• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Stay at home mom child support modification

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

sknowlesrdh

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? florida

I was divorced in 2004 and since have remarried. I have 2 children with my ex. I have once again become a stay at home mom and have recently filed for child support modification(increase). My ex is trying to say this is the only reason for the increase, which is totally not true. My support has never been increased since the original MSA in 2004. Will the court try to penalize me for not working and not increase my support?
 


CourtClerk

Senior Member
Penalize you? That depends on how you look at it. A child has the right to financial support from BOTH of their parents. The court should impute an income for you comparable to what you were making prior to you voluntarily unemploying yourself. You being a stay at home mom is your choice, however, it is NOT a choice your ex should pay for.
 

OhReally?

Member
Will the court try to penalize me for not working and not increase my support?
So you think because you CHOOSE not to financially support your children, AS YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DO BY LAW, that your ex should pay more? Give us a break.

If you haven't had a mod since 2004, then you are entitled to one. But if I were him, I'd ask the court to impute an income at the same level you were making before you chose to not work PLUS a cost-of-living increase comparable to what you have received in the past -- because, after all, if you were working, you'd be getting that as well.

Don't be shocked if you do not get an increase because you chose to be voluntarily unemployed. And save us how much work it is to be a stay-at-home parent because you won't impress anyone. Plus, I don't think YOU would want that amount of being a SAHM imputed anyway (since it's well-over 100k from recent research I've read).
 
Last edited:

TinkerBelleLuvr

Senior Member
Both the noncustodial parent and custodial parent have the right to request a review of the support order for possible upward or downward modification. If determined appropriate, Child Support Enforcement (CSE) can initiate action to increase or decrease the support order based on Florida Child Support Guidelines.

A Florida court order for child support may be modified if it has been at least 3 years since the existing support amount was ordered or since the case was last reviewed for a modification. To petition the court for modification when the previous order was entered three or more years ago, the difference between the current support amount and the proposed amount, using current information and statutory guidelines, must be at least 10% or $25 per month (whichever amount is greater).

If it has been less than 3 years since the last review, a Florida support order may still be modified if there has been a significant change in circumstances. To petition the court for modification when the previous order was entered less than three years ago, the difference between the current support amount and the proposed amount, using current information and statutory guidelines, must be at least 15% or $50 per month (whichever amount is greater).
http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/childsupport/modification.html
 

OhReally?

Member
Interesting. So, if I read that correctly, even if it has been 3 years, it's not a guarantee you're entitled to a mod UNLESS the amount ordered previously has changed 10% or $25/month, whichever is greater.

So, the OP MIGHT get less if Dad's income did not increase significantly AND the cost of medical coverage increased significantly (and we all know the medical insurance increases tremendously every year).
 

TinkerBelleLuvr

Senior Member
THAT is why we cannot say that just because it has been x amount of years that we are GUARANTEED a change. It can go up or down depending on circumstances. Down here, the real estate market has absolutely tanked. So folks in those related industries could see income go WAY down.
 

nextwife

Senior Member
THAT is why we cannot say that just because it has been x amount of years that we are GUARANTEED a change. It can go up or down depending on circumstances. Down here, the real estate market has absolutely tanked. So folks in those related industries could see income go WAY down.
Agreed!

I work in the real estate industry - and my income has gone DOWN since 2004. Auto industry, and suppliers. Airline industry and suppliers. Restaurant industry and suppliers. ANY hospitality industry and their suppliers. Ready-to-wear and retail in general, and suppliers. Those are just SOME examples of industries that are in the tank.

One most certainly cannot GUARANTY that, simply because time has elapsed, someone WILL earn MORE money or get an increase in CS! Many, many people are now earning LESS money, because the market segment they work in is suffering, and their employers are earning less or suffering losses.. Frankly, many of us are lucky to even HAVE a job and regular income considering the finanncialstate of our industries!
 
Last edited:

Gracie3787

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? florida
I was divorced in 2004 and since have remarried. I have 2 children with my ex. I have once again become a stay at home mom and have recently filed for child support modification(increase). My ex is trying to say this is the only reason for the increase, which is totally not true. My support has never been increased since the original MSA in 2004. Will the court try to penalize me for not working and not increase my support?
If you call being imputed an income "penalized", then yes, you will be "penalized" here is the Florida Statute:


61.30(2)(b) Income on a monthly basis shall be imputed to an unemployed or underemployed parent when such employment or underemployment is found by the court to be voluntary on that parent's part, absent a finding of fact by the court of physical or mental incapacity or other circumstances over which the parent has no control. In the event of such voluntary unemployment or underemployment, the employment potential and probable earnings level of the parent shall be determined based upon his or her recent work history, occupational qualifications, and prevailing earnings level in the community as provided in this paragraph; however, the court may refuse to impute income to a parent if the court finds it necessary for the parent to stay home with the child who is the subject of a child support calculation.
 

Cstina

Junior Member
Your Income isn't Zero

So you think because you CHOOSE not to financially support your children, AS YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DO BY LAW, that your ex should pay more? Give us a break.

If you haven't had a mod since 2004, then you are entitled to one. But if I were him, I'd ask the court to impute an income at the same level you were making before you chose to not work PLUS a cost-of-living increase comparable to what you have received in the past -- because, after all, if you were working, you'd be getting that as well.

Don't be shocked if you do not get an increase because you chose to be voluntarily unemployed. And save us how much work it is to be a stay-at-home parent because you won't impress anyone. Plus, I don't think YOU would want that amount of being a SAHM imputed anyway (since it's well-over 100k from recent research I've read).
^^^
The above quoted statement is incorrect as it is taken out of context, and it is obviously spoken from hate.

While you do both have the legal obligation to support your children--you and your new spouse are doing this on your end through his income. You probably wont have the child support calculated as if you had no income at all, because your household income is obviously not zero, but you probably won't be "penalized" either.

They may calculate your child support with a "potential" earnings (which isn't a penalty), but mine was actually calculated as just minimum wage. My ex did try to get my potential income combined with my spouses income, which he thought should bring his responsibility to zero; but that was before he realized that his girlfriend (who he lived with for free) would also need to be figured in, as well as what he could potentially make if he tried harder; factor in the student loans my spouse and I will be paying for our higher potentials, the medical bills he's supposed to have been helping out with which I didn't enforce, and plenty of other factors....he decided that just his income vs. me at minimum wage is a better deal for him.

He got the cheaper end of the deal, only paying $451/month for 2 kids--but my kids are being supported, and they've got their mom back for volunteering, field trips, home cooked meals, etc. The kids got the best deal, and hopefully someday their dad will appreciate the benefit their step-dad provided to his children as well.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
^^^
The above quoted statement is incorrect as it is taken out of context, and it is obviously spoken from hate.

While you do both have the legal obligation to support your children--you and your new spouse are doing this on your end through his income. You probably wont have the child support calculated as if you had no income at all, because your household income is obviously not zero, but you probably won't be "penalized" either.

They may calculate your child support with a "potential" earnings (which isn't a penalty), but mine was actually calculated as just minimum wage. My ex did try to get my potential income combined with my spouses income, which he thought should bring his responsibility to zero; but that was before he realized that his girlfriend (who he lived with for free) would also need to be figured in, as well as what he could potentially make if he tried harder; factor in the student loans my spouse and I will be paying for our higher potentials, the medical bills he's supposed to have been helping out with which I didn't enforce, and plenty of other factors....he decided that just his income vs. me at minimum wage is a better deal for him.

He got the cheaper end of the deal, only paying $451/month for 2 kids--but my kids are being supported, and they've got their mom back for volunteering, field trips, home cooked meals, etc. The kids got the best deal, and hopefully someday their dad will appreciate the benefit their step-dad provided to his children as well.
This thread is from 2008 - I'm sure the problem has been resolved since then. Please don't necropost.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top