Florida remarriage & child support

[nastygentleman]

Divorced on west coast....now living in florida....if i was to remarry, would my new wife be responsible for child support i owe my ex wife?

 

[4thekids]

NO. Absolutely not. Your new wife is not obligated to support your children.
Before my husband and I got married, I asked his attorney if the mother of his children could ever involve my income in child support, and she told me no.
Just to be absolutely safe, my husband and I have separate bank accounts, and file taxes separately. When we purchased our home, we both agreed it should be under MY name, so if anything was to come up, I would be protected, since I took no part in creating his children, and I am not financially responsible for them whatsoever. (We did this as a precaution because of threats his ex made verbally about seizing his assets.) Let me state for the record, he is, and has always paid his support and medical since day 1, and she will never be satisfied.
If you too have a vindictive, malicious ex, then I would strongly urge you, and new spouse to be careful.

 

[deefran]

NO. Absolutely not. Your new wife is not obligated to support your children.
Before my husband and I got married, I asked his attorney if the mother of his children could ever involve my income in child support, and she told me no.
Just to be absolutely safe, my husband and I have separate bank accounts, and file taxes separately. When we purchased our home, we both agreed it should be under MY name, so if anything was to come up, I would be protected, since I took no part in creating his children, and I am not financially responsible for them whatsoever. (We did this as a precaution because of threats his ex made verbally about seizing his assets.) Let me state for the record, he is, and has always paid his support and medical since day 1, and she will never be satisfied.
If you too have a vindictive, malicious ex, then I would strongly urge you, and new spouse to be careful.

4Thekids-You were correct in doing this as what most people don't understand is this- The courts can NOT go after the new spouses income-but they can go after the SHARED income..i.e. banking accounts that have both names on it, homes, etc. If you are planning to ever file taxes as married filing jointly make sure you fill out the injured spouse form if hubby/wife is in arrears so that your part of the refund is not handed over to cover CS.

 

[qtpie]

Good point. And know that in order to file "injured spouse", the "injured spouse" has to be employed. If they are not employed outside the home, they will not be eligible.

Also, if owning a home together, see if your State recognizes "tenancy by the entirety". This will protect the home from creditors and $$-hungry ex-wives. Not all States offer this, so check with a Real Estate attorney.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

4Thekids-You were correct in doing this as what most people don't understand is this- The courts can NOT go after the new spouses income-but they can go after the SHARED income..i.e. banking accounts that have both names on it, homes, etc. If you are planning to ever file taxes as married filing jointly make sure you fill out the injured spouse form if hubby/wife is in arrears so that your part of the refund is not handed over to cover CS.

My response:

This is, probably, 94.99% accurate.

In California, when first enacted in 1992, the guideline permitted courts to consider as a factor rebutting the presumptively-correct formula amount of support the income of a parent's new spouse or nonmarital partner (new mate income) to the extent it helped defray the parent's basic living expenses and thus increased the parent's disposable income available for child support. Effective January 1, 1994, new mate income "shall not" be considered in fixing child support except in specified extraordinary circumstances. [Ca Fam § 4057.5(a) & (b)]

At one time, courts could also consider in rebuttal of the formula amount of support the income of either parent's subsequent spouse or nonmarital partner to the extent it helped meet the parent's basic living expense, thus increasing the parent's disposable income. [Marriage of Hanchett (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 937, 943, 245 Cal.Rptr. 255, 258 (decided under Agnos Act); see also Marriage of Williams (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 57, 63-64, 202 Cal.Rptr. 10, 14-15; Marriage of Fuller (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 405, 412, 152 Cal.Rptr. 467, 470-471]

This authority is now superseded: New mate income has been deleted as an authorized rebuttal factor; it cannot be directly considered in the child support calculation except in the narrow "extraordinary" circumstances recognized by Ca Fam § 4057.5 [Ca Fam § 4057.5; see Marriage of Wood (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1070, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 236, 243--§ 4057.5 applies only to period of time after its 1/1/94 operative date]

No consideration except in "extraordinary cases":

The income of the obligor or obligee parent's subsequent spouse or nonmarital partner "shall not be considered when determining or modifying child support, except in an extraordinary case where excluding that income would lead to extreme and severe hardship to any child subject to the child support award . . ." [Ca Fam § 4057.5(a)(1) & (2)]

Additionally, in California, it wouldn't matter (in extraordinary circumstances) that the "new mate's" income was kept separate from the obliger spouse's income. If push comes to shove, a court would find out where that income and money is located, and "tap" into it - - however, and again, this would be extremely rare.

IAAL