Conference quokka::non_custodial_parents

    The disparage between your husbands ex and his paycheck is usually a
    ruff one to over come. If the ex is re-married, you might have a
    prayer. If no, your going to have one heck of a fight on your hands.
    And I guess I have said someplace earlier in this file where I saw a
    woman who owned a beuty solon and he was a sales rep, and the min he
    turned the engine over, he was working for neg wadges. They filed
    bankruptcy, the lost their house, the children from the second wifes
    marriage, the wife, and him became rentors vs home owners. And the ex,
    never worked, never wanted to work, and fought any kind of training to
    get her into the workplace. Mean time he had to pay child support,
    alimony, and the mortgage... 
    
    

    If you husband's ex is getting more money now that she was at the time
    of divorce he can go back into court to have the support re-calculated.
    At least that is my understanding.
    
    PJ

    
    If the amount of income has changed significantly, then the support
    can be re-calculated.  Some states take into account "extenuating
    circumstances".   Some, like Colorado, take into account the amount
    of CS that would be paid to "current" children and deduct that from
    the gross income.
    
    The short answer is, yes there is a chance, but you will have to 
    check out with the laws and lawyers for your particular state.
    
    fred();

    In Mass, and in New Hampshire, the courts are more inclined to think
    its not the faults of the first family that you have more mouths to
    feed in the second. The blame is laid upon the man and his evil fallon.
    Its all his fault, not your, not the privious family. 
    
    A local group of women, as seen on a local TV station noon time talk
    show of WBZ, a few year ago, wanted to make men sterol untill they paid
    up their back support, and were current. 
    
    I was in the studio that day when she was mouthing off to the world
    about the evils of men, and their deadbeat debts to our societ they
    owed.

    My heart goes out to you, the system is certainly not a fair one. 
    
    It would surely be nice if there was a set maximum to child support.
    350+ is ridiculus.  Once the children are in full time school, even
    the welfare system forces the mother to either go to work or go to
    school.  With so much current welfare reform going on, perhaps people
    might take a look at this kind of 'welfare'.  But as long as the state
    isn't paying for it, they really don't care. 
    
    Is there any chance the mother might be understanding enough to listen
    to you and agree to a reduction?  
    
    Good luck,
    Sharon

	Certainly I can understand you are facing a huge increase in living
expenses.    I'm sure it will be a real load, and taking care of three
infants will put a strain on your relationship.   I wish you the best of luck.

	In Massachusetts the law permits either party to go back and ask
for a change in the amount of support ANY time there has been a change in
circumstances.   Thus if your husbands salary changes, or his ex's salary
changes, you can ask to have the amount adjusted.    However in Massachusetts
the judge is supposed to follow guidelines which allow only a small amount
of discretion.

	It is my understanding that in Massachusetts the judge considers
the first family to be the first obligation.   i.e. subsequent obligations,
like children of the next marriage aren't considered.   I think this is to
cover for the NCP who deliberately change their circumstances in order to
pay less support.

	One of the commonest causes of multiple births today is taking
fertility drugs.    Were you taking such drugs ??   Did the Dr. warn you
that a multiple birth was a possibility ??   Did you do a budget before
you were expecting ??

    
    
    		In Massachusetts, the obligation to support subsequent
    	children (post-separation) CANNOT be used as a reason to REDUCE
    	support payments, BUT can be used as an argument against any
    	INCREASE.  This was my understanding after reading the books
    	on-hand at Pollard Memorial Library.  If the $350 was determined
    	using the "Formula" then you may be out of luck.  
    
    	Of course, EVERYTHING depends on the sitting judge and how
        effectively your attorney can argue.....
    
    	Good luck,
                  

    re:5
    
    I worked intensly with these issues several years ago and I never once
    saw or heard of a case where the custodial parent-usually mother-agreed
    to reduce the CS payments because her ex wanted to provide for his new
    family. If your husband gets along well with his former wife he should
    at least try to reason with her for a reduction of CS.  Worth a shot
    anyway!  This is a case-in-point that shows how the CS guidelines  
    financially impoverish fathers and their children. 
    -also is another good reason to review all the CS guidelines.-
    
    In NH the CS guidelines are reviewed every 3+ years by law.
    The review took place in 1994 at different locations in the state.
    Rather than face all the angry non-custodial parents (fathers)
    the CS committee put a ***tape recorder*** at the review sites.
    It reflects the irresponsible attitude that legislators generally
    have toward fathers and their children.  Would a meeting of womens 
    issues been treated the same way??  We all know the answer!
                                       Bill
    

	If I read .0 correctly, her current husband has a prior obligation
to two children.   He was ordered or agreed to pay $350+ per week for their
support.    Why shouldn't this obligations take precedence over new
children ???    If I read .0 correctly, the woman and her husband chose
to have children, and may have sought fertility aid to achieve this.
Now they realized they can't afford it.   Why should the children of
the first marriage suffer for this ?


	I feel sorry for the couple with impending triplets.  It
will be expensive and a lot of work (I have walked the floor at
2am with one, I can't imagine three).   But they knew what their
budget was.   They made their choice.


	Perhaps there is more to the story, but as presented here
that's the way it seems to me.

    rep .9
    
    I don't think she needs any of these comments.
    
    She asked if the amount could be reduced, not your opinions/comments
    on how or why they decided to have a child or multiple children.
    
    That was all she asked about.  No need to condemn her.
    
    Just my opinion.
    
    /art

    re .9
    
    I doubt that anyone just "decides" to have triplets.  If they do they
    have a lot more problems that just worrying about CS. %^}.
    fred();

    re: 9
    
    Give me a break! I have two children and raise them without any support
    from their father.  Saying they cost $350 a week is a joke.  I have a
    Quicken account.  I KNOW I spend $80-90/per week average for a their food
    and daily needs. Plus I have insurance and I put $40 away for College
    so lets figure $150 max.  They are Teens. I had no idea what they really 
    cost me until out of curiousity I broke it down $ by $ Exactly for a
    year.  I really was surprised and I'd really LOVE to know how someone can 
    spend $350 on two kids. 
    
    Granted I wish I had the extra to put away for their college, but we 
    ALL KNOW that she's not doing that with it.
    
    Sharon

    re -1 Sharon - I agree that $350/wk is a joke.  In my SO's
    childrens case (5 and 8 yrs old; way less expensive than
    two teenagers!!!), the ex only feeds them fast food.  They
    have a problem coming to our house and having to eat "real
    food".  I guess those McDonalds bills can really ad up!
    
    I wish Montel Williams would do a show on this topic :)
    
    beth

	  This is a reply from the anonymous base noter.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     Response to Noter .5

	  It certainly would be nice if there were a set minimum amount of
     child support.  You bring up a good point on how this is a type of
     welfare, I certainly agree and wish something could be done to change
     this. Unfortunately because it's not the government's responsiblity,
     nothing will happen.  It would be nice if the ex would be rational but
     I know she would never even think about a reduction, unless she was
     ordered by the court.

	  Thank you very much for your response.


     Response to Noter .6

	  Please read my original note, it was for any information and or
     similar experiences someone out there may have had.  As for you last
     paragraph, it's none of your business and I feel this was completely
     inappropriate.


     Response to Noter .9

	  Please read my original note, I am not intending to hurt or take
     anything away from his children.  We did plan to have children, we
     never thought in a million years that we would have 3 all at once.  I
     stated the facts as they were and there is no more to the story that
     what you have read.


     Respones to Noter .10

	  THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU !!!!!  I'm glad to see that
     someone really understands that what I was looking for was information
     and nothing else.

To be fair, I think child support is supposed to cover more than food
& clothing. Providing a home that can accomodate the child or children
is a big chunk of the child support. There are also school items and 
other things the children use or do.

However, many people, especially men, do end up paying an unrealistically
high amount for child support, and all the child support does not necessarily
go towards the children either.

Leslie

    
    I "ran the numbers" once but don't have the actual numbers now.
    I figured 1/2 the food bill (although both the teanage son and
    daughter eat more than I do ;^}), 1/2 the house payment (although
    I should probably figure a 3 bedroom vs a 2 bedroom house), clothing,
    school expenses etc, and came out _way_ less than what I would be 
    paying under the guidelines.  When I figure in private school it
    comes out about even, but still less.  What Theex is supposed to
    be paying me (but don't) wouldn't even cover the school.

    I agree.   There should be more accountability where the money is
    going.  Much of the child support ends up being  (unintentionally and
    intentional) disguised alimony. The same as AFDC is supposed to be Aid
    for Dependent _Children_, but much of it goes to support the mother
    too.   That is why many times  in my notes you will see " "s around
    "child support" as in so-called  child support.