nb,

I don't know your background, but you seem to me as an educated lady willing to work, and you might find this interesting - please read and if you think you could - try (I heard it's quite profitable, you don't need a capital to start with, they provide training and advertising, and it isn't so difficult to achieve...)

http://www.ejcareer.com/ca/

Regards

Courts can impute income - if the NCP is living rent free and the OW (or his parents) are buying him expensive cars, the court can count the value of those items as imputed income, which would result in a much higher figure for child support. The grandparents/OW would not be paying the child support; the NCP would just be paying a high percentage of his income from his job - which makes perfect sense, since he wouldn't have to be spending any of it on housing or cars.

B2Myself - You are a sweetheart. I will look into that (I did take a peek - looks interesting!)... and I'll let you know what I find out. Thank you very much!

In Massachusetts, and apparently many other states, NCP's are rarely required to pay more than 40% of their income in CS, even if they have a dozen kids, because the courts want to ensure that the NCP has enough to live on. They don't, however, care if the kids do. I earn only a few thousand dollars a year more than NB's husband, plus a couple hundred dollars a week in child support, to support four kids on - and up until a couple of years ago I was supporting six kids on even less income. It is almost impossible to find any place for a family to live for much less than a couple of thousand dollars a month in this state. I am never going to retire - I will be in my mid-sixties by the time my youngest finishes college and I will be 94 by the time the education loans are paid off. Meanwhile my H has been socking away tons of money in his retirement plan, and I wouldn't be surprised if he retires before he reaches sixty.

And no, I don't think CS should be for "punishment" - but I think that is a very appropriate reason for alimony.

You are welcome, nb.

If you are good in selling, a friend of mine has this as a part-time job
http://www.usana.com/en/index.shtml
She earns $400-500 per month working 5-6 hrs per week.

and on this page you can have other opportunities, you can work from home, and be pretty independent (flexible hours)
http://top.dergo.com/ODP/index.cgi?base=%2FBusiness%2FOpportunities%2FNetworking-MLM%2F

Yes, I'd like you to let me know if some of this worked for you. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Same here, in Ontario.


I was curious and analysed CS Tables (for Ont.)... and look at this:

NCP's salary...1 child...2 kids...3 kids...4 kids

$30K/yr..........10%......17%.....23%......27%
$70K/yr..........10%......16%.....21%......25%
$100K/yr..........9%......15%.....19%......23%

I thought % are the same... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />
And more income less %?? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Anyway... max. 27% (for FOUR kids) . (They don't even have CS for 5 and more... all over 4 is 4? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> i.e. if you want to know, "get in touch with the Department of Justice Canada"...)

Those Ontario percentages are on gross income and not the net income. Also in May they are apparently moving to a "6 or more" column. But I don't know enough about Canadian taxes to comment specifically on the impact.

However, I did check the MA guidelines which are also based on gross income, and they also adjust +10% when the oldest is a teenager. It's really a slap and an insult to base CS on the gross because the NCP doesn't get any deductions or exemptions or child care credits, despite paying at least a share through CS. Running the numbers for me and my ex through their Web site, I find that my CS would go up 35% if I lived in MA. As I mentioned earlier, our net incomes have already been equalized as it is.

The MA system is punitive. 40% of gross income would be crushing, leaving NCP with maybe 20%-25%. It's not 60% left over for the NCP because of the taxes. That's why some people go bankrupt or worse.

As mentioned earlier, I feel that mandatory CS is mandatory (sorry, couldn't resist <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />). But at least use the right numbers.

... one more thing, under the MA system I would pay 46% of net for 3 kids.

Someone mentioned CS as punishing a WS. Sometimes it's the BS who has to pay CS.

So not only do we not get to see our kids everyday, but we are forced to give money, with no accountability to a former spouse who has demonstrated they are not trustworthy.

FWIW, I pay $1000/month for one child.

T

Not correct.

If CS % applied to your gross income of $30K, (for four children), it's 50% left over to you (meaning, you eat and dress like two people <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> or like four people if your XW doesn't provide for them too);
if applied to net income (after taxes, so you won't have them paying after, from net-CS <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />), it's 56% left over for you.

And if this 6% makes someone bankrupt... I offer free financial advise. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />




That should be my line. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

The NCP does in fact get exemptions for half of the children in Massachusetts, even if the CP is paying the vast majority of their support and all their college expenses. I can not even take education credits for some of my kids because he gets the exemptions.

I read that Massachusetts has fairly high child support for one child, but is one of the lowest in the country for several children. If you have two children the child support increases by 2 percent, and another 2 percent for the third, and after that, NOTHING.

In addition, child support is reduced by the ratio of the (income of the CP - 20000)/(total income of both parents). Therefore, if each parent made $50000, the child support would be only 70% of what it would have been if the CP were earning less than $20,000.

You're not figure the tax correctly, even on the $30K gross (which I don't think you mentioned before). Start with 7.65% FICA/Medicare, then add his federal and state income tax with proper filing status and exemptions. It's not going to be 10% on $30K gross, as you claimed.

The numbers I gave you are from an actual calculation for my case and includes the MA income adjustment.

[color:"green"]I just wanted to say that I hoped no one thought that I was calling Westley less than a man for not paying child support.

I understand that he pays child support.
I understand that he pays more support now than he might legally be obligated to pay.
I understand that PB and her family may be suffering because Westley pays the same CS and makes less money.

The criticism was directed at Westley for not going to the court and making sure that the support was lowered to reflect his actual income.

PB should not have to suffer because Westley is not taking care of his obligation to her and their family by not fighting the amount of his obligation.

That being said I believe that a NCP should be held financially responsible for their children. I understand that if the CP is enjoying a nice life style while the NCP suffers that this probably creates hard feelings. It does seem punative.

And there are CP that spend money frivolously.

But in general, why would you not feel happy knowing that your children are benefitting from a better standard of living? If the CP takes them to Disney, why wouldn't you try to feel happy that they were able to go? Give them cameras and have them take pictures.

I say this in spite of the way my own daughter was treated. I paid $100 a week support on a salary of $27,000 a year and an OLDER child to support living with me. My daughter never had new clothing unless I bought the clothing. Her father lived with his parents and had no living expenses. In order to let my daughter have the joy of new clothing without the bad feelings that would have come from harrassing her dad or talking about how her dad never bought her clothes with all the money I sent him, I just did what I could to let her be happy and not guilty.

Feeling angry at her dad would not have changed the circumstances. Helping her to enjoy anything she could enjoy without guilt was (I felt) my job.

V. [/color]

Why not stop taking daughters away from Dads simply based on gender.

You can say go to court all you want, but the fact are, many qualified, non-abusive men, like me can pay 10's of thousands of dollars and still only see our daughters part-time, and have to pay a WS ex-wife we cannot trust CS.

Supporting my daughter is not punishment, losing my daughter 24 days a month is punishment for a crime my ex-wife committed.

Who is going to fix that wrong?

T

I had an affair and left him. I didn't leave him for the OM. Then, at a later date, I remarried, and it wasn't the OM. Yeah, actually I can blame him for questioning my judgement because where my kids are concerned I've always put them first and he knows this. This is just another way at which he wants to "get back" at me.

I told him to go ahead and pay it to the school- I don't care as long as he pays it. He pays it late though and I constantly get late notices. So, he gets a break on his CS and I still get past due notices, but better him be late with the school than with me, because he'd end up in legal trouble.

[color:"green"] EE,

Sorry for your pain - this sounds like you have not been treated very fairly.

Honestly - my daughter's dad took her from me because he had family to give him money for nasty lawyers.

He then resumed a single life, leaving our daughter with his parents while he went out every night. She was neglected.

A lot of dads are good with their kids - just as a lot of moms are good too.

I would much rather share time with dad and get a break for myself once in a while than be a single parent.

V.[/color]

[color:"purple"]
I understand, V. I am frustrated with him about that as well.

He doesn't want to deal with Friend of the Court, for one ... however ... knowing his ex, there would be drama, and she would involve his daughter, in negative emotional ways, if he successfully got it reduced.

So I understand WHY he's so hesitant to get it fixed, but it still frustrates me. She expects a certain amount of compliance from him, and being a conflict avoider, he usually delivers. I've been the first person to come along in his life and say it doesn't have to be that way ... with small victories, but a lot of accomodations still being made.

The talk of late has been, once again, her coming to live with us, as she has been "uncontrollable" at home and school. Fortunately, her time spent with us (alternate weekends) has been fairly quiet lately. I know it wouldn't stay that way if she were here 24/7 but I always knew that might be an option someday.

Sorry, I'm going off topic on my own thread. LOL
[/color]

Coach,

I'm sure you're a great Mom. You say you always put your kids first . . . I'm going to play Devil's advocate here for a minute: could you explain to me how having an affair and breaking up your kid's family . . . how does this mesh with putting the kid's needs first? Affairs are the most selfish thing that a married person can do. If you were in an affair, obviously at that time your kid’s needs were not your first priority. . . the affair was.

I'm pretty sure this is how your X views your behavior. I know you left the marriage because you thought it was the best thing to do. I don't even want to go there; I'm sure he was a perfect ogre and deserved to be treated the way he was. I will say that most kids don't care if their parents are 'happy', they want their parents together. Breaking up the family probably wasn't putting the kids first (unless he was abusing them and maybe he was.) I guess what I'm trying to say is the your X's take on the marriage, his reality of what happened probably isn't the same as yours. I think that he probably has reason not to trust you. The logical extension is that he probably doesn't trust you with his money.


Buttercup . . .


I'm sorry about the off-topic stuff as I am one of the major culprits. Here let me reframe the conversation. I know the W. doesn't want to deal with the CS agency, but if he cannot make the CS payments it is his responsibility to deal with it. There are so many things in this life that I don't want to do, but I have to do. Why are things so different for Wesley?

If he doesn't deal with this your marriage is going to be strained. If you deal with it for him I think that you better get used to doing for him things that are his responsibility, but for what ever reason, he chooses not to attend to. While saying this I will admit that I would probably make the payments too for a while. At first it is helping after a while it is just enabling poor behavior.

For years I worked on a marriage and he didn't. YEARS. I had almost a complete nervous breakdown and then had a very very short fling which I ended almost immediately. The marriage was broken beyond repair before the affair. I fail to see how one mistake that I made can outweigh years and years of me doing the right thing and being a good mother.

Was the affair selfish?? You betcha. Was it a mistake??? Completely. I just cannot imagine why he thinks it's okay to punish his children for my actions??

My point in this is I don't care whether or not he trusts me- his trust shouldn't be dependent on how he takes care of his children financially. Those were marriage issues which are over. All that matters now is that we are both parents to these children. He should support them because it's the right thing to do and he makes three times the money I do. Period.

Coacheswife, He doesn't see it as punishing his kids.

You broke the trust, and it's your job to earn that trust back, period.

I suspect you two disagree on some parenting issues. So perhaps what you call punishing the kids is simply a disagreement on parenting matters.

I agree with what you quoted, you each have your own perspective. You want him to make the same decisions with HIS money as you would.

There is a short word for that, control.

Telling someone what they SHOULD do is a disrespectful judgment. You cannot force, control, or make him do anything, but you can control your behavior, including stopping the DJ's about your children's father.

T