Another question about cs in texas

[usedstepmom]

What is the name of your state?Texas
My husband's ex-girlfriend (the mother of his child) wants more child support. Are the courts likely to consider that they have free housing and no utilities? I know it states in the Texas Family Code that a spouse's income and assets cannot be considered, but since she is married to him, (through her husband's employment) she has no house payment, rent or utilities Just curious as to what anyone's opinion is about this.

 

[Inquiry123]

Syntax

The ex-girlfriend who is the mother of the baby who lives in a free house will receive support based on your husband's income without respect of the employment which provides for no utilities.

In other words, in TX it doesn't matter what assets or benefits the residential parent has -- Child support is based on the income of the non-residential parent.

Similarly, if you provide your husband a home (free of charge) it will not be held against him when support is computed.

 

[usedstepmom]

I understand

I have another question........Is it illegal for the child to be on state medical assistance, such as the CHIPS program, if the child is covered by my husband's health insurance? I have been told in the past that it is illegal, but I didn't know if it was or not.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

I have another question........Is it illegal for the child to be on state medical assistance, such as the CHIPS program, if the child is covered by my husband's health insurance? I have been told in the past that it is illegal, but I didn't know if it was or not.

It will depend on the facts, was medicaid applied for or just CHIP? THere is an Asset test, Call 1-800-647-6558 they should be able to answer your quesitons.

 

[usedstepmom]

in texas

Medicaid was not applied for, but the mother said they put the child on there by mistake, but I don't think that is possible. It specifically asks on the application if there is any private insurance. I don't want her to get in trouble, but she does need to be informed if it is illegal, right?

 

[Tinaa]

It is totally legal for her to have Medicaid and private insurance. My husband's ex uses both. The doctor should submit the private insurance first then submit the rest to Medicaid. If the mother is very low income, the children do qualify for medicaid.

 

[Phnx02]

Ditto what Tina said.....it is perfectly legal for the child to have both private and state insurance. If mom's income is low enough to qualify for state aid, she can use the state insurance as secondary/supplemental insurance to cover co-pays or anything else private insurance doesn't cover.

 

[usedstepmom]

It isn't medicaid, but it is CHIP, which is I guess considered low income, but I know they don't qualify for medicaid because they live a lot better than we do with no utilities or house payment or rent

 

[Tinaa]

When my husband was laid off a year ago, I applied for CHiP. Our income was so low the kids qualified for Medicaid. I called and asked if I could get CHIP instead of Medicaid. The answer was no. If my income was so low, I had to take Medicaid. Luckily my husband found a good job quickly. So, the ex may have applied for CHIP but qualified for Medicaid. It used to bother me because my husband's ex gets medicaid too, but it really does save us a few $ in copays. To get public housing, you have to have a very low income. The same income probably qualifies them for Medicaid and/or food stamps.

 

[usedstepmom]

not public housing.......

Actually, they live on a ranch with free housing and no utilities. Sometimes it does get frustrating because she works now and she wants more child support, so they have 2 incomes, no payments plus cs.....I really do understand that children are very expensive, but we also have 2 in our household. We would not have a problem at all paying more cs if the child was doing without, but she has a better wardrobe, jewelry, makeup and everything else than I do. She is very well taken care of and I don't think my husband (and my family) should have to be put in a bind just to provide her with more money for their lifestyle. I love my step-daughter very much and I know it is not her fault. It is a difficult situation because it seems that the law sees her as more important than our other children just because she was born first. We love them all equally. I know it is because the circumstances in her case are different than my children, since she was born out of wedlock and the situation was drastically different than ours, but like I said, she has been given more love and attention than most kids are given in a lifetime. I don't mean to ramble on, but it feels better just to get it all out sometimes

 

[LdiJ]

Actually, they live on a ranch with free housing and no utilities. Sometimes it does get frustrating because she works now and she wants more child support, so they have 2 incomes, no payments plus cs.....I really do understand that children are very expensive, but we also have 2 in our household. We would not have a problem at all paying more cs if the child was doing without, but she has a better wardrobe, jewelry, makeup and everything else than I do. She is very well taken care of and I don't think my husband (and my family) should have to be put in a bind just to provide her with more money for their lifestyle. I love my step-daughter very much and I know it is not her fault. It is a difficult situation because it seems that the law sees her as more important than our other children just because she was born first. We love them all equally. I know it is because the circumstances in her case are different than my children, since she was born out of wedlock and the situation was drastically different than ours, but like I said, she has been given more love and attention than most kids are given in a lifetime. I don't mean to ramble on, but it feels better just to get it all out sometimes

Normally a job that provides free housing pays less than a job that doesn't. Therefore its possible that the free housing isn't so "free" after all.

 

[usedstepmom]

That is very true, but not having the big house payment and utilities cancels that out because there isn't that expense.

 

[LdiJ]

That is very true, but not having the big house payment and utilities cancels that out because there isn't that expense.

I understand but let me phrase that differently.

Lets say a job is worth 2000.00 a month. However, because the job provides free housing and utilities, the employee is paid only 1000.00 instead. In fact, if the employer does it correctly, the employee would not only be paid only 1000.00, but would have to pay taxes on the whole 2000.00.

The employee isn't any better off than if they got the whole 2000.00 and had to pay rent and utilities. They aren't actually free...they are simply part of the compensation package.

That was the point I was making. You feel that the fact that they get free housing and utilities should somehow factor into to the matter. That might be a valid argument if the parent of the child was the one who had the job that provided those benefits AND if your state used both parent's incomes to calculate support. However that isn't the case.

 

[usedstepmom]

that's true

I do understand what you are talking about. There is also the tax refund to consider. They more than likely get earned income credit, which could be thousands of dollars and they get to claim the child and do not have to claim the child support they receive as income. I feel that we should get to claim the child at least every other year since the child support we give provides, I feel, half of the expense monthly, since they do not have to pay rent or bills, since that is part of what the "child support" is supposed to be for, correct? I really do understand the situation from both sides because my parents are divorced and I got to see the other side of the coin when my mother was needing child support from my dad. It is, however, difficult to be in our situation because there are many more details that would have to be explained in order for you to understand our situation. I know that in the eyes of the law the custodial parent usually benefits when it comes to these kinds of situations. I say that because we are on the other end. I'm sure there is someone out there that might disagree, but they may have never been in this situation. The way I look at it, we try to do everything possible to benefit the children, but not just the child that is involved in this suit. The other children are equally important and it seems like they always get considered last. That is the difficult part about this. A true parent will sacrifice what is needed for the child and that is what we are trying to do. I have always tried make this about doing what is best for the children. It is very hard to do when the other parent is so bitter that she can't see that. It is about her feelings and not the kids. All I was really trying to determine was if the double coverage with state insurance and private was illegal because someone told me it was. It was not an attorney, though. We are just trying to do what is right and trying not to abuse the system. I did not want to be part of using state benefits for my husband's daughter if it was illegal. I feel that is for people who really need it-not for people who drive 40,000 vehicles and a very comfortable life.