Hi finding, on my other current thread (WSs get married) you offered your insight on child support, having experience in this area. For others, I described in the other thread how my attorney advised me that a new spouse's income was irrelevant in determining if child support should be recalculated.

Here's my new question: suppose my XW decides to stop working and live off her new hubby's income. Could she then claim she has no income for purposes of recalculating child support and I'd have to pay even more? If the answer to this is "no", then where is the line drawn?

Thanks in advance.

A judge would have to be crazy to award her any more CS if she decided to voluntarily quit. She would have to prove a MAJOR hardship (I doubt that will be possible in her current situation), even then I wouldn't guarantee she could get more out of you.

If your income gets higher, she could take you back to court and ask for more CS. Whether or not she gets it can come down to the judge you have. (Sometimes in court, things are not so black and white, ya know?)

If your income gets lower, or you end up injured and living off of worker comp for example, you can go back to court and the amount you pay lowered.

Does that help? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Thanks, yes that helps.

So the standard is reasonableness (according to a judge)?

It still seems to me that if the household income significantly increased due to a re-marriage, that reasonableness dictates that SOME consideration be given to the new spouse's income. I understand that it would have to be decided in court.

Yes, a judge would have to be crazy to award her more support in my hypothetical example. So at what point would a judge have to be crazy NOT to decide in my favor that support is no longer warranted due to consideration of a new spouse's income?

WAT

<small>[ August 16, 2002, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: worthatry ]</small>

They are not supposed to take into consideration the new spouse's income. The way the court see's it, it is between you and her.

Take this example. Say you remarry to a woman who makes really good money. Your exW could not take you back to court and request more child support because you are now married, and have a higher "combined household income". The CS is typically based on the income of the non-custodial parent. There are other factors that can come into play, and affect the amount the NCP will pay, but it varies state by state.

finding - thanks again.

I hear you, and I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't completely wash. I know you're just explaining what your experience shows and I certainly have no argument with you personally.

But, taking your example to its logical extension, if I remarried and chose not to work and live off Sandra Bullock's income, "A judge would have to be crazy to award" me more child support from my XW since my income was now nothing.

Certainly lawyers are responsible for this illogic. Or maybe the Mothership is in control.......

How often really does someone end up marrying someone like Sandra Bullock anyway? Your chances are about as good as winning the lottery. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

I hear ya, but the bottom line is as the person owing the CS, you are stuck. It is not like credit card debt, it is court ordered and signed by a judge. As long as you owe it, you are expected to pay it (which means a job is probably necessary). If you quit, you better have a nest egg. If you don't pay, the debt just builds, and then they add on interest.

I do know it is hard to go after the new spouse for CS though. It is not considered their debt, or responsibility. Because of this, a lot of our more crafty NCP's hide their money and assets in their W or GF's name.

Also, Make sure any money given to her goes thru the registry, unless your court order says otherwise. Always make sure you are getting credit for what you give her.

WAT,

Another thread had some links to some divorce legalese and I found the following link for Maryland CS rules. They seem to be "reasonable" in the way you define it.

Our own personal experience with the legal system in SC concerning child custody/foster care is that the result is not always in the best interest of the kids, or reasonable. But, technical rules are enforced meticulously.

Jeffers

www.divorcesource.com

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
Maryland: Child Support: Modification:

Child support may be modified at any time in which there has been a drastic change in circumstances.

In order to have a modification take place the party moving for modification must file an order with the court, showing evidence of the change in
circumstances. Typically, the evidence must be completely new to the court. Any issues addressed previously in the child support arrangements are
not means for modification.

Here are some of the factors generally considered for modification:

The parent's income and earning capacities.
The assets that are available for support.
The employee benefits of each parent.
The income of a new spouse or cohabitant.
The new family responsibilities of each spouse.
The increase in the cost of living.
The change in cost of rearing the child.
The heath conditions of parents and child.
The modification of custody arrangement.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">

Whoa! Jeff!! U da MAN!!

Hey, thanks. Seems like there's an angle to explore and it may not be as cut and dried as my ambulance chaser says it was.

I owe you a beer.

Perhaps I'll update on this issue as I go.

Go ahead, admit it. You just wanna meet Sandy, don't ya?

Dave

<small>[ August 16, 2002, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: worthatry ]</small>