Not sure how to ask - basically Child Support

What is the name of your state? Texas

I'm not sure how to ask this or how to even search this. I am also not sure if this is considered a legal question OR a request for an opinion. Knowing the rules of this site if this is NOT a legal question then please accept my apology in advance. If this is easy to research please help me with an applicable search phrase. I have used this site a few times and have always been helped by the experts who post here.

I have a family member (we'll say parent "A") who divorced parent "B" about 10 years ago. Parent A was awarded primary conservatorship (I think that is what it's called) and parent B was ordered to pay child support. All was fine and agreed upon by both parents.

Shortly after the divorce. Parent A moved back in with B and they lived as common-law spouses for about 8 years. About a year after this occurred, parent B got a new job and because they were living together, parent A gave "permission" to B to not have the child support garnished from their check and thus B did not pay child support to A for all those years.

Fast forward up to about 2 years ago. Parent A FINALLY gets a gutfull of parent B and leaves for good (with the children). Parent A still allows the children full access to B and still does not require child support. Parent B remarries and starts reproducing at an amazing rate with the new spouse. (I forgot to mention that parent A has typically made more than parent B which is why A didn't force the child support "issue"). Parent B decides that they want to be the main conservator and files for it in (in addition to child support) court. (Yes, I believe this is all about money to but . . . .)

The children are both teenagers now (one is early teens - one is mid teens) and have decided that they want to live with parent B (long sad story - parent B needs to be whipped with a cat of nine tails but there is a God and parent B can answer for their actions to Him). It is apparent to parent A that the children will be awarded to parent B.

What I am wondering is does parent B's "arrearages" (sp?) have any bearing on what parent A's child support will be?

There are more details but I am not sure what would be pertinent to this. If needed please ask and I will be happy to supply - I am neither A or B and have no intention of supplying either of them with this information either way - I just need to know if I should stop at the liquor store or buy 3gal. of Ben & Jerry's tomorrow afternoon.

Thank you in advance for any help you can provide and God bless.

G35Coupe said:

Parent A moved back in with B and they lived as common-law spouses for about 8 years.

About a year after this occurred, parent B got a new job and because they were living together, parent A gave "permission" to B to not have the child support garnished from their check and thus B did not pay child support to A for all those years.

.......Parent B remarries and starts reproducing at an amazing rate with the new spouse. (I forgot to mention that parent A has typically made more than parent B which is why A didn't force the child support "issue"). Parent B decides that they want to be the main conservator and files for it in (in addition to child support) court. (Yes, I believe this is all about money to but . . . .)

The children are both teenagers now (one is early teens - one is mid teens) and have decided that they want to live with parent B .....It is apparent to parent A that the children will be awarded to parent B.

What I am wondering is does parent B's "arrearages" (sp?) have any bearing on what parent A's child support will be?

Click to expand...

So, because parent B has the audacity to eventually remarry and have children with someone other than Parent A, and has the further audacity to actually want to spend some time being the primary residential parent to his/her kids, you believe that would justify parent A NOW going after Parent B for "back support" for all those years they resided TOGETHER under one roof and shared the cost of raising the kids? Just asking.

If she legally suspended the CS order with CSE, then there may not be any arrearages. Parent A had the right to file to reinstate. If they did not, a CS arrearage did not accrue.

"So, because parent B has the audacity to eventually remarry and have children with someone other than Parent A, and has the further audacity to actually want to spend some time being the primary residential parent to his/her kids, you believe that would justify parent A NOW going after Parent B for "back support" for all those years they resided TOGETHER under one roof and shared the cost of raising the kids? Just asking."

Nextwife please excuse any hostility in my original post - parent B has never been a "stellar" parent - until parent B remarried he/she did not even want to see the children. This issue did not come up until parent B's new spouse started popping out babies and decided to quit working thus decreasing the B household's overall income the suddenly parent B wants custody and that automatically means parent B now gets child support. (if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck . . . see what I mean). But yes, their residing together did make me wonder.

"If she legally suspended the CS order with CSE, then there may not be any arrearages. Parent A had the right to file to reinstate. If they did not, a CS arrearage did not accrue."

Parent A did not suspend anything - just did not "enforce" it since parent B constantly whined how parent A made more money anyway and really did not "need" the money.

I have no problem with step parents and good parents - I DO have a problem with a parent using their child(ren) as financial pawns.

I also forgot to mention that parent B did not even consider doing this until the "B" household discovered they did not "qualify" for government assistance.

Followup

As anticipated, parent B was awarded custody of both children. Parent A requested and was granted (against parent B's "wishes") very generous visitation. Parent A will pay child support (about 1/3 of what parent B requested) and did so voluntarily.

In regards to the arrearage on the part of parent B, parent A was instructed to file an appeal to the child support order now in place with documentation of the arrearage. The JUDGE cautioned parent B that their neglect to mention this in the original request will not help them and will only serve to bolster parent A's case. It was the JUDGE who encouraged parent A to go forward with this appeal.

The children were awarded to parent B ONLY because they requested it and their age (if they would have been younger, it would have more than likely had a different outcome, again, per the judge). The judge also reitterated to parent B that they may have taken for granted the awesome responsibilities of parenting two teenagers from sun up to sun down because of parent A's dedication throughout the years.

So the outcome is actually "good". I will follow up with the outcome of the child support appeal as soon as I get word.

I do not understand why I received such a curt reply to my question but can only guess that my motive may have been misunderstood. For the record (per say) I am RELATED to parent B (unfortuneately) and have known/cared for the children all of their lives.

I still believe using these forums is an invaluable tool and hope that this experience (and it's subsequent follow-ups) can help someone down the road. For now all we can do is put all involved in God's hands.

Can we please stick to referring to each as custodial parent and noncustodial parent or dad and mom? This parent A and B stuff is pretty confusing.