Child support questions

[myersputman]

What is the name of your state? Pennsylvania
My brother has two children to this woman. They separated about 5 or 6 years ago. She was put through school by the state and has a degree or something of that nature for a Dental Assistant. She worked in that field for less than a year at two different places. Her reasons for quitting were that they didn't give her the time off that she wanted to do whatever. All of that is irrelevant but still ticks me off. Anyway, she voluntarily quit her job and stays home all day long and doesn't work. That is the status quo right now. Now a few years ago my brother was laid off from his job. The child support payment was set at what he was making at that time. He was let go for reasons uncontrollable to him. So when he called his attorney to discuss the support his attorney told him that since the support was set at that amount if they lowered it while he was on unemployment the difference between the amount set originally and the amount set based on the unemployment would go into arrears and he would owe her that money. So first question, is that true? It took him until his unemployment was almost up to get a job. Then his attorney told him that if he took a job making less money than he was making previously that his child support would be the same because he should have kept searching for a job where he made the same or more. Second question, is that true? Now he was laid off. His unemployment was running out. It's pretty much take the job that you can get and search for something better as you go.
Now my third question is about the ex. She has the degree and all of that. The attorney told my brother that when the child support is calculated they will take what her potential income could be if she worked in the field where she has a degree. That particular field has a range of $25000-$35000 (last time I looked). When they went to calculate child support they set her at minimum wage. Can anyone explain that one to me please? It's very frustrating. The girl quits her job voluntarily and everytime she needs extra cash she hits the courts up to get my brother to pay more child support and they give it to her. He now has to move back to my parents house. He makes $12.75 per hour and has to pay $700+ a month in child support. Unless he wins the lottery at some point in time he'll never be able to live on his own. He'll never be able to afford it.
Sorry so long but these questions have built up over the years and no one has ever been able to give me the answers.

Thanks!

 

[MrsK]

What is the name of your state? Pennsylvania
My brother has two children to this woman. They separated about 5 or 6 years ago. She was put through school by the state and has a degree or something of that nature for a Dental Assistant. She worked in that field for less than a year at two different places. Her reasons for quitting were that they didn't give her the time off that she wanted to do whatever. All of that is irrelevant but still ticks me off. True. Thanks for sharing anyway Anyway, she voluntarily quit her job and stays home all day long and doesn't work. That is the status quo right now. Now a few years ago my brother was laid off from his job. The child support payment was set at what he was making at that time. He was let go for reasons uncontrollable to him. So when he called his attorney to discuss the support his attorney told him that since the support was set at that amount if they lowered it while he was on unemployment the difference between the amount set originally and the amount set based on the unemployment would go into arrears and he would owe her that money. So first question, is that true? Maybe. He still shouldve taken it to court to request a temporary reduction if the loss of his job was for reasons beyond his control. It may not have been granted, but it wouldnt have hurt to ask. Personally, and this is JMO and I'm not a judge so I dont get to decide- I think when people lose their jobs for reasons TRULY beyond their control support SHOULD be lowered, because in an intact family, if this happened, everyone would have to make due, even the kids. But it seems that sometimes kids who are in the 'system' tend to be afforded more benefits than kids who happen to reside in intact families. It took him until his unemployment was almost up to get a job. Then his attorney told him that if he took a job making less money than he was making previously that his child support would be the same because he should have kept searching for a job where he made the same or more. Second question, is that true? Again, maybe. Sometimes when people lose their job for a reason that is not their fault, they can get a permanent reduction, esp if they have genuinely and can not get a job making the same amount of $. If he was fired, he would've been considered 'voluntarily unemployed' and would not have been granted a reduction. Now he was laid off. His unemployment was running out. It's pretty much take the job that you can get and search for something better as you go.
Now my third question is about the ex. She has the degree and all of that. The attorney told my brother that when the child support is calculated they will take what her potential income could be if she worked in the field where she has a degree. That particular field has a range of $25000-$35000 (last time I looked). When they went to calculate child support they set her at minimum wage. Can anyone explain that one to me please? Explain what?? We dont know why the judge decided to order it that way. Why didnt your brother try to appeal this decision? He shouldve asked that she be inputed what she COULD be (and should be) making since she SHOULD BE working to help support her kids. It's very frustrating. The girl quits her job voluntarily and everytime she needs extra cash she hits the courts up to get my brother to pay more child support and they give it to her. They can only make him pay more if his income has increased, so that isnt really that unfair. If his income increases, he needs to expect to pay more support. He now has to move back to my parents house. He makes $12.75 per hour and has to pay $700+ a month in child support. That isnt neccessarily unreasonable for 2 kids if there are daycare costs, etc. BUT- her income shouldve been imputed at what she can make with her degree, so its possible that the amt is unfair Unless he wins the lottery at some point in time he'll never be able to live on his own. He'll never be able to afford it.
Sorry so long but these questions have built up over the years and no one has ever been able to give me the answers.

Thanks!

When was the last modification?

 

[myersputman]

The last modification was in October or November I believe. The increase only went up by $20 but that sent it over $700 and he pays for their health insurance.

Now I will tell you that they never go in front of a judge. PA does things through Domestic Relations. One of their people preside over any meetings.

And the reason that my brother didn't say anything about the amount being used for her is because his attorney said "that's how it's done here in Cambria County". On a side note, I do believe he needs to get a different attorney but it's like a circle and he just can't afford to do it.

Oh and yes, she should be made to work.

I thank you for all of your answers. My husband is in the Army and we have to live in Tennessee but will be moving back to PA when he retires in several years. When we do I would like to get involved this type of thing and making sure that the laws are being followed and maybe get some change to occur. I think that if one parent works to support the children then the other should be made to as well. I have a friend in Wisconsin who was court ordered to do so. And if that parent chooses not to work then they shouldn't be allowed to take the other person back for an increase. And also the state put her through school. This has nothing to do with child support but I think if the taxpayers of a state put you through school you should have to work for x amount of years. Not to actually pay back the debt but to at least be a productive citizen. Again, just my opinion. The reason she took him back for an increase is that her and her new husband moved out of a rent free apartment (provided by her parents) to buy a house. So now they had a mortgage payment and she needed more money so she was hitting him up.
There is so much more involved in this whole story I could probably write a movie for Lifetime.

Anyway, I appreciate your comments and I will share them with my brother.

 

[MrsK]

The last modification was in October or November I believe. The increase only went up by $20 but that sent it over $700 and he pays for their health insurance.

Now I will tell you that they never go in front of a judge. PA does things through Domestic Relations. One of their people preside over any meetings.

And the reason that my brother didn't say anything about the amount being used for her is because his attorney said "that's how it's done here in Cambria County". On a side note, I do believe he needs to get a different attorney but it's like a circle and he just can't afford to do it.

Oh and yes, she should be made to work.

I thank you for all of your answers. My husband is in the Army and we have to live in Tennessee but will be moving back to PA when he retires in several years. When we do I would like to get involved this type of thing and making sure that the laws are being followed and maybe get some change to occur. I think that if one parent works to support the children then the other should be made to as well. I have a friend in Wisconsin who was court ordered to do so. And if that parent chooses not to work then they shouldn't be allowed to take the other person back for an increase. And also the state put her through school. This has nothing to do with child support but I think if the taxpayers of a state put you through school you should have to work for x amount of years. Not to actually pay back the debt but to at least be a productive citizen. Again, just my opinion. The reason she took him back for an increase is that her and her new husband moved out of a rent free apartment (provided by her parents) to buy a house. So now they had a mortgage payment and she needed more money so she was hitting him up.
There is so much more involved in this whole story I could probably write a movie for Lifetime.

Anyway, I appreciate your comments and I will share them with my brother.

They modified the order for $20??? How long had it been since the previous modification?

If he just had a modification, he is unlikely to get a court to hear him right now, and for awhile, unless there is a change in circumstance. But he should save up, even if its just a little at a time, so that he can get a decent atty who will help him get what is fair.

I ran an online calculator and surprisingly, what he is paying doesnt seem too off from what I got...of course, that is putting her @ a min wage income, it seems like it could drop if she was imputed a proper income.

Has he considered getting a 2nd job to help support himself?

 

[myersputman]

Yes, you read it right. They modified it for a $20 increase. And I'll tell you my brothers attorney didn't show up physically. He was there via conference call. My BROTHER pleaded his own case. His attorney tried to stop him but he had had enough at that point. And somehow she was still using her free legal aide attorney, but he actually listened and agreed with my brother that she needed to be made to work and that enough money was being paid to her between the actual support and the health insurance on the kids. Plus it didn't take a rocket scientist to see that the reason she was taking him back for more $$ was because they just bought a house and now have to actually pay a mortgage. And I realize that this sounds like a whole bunch of speculation but trust me this is her. She and my brother never married. They lived together. And the whole time they were together she was trying to get him to change his address to my parents house so that she could collect welfare and not have to work. Then she faked a back injury and was put on welfare, kicked my brother out and here we are today. And I say that she faked a back injury and that also sounds really hateful but when you have a back injury you generally don't pick up two kids and carry them at the same time while a third is hanging onto your leg while you walk. I saw her do that. And then after all of that the taxpayers put her through school for training in something that wouldn't be so stressful on her back. She went through the program, worked for 9 months and up and quit. Now everytime she needs money she takes him back to court. The last modification was about 2-3 years ago. She got the increase and conveniently enough 6 months later was able to take the whole family to Disneyworld.
And also my brother has not one problem paying child support for his children. My father barely paid anything and my brother knows what that's like. That isn't his issue. His issue is that number one she voluntarily doesn't work and someone should be making her work and number two when they calculate child support in PA they have both sides complete this form where they list their income, rent, utilities, etc. When you see it on paper with his income it's not that he can't pay the support but he also can't live either. And I hear you about taking on a second job but the job that he currently has is a laborer's job and they expect him to work 60-70 hrs per week. And also even if that weren't the case if he took a second job it would primarily be on the weekends. When would he see his children? And also if he got a second job that income isn't off limits. The more he makes the more she'll take.
The domestic relations officer in that county even told my brothers attorney that the way that things are done in that county stink and need to be changed. And I'm telling you it's PA law but that county does what it wants to do. And what it wants to do is give everything to the mother and make the father work and work and work to support the kids and they really don't care if the fathers actually see the kids.
One of the women at domestic relations told my brother once that as long as the mother puts a roof over the childs head and food on the table the mother can drink the rest of the support away if they want to and no one can do a darn thing about it.
Ok, I'm sorry for rambling on like this but it's very frustrating to watch this. It's like he's in this hole and he's trying to climb out and every time he does someone kicks him back down.
You know my nephew still says that he wants to live with my brother. In PA when children are 12 a judge will actually listen to them. If he wants to go live with my brother and a judge grants it there really should be no child support because they each will have primary custody of one of the children. But in that county, I'm just waiting for a judge to say that he'll still have to pay for one of the children. Would you happen to know anything about that?

 

[stealth2]

Please put spaces between your paragraphs - it's difficult to read otherwise. Thanks.

 

[myersputman]

Yes, you read it right. They modified it for a $20 increase. And I'll tell you my brothers attorney didn't show up physically. He was there via conference call. My BROTHER pleaded his own case. His attorney tried to stop him but he had had enough at that point. And somehow she was still using her free legal aide attorney, but he actually listened and agreed with my brother that she needed to be made to work and that enough money was being paid to her between the actual support and the health insurance on the kids. Plus it didn't take a rocket scientist to see that the reason she was taking him back for more $$ was because they just bought a house and now have to actually pay a mortgage.

And I realize that this sounds like a whole bunch of speculation but trust me this is her. She and my brother never married. They lived together. And the whole time they were together she was trying to get him to change his address to my parents house so that she could collect welfare and not have to work. Then she faked a back injury and was put on welfare, kicked my brother out and here we are today. And I say that she faked a back injury and that also sounds really hateful but when you have a back injury you generally don't pick up two kids and carry them at the same time while a third is hanging onto your leg while you walk. I saw her do that. And then after all of that the taxpayers put her through school for training in something that wouldn't be so stressful on her back. She went through the program, worked for 9 months and up and quit. Now everytime she needs money she takes him back to court. The last modification was about 2-3 years ago. She got the increase and conveniently enough 6 months later was able to take the whole family to Disneyworld.


And also my brother has not one problem paying child support for his children. My father barely paid anything and my brother knows what that's like. That isn't his issue. His issue is that number one she voluntarily doesn't work and someone should be making her work and number two when they calculate child support in PA they have both sides complete this form where they list their income, rent, utilities, etc. When you see it on paper with his income it's not that he can't pay the support but he also can't live either.

And I hear you about taking on a second job but the job that he currently has is a laborer's job and they expect him to work 60-70 hrs per week. And also even if that weren't the case if he took a second job it would primarily be on the weekends. When would he see his children? And also if he got a second job that income isn't off limits. The more he makes the more she'll take.

The domestic relations officer in that county even told my brothers attorney that the way that things are done in that county stink and need to be changed. And I'm telling you it's PA law but that county does what it wants to do. And what it wants to do is give everything to the mother and make the father work and work and work to support the kids and they really don't care if the fathers actually see the kids.

One of the women at domestic relations told my brother once that as long as the mother puts a roof over the childs head and food on the table the mother can drink the rest of the support away if they want to and no one can do a darn thing about it.

Ok, I'm sorry for rambling on like this but it's very frustrating to watch this. It's like he's in this hole and he's trying to climb out and every time he does someone kicks him back down.

You know my nephew still says that he wants to live with my brother. In PA when children are 12 a judge will actually listen to them. If he wants to go live with my brother and a judge grants it there really should be no child support because they each will have primary custody of one of the children. But in that county, I'm just waiting for a judge to say that he'll still have to pay for one of the children. Would you happen to know anything about that?

I'm sorry. I should have spaced.

 

[wondreing]

You know my nephew still says that he wants to live with my brother. In PA when children are 12 a judge will actually listen to them. If he wants to go live with my brother and a judge grants it there really should be no child support because they each will have primary custody of one of the children. But in that county, I'm just waiting for a judge to say that he'll still have to pay for one of the children. Would you happen to know anything about that?

Since he makes more money than she does (and she should have been imputed an income higher than minimum wage!) he may still have to pay her something. They would probably determine how much she would have to pay him for the one child and deduct that from the amount he would have to pay her for one child, and he could have to pay the difference.

 

[myersputman]

Wow, I see your point but that is totally bizarre to me. Like I said in an earlier post a judge in WI court ordered a friend of mine to work. It said that if the husband had to work to support his kids and send her child support then she was going to work too and he didn't care if she worked in a fast food restaurant but she was going to do something.

I remember when they first split up. His job and his visitation allowed him to be able to have the children 3.5 days per week. He was supporting them and putting a roof over their head and all of that while he had them. And he did have a consultation with another attorney about two years ago who said he proved that he had them half of the time therefore he shouldn't have had to pay as much as he did in support but they made him pay full support.

Let me ask this question, each state has it's own law. Can the separate counties take that law and do what they want with it?

 

[wondreing]

Let me ask this question, each state has it's own law. Can the separate counties take that law and do what they want with it?

With my husband's domestic relations dealing, they say they have certain guidelines that they must follow. But there are deviations that can cause the amount of support to change. So I would guess each county has the same guidelines but it could be up to your individual conference officer to determine if a deviation is merited. You can appeal the decision and actually go before a judge if you feel the situation warrants.

 

[Ohiogal]

You know my nephew still says that he wants to live with my brother. In PA when children are 12 a judge will actually listen to them. If he wants to go live with my brother and a judge grants it there really should be no child support because they each will have primary custody of one of the children. But in that county, I'm just waiting for a judge to say that he'll still have to pay for one of the children. Would you happen to know anything about that?

Where did you get this idea? It is not in statute that a judge will listen to them. Children do not get to choose but in one state which parent they want to live with and that state is NOT PA.

 

[myersputman]

Yeah I understand I guess. He really does need a new attorney. His attorney is always about waiting.

When all of this first happened my brother asked him to put a clause in the custody agreement that she not be allowed to move out of the county. The attorney said that he couldn't do that. But my brother worked with someone who also had the same attorney and yet he did exactly that for this person. I hate to say it but if my brother had enough money to pay him off every time and not make month payments I believe this guy would work a little harder. Just my opinion from everything I've seen and heard.

I do appreciate everyone's comments.

 

[myersputman]

Where did you get this idea? It is not in statute that a judge will listen to them. Children do not get to choose but in one state which parent they want to live with and that state is NOT PA.

My brothers attorney told him this years ago that in the state of PA when a child reaches 12 they can decide which parent they want to live with. And actually a friend of our family had this happen. His children, when they turned 12, went before a judge and told him that they wanted to live with their father and they now live with their father.

As a matter-of-fact my nephew turns 12 this summer and him and his attorney are already working on the timing of it.

That is where I got this idea.

You said but one state, which state is that?

 

[Ohiogal]

My brothers attorney told him this years ago that in the state of PA when a child reaches 12 they can decide which parent they want to live with. And actually a friend of our family had this happen. His children, when they turned 12, went before a judge and told him that they wanted to live with their father and they now live with their father.

As a matter-of-fact my nephew turns 12 this summer and him and his attorney are already working on the timing of it.

That is where I got this idea.

You said but one state, which state is that?

The attorney needs to go back to law school then because he is full of it -- Georgia is the ONLY state that allows a CHILD to choose and that is at the age of 14. Just because a 12 year old was HEARD in court does not mean the judge just went with the child's wishes. There are many other factors involved in what parent a child resides with and AGE is NOT the deciding factor. Nor is hearing from junior that they want to be with dad.
Were you in the hearing when those children spoke? Do you know what other factors were considered? Because judges are NOT dictated to by children. At the age of 18 the "child" gets to make the decision.

 

[myersputman]

Ok when my brother first hired his attorney he told him that at age 12 a judge will listen to him. My brother is fully aware of the fact that the child can say it all he wants but the judge may not go with it. But his attorney told him that age 12 a judge will listen to a child and then make a decision. Not that the child is going to just tell him and the judge has to go with it. But his attorney did say at age 12 the child can be heard.

When I said "a judge will actually listen" I didn't mean that he had to do what the child wanted. And my brother knows that. There are many other factors. But before age 12 the judges won't take into consideration what the child wants.