Conference quokka::non_custodial_parents

    I don't know whether this is important but they were never married;
    only dated for three months.
    
    JMW
    

I think it depends on your local/state laws.  Most states will not TAKE your
income per se, but they might CONSIDER it in deciding whether he is able to
pay a certain amount.  In many states, a prenuptual agreement will not matter
if they are allowed to consider your income.

As a matter of fact, it sometimes depends on the judge, not the laws (well
really they are guidelines, not laws).  I know of one local judge who takes
the joint income and divides it in half (community property state) and then
considers that half when assigning child support.  Most other judges use the
actual income, though.

Kristen

    I DON'T KNOW WHAT STATE YOU LIVE IN BUT IN NEW HAMPSHIRE THE ONLY
    INCOME THAT IS CONSIDERED IS THE IN COIME OF THE PARENTS AND THEY USE A
    SET FORMULA BASED ON EARNING POWER AND PERCENTAGES AGAINST A PRE
    DETERMINED LEVEL FOR EACH INCOME RANGE.  I DON'T BELIEVE THAT YOUR
    INCOME CAN BE COUNTED.

    I live in Florida and I have a friend in a similar situation whose
    income was counted because she married the father.

    My suggestion would be for you not to get married until after the
    Child Support is ordered by the court.  This might mean pushing
    your wedding out quite awhile, but it might be worth it.  I (speaking
    as a custodial mom) feel that your income should not be considered
    because you are not a parent of the child, therefore you should
    not be responsible for helping to support the child ---- But,
    unfortunately the courts have their own rules.
    
    Good luck with whatever you decide to do, and with the court.  Your
    fiance sounds like a good father for wanting to have the support
    increased --- it usually is not the NCP who wants this.
    
    Debby
    

 .2> it sometimes depends on the judge, not the laws

            In my brother's case, (Mass) his child support was
       "adjusted" upwards.  In the court order the Judge made note of
       the fact that they (my brother and his girlfriend) were living
       together and sharing expenses.  She (the judge) then listed, but
       did not directly calculate in, his girlfriend's salary.   His
       child support is now well above the "guidelines" and his appeal
       was denied.

            In discussions with his lawyer and his ex, he got the same
       response.  "Your girlfriend is making over $40,000/year.  You can
       afford to give your ex a lot more then the guidelines."  My
       brother's problem now is that if he ever breaks up with his
       girlfriend, or he marrys her and she wants to stop working and
       have children, he is going to be in a real finacial bind.


       Richard

    I love it.  And this is all in the name of proper support for the
    "child(ren)".... yea, right...
    
    This wouldn't happen to be that female judge that was being looked at
    because of her, shall we say, less than balanced judgements....would
    it?

.7> This wouldn't happen to be that female judge that was being looked at
.7> because of her, shall we say, less than balanced judgements....would
.7> it?

       No this is not the one that Mass is trying to have removed.

       This is Justice Sheila E. McGovern.  She is one of the more
       senior judges in the Probate & Family Court and she has a
       reputation of being tough on men.  It's all legal, it's just not
       applied with the same rigor to both sides.  Example: My brother's
       ex supplied one paystub to have her income ($35,000+/year)
       accepted as valid with no mention of her pension.  The judge
       required a second hearing to get "more" information from my
       brother's company on his salary and pension value.  So did she
       consider both incomes before making a decision?  Sure she did.


       Richard

    That seems to be the bottom line here. "Tough on men".

>    My fiance currently pays $200 per month towards the support of his infant
>    daughter.  He is considering upping it to $300 because her mother

     I say good for him. $300.00 per month is allot closer to 
     helping mom out with the *real* cost of raising a child
     these days. Just wait till she want's to take ballet 
     lessons, needs braces for the overbite, and want's to
     be on the cheerleading squad all in the same fiscal 
     year. Rule # 1 is........KIDS ARE EXPENSIVE!!


>    constantly requests that he purchases her necessities.  It almost
>    appears that she contributes $0.00.  This dollar amount was not court

     I can assure you that if your hubby-to-be is only 
     sending her $200.00 per month, she is contributing
     financially. Please see rule #1 above.


>    After we are married and this should go to court, how do I keep my
>    income out of it?  Is there some type of prenuptual agreement or
 
     Why is this so important to you? When you marry, you 
     marry the whole person, baggage and all. If that means
     debts, kids, bad habits (dirty underwear on the 
     bathroom floor), etc, etc, than that is what it means.
     I think you may want to sit down and ask yourself, 
     "Am I willing to accept all the BULL$#*% that comes
     along with this-man-that-I-love". All of us have our
     skeletons in the closet. This man's ex and this     
     man's daughter are not going to go away when You get
     married. What's important is what's fair for everybody
     concerned, especially the daughter, and learning to
     accept REALITY for what it is.


-Neil

    
    
    Re: .0
    
    Why worry about it?  If you keep your finances separate so that in
    looking at his financial records they don't see any of yours, how
    will they know?  This legal matter has nothing to do with you.
    
    I asked this question before.  Re: the girlfriend who makes 40K.
    How did the court know that the girlfriend makes 40K?  On what basis
    did the court ask for that information?  If I were the girlfriend I
    wouldn't even go to the court hearing.  It has nothing to do with her.
    
    Other comments?
    
    Steve
    

    re:  .10
    
    Sorry, I don't agree with your paragraph about including spouse
    to-be's income.....My income should not be included in providing
    for something that was obviously not of my doing. Who's to
    know if the ex is *really* spending that-extra-money-from-the-
    spouse-to-be on the child and not spending it at Casual Corner?
    I am a spouse of an NCP, so draw on it what you will.

    -.10
    The reason I say she contributes $0.00 is because he gives her $200 per
    month and buys the baby clothes, food, pampers, 100% of the medical and
    nursery.  She does have a few outfits that my fiance did not purchase. 
    We recently had a 1 yr. birthday party and the baby's mother called my
    fiance's mother to leave a list of the things to get for the party.  WE
    furnished everything for the party except a container of baked beans
    which she picked up.  His reason for wanting to increase the sum is
    because she calls saying the baby is out of food, pampers etc.  She
    says she never has money which is why her phone is continuously
    disconected.  Funny how she always has on a new outfit.
    
    JMW

    
     >Funny how she always has on a new outfit.
    
    Yes, it is a funny value system that our society holds.......  Funny
    that in 1969 when we put men on the moon that the money spent on womens
    cosmetics alone could have put 3-4 moon walks that year. 

    When my ex kept giving me the 'ol sob story about how she needed more
    more more, I told her that if she could not take care of the children, then
    I'd *GLADLY* take them off her hands and see that they were taken care
    of.
    
    fred();

    re:  .14
    
    Let's not pick at women and their cosmetics :-) As my
    mom used to say "...you haf to suffa to be beautiful".
    As time goes on, women depend more on cosmetics as men do
    hair replacement systems :-)  let's give equal time to
    both genders.
    
    

    
    .13
    
    And I thought *I* was the only one with an ex who has the phone
    disconnected on a regular basis. I'll bet the phone company just
    *loves* people like that, at $40.00 per re-connect fee.
    
    -Neil
    

    .16 Understand that it is not a hit on women alone. It is that there
    seems to be a different value system here that says that we put
    ourselves above our children. Booze, butts, rec-drugs, are sometimes
    placed above the basic needs of what children need. The NCP becomes the
    bad boy, walking wallet here and this is wrong thinking. But, men as a
    whole do not spend the countless millions on them selves for vanity as
    women.

    
    re 10
    
    Neil,
    
    I agree with you in principal that when you marry someone you marry
    the whole person baggage and all.  But I disagree with your opinion
    that she should support another woman's child.  She has nothing to
    do with this child's conception or birth and is not legally bound
    to the child.  Why do you feel that folks who are not the birth
    parent's of a child should be legally required to help support the
    child?  
    
    I am planning on marrying a NCdad.  He and I live together.  I make
    a considerable amount more than he does.  I love both he and his
    daughter.  Yet I refuse to be forced to legally support her.  Her
    being brought into this world was not my decision.  Her mother made
    that decision and knew full well at the start that she was going to
    have to raise this child as a single mother.  
    
    Both John and I are college educated, she is not.  She clearly is not
    going to make nearly as much money as we do.  Is that a reason why I 
    should have to support her child?  WRONG!!!  
    
    I do help support this child when she is with us.  I help pay for the
    food that she eats, for the room that she sleeps in, for the clothes
    that she wears.  He is legally required to maintain a home which she
    can be a part of when she is with us.  I help contribute to that cost.
    So in a way I am already supporting this child.  
    
    However, I refuse to allow my finances to be given over in child
    support to this child's mom.  I worked my a** off to go through school
    on my own.  I want children of my own.  I will chose to go that route
    so that I could afford to give my kids the best I can.  
    
    It is about time that the courts started making the people responsible
    for bringing the children into the world resposible for supporting them
    when they are on this earth!!
    
    Michele

    .19 
    
    HERE! HERE!! (Standing ovation on the tube!) There is alot of this crud
    going on and the system punisish the responsible folk for what the
    irresponsible one do.

Hi Michele,

A few quick points to help clarify my position. I kinda 
figured my response in .10 would generate some questions.

    
>    I agree with you in principal that when you marry someone you marry
>    the whole person baggage and all.  But I disagree with your opinion
>    that she should support another woman's child.  She has nothing to
 

But Michele, reality teaches us that, if .0 marries this man, 
she *will* be supporting the child. Both financial and 
emotional. 
    
>    I am planning on marrying a NCdad.  He and I live together.  I make
>    a considerable amount more than he does.  I love both he and his
>    daughter.  Yet I refuse to be forced to legally support her.  Her


Nobody likes a gun to there head. I don't think you should 
be legally required to support her either. My point in .10
was that this child is going to be an issue that both 
husband *and* wife are going to have to deal with. That's
one of the things marriage is about, solving problems 
together. Getting hung up on weather to consider the
spouses income in determining child support amount, in
my opinion, is a legal rathole. As I said in .10, What's
important is what's fair to *all* parties concerned, 
including the spouse of the NCP. Clearly, it is not fair
to the NCP family to increase the amount of child support
due to an increase in income, when the current amount *is*
meeting the needs of the child. 

    
    
>    I do help support this child when she is with us.  I help pay for the
>    food that she eats, for the room that she sleeps in, for the clothes
>    that she wears.  He is legally required to maintain a home which she
>    can be a part of when she is with us.  I help contribute to that cost.
>    So in a way I am already supporting this child.  
    

Exactly my point!!

    
>    It is about time that the courts started making the people responsible
>    for bringing the children into the world responsible for supporting them
>    when they are on this earth!!
 

I Totally agree....   


-Neil

    
    
    re -1
    
    Neil
    
    I think we agree on the same thing.  Just the way it was worded in 
    .10 was not clear to me.
    
    Michele

    
    Re: .21
    
    > Getting hung up on weather to consider the spouses income in
    > determining child support amount, in my opinion, is a legal
    > rathole.  As I said in .10, What's important is what's fair
    > to *all* parties concerned, including the spouse of the NCP.
    > Clearly, it is not fair to the NCP family to increase the amount
    > of child support due to an increase in income, when the current
    > amount *is* meeting the needs of the child.
    
    I'm not so sure that you do agree with Michele.  What you've
    written here says to me that if the current amount doesn't meet
    the child's needs then it is fair to increase it.  Fine, I'll 
    agree with that, as long as the increase is based on the NCP's
    ability to pay that increase and does not consider any other
    person's income.
    
    A second hitch is that here in NH, the child support amount is NOT
    based on need.  It is determined solely on the ability to pay as
    outlined in a state generated norm.  So following what I think you're
    saying here is that the NCPs spouse's income should be fair game just
    because he/she is now married to the NCP and the incomes together mean
    there's now a deeper pocket.
    
    It is NOT, in my opinion, a "legal rathole."  Why should any court
    have the right to do this.  Based on what?  According to what legal
    principle?
    
    Of course, your argument about marrying the entire package including
    the baggage from the past is quite right.  Any person who marries into
    a situation like that and doesn't expect to become both emotionally and
    financially involved in that past is living in lala land, BUT at that
    point it's a question of volition.  That person is making a choice
    and along with the NCP works out an equitable way of dealing with the
    situation.  What people are objecting to here is the court/government
    getting involved where they have no business doing so.
    
    Steve
    

    ..... And still the fun part is that more than 70% of the populas is
    divorced! So you cannot go dumping this guy and sucessfully finding a
    guy with no excess baggage! We are all in a fix and the only way out is
    to fix the problem with good laws and better understanding of todays
    CP/NCP! The only way out! Outside of getting together with some of the
    folks here and renting a wood chipper and doing a two for one deal!:-)
    Maybe a three for one! Wow! This could really be a solution!

    The key phrase here is "ability to pay".  Very often the court will
    say "since *ncp's spouse* is providing $X then that relieves some
    of ncp's expenses.  Therefore ncp has the *ability to pay* more".
    
    In reality *ncp* is having to pay more because his spouse is working.
    In reality, the spouse is paying child support to the ex.  
    
    This is &^%$#@!!!!!!!
    fred();

    
    Steve,
    
    I object to having the government/courts trying to put a gun to
    my head and telling me how to fix this too. Especially when they
    are doing such a lousey job of it. As i've said before, let's do
    what's fair for everybody concerned, including the NCP's spouse.
    I don't know what the laws are here in Colorado, but back in 
    Georgia, where I got the big D, my attorney advised me the court
    looks at the NCP's income. Period.
    
    -Neil
    

    Re: 94.25
    
    That is how I see it, too Fred.  I have no problem with the
    court asking what % of the household expenses are paid by me.
    If I remarry, I can accept that the court might consider that
    I have lower living expenses than I did before and ask me for
    a new financial affidavit to consider whether I alone can afford
    more, because the living expenses I personally pay have gone down,
    but I would say no way to an outright demand to see what salary my
    second wife makes so that they can tap that, too.  It is none of
    their business.
    
    By the way, what happened to the .25 that Neil entered that
    mysteriously disappeared while I was replying to it?
    
    Steve
    

    
    Re: .26
    
    Huh?  I'm confused.  What is the point about the "gun to your
    head to fix this too."  I don't understand.
    
    I'd agree that Georgia has the right idea, though.
    
    Steve
    

    
    Steve,
    
    I was just trying to make the point that I too object to the
    courts *forcing* you to add your incomes together.
    
    Sometimes I try just a little too hard. Maybe I have a future
    in writing those cheep Sex novels they sell down at the First 
    Amendment Bookstore.
    
    -Neil
    

>    Sometimes I try just a little too hard. Maybe I have a future
>    in writing those cheep Sex novels they sell down at the First 
>    Amendment Bookstore.
    

	Watch it Neil, that's where I have been selling mine 
	and it hasn't been too profitable...  :^)

       Some background:
       In a discussion about child support, one of the issues is the
       contribution of the CP.  How much is it, and is that "enough".

       Some of the problems with trying to discuss this aspect are;
       - you have no audit/accounting of how much money is
         actually spent on the child(ren).
       - the "cost of raising a child" is a subjective analysis. 
         What a school janitor spent to raise his children is
	 different then what the bank CEO spent to raise his.

       So, for the sake of discussion, lets say that a married couple
       spends 35% of their income to raise their children.  Then a
       reasonable support agreement might be;
       
               Income         Support
           CP  20,000          7,000      Now they each pay 7,000/year
          NCP  20,000          7,000      and it looks fair to me.
           ----------         ------
               40,000 x 35% = 14,000

       Now the problem:
       It seems to me, that in this situation, if the NCP gets married again
       and the NCP's spouse's salary is thrown into the calculation, we have;

               Income         Support
           CP  20,000          7,000      Now the NCP and NCP-S pay   
          NCP  20,000          7,000      14,000 (see above) and the
        NCP-S  20,000          7,000      total support is 21,000 which
           ----------         ------      is more then would be spent if
               60,000 x 35% = 21,000      the CP and NCP had stayed married!
       
       Another problem:
       What happens to the above if, the CP earns less then her/his
       potential by design?  What happens if the CP quits work?

       MY conclusion is that before the NCP's spouse contributes to the
       support of the children, it sure would be nice to:

       1) Account for the money labeled as child support
       2) Have some legal lid on the "mandatory" contribution of the NCP
       3) Have the legal system assess some "mandatory" contribution to be
          made by the CP


       Richard

    I saw mention of including the NCP's spouse in figuring a possible
    support increase to the CP, BUT what happens when the CP has an
    additional income , a new spouse , etc. Do we only make an adjustment
    when an NCP seems to have additional ??? WHY ? MY X pays the mortgage
    with my substantail support payments. Where and when does it get better
    ?
    
    
    d.d.

    
    Re: .32
    
    Yeah, my ex also pays the mortgage with my support payments and
    has $655 a month left over!!!  Tell me about it.
    
    Re: .31
    
    New Hampshire does something similar to your scenario.  They
    have a cookbook:
    
    1) How much do the NCP and CP gross together monthly? 
    2) What % of combined gross incomes is earned by NCP and by CP.
    3) How much should be available for support from that amount?
       (The amount available for support is taken directly from a
        state supplied chart.)
    4) NCP pays % of support amount equal to % earned of combined
       gross
    
    	For example: (These numbers are not real.  Just made up to
                      show the process)
    
    1) NCP makes $3500.  CP makes $1500. Total: $5000
    2) NCP makes 70% of $5K. CP makes 30% of $5K.
    3) State chart shows support amount for 2 kids from $5K gross: $1800.
    4) NCP pays 70% of $1800 to CP: $1260. CP responsible for balance.
    
    Steve
    

    
    re.32:
    
    Are you sure it's that way ? Or could it be like this : ?
    
    
    judge:  How much does the father gross per week ?
    
    Father/lawyer:  About $800.00 , your honor.
    
    judge: let's take 33% of that.
    
    
    final outcome:
    
    33% of gross is almost 50% of net. where did the mother pay/be included
    ?
    
    
    These are just fake numbers too, but this is what Mass. does. I know
    for a FACT. Almost 3 years since I lived in my house and supporting
    my 2 sons to the tune of over $34,000.00 , I have NOT seen $200.00
    worth of clothes total. I have bought additional above my support,
    paid for medical bills she refuses to pay (but is court ordered to pay)
    and a whole lot more..... I have NEVER missed seeing my sons EVER and
    have been denied 17 documented times. I work three jobs now. I have
    to "exist"  cuz it sure ain't  living..................
    
    ps. We should VOTE the judges out at the same time we get rid of the
        other Mass. sludge in office... To bad they are appointed !?!?
    
    
    d.d.

    that should have been re:.33, excuse please...
    
    
    

    
    Re:.34
    
    Yes, NH does it just as I described.  That is where I live and
    pay support.
    
    Steve
    

    It seems to me that no matter which system your state uses, they all
    seem to be out of touch with reality.  Any system that takes close to
    50% of your take home pay is not fair.  Then you add the arbitrary
    rulings from judges that are burnt out and don't want to hear about
    what's fair and you have a system that is out of control.  
    
    I realize that in the past many of the custodial parents got the royal
    shaft, but it isn't right to make those of us who filed under the new
    guide lines pay for the past indiscrepencies.  When I filed for
    divorce, which was the month that the new guidelines took effect in
    Mass., My lawyer put the timeing for this action in a phrase that 
    relates to "a day late and a dollar short".  There are no options 
    available, your support is based on an arbitrary set of guidelines.
    
    It isn't right that there is no accounting for the money used for child
    support.  My son comes to visit in clothes with holes in them and my ex
    shows up in new outfits, new coats and a new car.  My ex is a
    Registered Nurse who refuses to get a full time job, and the court
    dosn't care.  (Just so you know my kids are 11 and 16 so she doesn't
    need to be home for them.)   You figure it out....I can't. 
    
    Bob

    Bob,
    
    	Your wrong in some respects that she doesn't have to be home for them.
    Esp the 11 year old. As a landlord, I have seen moms do this sort of
    thing and the kids get into some trouble for there is no parential
    mentor around. But what do I know about this, I am a NCP also.
    
    Geo

    It seems far less obvious to me than to most people writing here that
    fairness requires ignoring the income of a new spouse of a
    non-custodial parent.  I find it very difficult to generate some
    general principle as to what "fairness" would be.  But let me give one
    hypothetical example.
    
    I know a couple where one spouse is a mutual fund manager, making
    perhaps $90,000 / year.  At the time the couple was expecting their
    first child, the other spouse received a pink slip as a teacher in the
    Boston school system, so the teacher became a homemaker, and has since
    been raising the now two kids in the family.  Suppose they now got
    divorced; presumably the manager would be a non-custodial parent,
    called on for something like $30,000 per year in child support
    payments.
    
    Now, suppose the manager got remarried, perhaps to a V.P. in her firm
    making $200,000.  And suppose she decided to have another kid, and to
    quit work to raise it.  Now the two parents of the original children
    (still pre-schoolers) have a combined income of $0.  But the
    non-custodial parent lives in a family with income of $200,000.  Is it
    obvious that child support to the custodial parent should be $0?
    
    I do not know what Solomon would do in this case, nor in the more
    common case where the non-custodial parent and the new spouse both have
    more modest incomes.  I can see the merit in the point that the new
    spouse had no responsibility for the child(ren), and thus shouldn't be
    taxed.  But I can also see the merit in the notion that the
    non-custodial parent should contribute support roughly in proportion to
    his or her ability, and that acquiring a new spouse with significant
    resources does clearly impact the NCP's financial ability.  Fairness
    here seems at least complicated.
    
    What do others think is "fair" in a case where physical custody is
    being split 50/50, and both parents have comfortable incomes, but one
    makes some 25% more than the other?  That's roughly my current
    situation, and I don't think the court system will know what formula to
    apply to whom.
    
    		- Bruce

    Bruce -
    
    For specifics in your instance.  When I was in this situation with my
    ex, neither of us contributed anything to the other.  Housing and food
    were split 50/50 by virtue of the half-time living arrangement. 
    Daycare/summer camp costs were paid either weekly, with the 'on-call'
    parent for that week footing the bill, or split evenly with two checks
    sent to the provider.  Clothing wound up being split fairly evenly,
    with a fairly complete wardrobe at both homes.  (I bought winter
    parkas, 'cause I took the kid skiing and they had the "need" with me.) 
    All those miscellaneous fees got paid by the parent 'on-call' the week
    the fee came due, and it pretty much evened out.
    
    Worked well for us, your mileage may vary.  (Nearly gave the judge a
    coronary, but we'd already been operating that way quite amicably for
    about two years by the time we got to court, so it got rubber-stamped
    to continue.)
    
    Alison

    
    re 39
    
    Bruce,
    
    In my opinion, the only two people who should be financially supporting
    a child of their own is the mother and father of said child. 
    Regardless of money of other parties brougt into subsequent
    relationships, the responsibility still lies with the natural parents
    of the child.  This is one place where the court system has gone wrong.
    By allowing non-natural parent's income into the picture, they have 
    allowed the natural parent(s) to reneg on their responsibility to their
    child.
    
    Now I agree that the good of the children should and must come first,
    but at what cost?  That may sound cynical, but I see absolutely no 
    logical reason why a non-natural parent should have to pay for a
    child that is not their responsibility.  The courts by doing so have
    sent a message to parents in such a situation that it is ok for
    them to ignore their responsibility.  Now by allowing them to reneg
    on their financial responsibility, don't you think that some parents
    will take advantage of this and reneg on their emotional and physical
    responsibility to their child?  
    
    Somehow a message has to be sent to parents that no-one else is 
    responsible for their children but them.  When I decide to have
    a child, I know that myself and the father will be the only two
    people on this earth that are responsible for that child.  I
    may be marrying a NCDad.  So a great deal of his income already
    goes to support one child, I will have to make up the difference
    with our own child.  I have no objections to that becuase I want
    to do so.  Now each of us make a good years salary, but neither
    of us could afford to stay home to raise a child.  Why should the
    mother of his first child be allowed to do so simply because he
    now has a higher combined income?  Why should she be allowed to
    reneg on her responsiblity to her child?
    
    Michele

    
    I think there are two issues here:
    
    (1) Voluntary reduction in ability to support
    (2) Non-voluntary reduction in ability to support
    
    Bruce's extreme example was a voluntary reduction.  In this instance,
    if the parent makes the decision to reduce his/her income, then that
    parent has a responsibility to find the means to continue supporting at
    the present level (new spouse or other means, however s/he can find
    it).  If the reduction is non-voluntary (loss of job, hospital, etc.),
    then some alternative should be sought - reduction or elimination
    (temporary) of support, etc....    In neither of these cases should the
    non-parent (i.e. spouse of either parent) be ORDERED to help out. 
    There is no legal tie to these children.
    
    I don't mind cooking, cleaning, doing laundry, listening to, helping
    with homework, etc... for David's kids - and I don't even mind that a
    portion of my hard-earned salary goes to provide for them (now WHAT
    portion is another story!).  But the day someone ORDERS any part of my
    salary to support these children is the day I'm in the divorce courts
    too (which ends up HURTING them because their support would have to be
    reduced in order for David to pay me $.10!).  I'm sorry, but my support
    of them - emotional, physical, financial, etc. - is my choice and
    nobody will order me to provide it.  They have two parents and should
    live within the means of THEIR TWO parents - even if the means are
    different than the two parents of my children.
    
    As you can see, I don't feel very strongly about this....
    
    Kristen
    
    P.S.  I am told that the Texas courts have a method for handling
    temporary changes in support due to non-voluntary measures.  If it is
    voluntary, then the NCP better have a way to pay the same support.  We
    haven't tested this, and hope to not!

       
       
       How about this for a minor twist to cloud the issue?  Is there a
       notion in the judicial system that goes like this:

            If an NCP loses his/her job and can't support them self,
       there is no public safety net.  The NCP depends on savings (ha
       ha), parents and relatives.  If that support is not present, the
       NCP is in the street.  (read, it doesn't cost the taxpayer any
       money)

            If the CP loses his/her job and can't support them self,
       then the CP depends on savings, parents, relatives AND the public
       safety net, AFDC. (read, it cost the taxpayer money)

            Hence, the judicial system trys to get whatever it can from
       the NCP or people directly related to the CP or NCP.  Under this
       scenario, "related" would include parents, siblings and new
       spouses of both CP and NCP.

            The problem with going after parents and siblings, I think,
       is that there is a lot of history and precedent against
       collecting a debt from a relative who hasn't signed some dotted
       line, but a spouse is fair game.

       Every time I ask an attorney this question, I get a political non
       answer.  I sure would like to know how judges and attorneys view
       this part of the issue.


       Richard

    re .43
    
    I don't know if it is the Judicial system or the Legislative that
    is the problem here, but in recent years there has been a *big*
    push to collect child support payments from the NCP (ie saves
    states money from AFDC).  However,  there has been little or
    nothing done to support the visitation rights of the children
    and NCP (ie, doesn't cost the state anything so so-what).
    
    Personally I am in favor of the NCP providing child support, but
    I find this Legislative/Judicial approach *HIGHLY* hopochritical.
    
    fred();

    
    Re: .43
    
    Frankly I think the idea is ridiculous.
    
    My brother hasn't paid support for years as far as I can determine,
    and you are suggesting that perhaps they should go after my parents,
    me, my sister, or other brothers?  Are you for real?!  Even thinking
    someone might be considering such an idea, gets my blood boiling.
    
    Why would you be asking an attorney such a question?  Where is this
    coming from?  Inquiring minds want to know.  I expect this is a
    joke, right?
    
    Steve
    

    UM, Steve... I think you misunderstood what he was saying.  Corect me
    if youd like, but I think he was saying that as well as depending upon
    the rels and family members, the CP ALSO has the safety net of Welfare.
    
    YEs?

    
    Re: .46
    
    You are right.  He is saying that, but that was in the second 
    paragraph and the note went on to say something about historical
    precedent against collecting from someone who hadn't signed on 
    the dotted line.  It wasn't all that clear, which is why I wrote
    what it seemed to be saying to me and asked for clarification.
    
    Steve
    

  .45> you are suggesting that perhaps they should go after my parents,
  .45> me, my sister, or other brothers?

    NO WAY, ABSOLUTELY NOT !!!
    I'm saying they might like to, but they don't try because
       .43> there is a lot of history and precedent against collecting 
       .43> a debt from a relative who hasn't signed some dotted line

       
  .45> Why would you be asking an attorney such a question?  Where is this
  .45> coming from?  [...] I expect this is a joke, right?

       This is definitely not a joke.  It comes from trying to make sense
       out of the system. Here is my example.

            In 1989, I had a support order that required I pay all
       expenses (I was still living in the marital home).  In March of
       1989, my ex succeeded in having the court force me to leave. 
       When they re-wrote the support order, the second support order
       referenced the first support order in such a way as to require
       that I pay support of $450/month MORE THAN MY INCOME!  Obviously
       and error, right?

           Well, I filed a motion for reconsideration and the hearing
       wasn't scheduled until June. Now keep in mind, I'm getting behind
       in bills at the rate of $450/month PLUS my own living expenses!
       At the hearing in June, I'm last on the list.  The judge takes
       the lawyers in chambers and says "The order needs to be changed,
       but we don't have time today", so the hearing is rescheduled to
       August.  In August, I get the same deal, rescheduled to
       September.  In September, the telephone, electric and gas are
       shut off at the marital home.  My ex (who has refused to get a
       job) has filed for emergency welfare aid.  Now the judicial
       system finds the time to hear my case.  I get a new support order
       (but the debt caused by the first is still my responsibility).

            I start thinking, the court is busy and they have to choose
       which cases they hear and how they fix problems.  Fair is not
       just, him, her and the kids.  It also includes the taxpayer.
       Does the court try to take as much as it can, from who ever it
       can, before it makes the taxpayer pay?



       Richard

       PS  When I was no longer directly responsible for her bills, my
           ex broke down and started substitute teaching to supplement
           the alimony and child support payments.  No welfare.

    re .43
    
    I'm going to stay totally away from the new spouse issue here but, I
    know of NO case law or statutory law that allows the courts to order
    relatives -- grandparents, aunts, uncles etc. -- to pay child support. 

    Here's a scarry one if you have kids.  
    
    More and more the *parents* of teen age fathers are being required
    to pay the child support for their sons.
    
    Before you jump on me for what the parents of the *mother* get stuck
    with,  *much* more often than not the teen age mother will leave home
    and go on welfare and W.I.C.  I have never heard anything about the 
    mother's parenst being requred to help reimburse the welfare payments.
    
    fred();

    Is there a court case? An actual docket number that I could read at the
    local law lib?

    
    re -1
    
    Fred
    
    Could you  provide more info on this.  I have never heard of such
    a thing.  Having lived in a location where there were a new crop
    of teenage parents each year I am curious as to how this has come
    about.  Also, it is a common myth that the majority of teenage 
    mothers go on public aid.  In fact, I have witnessed quite the
    opposite.  The teenage mother's were living with her parents or
    the father's parents.  Granted, there are many that do go on 
    public aid.  This is an area that really has yet to be addressed
    in the courts. 
    
    I don't see how it would be legal to force either set of grandparent's
    to support the grandchild.
    
    Michele

    
    Re: .48 
    
  .45> you are suggesting that perhaps they should go after my parents,
  .45> me, my sister, or other brothers?

    .48> NO WAY, ABSOLUTELY NOT !!!
    .48> I'm saying they might like to, but they don't try because ...
    
    Well, that is certainly clear, but the following confuses me:
    
    .48> I start thinking, the court is busy and they have to choose
    .48> which cases they hear and how they fix problems.  Fair is not
    .48> just, him, her and the kids.  It also includes the taxpayer.
    .48> Does the court try to take as much as it can, from who ever it
    .48> can, before it makes the taxpayer pay?
    
    The final question above is the confusing part, it seems to be
    contradicting what you said above.  If the court goes after the CP
    and the NCP	and can't get enough to support the children, then 
    who would it be appropriate for the court "to take as much as it
    can" from before going to the taxpayer?  It seems relatives of the
    NCP/CP would be the only place; you say that that is not what
    you are suggesting; and yet this final question appears to be
    advocating a court which goes for whomever has money before going
    to the taxpayer.
    
    This sounds great to me too, but if it isn't the relatives, where
    will the money come from?
    
    Steve
    

    
    re -1
    
    Steve,
    
    Why shouldn't the parents of the child be the ONLY ones responsible?
    
    Why should relatives have to pay support for children that are not
    their own?  
    I can understand if someone is unemployed and needs help that the
    family if it is financially able should help out as much as it
    possibly can.  But to have that mandated by the courts is quite another
    thing.  One is out of a sense of compassion and family duty, while the
    other is being forced upon someone.  
    
    However, if a parent looses a job which helps support thier child, they
    should look for another job.  It may not be the job they want, and it
    may very well be flipping burgers.  There are plenty of jobs out there
    to be had.  Why is it that it is common occurance for NCP to have
    to work two or three jobs to meet their support payments and to exist
    on the remainder, but unemployed folks can expect to live off of other
    people?  Why does this country still advocate non-responsibility on
    the part of the parent?
    
    Makes no sense!!
    
    Michele

    RE .52. Michael  (parents responsible for tean ager's child support)
    
    I don't have any direct case numbers or experience on this.  Where
    I got my information was from a ToughLove group that I belong to
    and was fairly active in up until about six months ago.  One of
    the parents said that one of their friends was being put into this
    situation and that some states (I believe Indiana was mentioned) are
    getting really nasty about this.
    
    The fact is that parents can be held liable for legal and financial
    responsibility of minor children (unless the child has been
    "emancipated").  Along the same line I *do* know of one case where
    a criminal act took place that destroyed certain property.  The
    property owner took the *parents* to court--and won a judgement
    against them.
    
    fred();

    
    Re: -1
    
    Michele,
    
    I am agreeing with you.  Relatives should NOT be responsible.
    
    I'm only agreeing that it would be terrific if when the parents
    can't pay, that there be some other place but the taxpayer.  We
    all know, however, that terrific or not it's wishful thinking.
    That is the point I was making. 
    
    Steve
     

 .53>                                 If the court goes after the CP
 .53> and the NCP and can't get enough to support the children, then
 .53> who would it be appropriate for the court "to take as much as it
 .53> can" from before going to the taxpayer?  It seems relatives of the
 .53> NCP/CP would be the only place; you say that that is not what
 .53> you are suggesting; and yet this final question appears to be
 .53> advocating a court which goes for whomever has money before going
 .53> to the taxpayer.
       
       Steve, I seem to be having a problem making this clear enough.

       I am NOT ADVOCATING anything !!!!

       I am trying to 'guess at' and or 'understand' how THE COURT
       thinks.  They keep doing things, I think, are totally unreasonable
       and going after money from people who would not otherwise pay.
       What possible reasoning could THEY be using to do this.  I DON'T
       think its right.  I just want to know, WHAT THE &%#* do they
       think they are doing.

       Another war story (I believe this was one of Judge Shirley McGovern's)

            This guy looses his job and is out of work for more than six
       months. His new wife gets a promotion in a neighboring state (she
       is a middle level manager), so he moves out of Mass. He now owes
       over $5,000 in child support and lives out of state.  His ex
       invites him back to his child's christening, and the police
       arrest him.  The Judge puts him in jail for "contempt of court"
       because he hasn't paid his child support.  The judge makes it
       clear that he isn't getting out until it is paid in full. What
       happens, his new wife and his parents sign for a loan and pay!

            In a normal family, if the parents are out of work, then
       there is less money or no money and THAT'S THE END OF IT.  How
       does the court get a man with no job to pay a bill?  The court
       knows, that if his relatives have money, and they put enough
       pressure on, then one of the relatives will pay!  I think this
       stinks!!!

            However, I would like to know:  Why would the court WANT to
       do this?  What gives them the JUSTIFICATION to do it?  Does our
       culture here in the USA think this is OK?  
       


       Have I cleared my position up, or made in worse?
       Richard

    
    Re: .57
    
    Ah, yes, it is cleared up now.  It was not clear that what you
    were doing was trying to "get into their heads" to see what they
    were thinking.  It appeared to me as if that was what YOU were
    thinking.
    
    Thanks for taking the trouble to explain.  I'm with you now.
    
    Steve
    

    I have another point of view to share here and, since I'm a CP, I guess
    I see things from a slightly different way.......
    
    Legally, I don't know whether the courts have a right to enforce
    relatives, new spouses, etc. to foot the bills for support, but IMHO I
    don't see that much of a problem with it.  The "relatives" part of it
    is actually harder for me to see than the new spouse.  Let me
    explain.....
    
    I realize that jobs are being lost, people are out of work, homes are
    being lost, etc. by parents directly responsible for support payments
    to their children, but the simple fact remains that the child(ren)
    STILL need to live (i.e. food, clothes, school activites, etc.).  For
    ANY parent, either CP or NCP, that child should be the first priority,
    not a new husband/wife, a new family, or a new way of living.  As a
    CP, I did not CHOOSE my new lifestyle when my spouse chose to divorce
    me nor did my chldren.  We were victims of a lifestyle change that cut
    our income in half overnight.  Before any ex thinks about taking on a
    "new lifestyle", both they and the person that they may be choosing to
    share it with SHOULD be aware and responsible enough to know that their
    first priority is to the children that they parented, not to their
    present lifestyle.
    
    I feel that some of us have become irresponsible to these children, and
    we feel that society should "pick up the tab" for their life because
    we're out of work, having hard times, etc.  If, as a parent, you choose
    to start a new life, members of that new life take on joint
    reponsibilities with you.....and IMHO, that includes your chidren.
    After all, we're parents for life, not until we start a new family.
    
    Chris

    re. 59 chris
    
    I agree with most of what you say about being responsible for the
    children.  BUT---
    
    What we are discussing here is:  Should the NCP become *unable* to
    pay due to *involuntary* circumstance (ie, lost job,  injured, etc)
    should the NCP's spouse/relatives be required to pick up the child
    support payments??   If the NCP was still living with the family
    (still married) and was laid-off and/or injured, would the court go
    to the NCP's parents/relatives and *require* that they help out
    with the family expenses?
    
    In Colorado and it appears most other states if you are
    injured/laid-off,  then the child support does not get reduced until
    the court orders the reduction.  The court system being backed up
    the way it is, this may not happen for several months.  The NCP
    may not have the financial capability to higher a lawyer should this
    happen.  The back payments become a legal debt, and the court often
    goes after the NCP's spouse (who had nothing to do with bringing
    the children into the world) to collect that debt.
    
    fred();
    
    

    
    Re: .59
    
    Chris,
    
    I'm feeling just a little angry with your reply so you might want
    press 'next unseen' if you don't care to read what I have to say.
    
    
    
    > As a CP, I did not CHOOSE my new lifestyle when my spouse chose
    > to divorce me nor did my chldren.  We were victims of a lifestyle
    > change that cut our income in half overnight.
    
    What you've just written sounds real familiar to me.  It takes on 
    a tone of blaming your ex-spouse for it all and leaves you as a 
    "victim."  Well maybe, maybe not.  I often heard this from my ex and
    still do occasionally, but it takes two to tango which is something
    that she didn't seem to understand since she didn't then and still
    doesn't accept any of the responsibility for the condition of our
    relationship which even she agreed was pretty bad.
    
    > Before any ex thinks about taking on a "new lifestyle", both they
    > and the person that they may be choosing to share it with SHOULD
    > be aware and responsible enough to know that their first priority
    > is to the children that they parented, not to their present lifestyle.
    
    I agree to a point.  I have two children and I have responsibilities to
    them which precede any others I might enter into.  If I remarry, it
    will be with the understanding that I have responsbilities to my
    children which will affect a marriage to someone else and that entering
    into a second marriage does not alter those responsbilities in any way.
    Does that mean that a second wife should accept these responsbilities
    as hers AND make them a first priority.  No way, Jose!  That is my
    problem, not hers.  I think you're engaging in a little wishful
    thinking here.
    
    > If, as a parent, you choose to start a new life, members of that
    > new life take on joint reponsibilities with you.....and IMHO,
    > that includes your chidren.
    
    Get real, Chris.  I'm glad you wrote IMHO, because your saying so
    doesn't make it so.  I can agree that taking on that "new life" as
    you call it doesn't free me from being a father to my children and I
    wouldn't want or expect it to.  I would agree that a second spouse will
    be affected by this, will become involved in my children's lives and
    will from time to time have to do some things she may resent or not
    want to do, but does that make her responsible to them?  I don't think
    so.
    
    
    Steve
    

    I certainly wouldn't presume to second-guess how the courts of this
    land think, but there is another possibility that hasn't been mentioned
    here.
    
    If either natural parent of the child were to die, the courts would
    probably award custody to the surviving parent (presuming there are no
    criminal abuse reasons to the contrary).  If both natural parents were
    to die (whether married to each other or divorced at the time), the 
    courts would probably award custody to willing relatives (grandparents, 
    aunts, uncles, etc.) before considering foster placement -- unless, of
    course, there were non-related guardians named in a will.  If there
    were no willing relatives, and the spouse of a non-custodial parent
    were to step forward and volunteer to assume custody, I'd guess the
    courts would look more favorably on such a placement than on the foster
    care system.  In other words, I believe the courts would try to place
    the child with a known and willing relative or step-parent before
    placing the child in a state-supported environment.
    
    It would seem somewhat logical to me, then, that the court would
    consider the same relatives and step-parents as likely sources for
    additional support for that child when additional support is needed.
    
    I'm not saying that I agree with this.  Yet, I can see the logic behind
    it and understand why, in the case of parental death, it makes sense. 
    Why not in the case of parental neglect?  The difference, of course, is
    in the willingness of the non-parental party to assume the responsibility 
    that cannot be forced by law.  
    
    I'd also guess that if a spouse of a non-custodial parent were to be 
    assessed support payments, and were to get a good lawyer, legal history
    could be made in forcing the courts to realize the gross unfairness of
    requiring an unrelated third party to assume financial responsiblity.
    
    Assuming, of course, one had the time and money to fight such a battle.
    
    Karen  
         

    
    
    Re: .63
    
    > Assuming, of course, one had the time and money to
    > fight such a battle.
    
    There is another way.  Simply say, "No."  More than one person
    has stood in front of a court and for reasons of principle and
    conscience said no.  Not too long ago a man here in NH was jailed
    by the court when he refused to comply with what he believed was
    unjust.  He wasn't in jail too long when the judge let him out
    realizing that it wasn't going to resolve the issue.
    
    Steve
    

    re: .60
    
    I see your point of feeling that the courts should not "legally" hold
    the new spouse financially responsible for a child that isn't their's,
    but IMHO I still feel that the new spouse SHOULD be willing to come
    forward and legally accept that responsibility (let me say that I'm not
    that much of a dreamer....I know that it isn't going to happen unless
    it's "court ordered"....which is what all the fuss is about).  I guess
    I just see things differently....if the new spouse enters into the
    relationship KNOWING that they may be called upon to handle the burden
    of a child emotionally, physically (as in the death of the parent) and
    financially, then that means taking on all that that responsibility
    entails....including having your income go to support the child of the
    parent that you've chosen to live with.
    
    re: .62
    
    No, I did not hit next unseen......I'm always interested in different
    views and opinions.  I DO NOT see myself or my children as "victims" in
    the divorce, but rather as victims in the financial mess that ensued by
    one parent leaving a relationship, assuming another relationship and
    household, and then trying to support both families with less income. 
    The divorce was created by both of us, the mess that ensued was not. 
    It was caused by one parent taking on a second family unit at the cost
    of the original children.
    
    In no way am I placing any blame for this.  It was decision that was
    made and everyone lived through it, even though it was very difficult
    and painful.  The reason I mention this is actually to make a point.
    It does seem difficult to accept that the new spouse should be
    financially responsible for children that they had nothing to do with,
    but what about the following circumstance.
    
    My spouse desired a divorce after an 18 year marriage, and entered into
    another relationship shortly afterward.  The demands of that family
    unit plus our child support caused him to file bankruptcy.  He stopped
    the divorce and I was financially responsible for all bills (both his
    and joint ones from the marriage) which meant that I was "forced" into
    bankruptcy with him.  Now, I could contend that since our marriage was
    over and these bills were his "personal" ones, then I'm not responsible
    for paying them, but as his legal "wife", I take on that moral and
    financial responsiblity.  My point is, so does a new spouse upon
    marrying a CP or NCP!
    
    Maybe instead of discussing "legality" in "forcing" new spouses to
    support children that aren't their's, we should be looking at the
    morality of realizing that children's needs (and I'm not talking about
    the other parent who has managed to buy a new car, new clothes, or a
    new house etc. on the child support payments!) MUST be met.....it isn't an
    option.
    
    P.S.  At the bankruptcy, my still-husband walked away with a clean
    slate (no bills or payments).  I kept all joint bills, arranged lower 
    payments, and slowly paid them all off over the next 6 years.  It can
    be done, but it "costs" a great deal (and I don't mean money....)
    And, in case you're wondering, there is no anger or regret....we all
    learn, grow, and start fresh each day!
    

    I suspect there will be no "general" rule that could ever be applied. 
    I am brought to think (by several of the previous replies) this
    thought:
    
    When you enter into a marriage, there exist two kinds of property:
    separate and joint.  It is my understanding that the stereo system I
    owned when I got married remains my separate property, as does the car
    and house and savings, etc.  The property acquired after the marriage
    is jointly owned by me and my spouse.  
    
    I also understand this applies to liabilities.  So, when I got
    re-married, my child support obligation remains my separate obligation
    (my spouse's willingness to help notwithstanding).  Now, if
    circumstances change, and I am unable to fulfill that obligation, a
    debt begins to acrue.  Are we saying that that debt, acquired AFTER the
    marriage, remains the separate liability or are we changing rules here?
    
    What happens if I lose my job and can't pay my car payments.  I bought
    the car (entered the obligation) before I re-married... does my spouse
    become liable?  When I married my ex, she owed several thousand, and I
    owed nada.  She lost her job (we moved) and I paid the debt.  But,
    there was no court action, of course, and at the time, I felt there was
    no problem with that.  BUT...was I *legally* obliged to pay?  I don't
    know.
    
    At the same time, I ABSOLUTELY disagree that as long as I am paying the
    court ordered child support, regularly and without fail, then it should
    be absolutely inconceivable to tap into my new wife's income to
    increase that payment, just because it's there.  Furthermore, if my new
    wife were to lose her job, my FIRST obligation would continue to be to
    the children...
    
    
    just some thoughts.
    
    tony

    
    Re: .65
    
    Thank you, Chris.  Your response was worth reading, although
    you and I disagree significantly.
    
    Re: .66
    
    Tony, how you summarize it is just as I see it.
    
    My marriage has been over for five years although the divorce
    was final just a year ago.  I have been seeing someone for close
    to a year and we are discussing marriage.  If we marry, and my
    ex goes for increased child support, and the state tries to
    consider my new wife's income, then I will refuse to comply.
    If they want to send me to jail, then good luck to them.  At that
    point the state can figure out how to pay the support, because I
    sure as h*** wont't be able to pay anything from a jail cell.
    
    If they ask only for financial disclosure from me, consider
    my personal living expenses to be only half of the household
    bills assuming that my new wife will be paying the other half,
    and award increased support based on that then I'll pay without
    a gripe.  Actually, I'm already willing to make periodic
    adjustments to my support payments without being ordered to do
    it.  At my next pay increase, I plan to increase it on my own.
    If that isn't good enough for them, well you all know the answer
    to that I'm sure ;^).
    
    Steve
    
    

    The shoes were on the other foot for me. I have a future ex bolt,
    taking my daughter across state lines, to a mans home in Maine she met
    on weekend. I was close to filing myself. She had cleaned out the
    account of the mortgages of the marital home and an income property
    that we own. I started into the game with 10-15K of stocks and 15k with
    cash of a mobile home sales. I have to give her half of all, pay the 
    marital debts, pay for the lawyer, pay for child support, and drive 
    400+ miles to Maine every weekend to see my daughter. Yes, life isn't 
    very fair is it. I can definatly sympathise the senerio. 
    I wish there was a way to make things better. But with the way the 
    courts are, I don't see that anyone gets a fair shake. Financially and
    morally responsible? Those who want to do things right get the sharp
    end of the stick. 

    
    re 59
    
    Chris,
    
    I agree that if a person is to marry a parent, that the person will
    be accepting the children of the parent.  However, they do not have
    to accept any responsibility for the children.  
    
    You obviously got the short end of the stick in your sitation, and
    you and your children are feeling the financial affect of it.  However,
    that was the fault of the bankruptcy judge.  I am assuming that your
    ex is actually paying child support to you.  If so, then both he and
    you are being financially responsible to your kids.  His choice to
    start a new family has not affected your support payments or has it?
    He now has to support two sets of children.  The fact that you got
    stuck with the debts and he didn't is what is making it tough for
    you financially not his new family.
    
    If you truly believe as you do, if you remarry and your ex goes into
    court to have the support payments reduced due to your increase in
    family income, would you object to this?  Afterall, it would be fair
    according to how you believe. 
    
    
    Why do you believe that a new spouse should have to be financially
    responsible for your chidren?  I can understand being emotionally and
    physically responsible, but not financially responsible.  You brought
    up the part about if a parent dies the new spouse will be responsible
    for the children.  This does not happen.  John and I have researched
    this with lawyers and got the following answer:  If custodial parent
    dies, custody goes to non-custodial parent.  If non-custodial parent
    then dies, custody automatically goes to a blood relative of the child.
    If you are a step-parent, you have no legal rights to a child that is
    not of your blood (unless of course you adopted the child prior to the
    parent's death).  Even if it is written in a will, the blood relatives
    may petition the court to get custody of the child.  If this happens,
    the blood relatives win hands down.  So custody of the child will
    not go to the step-parent unless the blood relatives do not want 
    custody of the child.  
    
    
    So you are saying that a step-parent should be financially responsible
    for a child that they have no legal rights to.  They can not even sign
    a release form if the child is injured and requires medical attention
    while in their care.  It makes no sense.
    
    I think that most spouses of parents do out of love for the parent
    love the parent's children and want to do what ever they can to
    help that child.  But it is a choice not a legal requirement.
    
    Michele

        <<< CSC32::DOCROOT:[NOTES_CSCCS]NON_CUSTODIAL_PARENTS.NOTE;1 >>>
              -< Welcome to the Non-Custodial Parents Conference >-
================================================================================
Note 94.70                     Child Support Issue                      70 of 70
GENRAL::C_ANDERSON                                   19 lines   2-NOV-1990 09:00
                     -< Second families are a CHOICE.... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    re: .69
    
    Michele,
    
    To answer your questions......yes, he is and has been paying support
    regularly since it became court ordered.  I disagree with you, though,
    saying that it isn't his "new family" that has caused the financial
    problems but rather the bankruptcy courts.  The way I see it (MHO) is
    that his second family (and being in involved with them while still
    being married) was a CHOICE, rather than the way you put it...."now he
    HAS to support two sets of children."  First priority should have been
    our children, and it wasn't that way.  It seems to me that getting
    involved with others while still deeply tied to other financial
    responsibilites only causes problems all around (unless you're
    independently wealthy and fully able to take on the financials of two
    complete families without skipping a beat!)
    
    Actually, this may come as a shock to most people, but if I remarried
    and my ex-spouse filed for a reduction in child support payments based
    on my new family's income, I would DEFINITELY support his doing so.
    Actually, I would suggest (without ever going to court) that he lower
    or drop the child support based on our child's needs, based on our new
    combined incomes.  I'm afraid that whatever person I chose to start a
    new life with would have to understand that....I'm not out to "take" my
    ex, I'm only out to support our children.
    
    Chris
    
    
    

    
    re -1
    
    Chris,
    
    I agree that his responsibility is to his children whether they be
    from you or another woman.  However, in your note, I get the feeling
    that you feel that he should not have had any more children if he
    could not afford to support yours.  But he has been able to support
    yours.  Why should he not be allowed to start a new family?  
    
    I agree that he should not have been seeing another woman while he
    was still married to you.  That IMO is just dead wrong.  But as long
    as he is still paying support, I see no reason why he should not
    be allowed to start a new family.  If he did not have another family,
    do you feel that you would be able to get more support out of him?
    
    re 2nd families are a choice, unlike children already born.  The same
    could be said about first families being a choice.  Unless a pregnancy
    is a surprise, most are a choice of both parents regardless of the
    marital status of both parents.
    
    It seems to me that you feel some sense of resentment at the fact that
    he does have a new family which is understandable.  It may very well
    be that you feel he would be able to give your children more financial
    support if he were not re-married.  If you feel that he would have been
    able to give more if he were not remarried it does not matter to the
    court.  In Mass anyway there is a formula that basically does not take
    into account the living expenses required for the NCP.  They just take
    a set percentage of his income.  
    
    Now if you think that by him having a new family he is not readily able
    to give monies above the court appointed support amount then I agree.
    However, he is not required to do so  and neither are you for that
    fact.  I lived in a single parent household and went without some
    things due to my mom's finanical situation, and I am not any worse off
    now than anyone else.  Now if it is a matter of going without the basic
    necessities of life such as food or clothing, then it is a different
    story, but you still have the capability to change that with
    supplemeting your income with another job if that is what it takes.
    It may not be fair, but the courts determine how much he pays, and
    unfortunately you must make up the difference.
    
    
    I applaud your stance on agreeing to decrease the amount of support
    if you remarried.  Most folks would not take such a stance.
    
    Take care,
    Michele

    It was his choise to start a new family, but it was both of your
    choises to start one too. 

    
    My soon to be ex and I have been talking about our children coming
    to live with me for a while. I have no problems with this at all, 
    and I welcome the opportunity to have them live with me because I 
    do miss them a lot. So, if this happens as planned, it will be the
    second week of the new year. But I do have a question. I pay child
    support and when my children come to live with me I will be filing
    a modification in District Court. Is this a simple process were I 
    could go in and arrange a hearing or should I seek the help of a 
    lawyer? To me using a lawyer seems to be expensive for something that
    appears to be routine as appearing before the court showing some proof 
    that I do have custody. But somethings are always not so obvious. So 
    what is the real deal about filing for modification for child support?
    
    Peace,
    jd

    If you have a copy of the papers from a previous support hearing
    you can probably use them as a pattern to file the request for 
    modification.  Wheather or not you need a lawyer may depend on
    how much opposition you expect from your ex.
    fred();

    RE: 66 - In Mass as well as many other states there are community
    property laws which basically state that when you get married, it
    belongs to both of you.  This has been most notably contested
    unsuccessfully in cases where one of the people owned substantial
    property before the marriage and the other had very little, when they
    divorced, they both got an equal share unless they "agreed" to some
    other arrangement.  This is the reason rich people often make
    prenuptual contracts.
    
    I do not, however, agree that the new spouse of and NCP should have
    their income included in any support agreement.   I have been advised
    by lawyers in two states: 1) never, ever, volunteer more information
    than is asked for specifically. 2) Even if the court asks for the
    spouses financial info, "just say no" because they have no grounds for
    making that request.   
    
    RE .73 - I am currently going thruogh a very similar situation.  The
    first thing my lawyers and I are trying to do is get my daughters
    mother to sign a "consent decree" which we will then sign and file with
    the court.  Essentially, that is an agreement to amend the original
    agreement and we work out the terms.  As long as EVERYBODY who is a
    party to this agreement is willing, there is no problem (the courts are
    so full of people disagreeing that they will accept anything that seems
    outwardly fair.  so if you can get a written agreement, great).  You
    are liable for all the terms of the original agreement until the court
    recognises a new agreement.  In part this means that you can both agree
    to temporarily ignore the old agreement (but you better be real careful
    here because if you, for instance, stop paying child support before a
    new agreement goes into effect (after all you have the kid and the
    other parent said it seemed fair to them) and then the other parent
    ambushes you for back support, you are up the creek).  Basically,
    proceed with caution.  If you can get the agreement, all you need to do
    is file it with the court properly and once they recognise it, you are
    clear.
    
    Hope that helps. (hope that really works out that easily in my case)
    jimc
    

This is my first time in this file, and though I've only had a little time to
browse through here, boy does alot of this hit home!

We have a situation that is kinda lengthy to explain, but I'm hoping someone
can answer some questions.

10 years ago, my fiance had a daughter, Sarah, with the woman he was living 
with.  One year later, they split up, and it was not on good terms to say the
very least.  He agreed to have nothing to do with Sarah, and in exchange the
mother agreed he would not have to help support her.  (I'm not saying I agree
with this, I wasn't in the picture until 4 1/2 years later.)  Anyway, last 
summer the court got in contact with Steve, wanting child support. Welfare
initiated this action, not the mother.  The case was finally settled in April,
and along with the support, Steve got visitaion rights.

I know many people would condemn Steve as being negligent, but he did care.
The day he met me he told me about Sarah, and often he would get misty
eyed thinking about her, especially on Valentine's Day, her birthday.  Steve
was afraid Sarah would want nothing to do with him after all these years, but
I pushed him to get visitaion rights.  Sarah was thrilled, and desperately wants
and needs her father in her life.  She's grown attached to several men her
mother has had relationships with, only to have them yanked out of her life and
her heart broken.

Last night, her mother called, and informed Steve that they are moving to 
Florida Sept. 1. Is this legal?  She does have sole custody, but Steve has
court ordered visitation rights.  Also, I'm wondering, since the cost of living
is substantially less in Florida than Massachusetts, is there any way we can
get the child support reduced?  Currently he's paying $100 per week support,
$20 a week insurance, and is liable for 1/2 of any uncovered medical fees.  
There's also a matter of $15,000 arrears even though he was never requested to
pay before, wasn't earning the money he's earning now before, and the mother
was not on welfare all the time the court calculated it.  The court did tell
us this would never be brought up unless he misses a payment.

Thanks for any help or pointers of where we can get help!

I'm also really interested to read about what could happen if we were to marry.
We were going to marry this year, but now that all this is happening I can't
risk it.  Steve is living with me in my house, I make more money than him and
have a nice little nest egg.  No way am I going to risk it for something I had
absolutely no part of creating.  This is so frustrating, I could scream!


Laura

    Life has its down sides. And it does stink they way it goes. I would
    start fighting like hell for visitations. And if she moves, then fight
    like hell for vacation times. And if she doesnt give out her forwarding
    address and phone number, she is in violations of visitations. And you
    have something to fight for. Children have a built in bullsh*t metter
    that can tell if a parent is tell in the truth or is pulling the wool.
    And if he is telling truth, she will understand and will want to see
    her father. 
    
    If you do not fight, and allow the ex to do with Saraha as she sees.
    Then the child will hate all, esp when she gets older. And to me, its
    not worth the risk of having someone hate me to my grave. Esp the love
    of a child, esp if the child is mine. 
    
    Do what is right, and gamble with the rest of us the consequences. It
    is a life, not an investment that your dealing with. 
    
    If Charles Dickens were alive, today, the stories he could write about
    the late 20th century and the pains of children. And we as adults put
    them thru.
    
    

      I would talk to an attorney on this one.  You can set up 
      an appointment to discuss your issue with him/her at 
      an hourly rate.  (I'll be doing the same for a visitation 
      issue).

      It is legal for the mother to take the child out of state.  
      There's nothing stopping her from doing this unless it's stated 
      in the court order.  If your fiance' had joint-legal custody it 
      would help.
      
      As far as percentage of Child support, I believe it's up to 
      the judge's discretion wether or not your income can be
      added in to the equation.