Valid reasons for reducing child support

darkviolets said:

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

My ex-husband just informed me and that he and his wife are having another child and he wants me to agree to reducing the support he pays me for our 2 children. I am in CA and he pays me $1,000 a month. I have no other income (besides food stamps) at the moment. He told me that he can have it reduced even if I don't agree by going through his lawyer. We have joint custody, and the kids live with me. He sees the kids maybe once or twice a year.

I have done some research online and I read about some financial hardships allowing you to have the support reduced, but I don't see how that can apply to him. He is in the military and makes about $5,500/month before taxes.

Can someone explain this to me better? Thank you.

Click to expand...

darkviolets said:

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

My ex-husband just informed me and that he and his wife are having another child and he wants me to agree to reducing the support he pays me for our 2 children. I am in CA and he pays me $1,000 a month. I have no other income (besides food stamps) at the moment. He told me that he can have it reduced even if I don't agree by going through his lawyer. We have joint custody, and the kids live with me. He sees the kids maybe once or twice a year.

I have done some research online and I read about some financial hardships allowing you to have the support reduced, but I don't see how that can apply to him. He is in the military and makes about $5,500/month before taxes.

Can someone explain this to me better? Thank you.

Click to expand...

a) Circumstances evidencing hardship include the following:
(1) Extraordinary health expenses for which the parent is
financially responsible, and uninsured catastrophic losses.
(2) The minimum basic living expenses of either parent's natural
or adopted children for whom the parent has the obligation to support
from other marriages or relationships who reside with the parent.
The court, on its own motion or on the request of a party, may allow
these income deductions as necessary to accommodate these expenses
after making the deductions allowable under paragraph (1).
(b) The maximum hardship deduction under paragraph (2) of
subdivision (a) for each child who resides with the parent may be
equal to, but shall not exceed, the support allocated each child
subject to the order. For purposes of calculating this deduction, the
amount of support per child established by the statewide uniform
guideline shall be the total amount ordered divided by the number of
children and not the amount established under paragraph (8) of
subdivision (b) of Section 4055.
(c) The Judicial Council may develop tables in accordance with
this section to reflect the maximum hardship deduction, taking into
consideration the parent's net disposable income before the hardship
deduction, the number of children for whom the deduction is being
given, and the number of children for whom the support award is being
made.

Click to expand...

darkviolets said:

I am in CA and he pays me $1,000 a month. I have no other income (besides food stamps) at the moment. .

Click to expand...

CourtClerk said:

Ladies and Gentlemen...

this is CA

Click to expand...

CourtClerk said:

Ladies and Gentlemen...

this is CA

Click to expand...

mistoffolees said:

Yes, it's sad that the laws encourage someone to have more children than they can afford.

Click to expand...

nextwife said:

And some states don't believe birth ORDER should affect a child's right to equitable support from their respective parents. Should a child be entitled to less support due to their particular birth order? The later born less entitled to support than their first born sibling?

And yet the CP is entirely free to drop their support contribition down to ZERO

Click to expand...