Termination of child support

[BeansSC]

What is the name of your state? SC. When mutually pre-agreed upon terms of child support are “so ordered” in a divorce decree, with no actual child support order or court involved payments, must you petition the court for termination of child support when a child turns 18 and has graduated high school? Is the “so ordered” part considered a child support order? SC child support Code is very clear as to when support ends when no extenuating circumstances exist, however it does not address/clarify termination rules when all terms are set forth by the parents beforehand and are not part of a formal child support order. (Example: agreement is $500.00 per month per child (2) and custody is Joint, neither parent being non-custodial. Payment is direct to ex-spouse). Can you stop payment of $500.00/month for the 18 yr. old high school graduate without a petition? And is there a law or rule that states a parent MUST pay for college tuition? Not that the parent wouldn’t help, but is it mandatory?

 

[adjusterjack]

When mutually pre-agreed upon terms of child support are “so ordered” in a divorce decree, with no actual child support order

A divorce decree that specifies child support IS an actual child support order.

SC child support Code is very clear as to when support ends when no extenuating circumstances exist,

Please cite the statute section to which you are referring. I don't have time to go through them all and you should know exactly where it is since it "is very clear."

https://law.justia.com/codes/south-carolina/2018/title-63/chapter-17/

 

[BeansSC]

A divorce decree that specifies child support IS an actual child support order.



Please cite the statute section to which you are referring. I don't have time to go through them all and you should know exactly where it is since it "is very clear."

https://law.justia.com/codes/south-carolina/2018/title-63/chapter-17/

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t63c003.php

 

[BeansSC]

South Carolina Code Section 63-3-530(A)(17) clearly states that child support terminated when a child turns 18 or graduates from high school and that no arrearage may accrue between the date the child support should end and the date of the Court Order ending it.

 

[adjusterjack]

It says a bit more than that:

(17) To make all orders for support run until further order of the court, except that orders for child support run until the child turns eighteen years of age or until the child is married or becomes self-supporting, as determined by the court, whichever occurs first, or past the age of eighteen years if the child is enrolled and still attending high school, not to exceed high school graduation or the end of the school year after the child reaches nineteen years of age, whichever is later; or in accordance with a preexisting agreement or order to provide for child support past the age of eighteen years; or in the discretion of the court, to provide for child support past age eighteen when there are physical or mental disabilities of the child or other exceptional circumstances that warrant the continuation of child support beyond age eighteen for as long as the physical or mental disabilities or exceptional circumstances continue. When child support is terminated due to the child turning eighteen years of age, graduating from high school, or reaching the end of the school year when the child is nineteen, no arrearage may be incurred as to that child after the date of the child's eighteenth birthday, the date of the child's graduation from high school, or the last day of the school year when the child is nineteen, whichever date terminated the child support obligation.

But, yes, it is clear as to when child support ends and, as I wrote earlier, the decree is the formal order. But you haven't quoted the child support provision of your decree, you've just given an example. Quote your provision word for word. Let's see if there are any "gotchas" in there.

 

[BeansSC]

It’s not actually mine. I will have a true copy tomorrow and will post to see if there are any “gotchas”. I do know there is not an end date in the decree (specifying 18) although SC code states that. It was a support agreement between parties at the time of divorce, even though the father had joint/shared custody and had physical custody of the children 50%+ of the time.

 

[stealth2]

It’s not actually mine. I will have a true copy tomorrow and will post to see if there are any “gotchas”. I do know there is not an end date in the decree (specifying 18) although SC code states that. It was a support agreement between parties at the time of divorce, even though the father had joint/shared custody and had physical custody of the children 50%+ of the time.

So whose is it? We tend to prefer that an actual party ask any questions they have. Thank you for your understanding. If he/she is unwilling to do so, they would be wise to consult an attorney.

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state? SC. When mutually pre-agreed upon terms of child support are “so ordered” in a divorce decree, with no actual child support order or court involved payments, must you petition the court for termination of child support when a child turns 18 and has graduated high school? Is the “so ordered” part considered a child support order? SC child support Code is very clear as to when support ends when no extenuating circumstances exist, however it does not address/clarify termination rules when all terms are set forth by the parents beforehand and are not part of a formal child support order. (Example: agreement is $500.00 per month per child (2) and custody is Joint, neither parent being non-custodial. Payment is direct to ex-spouse). Can you stop payment of $500.00/month for the 18 yr. old high school graduate without a petition? And is there a law or rule that states a parent MUST pay for college tuition? Not that the parent wouldn’t help, but is it mandatory?

I will tell you that any child support order that specifies an amount per child is problematic because that is not how child support normally works. Child support is also modifiable and is generally modified when one of the children ages out, and is also modified from time to time as incomes for the parents change.

Therefore, its possible that the child support could actually INCREASE when one of the children ages out and it's modified. I would strongly recommend googling an online child support calculator for the state in question and running the numbers, before poking the sleeping bear.

 

[BeansSC]

So whose is it? We tend to prefer that an actual party ask any questions they have. Thank you for your understanding. If he/she is unwilling to do so, they would be wise to consult an attorney.

I don’t really think that the “who” is relevant. He/she is not unwilling, I am just helping a friend, just as you apparently try to help people on this forum. But thank you for replying.

 

[BeansSC]

I will tell you that any child support order that specifies an amount per child is problematic because that is not how child support normally works. Child support is also modifiable and is generally modified when one of the children ages out, and is also modified from time to time as incomes for the parents change.

Therefore, its possible that the child support could actually INCREASE when one of the children ages out and it's modified. I would strongly recommend googling an online child support calculator for the state in question and running the numbers, before poking the sleeping bear.

The decree states only that “the father will pay the mother $250.00 per week for both children” as this was their pre-agreed terms before filing. They chose not to set support by the guidelines at the time. However, now that one child has aged out and support would be half of the agreed amount, the mother wants to go back for modification to try and get more money for one than she previously got for both. And sadly, the court system tends to go strictly by the guidelines without taking other circumstances into consideration. Like that the mother has ALOT of inheritance money in the bank and has chooses not to work for many years. She is 100% physically and mentally able to work and clearly doesn’t not NEED to. Therefore, she uses that as her leverage as an unemployed mother.

 

[stealth2]

I don’t really think that the “who” is relevant. He/she is not unwilling, I am just helping a friend, just as you apparently try to help people on this forum. But thank you for replying.

It actually is entirely relevant. S/he is apparently not willing enough to find information for themselves. You, as apparent third party, do not have the details to answer the questions that we need to ask for reasonably decent advice.

Mom is well within her rights to have CS re-calculated. Daddy (I'm assuming your b/f, fiance, or husband, or perhaps g/f, fiancee, wife) will likely be paying more than $125/week in support for the younger child. Whether you like it or not. "Circumstances" aside, your "friend" is required to support his/her/their children as per law or agreement with Mom.

 

[Zigner]

I don’t really think that the “who” is relevant.

Insofar as the "who" is not YOU, it is relevant.

He/she is not unwilling

GREAT! Have it log on.

I am just helping a friend...

GREAT! Have it log on.

 

[BeansSC]

It actually is entirely relevant. S/he is apparently not willing enough to find information for themselves. You, as apparent third party, do not have the details to answer the questions that we need to ask for reasonably decent advice.

Mom is well within her rights to have CS re-calculated. Daddy (I'm assuming your b/f, fiance, or husband, or perhaps g/f, fiancee, wife) will likely be paying more than $125/week in support for the younger child. Whether you like it or not. "Circumstances" aside, your "friend" is required to support his/her/their children as per law or agreement with Mom.

Thanks, but I was actually looking for legal advice, not a personal attack and hateful attitude. No response is necessary. I’ll await a response from somebody willing to help.

 

[Just Blue]

The decree states only that “the father will pay the mother $250.00 per week for both children” as this was their pre-agreed terms before filing. They chose not to set support by the guidelines at the time. However, now that one child has aged out and support would be half of the agreed amount, the mother wants to go back for modification to try and get more money for one than she previously got for both. And sadly, the court system tends to go strictly by the guidelines without taking other circumstances into consideration. Like that the mother has ALOT of inheritance money in the bank and has chooses not to work for many years. She is 100% physically and mentally able to work and clearly doesn’t not NEED to. Therefore, she uses that as her leverage as an unemployed mother.

How the heck do you know what mom has in the bank?

 

[Zigner]

Thanks, but I was actually looking for legal advice, not a personal attack and hateful attitude. No response is necessary. I’ll await a response from somebody willing to help.

I'm sorry that the prior poster wasn't considerate and presented a personal attack and hateful attitude to you.

Legally speaking, mom is well within her rights to have CS re-calculated. parent (I'm assuming your b/f, fiance, or husband, or perhaps g/f, fiancee, wife) will likely be paying more than $125/week in support for the younger child. Whether you like it or not. "Circumstances" aside, your "friend" is required to support his/her/their children as per law or agreement with Mom.

Edit: I almost forgot, since this is dad's (or, maybe, mom's) legal matter, then the fact that s/he is not here to find out their own information indicates that s/he is not interested in pursuing this. You, as a 3rd party, do not have the details required to answer the questions that we need to ask for reasonably decent advice.

Better?