Filing for modification - not nec in my favor.

[CJane]

What is the name of your state? MO

I'm job hunting, and 2 of the jobs I've interviewed for would result in me meeting the 50% increase in income that CSE requires before modifying an order for support. If I filed for a modification based on this, in the case of my ex-husband, it would result in a significantly smaller payment on his part. In the case of asshat, it would actually still result in an increase because he's currently paying a LOT less than state guidelines would require.

My question is, am I obligated to file for modifications if I meet the guidelines? Is there a legal standard that applies, or is it simply an ethical one?

The state requires that this increase in income last '6 months or more, or be projected to last 6 months or more'. If I'm required to file for a modification, do I wait until after my first 90 days at the new job, or do-so as soon as I know what my salary will be?

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state? MO

I'm job hunting, and 2 of the jobs I've interviewed for would result in me meeting the 50% increase in income that CSE requires before modifying an order for support. If I filed for a modification based on this, in the case of my ex-husband, it would result in a significantly smaller payment on his part. In the case of asshat, it would actually still result in an increase because he's currently paying a LOT less than state guidelines would require.

My question is, am I obligated to file for modifications if I meet the guidelines? Is there a legal standard that applies, or is it simply an ethical one?

The state requires that this increase in income last '6 months or more, or be projected to last 6 months or more'. If I'm required to file for a modification, do I wait until after my first 90 days at the new job, or do-so as soon as I know what my salary will be?

No, you are not required to file for a modification just because your income is increasing. After all, the payers of child support are not required to do that either.

I am not even sure that its an "ethics" issue, although I am sure that some people would think that it was.

 

[GrowUp!]

No, you are not required to file for a modification just because your income is increasing. After all, the payers of child support are not required to do that either.
.

That it not true. Some states and/or orders REQUIRE either parent to report substantial/significant income increases. That seems to be the case in CJane's situation since she did say it "would result in me meeting the 50% increase in income that CSE requires before modifying an order for support." Clearly there is some language -- albeit vague -- where either parent has a legal responsibility in this matter. Case law in several states all pretty much say the same: that the child is entitled to that additional support.

The advice you gave her could create some financial problems where if she did get this job and retained it -- and waited until the time came around for a modification -- and also wound up getting additional COL increases, she could wind up with some retro support being owed, not to mention creating some financial problems for the other guy paying less (depending on how that works...unless she agreed to waive it).

CJane...I'd probably consult with an attorney or two to get their take on the language in the order -- just to make sure you are doing things as it should be. Also, I'd think that there would be a 6-month window, to establish a history there.

 

[Zephyr]

That it not true. Some states and/or orders REQUIRE either parent to report substantial/significant income increases. That seems to be the case in CJane's situation since she did say it "would result in me meeting the 50% increase in income that CSE requires before modifying an order for support." Clearly there is some language -- albeit vague -- where either parent has a legal responsibility in this matter. Case law in several states all pretty much say the same: that the child is entitled to that additional support.

The advice you gave her could create some financial problems where if she did get this job and retained it -- and waited until the time came around for a modification -- and also wound up getting additional COL increases, she could wind up with some retro support being owed, not to mention creating some financial problems for the other guy paying less (depending on how that works...unless she agreed to waive it).

CJane...I'd probably consult with an attorney or two to get their take on the language in the order -- just to make sure you are doing things as it should be. Also, I'd think that there would be a 6-month window, to establish a history there.

but we tell cp's all the time when they find out the ncp was making more than they thought that they cannot recoup that "should have been paid" amount, how is this different?

I read that sentence as they will not modify without that change in income, not they have to modify when that change in income is made

 

[CJane]

I read that sentence as they will not modify without that change in income, not they have to modify when that change in income is made

That is correct. In order for CSE to reevaluate support, one of the guidelines that has to be met is that the income of one of the parties has increased or decreased by 50%, that change is projected to last 6 months or more, AND CS would change by more than 20%.

I WILL meet all of those requirements if I'm offered one of these jobs.

However, I can't find anything in the statutes that says when someone is obligated to report a change in income/file for a mod. It actually looks as if I could suddenly have a $300K/year job and not change CS.

Nothing in my order addresses changes in CS at all either.

I AM concerned though, that if I didn't file for a mod, that eventually stupidhead will do it himself and try and make it look like I've been cheating him out of his hard earned money, yanno?

 

[qurice]

Ok, so you'll get less from one dad and more from the other. So what does that mean for you it terms of total CS?

If the NCP had an increase large enough for the CP to receive more support, you can bet that the CP would be pursuing that. So why shouldn't the same apply for the CP parent with a raise in an income shared state?

I'm in no way knocking you CJane, I think it's actually very cool of you to even considering doing the mod even if it means you may end up with less support.

If it were me, I would wait until the first 90 days is up (or whatever probationary period your new employer might have), but agree with GU to research if you are required to report it or not and when.

 

[CJane]

Ok, so you'll get less from one dad and more from the other. So what does that mean for you it terms of total CS?

That's actually sort of interesting to nerds like myself, and begs another question.

My exes are Asshat and Stupidhead. Currently, Asshat pays $400/month in CS (ordered to pay $318) and Stupidhead pays $398/month.

RIGHT NOW, Asshat should (according to the income guidelines) be paying $523/month.

If I fill out the calculation worksheet using my projected new income range, and leaving Asshat's income the same as it was when the order was issued, he ends up paying $700/month.

If I fill it out for Stupidhead's income, he ends up paying $260/month.

The interesting part... my state takes into account child support the CP receives for other children in their care. So, the actual amount paid by Asshat goes UP if Stupidhead's goes DOWN. So if I filed for a mod of CS between Stupidhead and myself, his would definitely go down, which would determine how much Asshat's goes UP. If I file to increase Asshat's first, then Stupidhead's goes down even more.

Anyone know, if I were to initiate mods through CSE, how they'd determine who to file 'against' first? First in/first out?

If the NCP had an increase large enough for the CP to receive more support, you can bet that the CP would be pursuing that. So why shouldn't the same apply for the CP parent with a raise in an income shared state?

Not all CPs. Some of us would rather not rock the boat if it's at all possible. Just sayin.

I'm in no way knocking you CJane, I think it's actually very cool of you to even considering doing the mod even if it means you may end up with less support.

I'm not cool. I'm obsessed with being fair and reasonable.

If it were me, I would wait until the first 90 days is up (or whatever probationary period your new employer might have), but agree with GU to research if you are required to report it or not and when.

I was planning to wait past the 90 days.

 

[qurice]

I'm not cool. I'm obsessed with being fair and reasonable.

But that's just it... fair and reasonable = COOL!

 

[LdiJ]

CJane, while I know that you are obsessed with being fair and reasonable, neither party is paying an outrageous amount of CS. So it would be perfectly acceptable to just leave it be.

Yes, the girl's dad is so angry that he is paying child support at all that he could go ballistic if you are making more money, but if you voluntarily lower his support, it also could make him think that you are still afraid of him.

 

[GrowUp!]

That is correct. In order for CSE to reevaluate support, one of the guidelines that has to be met is that the income of one of the parties has increased or decreased by 50%, that change is projected to last 6 months or more, AND CS would change by more than 20%.

I WILL meet all of those requirements if I'm offered one of these jobs.

However, I can't find anything in the statutes that says when someone is obligated to report a change in income/file for a mod. It actually looks as if I could suddenly have a $300K/year job and not change CS.

Nothing in my order addresses changes in CS at all either.

I AM concerned though, that if I didn't file for a mod, that eventually stupidhead will do it himself and try and make it look like I've been cheating him out of his hard earned money, yanno?

This is why I simply pointed it all out since none of us are privvy to what your particular order says (except the word "require" stood out) -- and God only knows what kinda case law would exist in your state on this
issue.