There is a Federal Law prohibiting the amount of CS that can be taken from an NCP.

"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. "

We are saying essentially the same thing. You are using the wrong language. It has nothing to do with imputing wages. It has to do with the amount of his wage that can legally be taken because he doesn't 'have to pay for very much of his living expenses. Judge do take that into account and rightfully so. STILL, CP's DO NOT get any part of the new spouses or significant others income.

If you have a man making 40K a year and living with a person who is making 500K a year, the CP would gain SOME CS from this situation. But not NEARLY ENOUGH to make their standard of living anything close to what the father is living in!!! The reason is you can only take into consideration the wages the father is actually making. And face it, at 40K a year, with the limit by the Federal government, you aren't going to be living well off of CS.

Did someone say that CS is a way to make a person pay alimony? The two are legally not the same thing. CS is only for the children. Alimony is only for the exspouse. The IRS would take you to the cleaners (and jail!) if they caught a judge and lawyer hiding alimony in CS as this is against the law.

Somewhere I thought I had posted about MA child support model and how it is way out of line with the nation. Now I don't see the post. Maybe I didn't post it right?

Anyway, MA is still an "Obliger model" state. Most states have moved away from the model and have gone to "Income Shares" which makes both parents responsible financially for their children. Look for all states to go this way in a very short time. It's a much fairer system for fathers. Mother's wages are being imputed the same as father's wages. Even if they stayed home during the marriage, they are required by the family courts to get a 40 hour a week job at their education and skill level, so as to contribute financially to their children's cost of rearing. Unless of course they are independently wealthy, then they just have to contribute their share of the money each month.

I don't care anything about earning his trust back, I'm not married to him anymore. Besides, no matter what I ever do, he's only going to see it as my fault, which is wasn't- both of us contributed to the demise of the marriage.

I just expect him to treat me with a certain amount of respect as their mother, just like I treat him with respect as their father.

He needs to provide for them and not spend all his money on his own clothes and hobbies, which is what he does now. This is a man who wouldn't give his own children lunch money but preferred for them to go without so I'm not going to sit here and debate who is the better parent.

As long as he provides for them, I couldn't care less what he does with the rest of his money but just as I put them first financially he should too. It's not a DJ to expect him to do that, IMO.

I'm sorry, I don't see a lot of respect for him in what you write. You write a lot about what he SHOULD do, how he wasn't a good husband and complaints about how he lives.

Those are all DISRESPECTFUL judgments.

I'm not saying he doesn't do them as well, but I doubt you will get much respect, even as the mother of your children with him as long as you speak disrespectfully about him.

T

I don't speak ill of him to my children or in their presence.

I'm confused- is this NOT a forum to talk about divorce and the aftermath?? Should I be on here singing a pretty tune about how wonderful he is??

I'm fairly certain I'm not the only person on here who bashes their ex. I think you have a problem with it because I was the WS, and not the BS. If I had been the BS and I was on here posting about how horrible he was and all of that it would be fine.

No, it's not about that. I just have a hard time with what appears to be a double standard. You want him to respect you, but you speak in disrespectful terms about him.

Please drop the DJ assuming you know my motives as well.

Even if you are not saying it to his face, a DJ is a DJ.

So I respectfully ask that you not speculate about what I may have problems about, and simply ask me. I'll tell you why, no need to guess (and be wrong about it.)

T

The only difference between the way Masschusetts computes the support order and the "income shares" model is that Massachusetts incorporates a $20,000 disregard for the custodial parent (of either sex).

In most states, the guidelines provide additional child support for five or six children. A study of Massachusetts child support recommended that for six kids the child support order be 133% of that for three kids. I could have done a lot with an additional $70 a week.

The report also indicated that the custodial parent pays a disproportionately high percentage of the child care costs in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts is out of line all right - it is horrible for custodial parents who have more than one child, or who have kids in child care.

As I understand, c.wife wants him to respect her as the mother, as she respects him as the father.

Same here.
He's better father than he was when we were married (spends more time with our son, more patient), and I cannot object, in general!!, his fatherhood.
And he gained some respect from me.
In front of our son, he gets full respect from me.

My advise to you would be - try to see your x 'two ways' - as the mother and as the ws, and give respect according to what she deserves. Now you are divorce, she should be just the mother of your children; she-ws died together with your M...
(At least I see things like that... as a man and WS my x's dead, but he's very alive as the father of my son... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />)
(It'd be easier for you, therefore for your kids too, trust me... And you know what? Once you can do this, it'd mean you are totally - healed!)

"The only difference between the way Masschusetts computes the support order and the "income shares" model is that Massachusetts incorporates a $20,000 disregard for the custodial parent (of either sex). "

Not really. The models are totally different.

MA "obliger model" uses only the NCP's wage and calculates cs as a percentage of this wage.

An "Income Share" model is much more complicated with many steps involved. It starts with both parents incomes (imputed for nonworking parents) and then continues from there. It is built to be very specific to each case and children's individual needs. It is also built to ensure that CP's aren't getting hidden alimony in the CS.

No, it does not just use the NCP's wage. It adjusts the child support based on the CP's income, after a 20K disregard.

If you disagree with my statement in the previous post, argue with the author of "Economic Analysis of the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines," (11/15/2005) who said:

"If Massachusetts eliminated the disregard, the impact of the custodial parent’s income on the support award amount would be the same as that of the Income Shares approach."

www.mass.gov/courts/reporteconomiccsg0106.pdf

I may not agree with all of the author's recommendations, but, with a PhD in economics, I suspect she has a pretty good handle on the definition of "Income Shares."

Nellie, did you even read what you just cut and pasted? LMAO!!!

You pasted this:
"If Massachusetts eliminated the disregard, the impact of the custodial parent’s income on the support award amount would be the same as that of the Income Shares approach'

That MEANS that MA doesn't have an INCOME SHARES MODEL! I looked up their code and they are a hybrid state, using part of a couple different models.

Again, an Income Shares Model ONLY takes into consideration the wages of the NCP.

You like to argue don't you? Was that a problem in your failed marriage?

Splitting hairs: "the impact of the custodial parent’s income on the support award amount would be the same ..." is correct. But MA still begins with an obligor percentage of gross income, then adjusts afterwards. This is called a "hybrid" model in that PDF report and many other places. If they removed that disregard, it would still be a hybrid model.

Income shares begins with a child-rearing cost estimate, and that cost estimate is based on both incomes (MA doesn't do this). Then that cost is allocated to the parents by income shares (MA does something like this, after the disregard, which actually helps the custodial parent).

I read the PDF and thought it was a pretty good summary, although it does not cover my case and that opens up some questions about the recommendations. It's ridiculous that most states adopt guidelines knowing there are gaps, when there are no defensible reasons for leaving those gaps. It sounds like Nellie2's main beef (other than not having enough income) is that MA doesn't adjust for 4+ kids. They focused on the 1 or 2 kid case which, they claim, is more common in CS cases, and they clearly treat those custodial parents better than other states, especially at middle and high income levels. Plus they have that teenager adjustment. There was no reason to leave out the high-kid cases.

HappyOne: this statement of yours above was also incorrect "MA obliger model uses only the NCP's wage and calculates cs as a percentage of this wage." Because MA has a second hybrid step that considers CP income.

And then you mis-spoke again: "Income Shares Model ONLY takes into consideration the wages of the NCP", where you probably meant to say obligor model.

My point would be to tone it down.

Very true Tmmx! I made the assumption (bad) that MA was an obligor model state, which it turns out it isn't. Yes, typed it backwards. Obligor should replace income shares.

Tone what down?

Well, Westley is caught up now ... his income tax refund came back $1K less than anticipated. He called and got an appointment to have it reviewed too. He goes in April 17.

This is progress. Now he just has to commit to paying weekly. (Since he is a partner in a business, there is no way to take it out of his paycheck.)

FoC screwed up my ex's payroll deduction, so now they are taking out too much. I'll get paid for a while, then nothing for a while, until they get it straight again. *sigh*

I am divorced dad (about to go through a second divorce).

But my "1st Ex" and I remain good friends. We married WAY too young and we realized that we just were not married material. During the separation and divorce, we felt it was important to remian friends for the sake of our two kids.

I was paying child support before the D was final and I paid more when it was final. I never felt angry or robbed by it. I think CS should be enforced. I seen and know deadbeats and it makes mad. It tends to give a generalization on single dad's.

I could find loop holes to make me paying CS more cumbersome, but why? I would hurt my children and they didn't make bad decision of marriage. We did. It is not there fault.

I get my kids every other weekend and one night during the week on paper, but since I am not a deadbeat and my ex and I get along, I could call any night and get them provided that they have no activities going on.

Anyways I pay CS and PROUD of it.

I never said that Massachusetts did use an Income Shares model, as you can see if you read what I said in an earlier post, reposted directly above.

If you are going to make disrespectful comments such as "LMAO," the least you can do is read carefully and research thoroughly before posting.

tmmx,

You are correct that my major objection is the fact that the guidelines do not provide additional child support for 4 or more children. Also, according to the report:

"Two and Three Children: Mid-Income Range ($281-$750 per week). Massachusetts is too low relative to the national estimates of child-rearing expenditures."

I do not know how, exactly, income shares states decide whether the CP (or the NCP for that matter) are holding a job appropriate for their education or skills, but I would hope that they take into account the fact that being a single parent severely limits your job options and salary. I can not go to work early or leave late, because I have child care responsibilities. I can not work in a job with an inflexible schedule, because I am the one who takes the kids to the doctor, the dentist, and the eye doctor (for even four kids, this amounts to a minimum of 16 visits a year, if no one gets sick). I am the one who goes to the teacher conferences, takes the kids to their activities, leaves work to come pick them up from school if they get sick, and stays home with them if they are sick. I am the one who almost always brings them back and forth to college. In the over four years that I have worked at my current job, I have not taken a single sick day for myself, or a single vacation day that was not necessary for child-related responsibilities (except for about a week to paint my house). The NCP does not have any of these responsibilities; in my case, he spends about 1.5 hours a week with the kids.

Sorry, Chris...I just saw this...


When my ex and I first separated...legal separation was required in the state where we lived. The support was listed in our separation agreement.

When we divorced, my ex did not show and the judge refused to order any support because my ex was not there. I listed him with the state (I got state assistance) but they never got money from him either.

After that...I did not have the resources to get the support court ordered. And then my ex was in jail for awhile and I did not see the point.

My ex is now remarried with a new baby, and lives 30 minutes from us (we've always lived far away). He's seen our son I think twice since he moved here. He still does not *offer* the support and I still don't really see the point in going after it since while I make very little--he makes even less. I believe he was Mister Momming it for awhile with the new baby.

My point, though, was that my ex was not required to pay the support (since it was never actually ordered by the courts)...and he certainly never offered it freely.

[color:"green"]Just for everyone's information - every state that I know of offers free legal services for getting child support. All you have to do is go down to the county courthouse family center and fill out the forms to get support ordered by a judge.

I understand that you can't get blood from a stone Aislinn, I just don't want anyone here to feel that it is hopeless to try and get assistance for your children's sake from the other parent who is obligated to help out.

V.[/color]