How will this all work?

[childrenRpeople]

What is the name of your state? CA

Hello,
My son's father and I are divorced. I have had primary custody and he pays child support.
He has wanted the custodial time to be 50/50 and to eliminate the support payment.
We both have equal earnings as far as I know. I may outearn him a bit.
My new circumstances:
My partner and I (we are not legally married) are expecting a baby. I have not announced it to my son's father yet.
My plans are to stay home with my 2nd baby (and yea! more time with my firstborn) and not work.
My questions are:
1) Even if my ex and I agree to 50/50 custodial time, will he be required to continue making CS payments because I am home with my children? I am afraid that he will say, "Why should I have to keep paying when you made the choice for a new child/no job?" I really think his dream was for 50/50 and no more CS.
2) Will the Court consider the earnings of my new partner? Will those be calculated when determining my household income? Or will they just look at my income and my ex's? Again, we are not legally married.
3) Can my ex use my new circs (going to be a stay-at-home mom and have a new child) to gain primary custody of our son?

Thanks for any and all contructive tips : )

CRP

 

[nextwife]

If you and he share comparable incomes (now) and comparable time (if true 50/50) and thus expenses with the child, isn't it logical for NEITHER to pay CS? You ARE free to stay home, but just as you could have an income "imputed" to him if HE chose to be VOLUNTARILLY unemployed, shouldn't you be subject to the same treatment? A child needs BOTH parents in their lives to the greatest extent possible. Your new guy and new baby should be irrelevant as to your firstborn's time with dad or that dad's cost to support HIS child.

And if he is paying health care, for example, and you aren't, then even if he isn't paying CS, he's paying more.

 

[childrenRpeople]

I do see the logic in your statement.
Just so I understand exactly what you are saying (in your experience as a lawyer in California), it is reasonable to assume that there should be no expectation of CS from my ex if our earning potential is the same and our custodial time is equal. I hear you saying that California law will impute what I CAN earn. Voluntarily staying home with my children is deemed a personal choice and so my earning potential will still be imputed.
Am I hearing what you are saying correctly?
P.S. We share healthcare costs and will continue to do so no matter what.

 

[NotSoNew]

i dont see where Nextwife said she was a CA attorney. I dont beleive she is.

Neither am I.

But yes, if you both currently make the same income and dad has 50% parenting time, no CS would be ordered.

If you choose to stay home, an income will be imputed on you based on what you are capable of making (from past tax returns usually)

your new husbands imcome will not be included.

 

[GrowUp!]

I do see the logic in your statement.
Just so I understand exactly what you are saying (in your experience as a lawyer in California), it is reasonable to assume that there should be no expectation of CS from my ex if our earning potential is the same and our custodial time is equal. I hear you saying that California law will impute what I CAN earn. Voluntarily staying home with my children is deemed a personal choice and so my earning potential will still be imputed.
Am I hearing what you are saying correctly?

Yes. You will not be given any "breaks" because you chose to be a stay-at-home unwed Mom.

 

[ceara19]

I do see the logic in your statement.
Just so I understand exactly what you are saying (in your experience as a lawyer in California), it is reasonable to assume that there should be no expectation of CS from my ex if our earning potential is the same and our custodial time is equal. I hear you saying that California law will impute what I CAN earn. Voluntarily staying home with my children is deemed a personal choice and so my earning potential will still be imputed.
Am I hearing what you are saying correctly?
P.S. We share healthcare costs and will continue to do so no matter what.

In a few years when you go back to work, will you be giving dad child support so that he can spend more time with the child for a few years? After all, that seems to be what you want HIM to do. If you end up with 50/50 custody and you both have the same earning potential, he should not have to pay anything. You would be supporting the child equally.

If you don't end up with 50/50 then your income will be imputed to reflect what you can potentially earn when setting the child support.

 

[LAWMAN]

What is the name of your state? CA

Hello,
My son's father and I are divorced. I have had primary custody and he pays child support.
He has wanted the custodial time to be 50/50 and to eliminate the support payment.
We both have equal earnings as far as I know. I may outearn him a bit.
My new circumstances:
My partner and I (we are not legally married) are expecting a baby. I have not announced it to my son's father yet.
My plans are to stay home with my 2nd baby (and yea! more time with my firstborn) and not work.
My questions are:
1) Even if my ex and I agree to 50/50 custodial time, will he be required to continue making CS payments because I am home with my children? I am afraid that he will say, "Why should I have to keep paying when you made the choice for a new child/no job?" I really think his dream was for 50/50 and no more CS.
2) Will the Court consider the earnings of my new partner? Will those be calculated when determining my household income? Or will they just look at my income and my ex's? Again, we are not legally married.
3) Can my ex use my new circs (going to be a stay-at-home mom and have a new child) to gain primary custody of our son?

Thanks for any and all contructive tips : )

CRP

My response:

The fact a parent intentionally remains unemployed or underemployed and relies on a subsequent spouse's income is deemed an "extraordinary case" that may warrant consideration of the new spouse's income in fixing child support (Ca Fam § 4057.5(b)). But even here, new mate income cannot be factored into the child support equation absent extreme and severe hardship to the child.

Alternatively, therefore, courts may exercise discretion to fill the void by basing the child support obligation on the formerly employed/now-unemployed parent's earning capacity (assuming that approach would otherwise be proper under the facts). [Marriage of Paulin (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1384-1385, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 314, 318--custodial parent's monthly income from prior employment properly considered where she had voluntarily quit work upon remarriage and offered no concrete proof of efforts to find new comparable employment]

"When child support is ordered at a time when both parents are employed and thereafter one arbitrarily decides to stop working, perhaps because of remarriage to someone with significant income, the court must possess the discretion to consider that parent's earning capacity in ordering child support . . . Otherwise, one parent by a unilateral decision could eliminate their own responsibility to contribute to the support of the child, causing the entire burden of supporting the child to fall upon the employed parent." [Marriage of Paulin, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at 1384, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d at 318, fn. 5; see also Marriage of Wood (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1071, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 236, 243--trial court ordered to attribute earning capacity to unemployed custodial parent based on her having been employed full-time in new spouse's business]

IAAL

 

[childrenRpeople]

I always appreciate the unbiased factual information that I receive in response to my questions on this forum although I additionally appreciate that there are those who will read into what I "seem" to want or even interject their own jabs.
I asked questions and I appreciate the honest answers.
Thank you for the legal advice. Thanks also to those few voices of God : )

 

[AHA]

I always appreciate the unbiased factual information that I receive in response to my questions on this forum although I additionally appreciate that there are those who will read into what I "seem" to want or even interject their own jabs.
I asked questions and I appreciate the honest answers.
Thank you for the legal advice. Thanks also to those few voices of God : )

You get what you pay for, hon.

 

[childrenRpeople]

I definitely wanted the facts and frankly, the answers corresponded with my hunches so now I can make decisions accordingly. So, knowing there won't be a support payment, I can coordinate my income-earning accordingly.

You get what you pay for, hon.

LOL Yes I do!

 

[erosePA]

support and custody are two different things. one has no effect on the other. courts have no regards for stay at home moms they'll use your w2's from previous employment to calculate support. you could work out a lower payment plan though.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

support and custody are two different things. one has no effect on the other.

Completely and utterly INCORRECT.

courts have no regards for stay at home moms they'll use your w2's from previous employment to calculate support.

Courts are not required to have 'regard' or other feelings for anyone. Only the fact that both parents are required by law to financially support their child.

you could work out a lower payment plan though.

Yep,, and the payee could say "BITE ROCKS".

 

[childrenRpeople]

Frankly, the ex and I can usually work things out in conversation.
I wasn't sure where the law stood on this one which is why I asked.
The support payment he currently pays is minimal anyway and I agreed to it. The Court never had to do an "order". We agreed to it together. I didn't want to fight that hard to be honest.
And I won't again either.
I believe that when I let him what is happening, I'll just let him know that the continued support payment (or lesser one) would certainly help but that he is not obligated.
If he prefers not to make the payment, then I'll just take a part-time job.

 

[erosePA]

Completely and utterly INCORRECT.

Courts are not required to have 'regard' or other feelings for anyone. Only the fact that both parents are required by law to financially support their child.

Yep,, and the payee could say "BITE ROCKS".

you really want some advice get a lawer these people on here don't know jack about the law and really helping no one. anyone who says anything remotly relevent they put down insult or debate with. you end up spending more time reading people arguing then you do get your info.

 

[erosePA]

Completely and utterly INCORRECT.

Courts are not required to have 'regard' or other feelings for anyone. Only the fact that both parents are required by law to financially support their child.

Yep,, and the payee could say "BITE ROCKS".

do youself a favor on the world get a life. you insinuate your some kind of lawyer.... glad to see your buisness is doing so well you have tome for this stuff.