Reservation on child support

[trlenz]

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

I was divorced last year and my ex and I agreed to a lesser amount of child support (reservation) than the state calculations required. The divorce decree also states that I would claim one of our two children on taxes as long as my child support was current. The question is, since I have paid every penny granted in the reservation, does this legally mean that I am current? My ex claimed both children on her taxes claiming that due to only paying the amount agreed in the reservation, and not the full state required amount that I am technically behind, although legally she cannot go after me for more. Is she justified or did she break the rules of the divorce decree?

 

[Zigner]

First, a question: At the end of 2014 were you current on the child support that was actually ordered (not the "state calculations")?

If the answer to the above question is "yes", then, based on what you have posted, it sounds like she was not entitled to claim both children for the 2014 tax year. Your recourse would be to take her to court for contempt and ask that she be required to pay you the difference between what you should have paid in taxes on your return and what you actually paid in taxes on your return.

 

[trlenz]

First, a question: At the end of 2014 were you current on the child support that was actually ordered (not the "state calculations")?

If the answer to the above question is "yes", then, based on what you have posted, it sounds like she was not entitled to claim both children for the 2014 tax year. Your recourse would be to take her to court for contempt and ask that she be required to pay you the difference between what you should have paid in taxes on your return and what you actually paid in taxes on your return.

The answer I yes. I pay the child support directly to our day care provider for one of the children, which is recorded and on record. My ex paid one week for me that she verbally granted I not require to pay her back because she knew I was experiencing a financial problem. So, if she crawfished on that verbal agreement she could technically use that, but records by the day care provider show I was current. Thank you for the answer.

 

[LdiJ]

The answer I yes. I pay the child support directly to our day care provider for one of the children, which is recorded and on record. My ex paid one week for me that she verbally granted I not require to pay her back because she knew I was experiencing a financial problem. So, if she crawfished on that verbal agreement she could technically use that, but records by the day care provider show I was current. Thank you for the answer.

I am starting to think that perhaps you do not understand what "reserved" means. That generally means that child support is not being paid at all, but may be ordered to be paid in the future. In addition, normally sharing daycare costs is in addition to regular child support. If that is the case, then the situation is murkier.

Yes, you are covering part of the child's daycare costs but that is normally in addition to regular child support, and you apparently missed at least one payment. I think that you are going to need a local attorney to review your actual orders and give you an opinion as to whether or not mom is actually violating the court order.

 

[trlenz]

I am starting to think that perhaps you do not understand what "reserved" means. That generally means that child support is not being paid at all, but may be ordered to be paid in the future. In addition, normally sharing daycare costs is in addition to regular child support. If that is the case, then the situation is murkier.

Yes, you are covering part of the child's daycare costs but that is normally in addition to regular child support, and you apparently missed at least one payment. I think that you are going to need a local attorney to review your actual orders and give you an opinion as to whether or not mom is actually violating the court order.

The day care cost of said child is included in the calculations for child support. In lieu of paying her and then her paying the day care provider, I pay directly. The amount I pay was an agreed upon amount and is part of the calculated "child support" requirements. My understanding of the reservation as explained to me by both her and her lawyer, was that she cannot legally go after me for more than the reserved amount $650/mo even though the state calculates my obligation based on salary and debt is $1100/mo. On top of that the decree states that if I am current on child support, I can claim one child. Since I am not legally obligated to pay more than the reserved amount, does this make me current?

 

[single317dad]

Honestly, I don't think either of the parents understands child support.

Mom's claim that "because you're paying a lesser (court-ordered) agreed amount the other laws don't apply" is hogwash. You may get tripped up on the missed daycare payment, but otherwise I think you've got a good case on the current issue.

As far as being somehow "protected" from a future increase in support because of the current agreement, that also falls into the "hogwash" category. Child support can (and probably will) be changed in the future; my guess is the process will begin shortly after the contempt hearing.

 

[LdiJ]

Honestly, I don't think either of the parents understands child support.

Mom's claim that "because you're paying a lesser (court-ordered) agreed amount the other laws don't apply" is hogwash. You may get tripped up on the missed daycare payment, but otherwise I think you've got a good case on the current issue.

He is not current because of the missed payment, and it also may be a problem that he is paying the daycare directly instead of paying mom. However I agree that it does sound like neither one of them quite understands what their obligations are.

As far as being somehow "protected" from a future increase in support because of the current agreement, that also falls into the "hogwash" category. Child support can (and probably will) be changed in the future; my guess is the process will begin shortly after the contempt hearing.

I absolutely agree with this part. Right now dad appears to be saving 5400.00 a year by the agreement. Since he is not entitled (under federal law) to claim head of household, EIC or daycare credits, the value of claiming one child is around 2k max. Therefore he could be cutting off his nose to spite his face if he pursues this.

 

[stealth2]

Personally, it would seem to make the most sense to (a) not rock the boat on the tax issue this time and (b) pay Mom the daycare amount and have her pay them directly. And (c) consult with an attorney of your own. Her lawyer will not necessarily give input that is advantageous to you - s/he doesn't work for you.

And yes expect to have CS modified at some point. CS is NEVER carved in stone.

 

[trlenz]

Well, I do get that pursuing this at this point is not in my best interest. It sounds like on a technical basis she has rights to claim both. The agreed upon lesser amount was to accommodate the debt to income ratio I had at the time of the divorce since she knew I could not pay it all and also knew that crippling me financially would hurt everyone. So, as it is now, I am leaving this issue behind. Paying what is required in the reservation and keeping my nose. Clean. Up this point we have been in rather good graces and there is no need to jeopardize that because of a tax return. And yes... I do not understand child support that well. I'm not a lawyer, I am a maintenance man. Just trying to see if she was being unfair or not. Thanks for the info to everyone who had meaningful contributions.