TheGeekess
Keeper of the Kraken
CSEA helps enforce and modify CS orders.
http://www.michigan.gov/dhs/0,4562,7-124-5528---,00.html
-
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.
Parenting time changes
- Thread starter anisaerah
- 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.
CSEA helps enforce and modify CS orders.
http://www.michigan.gov/dhs/0,4562,7-124-5528---,00.html
Again, the order is already being enforced. I know how to file a motion.
What I do not know is whether I am computing things correctly, or whether my local courts are generally not expecting NCPs to find full-time work because of the economy.
Did I say or do something wrong here, or am I misunderstanding?
What I do not know is whether I am computing things correctly, or whether my local courts are generally not expecting NCPs to find full-time work because of the economy.
Did I say or do something wrong here, or am I misunderstanding?
File a motion for modification. He has been working for what? Two years now? I'm sure his income is different from the last order. Ask that the court review all of his (and your) financial transcripts (such as taxes you've filed, and payroll sheets) I seriously doubt you'll get less than you're getting now, although hubby might mysteriously get down-sized or something at his job. (that seems to happen a lot when people are taken back to court over child support.) 
Depends how long he has been out of work, so how old his the current CS order? I can't help compute numbers because all the numbers are not listed. You have gross income, there are deductions for taxes, deductions for other things, who carries and pays for insurance, if either party has other children, overnights as they get credit for that.
I'm in one county over from yours, I am familiar with yours, sat in them many times with a family member. It's set up and run pretty much the same as mine. Refs and Judges make similar decisions. Both county's do get fed up even in this economy with ones who continue to not work. Mi allows for imputing, has that been done? What kind of work does your ex do?
Mi use to have the calculator they use online, no longer do. I have run numbers using the formula and then compared them to online calculators for Mi, like the one you listed, and they never are even close. Using the formula from the child support manual is not easy, but it can be done and can be pretty close. However you need to know your ex's income, which you did not list.
When they cut him slack before, was that done with a Ref or a Judge, did you object to FOC or a Refs recommendation? Often times what FOC or Refs do is not right, they make mistakes, they allow for things that they should not or that a Judge will not.
TinkerBelleLuvr
Senior Member
Your boyfriend's income will not matter. It's strictly an income share now. If can't find a job,then go pick up aluminum cans. You have to support the child. I've always asked CSE to just take care of child support for me.
I do not know my ex's income, so I just ran the numbers as if he was working full time @ minimum wage. He currently does some kind of telemarketing, when he did that when we were married, he made about $8 an hour, but that was nearly 10 years ago. I assumed that the formula's "net income" meant income after taxes and valid deductions- from the list, there is nothing to deduct but taxes; no additional children, etc.
I used the equation to figure for additional overnights (cubing three digit numbers makes for interesting scratch paper). I was confused as to how the "marginal percentage" part of the base support calculation was supposed to be applied, though.
The ref was the one who cut him slack; I was not able to get the time off of work for the hearing and had to appear by phone, while he was there in person with his lawyer. I requested he be imputed an income then, but his lawyer argued that he was looking hard for a job, and they did not impute. I did not object because I have no lawyer, and figured it would just be a wasted day taken off work.
I did not take him back to court once he started working, because once he started working, more money was being garnished to pay off his arrearage, and because I know he's not exactly rolling on dough (and because of the pointless "conflict resolution" class they made us go to and pay for), I did not want to cause him to up and quit his job as he has threatened to do because I am "bleeding him dry". I figure if he could afford to pay 300 a month when he was working full time before, and the entire last year+ since he's been working his current job, than he can afford to pay more than 182 now. The current order is from September 2011.
He is also upset at me because when I asked him to pay me back his half of the $200 for a school trip (that he agreed to pay half of, back in the fall; I said I would pay upfront, and he could pay me his half when he had the money) he said "You stole my tax refund, take it out of that". He's not the smartest guy in the world, but you would think he would be able to tell the difference between "previous debt" and "current expenses".
I had planned on filing once his arrearage was paid, but I forgot that they would intercept his tax refund (that's the only financial info about him I have).
I know my boyfriend's income does not matter (and he does not support me or pay my rent or bills for me, so there's no in-kind income, either.), I just think it's some ridiculous chutzpah that he thinks it matters *for me*, when he has had the support of *two* other adults since we were divorced, and that's not factored in to any decisions :/ It's hard to hear him accuse me of "only being about money" when I'm the only one of the two of us actually paying for any of her needed expenses.
It's the fact that he seems so confident that his support will be reduced further (why he said he will not agree to anything) that makes me nervous; I imagine his lawyer is more familiar with the atmosphere of the courts than I am
I used the equation to figure for additional overnights (cubing three digit numbers makes for interesting scratch paper). I was confused as to how the "marginal percentage" part of the base support calculation was supposed to be applied, though.
The ref was the one who cut him slack; I was not able to get the time off of work for the hearing and had to appear by phone, while he was there in person with his lawyer. I requested he be imputed an income then, but his lawyer argued that he was looking hard for a job, and they did not impute. I did not object because I have no lawyer, and figured it would just be a wasted day taken off work.
I did not take him back to court once he started working, because once he started working, more money was being garnished to pay off his arrearage, and because I know he's not exactly rolling on dough (and because of the pointless "conflict resolution" class they made us go to and pay for), I did not want to cause him to up and quit his job as he has threatened to do because I am "bleeding him dry". I figure if he could afford to pay 300 a month when he was working full time before, and the entire last year+ since he's been working his current job, than he can afford to pay more than 182 now. The current order is from September 2011.
He is also upset at me because when I asked him to pay me back his half of the $200 for a school trip (that he agreed to pay half of, back in the fall; I said I would pay upfront, and he could pay me his half when he had the money) he said "You stole my tax refund, take it out of that". He's not the smartest guy in the world, but you would think he would be able to tell the difference between "previous debt" and "current expenses".
I had planned on filing once his arrearage was paid, but I forgot that they would intercept his tax refund (that's the only financial info about him I have).
I know my boyfriend's income does not matter (and he does not support me or pay my rent or bills for me, so there's no in-kind income, either.), I just think it's some ridiculous chutzpah that he thinks it matters *for me*, when he has had the support of *two* other adults since we were divorced, and that's not factored in to any decisions :/ It's hard to hear him accuse me of "only being about money" when I'm the only one of the two of us actually paying for any of her needed expenses.
It's the fact that he seems so confident that his support will be reduced further (why he said he will not agree to anything) that makes me nervous; I imagine his lawyer is more familiar with the atmosphere of the courts than I am
I do not know my ex's income, so I just ran the numbers as if he was working full time @ minimum wage. He currently does some kind of telemarketing, when he did that when we were married, he made about $8 an hour, but that was nearly 10 years ago. I assumed that the formula's "net income" meant income after taxes and valid deductions- from the list, there is nothing to deduct but taxes; no additional children, etc.
I used the equation to figure for additional overnights (cubing three digit numbers makes for interesting scratch paper). I was confused as to how the "marginal percentage" part of the base support calculation was supposed to be applied, though.
The ref was the one who cut him slack; I was not able to get the time off of work for the hearing and had to appear by phone, while he was there in person with his lawyer. I requested he be imputed an income then, but his lawyer argued that he was looking hard for a job, and they did not impute. I did not object because I have no lawyer, and figured it would just be a wasted day taken off work.
I did not take him back to court once he started working, because once he started working, more money was being garnished to pay off his arrearage, and because I know he's not exactly rolling on dough (and because of the pointless "conflict resolution" class they made us go to and pay for), I did not want to cause him to up and quit his job as he has threatened to do because I am "bleeding him dry". I figure if he could afford to pay 300 a month when he was working full time before, and the entire last year+ since he's been working his current job, than he can afford to pay more than 182 now. The current order is from September 2011.
He is also upset at me because when I asked him to pay me back his half of the $200 for a school trip (that he agreed to pay half of, back in the fall; I said I would pay upfront, and he could pay me his half when he had the money) he said "You stole my tax refund, take it out of that". He's not the smartest guy in the world, but you would think he would be able to tell the difference between "previous debt" and "current expenses".
I had planned on filing once his arrearage was paid, but I forgot that they would intercept his tax refund (that's the only financial info about him I have).
I know my boyfriend's income does not matter (and he does not support me or pay my rent or bills for me, so there's no in-kind income, either.), I just think it's some ridiculous chutzpah that he thinks it matters *for me*, when he has had the support of *two* other adults since we were divorced, and that's not factored in to any decisions :/ It's hard to hear him accuse me of "only being about money" when I'm the only one of the two of us actually paying for any of her needed expenses.
It's the fact that he seems so confident that his support will be reduced further (why he said he will not agree to anything) that makes me nervous; I imagine his lawyer is more familiar with the atmosphere of the courts than I am
From the dealings I have seen in your court and my court, they run pretty much the same, they cut slack only so far. If we were talking some of the smaller counties north of ours, they tend to do little and they tend to give lots of slack in. Sept 2011 and your ex still can't find work in Telemarketing? Mi still is suffering and probably will be for years to come, but if he only made $8 an hour in telemarketing, whats the difference between that and working at MickeyD's. Pick up some local papers, or look online at those papers help wanted ads, tons of telemarketing and tons of minimum wage jobs. It's the higher paid jobs that are suffering with no openings.
Your ex obviously filed income taxes, so those can be used. You can go in armed with help wanted ads for his area showing telemarketing jobs and other low paying jobs that don't require experience, with the same like pay. You are going to argue that he be imputed with full time wages for the like pay he could be making if he got off his butt and got a job.
That can't force your ex to get a job, they can only impute him with an income for pay he could make if he got that job. At this point in your court that would be easy to get. However with lower pay, your not likely to get a whole lot more. Refs often tend to give slack, some only give slack for a short time, others will give it forever. Judges don't always agree with them, so often times objecting gets you a better result.
Does your order say activities are to be shared? In mi, unless both parties agree to a 50/50 split of such things, then it will go by percentage of what the child support formula spits out. Same for uncovered medical and childcare. Since you make more then your ex, his percentage is going to be lower then 50%. If you don't have any of these actually in your order, you need to get them. Activities is not automatic and often looked at a bit different, then uncovered medical and childcare. However your county tends to add activities into orders and have them split according to the percentage of the formula. Once these are in the order, then when they don't pay their share, you can get FOC to help and enforce that part of the order.
I'm going to go read the manual so I can answer your "net income" and "marginal percentage" question.
That's what I was planning on doing. He has worked retail jobs before, too. There *are* full time jobs out there, and he's certainly not overqualified for them.
Our order does not mention the split for activities, but if he's going to agree to help pay for things and then get angry at me when I remind him what he agreed to *while* he's paying a reduced amount of support based on being unemployed, he can't really expect me to not either ask him to agree to an amount we can agree on or take him to court to increase support to an appropriate level.
Our order does not mention the split for activities, but if he's going to agree to help pay for things and then get angry at me when I remind him what he agreed to *while* he's paying a reduced amount of support based on being unemployed, he can't really expect me to not either ask him to agree to an amount we can agree on or take him to court to increase support to an appropriate level.