the calcuation.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

This does not make sense. I am also in California. I'm looking at my child support orders right now. Although my husband's salary is included in my income and expense declaration as part of our household income, it is not taken into consideration on the actual calculation at all. Only my own salary is listed in the calculation. There are other lines on this calculation form that could be filled in (which would be deductions to the total) for child support paid to other children from other marriages/relationships, spousal support paid to others, hardships, etc. I've never heard of a stepparent's income being taken into consideration in the calcuation.

There is a hardship allowance that can be invoked in addition to the judges discretion as to how the numbers are run, that is why I asked the questions.
So it is possible that OP is preceiving they are using her husband's income when in fact it is imputed due to her voluntary underemployment. The court will impute a reasonable wage, not a minimum wage, so if she is under employed her husband's income will effectively count in order to make up the difference. Whereas you may be working full time and thus just your income counts.

 

[ceara19]

There is a hardship allowance that can be invoked in addition to the judges discretion as to how the numbers are run, that is why I asked the questions.
So it is possible that OP is preceiving they are using her husband's income when in fact it is imputed due to her voluntary underemployment. The court will impute a reasonable wage, not a minimum wage, so if she is under employed her husband's income will effectively count in order to make up the difference. Whereas you may be working full time and thus just your income counts.

The husbands income wouldn't actually count because she only works part time. Say her pt job is 20hrs./week. His is 40. Together it is 60 which is higher than what a fulltime job normally is. Also, even if she worked full time, it doesn't mean that she would earn as much as her husband.

The reason the court can manipulate the numbers is so that an unemployed or underemployed persons income can be imputed based on how much THAT person could make working FT. Say mom works pt at wal-mart for $8/hr, her income would be figured using the $8/hr X 40hrs. Hubby could be a rocket scientist that earn $250K per year. Obviously if mom was working full time at her job, shes not going to make as much as the hubby.