After 5 year Review Support Increased 3x ?? Income Ratio the Same!

[isaiah4318]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? OHIO

We were divorced in 2005 and had 2 children under 13. Now one is under 13 the other is older and about to become 18.

Back then or income ratio was 60/40 and we had joint shared custody.

Now, are income ratio is 61/39 (me still making more but only just recently got a new job to make that ratio again) and the support has trippled from $270 a month to $800!!!!

What is going on with this? I called but they said thats how it is calculated but when I asked them to explain the ratios being the same and the increase of 300% they could not. The rep only mentioned maybe my first hearing had a deviation lowering that amount because of an O.R.C.

Do I request a review? What else can I do to find out if this drastic increase is correct?

 

[Silverplum]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? OHIO

We were divorced in 2005 and had 2 children under 13. Now one is under 13 the other is older and about to become 18.

Back then or income ratio was 60/40 and we had joint shared custody.

Now, are income ratio is 61/39 (me still making more but only just recently got a new job to make that ratio again) and the support has trippled from $270 a month to $800!!!!

What is going on with this? I called but they said thats how it is calculated but when I asked them to explain the ratios being the same and the increase of 300% they could not. The rep only mentioned maybe my first hearing had a deviation lowering that amount because of an O.R.C.

Do I request a review? What else can I do to find out if this drastic increase is correct?

I would say the increase is due to the increase in available income.

If you made, say $25K/year, you'd spend most of it like we all do. You'd eat out once every 2 weeks, let's say. You'd buy clothing at cheaper stores, or on sales. You'd live in an income-level-appropriate home.

Now, after several years, let's say you make $75K/year. Good for you! Now you eat out much more often, don't use coupons religiously like you used to do (me: ), buy or rent a bigger and nicer place.

And your child support goes up accordingly.

 

[CSO286]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? OHIO

We were divorced in 2005 and had 2 children under 13. Now one is under 13 the other is older and about to become 18.

Back then or income ratio was 60/40 and we had joint shared custody.

Now, are income ratio is 61/39 (me still making more but only just recently got a new job to make that ratio again) and the support has trippled from $270 a month to $800!!!!

What is going on with this? I called but they said thats how it is calculated but when I asked them to explain the ratios being the same and the increase of 300% they could not. The rep only mentioned maybe my first hearing had a deviation lowering that amount because of an O.R.C.

Do I request a review? What else can I do to find out if this drastic increase is correct?

Ok, Ohio uses an Income shares model to calculate the support obligation. That means that they take the 3000 you earn each month and the 1800 your ex earns and add those numbers together. They then base the support obligation off of the combined $4800. (Obviously these are fake numbers.)

One reason for the possible increase is an increase in your (and the ex"s) income. The Ratio may remain the same, but if you are now making $6000, and the ex is now at $2340, then support obligation is calculated off the combined $8340, meaning that there is more money available to support the child, the obligation is going to be higher, thereby making your share is going ot go up.


You always have the right to request a review or to appeal (if within the indicated timeframe--usually 30 days). Contact CSED or your attorney to do so.


ETA: Run the numbers here: http://www.alllaw.com/calculators/childsupport/ohio/

 

[CSO286]

or: Ditto SilverPlum...

 

[isaiah4318]

Ok, thanks for the replies.

But CS0286....

Indulge me if you will as I key in on this phrase and examine the logic, if the county even accepts logic.

meaning that there is more money available to support the child, the obligation is going to be higher, thereby making your share is going ot go up.

If there is "more money available" than we both have more money available and it should be a wash right? That is if you meant both our incomes increased respectively.
The ratio of your ammounts $6000/$2340 is not indicative of our past or present ratios of 60/40.

I tried to do that alllaw.com calculator but I didn't understand who is custodial and noncustodial based on us being joint shared with equal time throughout the year.

I still don't see where the increase is coming from when our income is respectively the same as it was when the support was first issued.

 

[isaiah4318]

I would say the increase is due to the increase in available income.

If you made, say $25K/year, you'd spend most of it like we all do. You'd eat out once every 2 weeks, let's say. You'd buy clothing at cheaper stores, or on sales. You'd live in an income-level-appropriate home.

Now, after several years, let's say you make $75K/year. Good for you! Now you eat out much more often, don't use coupons religiously like you used to do (me: ), buy or rent a bigger and nicer place.

And your child support goes up accordingly.

This analogy doesn't fit me at all.
I make waaaaaay more than that and I eat out about once a week.
I buy bulk.
Always used coupons religiously.
I work from home to save on gas.
My property taxes went up.
One car paid off other has a payment of $140.

SO this will pretty much wipe me out and possibly make me have to sell the house my girls have lived in most of their life.

 

[Silverplum]

Ok, thanks for the replies.

But CS0286....

Indulge me if you will as I key in on this phrase and examine the logic, if the county even accepts logic.

I do. I'm INTO logic.

And my post explaining your CS to you was Magnificently Logical; so was CSO's. If you don't *get it,* that's not our problem.

If there is "more money available" than we both have more money available and it should be a wash right? That is if you meant both our incomes increased respectively.
The ratio of your ammounts $6000/$2340 is not indicative of our past or present ratios of 60/40.

I tried to do that alllaw.com calculator but I didn't understand who is custodial and noncustodial based on us being joint shared with equal time throughout the year.

I still don't see where the increase is coming from when our income is respectively the same as it was when the support was first issued.

Then you did not read. Or else you read and did not understand.

Perhaps more reading is in order. Definitely not more explaining.

 

[Silverplum]

This analogy doesn't fit me at all.

Yes, it does.
You're just unable to extrapolate.

I make waaaaaay more than that and I eat out about once a week.
I buy bulk.
Always used coupons religiously.
I work from home to save on gas.
My property taxes went up.

SO this will pretty much wipe me out and possibly make me have to sell the house my girls have lived in most of their life.

Everyone's costs have gone up.

 

[CSO286]

Ok, thanks for the replies.

But CS0286....

Indulge me if you will as I key in on this phrase and examine the logic, if the county even accepts logic.



If there is "more money available" than we both have more money available and it should be a wash right? That is if you meant both our incomes increased respectively.
The ratio of your ammounts $6000/$2340 is not indicative of our past or present ratios of 60/40.

I tried to do that alllaw.com calculator but I didn't understand who is custodial and noncustodial based on us being joint shared with equal time throughout the year.

I still don't see where the increase is coming from when our income is respectively the same as it was when the support was first issued.

No.....Allow mw to explain more fully:

Scenario 1--60/40 income ratio
NCP makes 600
CP makes 400

Total income available for support: $1000

Now let's assume that guidelines for the combined available income sets the support obligation at $100.

They split that 60/40, so the NCP is responsible for 60, and would be ordered to pay that amount the CP.




Scenario 2--60/40 income ratio
NCP makes 6000
CP makes 4000

Total income available for support: $10000

Now let's assume that guidelines for the combined available income sets the support obligation at $1000.

They split that 60/40, so the NCP is responsible for $600, or 60% of the ordered obligation, and would be ordered to pay that amount the CP.


Obviouly, these are completely fake numbers, but the formula behind it is sound.

 

[SESmama]

Lawriter - ORC - 3119.24 Shared parenting order child support provisions.

The code for what is considered in a CS calculation

Lawriter - ORC - 3119.021 Basic child support schedule.

The code for who would pay what based on combined income

 

[CSO286]

I would say the increase is due to the increase in available income.

If you made, say $25K/year, you'd spend most of it like we all do. You'd eat out once every 2 weeks, let's say. You'd buy clothing at cheaper stores, or on sales. You'd live in an income-level-appropriate home.

Now, after several years, let's say you make $75K/year. Good for you! Now you eat out much more often, don't use coupons religiously like you used to do (me: ), buy or rent a bigger and nicer place.

And your child support goes up accordingly.

This analogy doesn't fit me at all.
I make waaaaaay more than that and I eat out about once a week.
I buy bulk.
Always used coupons religiously.
I work from home to save on gas.
My property taxes went up.
One car paid off other has a payment of $140.

SO this will pretty much wipe me out and possibly make me have to sell the house my girls have lived in most of their life.

If you make so much more than the $75K in the scenario SP presented, why are you complaining about $800/mth in support?

$75k over a year avgs out to $6250/mth in income. $800 in support shouldn't be an insurmontable hardship.

 

[CSO286]

Ok, thanks for the replies.

But CS0286....

Indulge me if you will as I key in on this phrase and examine the logic, if the county even accepts logic.



If there is "more money available" than we both have more money available and it should be a wash right? That is if you meant both our incomes increased respectively.
The ratio of your ammounts $6000/$2340 is not indicative of our past or present ratios of 60/40.

I tried to do that alllaw.com calculator but I didn't understand who is custodial and noncustodial based on us being joint shared with equal time throughout the year.

I still don't see where the increase is coming from when our income is respectively the same as it was when the support was first issued.

OP--I think what you are missing is that the support obligation doesnt saty the same. it, to is fluid.

Support for one child when the combined income is less than XYZ dollars might be only $400/month.

Now if the combined income increased to $ABCD, the the support obligation would be a hgier amount, say, $800... ....and so on.

Does that make sense, OP?

 

[isaiah4318]

If you make so much more than the $75K in the scenario SP presented, why are you complaining about $800/mth in support?

$75k over a year avgs out to $6250/mth in income. $800 in support shouldn't be an insurmontable hardship.

Sorry I misspoke, I don't make $75k, i mean the other amount.

 

[Silverplum]

Sorry I misspoke, I don't make $75k, i mean the other amount.

What other amount? The one you make waaaaay more than?

 

[isaiah4318]

OP--I think what you are missing is that the support obligation doesnt saty the same. it, to is fluid.

Support for one child when the combined income is less than XYZ dollars might be only $400/month.

Now if the combined income increased to $ABCD, the the support obligation would be a hgier amount, say, $800... ....and so on.

Does that make sense, OP?

Granted , BUT, i don't think the increase amount should come from the TOTAL of 2 incomes but from the increase in salary. Example: My salary went up 25% (only recently). So I think the (for example) $200 dollars should go to $250, NOT $600.

The way it is now, the person at the 40 ratio gets more money from their salary increaseing PLUS an added bonus of the 60 ratio person providing 3Xs more all the while the 60 ratio person gets hammered trying to tread water seeing their monthly income go down exponentially! I will undoubtedly have less take home per month than I did at my previous job making 25% less due to withholding at a higher rate.

So I now have greater withholding and greater (300% higher) support withholding.

That does not seem fair!