Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    Paul
    
    My husband and I are in the process of working out a divorce
    settlement. The mediation attorneys mentioned the very subject
    that you brought up. The rationale is that when a spouse remarries
    it is assumed that the new spouse will be contributing to the
    cost of housing, food, etc and thus the parent will be able to
    contribute more to the children. In other words this is considered
    to be an increase in income of the parent since they are paying
    less for necessities.
    
    Bonnie
    
    

 Yet another incalculably stupid law. Welcome to Massachusetts.

    
    It never ceases to amaze me how many different versions of this
    situation I see and hear. I had asked my lawyer the very same question
    and his reply was NO the X cannot get her hands on any of the money
    that my new spouse would make if I were to remarry.
    
    
    Lenny

    Re .1 - The following sort of situation makes sense to me (I'm going to
    use the man as the support-payer in this example)...
    
    1)  Man gets apartment by himself and pays $1000/month.
    2)  Man gets remarried and splits rent with new wife.
    3)  Court imputes $500/month of additional discretionary income to
        man for purpose of re-evaluating support payments.
    
    I wouldn't like it, but I don't think it's outrageously unfair.
    
    I'm much more concerned about things that fall more into the area of
    the following examples ...
    
    1)  Man honestly becomes unemployed thru no fault of and is forced to
    use wife's income to pay support
    
    2)  Woman wins the lottery and support payments go up because of
    increased marital assets.
    
    Since I don't know precisely the situation in Massachusetts, I don't
    know what would really happen in either of the above cases.  But my
    main point is that the assets of the new spouse should have nothing to
    do with the support being paid.  If the support-payer deliberably quits
    work, lives off the new spouse's assets, and doesn't pay support by
    claiming poverty, throw him in jail.  But if he continues to do what
    was ordered and *his* income hasn't changed, don't consider his
    spouses.
    
    Paul
    
    

    Re .3 - Really?  You're in Massachusetts?  Whew.  Someone doesn't have
    his/her law straight.
    
    Any change you could ask your attorney for the basis of his feeling
    that the ex-spouse could not get (assumed) her hands on any of the new
    spouse's money?  The more specific the reasoning, the better.
    
    Paul

    I was going nuts too when I was told by some people that the income of
    a new spouse would be considered. I have it in writing from my lawyer
    that the future X can't do squat on getting any $$$$ to be considered
    in getting increased child support.
    
    Lenny

    Ever deal with someone who is taking LSD-25? Welp. Talking to our legal
    system is like such. The reality is that:
    
    A. It isn't so, It doesn't/shouldn't happen.
    B. Reality!! IT DOES! 
    C. Its unfair to the second wife and children for now, the first wife
    can take a back seat. Not work, and make second wife pay like crazy.
    I know a second wife and SO who are about to file chaper 13. Personal
    bankruptch. She has a hair salon that she started some 25 years ago.
    He is/was a traveling saleman. And it is to the point that he works for
    nothing. And she makes up for his short fall because of wife #1. Bottom
    line.... Agian the system is putting good people in bad times. Make
    them criminals, make them feel like there is no hope. Make them paupers
    to the first wife and your going to get big time resentment to what
    ever causes your trying to change.

    Anytime someone things I am full of rat crappie. I personally send you
    and invite to join me in Concord N.H. on a tuesday night and see for
    yourself. Coffie and a motorpool ride is on me, of course. I live in
    Nashua N.H. And I promise to be a good boy, and not pull any punchs
    that would make you feel uncomfortable.
    
    George

re: .4

 You seem to be making the assumption that the new spouse is completely
self-supporting. This is not a given. 

 It is my opinion that the income of the non-custodial parent should
not be augmented by any additional income derived by a new spouse for the
purpose of determining child support. If you are unwilling to be fair to
the non-custodial parent, at least be fair to the nmon-custodial parent's
spouse.

    re .4, I think it's grossly unfair to expect a 2nd wife to help support
    children that a man had with somebody else.  
    
    Lorna
    

    I specifically asked the mediation attorneys about this. No, the income
    of the new spouse cannot be counted as income for child support.
    *However* the decrease in expenses by the parent is considered to be
    an increase in income for the parent.
    
    Bonnie

    Attornies lie! They are on LSD25! How do you know when an attorney is
    lying? His/her lips are moving! :) 

>    *However* the decrease in expenses by the parent is considered to be
>    an increase in income for the parent.

 Does this mean that if a noncustodial parent marries someone who is in debt, 
that the increase in expenses can be considered a reduction in income and
therefore grounds to adjust the child support downward? If not, and I suspect 
it is not so, then the law is even more unfair.

    
    RE. 718.11
    
    There is no way in H*** that it could be considered fair for any one to
    consider it an increase of income just because he/she gets remarried or
    a live-in companion.
    
    Lenny

    Does it go both ways? That is, is the income of the custodial parent
    considered to increase if s/he remarries (and, hence, the child-support
    requirements are reduced)?
    
    -b (fortunate that I've never needed to deal with this...)

    
    
    NOW!!!! that I would like to see true .... and I am sure a lot of
    NON-CUSTODIAL-PARENTS would too .... Hey what's good for the Goose is
    good for the Gander
    
    
    Lenny

    .15
    No, the increased CP monies will inturn increase the NCP's for he/she
    is making it on a table/percentage of combined incomes. It is to
    keep as many CP women off the welfare rolls, which is fine for I
    believe in being a responsible person. But, to the NCP, who is usually
    the dad, its financial hell for him to feel safe in any way of a secure
    future for himself and others involved.
    
    I believe that we must pay a fair share. But sometimes fair is not.
    I was told may years ago that what is equal is not always fair. But
    there comes a point of reality. And that point is that if the system
    was alittle more humane. Perhaps there would be less snuffing of womens
    lives in its cause. For many of these cases are money related. And that
    is very very sad.
    
    George

    They told me that an increase in income for the CP would be considered.
    I'm currently the NCP btw.
    
    The CP gets 15% of their income discounted, and then the relative
    incomes of the two parents are considered when determining the
    actual amounts paid. Since my children's father makes/made about 2X my
    income, the amount that I have to pay is reduced.
    
    BJ

    I don't know about combined incomes in the case of the CP.  A friend of
    mines just won custody of her two kids after six years of being the NCP
    and having a combined income with her new spouse before taxes of
    $125,000.   She never had to pay him a nickle.  He makes $312.50 per
    week and pays her $50.00 per week and she's been asking for more in
    court on a regular basis.  So the theory that the CP's income is
    combined with the new spouse's income doesn't hold water.  She claims
    she doesn't have any income.  She takes care of her new spouse's
    company books for "gratis".  Take that one to your lawyer, I guarantee
    he/she's on LSD if he/she thinks they can enforce anything else in the
    court system of this great state of Tax/Massachusetts.
    

    So, if the custodial parent (usually but not always the ex-wife) gets
    remarried, I guess the NCP should be able to get a reduction in child
    support based in the income of the new (usually) husband, huh? Then it 
    would seem fair enough to me. Somehow, I don't think it would work that
    way though.                        
    

    It makes sense to me, that it ought to be that way.
    
    B

    The basis for child support should be the premise that each parent is
    responsible for half of the expenses to feed, educate and house the
    child.  The custodial parent should *have* to provide an accounting of
    the expenses regularly.
    
    I cannot understand logic that gives percentages of income and worse
    yet the wages of a new spouse.