can my child support be raised in reguards to inheritance?

[genivieve]

and, of course, you have OTHER legal advice to offer this poster?

No? And why would that be? Maybe because you are just like our TAX attorney, no idea what you're talking about.

figures. One more troll.

Oh my, I cant control my giggling. Please tell us since your a big lawyer and all how you find the time to make 11,000 posts? My father has a personal attorney, you know the ones that go on vacation with you, basically live with you. Lately he cant fart without the attorney up his a#s. Yet he seems to never had time to even check his email, let alone make 11,000 posts on a forum to which he is making NO money on.

 

[johannah11]

No, there you are wrong. What I can't stand is that you can't read.

Now idiot, go back to my VERY FIRST response in this thread then when you see who DID give the only correct legal advice (and that includes you)
come back and tell us all what the hell a TAX attorney knows of family law.

what a jackass

And you know family law because.....? Because you have been through divorce and custody disputes? Well, so have I. I guess that makes me even more qualified than you since I have a law degree on top of it as well.

And, I am not stupid enough to post personal information here. I don't have to prove to you I am attorney. All I know is that on Tuesday I get up and go to a job where the fact that I happen to have a law degree (and an LLM) and a bar license are quite relevant.

Now, instead of berating everyone who comes here genuinely in serach of advice, why don't you take your anger somewhere else. I guess now that you don't have an ex-spouse to berate and belittle, you do it here. Take your Prozac and go talk to your shrink. If you don't have either of those two, I think you should turn your efforts to getting some help quickly. Good luck in getting your metal health back!

(And no, I am not a mental health professional, but its doesn't take any training to see from your posts that you are a very very angry and frustrated individual)

 

[LdiJ]

Johannah~

You say that it is unfair for the children to live off of the frills of the NCP. Why is this? Is it because it's not fair that the CP can't take that money and spend it how they want it?? The NCP inherited the money, NOT the CP, so why should the CP get to decide how it is spent? If the NCP wants to take their kid to disneyland 50 times, that's their decision. If it was really about the kids, then why would the CP care so much about getting a cut?

If it were me, I'd send the kids to live with the NCP for awhile, since the NCP has plenty of money to spare. Then I'd take a vacation myself!

She is recieving 327 a month for TWO children. That is incredibly low and I am quite certain that it does not cover 1/2 of the cost of raising two children, even on a low budget basis. Its unlikely to cover 1/2 of the cost of daycare for two children, let alone anything else. So yes, I happen to agree that the reactions give to the OP in this case have been pretty unfair. Even double that would still be fairly low for two kids.

Her question was legit....and there is no basis to classify her as greedy.

 

[eyemback]

I find the smugness of these replies to be nothing short of inane and out of touch with reality.

$327 a month is an absurdly small amount...sorry, but that is true!!! $327 hardly begins to cover the expenses of clothing, food, housing, daycare, medical care, etc. If her ex-husband has the capacity to pay more, why shouldn't the children benefit? Oh, the only appropriate benefit is that now during the summer vacation visitation, he can take them on fabulous Disney dad vacations? If the father was already paying a meaningful amount, I might feel differently, but $327 does not begin to defray the cost of raising a child. The poster is hardly living in the lap of luxury on $327 a month, so why the snide remarks about a mansion, cosmetic surgery, cars?

The rest of you were sadly off target.

Come back when you have a clue, woman! ONE parent is paying that amount. How much is the OTHER PARENT financially responsible for??

 

[eyemback]

What you can't stand that I just proved you gave wrong legal advice?

You did NOT give legal advice. You simply copied and pasted text. Any idiot can do that. Congrats! And just because you're a tax attorney doesn't mean you know family law. Judging by your responses, you clearly don't. So, just worry about tax changes for the upcoming year so you can at least do people tax returns correctly.

 

[eyemback]

She is recieving 327 a month for TWO children. That is incredibly low and I am quite certain that it does not cover 1/2 of the cost of raising two children, even on a low budget basis. Its unlikely to cover 1/2 of the cost of daycare for two children, let alone anything else. So yes, I happen to agree that the reactions give to the OP in this case have been pretty unfair. Even double that would still be fairly low for two kids.

Her question was legit....and there is no basis to classify her as greedy.

And LdiJ, as has been pointed out, there are other pertinent info that was NOT revealed to give us the entire story. How much is the OP making compared to the NCP? Who's paying medical coverage? Is there shared parenting? Don't be so quick to take your usual sides you do. Have you also noticed the OP has yet to even respond?

 

[johannah11]

Come back when you have a clue, woman! ONE parent is paying that amount. How much is the OTHER PARENT financially responsible for??

Here is the point! The woman asked a legitimate question about whether she could increase child support as result of a fairly sizable inheritance. Everyone jumped on her as if she was a gold digger or trying to take advantage. Several points:

-- The $327 is is currently recieiving is a very small amount. So yes, she may be responsible for paying a larger portion of the child support because she is more financially capable than her ex. But she is not currently getting rich off of him.

-- If he becomes financially able to pay more, why is she wrong to want an increase in child support from the measly pittance he currently pays? His measly pittance is based on his financial ability (or inability) to pay. When that changes, his measly pittance should also be increased. She is not opportunistic or trying to take advantage. He has a legal AND moral obligation to support his children in line with his financial capacity to do so. Why should she continue to bear the burden of covering 90% of the children's expenses, when the ex- now has the ability to pay more?

The whole point is -- you jumped on the OP like a pack of wolves, accusing her of gold digging. That was, quite simply, a ridiculous conclusion to come to.

 

[nextwife]

The $500,000 is an ASSET, not an income. HE was GIVEN something he will not be given again.

I would think that any INCOME derived from the inheritance annually CAN be counted AS INCOME TO THE obligor.

So, if he invests conservatively and makes 3.9% annually in a money market, his income from $500,000 would from the $19,500 year, for example. So, his income would be higher by $19,500 each year in that scenario.

 

[johannah11]

You did NOT give legal advice. You simply copied and pasted text. Any idiot can do that. Congrats! And just because you're a tax attorney doesn't mean you know family law. Judging by your responses, you clearly don't. So, just worry about tax changes for the upcoming year so you can at least do people tax returns correctly.

You'r right. I did copy and paste the text. I never said I gave legal advice. In fact, I admitted that any idiot can look up a statute.

All I have been doing is objecting to the tenor and tone of the responses to the OP.

I can speak to family law as well as the next person here. As far as I can tell, anyone's particular legal expertise is based (i) on their own personal experience with family and (2) the ability to do a google or lexis nexis search.

The people who are passing themselves off as experts give thoughts that are not well-considered. They are simply angry rants. Being able to cast
ad hominems and curse, makes no one an expert.

 

[nextwife]

BTW, a CP gets the BENEFIT of getting to have the child in their home. They get the BENEFIT of getting to see them almost everyday and getting to truly be a parent instead of a visitor. That is WORTH being the parent who carries more of the financial burden. If it were not the PREFERABLE situation, why would so many fight to BE the CP? Why would so many infertile couples spend tens of thousands of dollars attempting to get pregnant, or adopting, if BEING the CP wasn't the state that was MOST desired?

Getting to BE the one to raise a child in one's own home is getting to have something SPECIAL, so it makes sense that more should fall to the CP. They get more out of it all.

 

[johannah11]

BTW, a CP gets the BENEFIT of getting to have the child in their home. They get the BENEFIT of getting to see them almost everyday and getting to truly be a parent instead of a visitor. That is WORTH being the parent who carries more of the financial burden. If it were not the PREFERABLE situation, why would so many fight to BE the CP? Why would so many infertile couples spend tens of thousands of dollars attempting to get pregnant, or adopting, if BEING the CP wasn't the state that was MOST desired?

Getting to BE the one to raise a child in one's own home is getting to have something SPECIAL, so it makes sense that more should fall to the CP. They get more out of it all.

You're right, in many instances. But being a CP involves not only the joys of parenthood, but the struggles and stresses of juggling daily life as (in many cases) a single parent. I have seen too many cases where the NCP doesn't want to deal with the day-to-day work of taking care of children and the idea of having to be a full-time caretaker is actually something they would not want to assume. I think a CP, especially a single CP, is entitled to all the support and help he or she can get.

 

[stepmom&mom]

But it doesn't mean that the CP is entitled to get rich. My point is this. We don't know what the CP's expenses are. We don't even know if the CP pays daycare or healthcare expenses (the CP in my dh's case doesn't.) That could make a big difference in the NCP's financial responsibility. One thing is for certain: the NCP will not be getting this inheritance yearly. So the CP should not expect for this increase to be permanent. That's why it's best just not to depend on it.

This is EXACTLY why I think joint legal/physical custody is best; so that the parents can split the expenses down the middle, 50/50. Then there would be no question as to the fairness of it all, and each parent could independently make decisions about how money will be spent on the child while in his/her care. Our system is set up to punish NCP's all around. They have to constantly be subject to child support increases and wage garnishments, rather than having the ability, like the CP, to decide how exactly they want their money spent on their own children, and they only get to see their child a couple of days per month. No wonder parents fight so desperately to win custody of their children: no one wants to be the NCP. It SUCKS.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

One example of the Iowa child Suport Calculator.

There are many situations where $327 is the correct award. Now go run the numbers for yourself.

Because until the OP comes back to answer the questions posed, this thread is meaningless.

 

[haiku]

You know what? 327 a month free and clear, for her to choose what she wants to do with it, may very well make her better off then when she was married to someone who obviously made so little, thats all he is QUALIFIED to be ORDERED to pay.

I love it when people compare what a minimum wage worker pays, to what a white collar professional pays. It just shows your ignorance.

the question was not about "he pays so little, he should pay more", the question is, "he has come into money, SHOULD he pay more?" I can gaurantee you, were he already paying "more", the question was still going to be asked.

Those of you who think he does not pay enough, what do you think is a fair amount of support in this case?

the question cannot be answered........

 

[stealth2]

Those of you who think he does not pay enough, what do you think is a fair amount of support in this case?

the question cannot be answered........

Egg-zachery!