slightly different court order

[chronicle]

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

We share 50/50 legal and physical custody. The court order requires Dad to pay for specific items (child care/afterschool program, ½ medical & dental bills) and for me (Mom) to pay for certain items (health insurance, ½ medical dental bills), and specifically states “no child support at this time”.

Dad has paid nothing in over a year. No medical, dental or care bills- I have handled all of it.

I make more than Dad (by about $10,000). If I go to the court to ask that the order be enforced, can Dad in turn request I start paying him child support since I make more than he does? (I know this sounds convoluted, this is what Dad is threatening to do if I try to force him to pay according to the CO.)

 

[Gracie3787]

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

We share 50/50 legal and physical custody. The court order requires Dad to pay for specific items (child care/afterschool program, ½ medical & dental bills) and for me (Mom) to pay for certain items (health insurance, ½ medical dental bills), and specifically states “no child support at this time”.

Dad has paid nothing in over a year. No medical, dental or care bills- I have handled all of it.

I make more than Dad (by about $10,000). If I go to the court to ask that the order be enforced, can Dad in turn request I start paying him child support since I make more than he does? (I know this sounds convoluted, this is what Dad is threatening to do if I try to force him to pay according to the CO.)

Yes, it is possible that you'd be ordered to pay CS. However, that should not stop you from having the existing order enforced.
If you are ordered to pay, you can request that the money ex owes be credited to whatever you are ordered to pay.

 

[EnforceSupport]

Yes, it is possible that you'd be ordered to pay CS. However, that should not stop you from having the existing order enforced. If you are ordered to pay, you can request that the money ex owes be credited to whatever you are ordered to pay.

I disagree with Gracie's blanket statement. I think you need to run the numbers and try to determine what kind of an order the court might issue, before you could possible decide to just risk a modification. After estimating your possible exposure, you then need to balance that against the possible upside of receiving the past-due monies, understanding of course, that once the past-due amounts are paid, you're still on the hook for the increased obligation. After all, you're looking for a net increase here, and therefore, ending up with a higher c/s obligation, only to be offset by the money he owes you, doesn't put an extra money in your pocket and in the long run, you'll be worse off.

Having said all that, it is critical that you educate yourself on the laws of your state as to the laws relevant to your issue. While there may not be a statute of limitations on enforcing support, sometimes there are laws which govern when a determination may be requested in order to seek reimbursement, as in your case. Also, your laws may dictate certain requirements (though common sense and good practice certainly do) regarding notice to your ex about his obligations. i.e., have you (and do) regularly send him copies of the expenses along with your evidence of having paid it, and requesting reimbursement? (asked rhetorically.) Also, are you complying with the terms of the order which may require mutual agreement or notice, before incurring certain medical, dental, tuition or extracurricular expenses for which he may be liable?

Good luck.

 

[Proserpina]

I disagree with Gracie's blanket statement. I think you need to run the numbers and try to determine what kind of an order the court might issue, before you could possible decide to just risk a modification. After estimating your possible exposure, you then need to balance that against the possible upside of receiving the past-due monies, understanding of course, that once the past-due amounts are paid, you're still on the hook for the increased obligation. After all, you're looking for a net increase here, and therefore, ending up with a higher c/s obligation, only to be offset by the money he owes you, doesn't put an extra money in your pocket and in the long run, you'll be worse off.

Having said all that, it is critical that you educate yourself on the laws of your state as to the laws relevant to your issue. While there may not be a statute of limitations on enforcing support, sometimes there are laws which govern when a determination may be requested in order to seek reimbursement, as in your case. Also, your laws may dictate certain requirements (though common sense and good practice certainly do) regarding notice to your ex about his obligations. i.e., have you (and do) regularly send him copies of the expenses along with your evidence of having paid it, and requesting reimbursement? (asked rhetorically.) Also, are you complying with the terms of the order which may require mutual agreement or notice, before incurring certain medical, dental, tuition or extracurricular expenses for which he may be liable?

Good luck.

Which part of Gracie's post was incorrect?

 

[EnforceSupport]

I thought it was kind of obvious. She was suggesting to seek enforcement, regardless as to the possible modification amount. Don't you think it would (should) make a difference if the OP's exposure was an upward mod of $500/mnth vs. $10?

As to the part about, if you lose, you'll just get a credit against future support...shouldn't give the OP any comfort - since she's looking for a net increase. [Also, the facts are silent as to the amount of arrears owed, which is a signifcant missing factor before suggesting to just enforce based on the possible upward mod.]

Yes, it is possible that you'd be ordered to pay CS. However, that should not stop you from having the existing order enforced.
If you are ordered to pay, you can request that the money ex owes be credited to whatever you are ordered to pay.

 

[CJane]

I thought it was kind of obvious. She was suggesting to seek enforcement, regardless as to the possible modification amount. Don't you think it would (should) make a difference if the OP's exposure was an upward mod of $500/mnth vs. $10?

I agree.

While OP CAN certainly file for contempt, she must first do a risk/benefit analysis to determine if it's worth the risk involved to herself/her finances.

In fact, I think I have a permanent bruise on my head from banging my head up against that wall in this forum on a regular basis.

It's never as simple as "should I file for a modification" or "should I fight this" or "should I risk enforcing X if Y is going to be put at risk too".

 

[Proserpina]

Yes, it is possible that you'd be ordered to pay CS.

True statement.

However, that should not stop you from having the existing order enforced.

True statement. ( - is it the use of the word "should" which is perhaps being misconstrued?)

If you are ordered to pay, you can request that the money ex owes be credited to whatever you are ordered to pay.

True statement.

I suppose I'm missing something.

 

[chronicle]

Thank you all. It is frustrating, but probably in the end, not worth going to court over (risk/benefit analysis, yes?)

 

[EnforceSupport]

I suppose I'm missing something.

Yes, what you're missing is the failed LOGIC of Gracie's post.

The fact that it can be modified is EXACTLY why OP should not, willy nilly, just go in to have it enfoced (Gracie never qualified her advice in any way, just said, yeah, you might get dinged, but, go ahead and enforce anyway).

Second, as I've said TWICE now, Gracie's statement that, hey, if you're hit with a support order, you'll just credit it off what he owes you, does not address the merit of moving forward -it's merely a worse case back up plan that for some LIMITED period of time, she won't have to pay the full amount.

I can't believe I got sucked into your agenda of backing up your "senior" member friend.

The real unsaid here in Gracie's post, I bet, is, hey, if the order should be increased, then, it should be increased. And, that might be true from certain perspectives, but, not from the OP's perspective of trying to recoup past due monies and keep her c/s obligation as low as possible.

 

[Proserpina]

Yes, what you're missing is the failed LOGIC of Gracie's post.

The fact that it can be modified is EXACTLY why OP should not, willy nilly, just go in to have it enfoced (Gracie never qualified her advice in any way, just said, yeah, you might get dinged, but, go ahead and enforce anyway).

Second, as I've said TWICE now, Gracie's statement that, hey, if you're hit with a support order, you'll just credit it off what he owes you, does not address the merit of moving forward -it's merely a worse case back up plan that for some LIMITED period of time, she won't have to pay the full amount.

I can't believe I got sucked into your agenda of backing up your "senior" member friend.

The real unsaid here in Gracie's post, I bet, is, hey, if the order should be increased, then, it should be increased. And, that might be true from certain perspectives, but, not from the OP's perspective of trying to recoup past due monies and keep her c/s obligation as low as possible.

I had a legitimate question. Take your little agenda elsewhere.

 

[Silverplum]

In your weird anger confused, you seem to have missed an important point: I, for one, don't care if the CS is "too high" or "too low" -- I think the CS (in any case) should be as proscribed by law. If the CS goes up, it goes up. If it goes down, it goes down.

Fair's fair. So what if a poster loses a dollar once CS is properly adjusted?

I can't speak for Gracie's thought process, but cutting her down for not extrapolating each and every possibility in her post is out of line. She doesn't have all day and all night to explain every potential facet of every potential decision a poster might make.

So go 'round and post away -- but if you plan to gain respect based on bashing Gracie, think again, Bucky.

Yes, what you're missing is the failed LOGIC of Gracie's post.

The fact that it can be modified is EXACTLY why OP should not, willy nilly, just go in to have it enfoced (Gracie never qualified her advice in any way, just said, yeah, you might get dinged, but, go ahead and enforce anyway).

Second, as I've said TWICE now, Gracie's statement that, hey, if you're hit with a support order, you'll just credit it off what he owes you, does not address the merit of moving forward -it's merely a worse case back up plan that for some LIMITED period of time, she won't have to pay the full amount.

I can't believe I got sucked into your agenda of backing up your "senior" member friend.

The real unsaid here in Gracie's post, I bet, is, hey, if the order should be increased, then, it should be increased. And, that might be true from certain perspectives, but, not from the OP's perspective of trying to recoup past due monies and keep her c/s obligation as low as possible.

 

[chronicle]

Um, not to step in it here, but I am not trying to get out of paying what is fair. I am the only one who has ever paid anything for kids to this point.

My fear is being ordered to pay child support on top of paying for each and every expense the kids have (meaning, I pay CS to ex, but I am still paying for ALL of the medical/dental, insurance, afterschool programs, college... etc.)

Does it really work that way? I'm honestly asking.

 

[Proserpina]

Um, not to step in it here, but I am not trying to get out of paying what is fair. I am the only one who has ever paid anything for kids to this point.

My fear is being ordered to pay child support on top of paying for each and every expense the kids have (meaning, I pay CS to ex, but I am still paying for ALL of the medical/dental, insurance, afterschool programs, college... etc.)

Does it really work that way? I'm honestly asking.

chronicle - I honestly don't think anyone is implying that you are trying to get out of paying. I believe what the vast majority of posters here are interested in, is what's fair for the child/ren.

I also apologize for the anger shown by the other poster. It was unjustified, but at least it wasn't aimed at you

 

[EnforceSupport]

Hey, Chronicle, I'm sorry if I gave you any impression that I thought you were trying to evade support. That was never on my mind.
I just couldn't let, yet another, partial answer, go without address.

I had a legitimate question. Take your little agenda elsewhere.

YOU're accusing ME of having an agenda? That's laughable.

I have one goal when I post. Namely, try to give the poster some useful information relavant to their issue or question. Anyone, and everyone, who spends time on THIS board, knows exactly who has the agenda. If you're not clear, take a look at those who offer their moral opnions when someone seeks some legal guidance while struggling with our court system. (And, if I were to offer a moral comment, I certainly wouldn't make it under the vail of a legal advice.)

Fair's fair. So what if a poster loses a dollar once CS is properly adjusted?

You're kidding right? That's whole point here. Namely, a complete misuse of this type of resource board. Why? Because a response that is written from the context of, 'people should pay what is fair' (while very true), will NOT provide a proper reply to the posted question. Poster asks, 'can it be modified?' The answer is YES (as Gracie correctly said), and the useful and necessary follow up from the posters vantage point would then be, 'so think twice before doing it.' Rather than, 'just go ahead and do it.' However, when your agenda is to get someone into court so that amounts can be reconsiderd and made 'fair', you are no longer responding to the rightfully biased desires of the original poster. (I say 'rightfully' in the sense that in our adverserial system (yes, even family law), individuals have the right to avail themselves of all rights to which they are legally entitlted. Dad is not under a LEGAL obligation to go into court and say, 'hey, just got a raise, let's increase my child support order.' (And, FYI, I'm not opposed to that type of system, but, it's not what we have now and discussions regarding such changes should not be embedded within answer to questions on this board. There are places to discuss policy changes, etc. - start a new topic - whatever.)

I can't speak for Gracie's thought process, but cutting her down for not extrapolating each and every possibility in her post is out of line. She doesn't have all day and all night to explain every potential facet of every potential decision a poster might make.

It would not have taken much additional time for a complete, balanced reply (had she wanted to.) I'm sorry, but, when completeness substantially alters the advice, i.e. 'do it if....' vs. 'just do it', I think we must opt for completness. And, if someone doesn't have the time to do so, then, IMHO, they shouldn't reply at all. Incomplete or bad advice can be far worse than none at all.

So go 'round and post away -- but if you plan to gain respect based on bashing Gracie, think again, Bucky.

I wasn't bashing Gracie, but take it how will (however, IF her answer was from a biased position of child support should be 'fair' and damn the posters intererest, then, ok, Gracie, I bash you.). Further, I'm not here to gain anyone's respect. I think if you look at my posts, you'll see that, for the most part, I try to accomplish my stated goal. However, I have seen so many inappropriate replies to people just seeking some guidance and assistance, it makes me cringe. Instead of useful replies, they often get a discourse in family law ethics and morals by self anointed experts.

 

[Silverplum]

WE don't work for you.

If you have a problem, then POST YOURSELF. Post the "correct" and "perfectly agendized" information that YOU think is SO IMPORTANT.

Don't waste everyone's time whining about what one poster posted. Post the Truly Perfect Answer so that we can all watch and admire and learn from your mighty wondrousness.

I don't see you doing that. I see you whining and complaining. But hey, you are on a High Horse, and that takes a lot of time and energy.

YOU're accusing ME of having an agenda? That's laughable.

I have one goal when I post. Namely, try to give the poster some useful information relavant to their issue or question. Anyone, and everyone, who spends time on THIS board, knows exactly who has the agenda. If you're not clear, take a look at those who offer their moral opnions when someone seeks some legal guidance while struggling with our court system. (And, if I were to offer a moral comment, I certainly wouldn't make it under the vail of a legal advice.)




You're kidding right? That's whole point here. Namely, a complete misuse of this type of resource board. Why? Because a response that is written from the context of, 'people should pay what is fair' (while very true), will NOT provide a proper reply to the posted question. Poster asks, 'can it be modified?' The answer is YES (as Gracie correctly said), and the useful and necessary follow up from the posters vantage point would then be, 'so think twice before doing it.' Rather than, 'just go ahead and do it.' However, when your agenda is to get someone into court so that amounts can be reconsiderd and made 'fair', you are no longer responding to the rightfully biased desires of the original poster. (I say 'rightfully' in the sense that in our adverserial system (yes, even family law), individuals have the right to avail themselves of all rights to which they are legally entitlted. Dad is not under a LEGAL obligation to go into court and say, 'hey, just got a raise, let's increase my child support order.' (And, FYI, I'm not opposed to that type of system, but, it's not what we have now and discussions regarding such changes should not be embedded within answer to questions on this board. There are places to discuss policy changes, etc. - start a new topic - whatever.)



It would not have taken much additional time for a complete, balanced reply (had she wanted to.) I'm sorry, but, when completeness substantially alters the advice, i.e. 'do it if....' vs. 'just do it', I think we must opt for completness. And, if someone doesn't have the time to do so, then, IMHO, they shouldn't reply at all. Incomplete or bad advice can be far worse than none at all.



I wasn't bashing Gracie, but take it how will (however, IF her answer was from a biased position of child support should be 'fair' and damn the posters intererest, then, ok, Gracie, I bash you.). Further, I'm not here to gain anyone's respect. I think if you look at my posts, you'll see that, for the most part, I try to accomplish my stated goal. However, I have seen so many inappropriate replies to people just seeking some guidance and assistance, it makes me cringe. Instead of useful replies, they often get a discourse in family law ethics and morals by self anointed experts.