Can one state make another state lower my CS amount?

[stealth2]

What is not "just"about the first order having priority? You knew it was in place when you had youond child. Mom #2 and you just need to realize the portion of your income going to your first child has priority it existed first. That's fair and just.[/QUOT
I've never understood that. If someone has two kids who live with them, would it be fair for the parent to always give the older child the most things, and neglect the younger child, and make him do with far less, simply because he had the misfortune of being born second? I'm sure no one would think that's fair or just. So why does the law allow it, in the case of child support?

Because there was already a court-ordered obligation when he chose to have the other child. There was already a court-ordered obligation when he chose to pay Mom#2 more than guideline support. Why should the first kids do with less based on those choices? Why should earlier kids do with less because Dad had the misfortune of choosing to create another child - who happens to be SN?And then chose to pay more than required?

 

[Pinkie39]

Because there was already a court-ordered obligation when he chose to have the other child. There waI ha already a court-ordered obligation when he chose to pay Mom#2 more than guideline support. Why do the first kids do with less based on those choices? Why should earlier kids do with less because Dad had the misfortune of choosing to create another child - who happens to be SN?And then chose to pay more than required?

I did read that, yes. I just think it's bizarre how children from single parent families are treated differently than children from intact families.

I have two children with my husband. I guess I should treat my older child, my daughter, like a princess, while making my younger child, my son, run around in rags and and sleep on the floor. Since you know, as the younger child, he should be punished for my choice to have two kids.

No one expects children from intact families to be treated differently, resource wise, based on their birth order, and their parents' decision to have multiple children, so it should be the same for children without both parents in the home.

And apparently the OP didn't "choose" to have his child be born with special needs.

 

[Ohiogal]

Pinkie, in Ohio it works differently.

 

[Pinkie39]

Pinkie, in Ohio it works differently.

I wasn't aware of that. You mean in Ohio, older children from a previous relationship don't get priority, child support wise than younger children from a subsequent relationship?

I'd be curious to know, because I have a relative who has a baby with a man who has another child or two with a different woman, who he pays child support for. She's likely going to have to file too, and I was wondering how it would work, since he already has that previous order in place.

 

[stealth2]

I did read that, yes. I just think it's bizarre how children from single parent families are treated differently than children from intact families.

I have two children with my husband. I guess I should treat my older child, my daughter, like a princess, while making my younger child, my son, run around in rags and and sleep on the floor. Since you know, as the younger child, he should be punished for my choice to have two kids.

No one expects children from intact families to be treated differently, resource wise, based on their birth order, and their parents' decision to have multiple children, so it should be the same for children without both parents in the home.

And apparently the OP didn't "choose" to have his child be born with special needs.

Except in non-coupled families, BOTH parents do not choose to add more kids (as apparently you and your husband did). First kids should not "pay" for the choice to add kids to the other parent's household. And again - OP CHOSE to pay more for his subsequent child. That's on him - not Mom#1 or the kids they share.

 

[Silverplum]

That's the key: both parents choosing. It's quite fair to hold individuals responsible for their choices.

 

[torimac]

One thing that has not been mentioned...
If the second child requires extra medical attention, thus the reason the extra support is being paid, has social security been investigated? This might resolve the issue of the need for the extra funds and solve part of the problem.

 

[Pinkie39]

One thing that has not been mentioned ond child requires extra medical attention, thus the reason the extra support is being paid, has social security been investigated? This might resolve the issue of the need for the extra funds and solve part of the problem.

I was wondering the same. Unless Mom's income is too high. Or are families with children who are severely disabled exempted from the income limits?

 

[BL]

Look ,get alife. It's been saide over n over , you have older obiligation,tough puupies,you want to make new ones ,feed them,take care a them, tuff puppies if you didn't understand the laws before. ignoranace of the law is no excuse. quit paying over.

 

[ThisCantBeLife]

Look ,get alife. It's been saide over n over , you have older obiligation,tough puupies,you want to make new ones ,feed them,take care a them, tuff puppies if you didn't understand the laws before. ignoranace of the law is no excuse. quit paying over.

I am not sure where the hostility is coming from. I've never said I don't want to pay.

The NJ order isn't really that much more than guideline support - I believe it's $100-120 more per month to help mom cover copays and medications without having to submit receipts, etc. I would still be responsible for those costs in addition to the support so I guess I worded my post incorrectly. I am in effect pre-paying my 1/2 of the uninsured medical.

My main issue with the new order is that (let me see if I can explain this correctly):

When NY made their order in 2002 they had 100% of the pie to choose from
When NJ made its order in 2004 they had 75% of the pie to choose from (taking into account the 25% being paid to NY)
When NY just did this latest modification, they again calculated my income at 100% which is where I feel the injustice is and was just asking if one state could force another to modify.

As for the questions/comments about having additional children:

I had ONE additional child while I was paying for the ones already here. I have never had arrears (except now since they're charging me back to the date of filing) and was able to afford all 3 of my children adequately - I never bitched or complained about paying or not being able to afford my kids. (well, until now)

I have been told to get a 2nd job, but wouldn't that just mean more money to be garnished? And while I'm working 2 jobs, when will I see my kids? Especially my NJ daughter?

 

[ThisCantBeLife]

Also, (not sure how trustworthy this information is since it's a personal site and not a government site) but this is what led me to believe that the NJ order should be taken into account:


2. DEDUCTIONS FROM INCOME


From the total income, DRL 240 1-b(b)(5)(vii) provides that the following deductions are to be made.
•Certain unreimbursed employee business expenses
•Maintenance paid to a spouse not a party to the current action for child support, but only if there is a court order or properly written agreement
•Maintenance paid to a spouse who is a party to the current action, but only if there is an existing order or a properly written agreement
•Child support paid pursuant to a court order or properly written agreement to a child who is not part of the pending action
•Public assistance
•Supplemental security income
•New York City or Yonkers income or earnings taxes actually paid
•Federal insurance contributions act (FICA) taxes.


website: http://www.jdbar.com/Articles/basic-child-support.html

 

[Indiana Filer]

When NY made their order in 2002 they had 100% of the pie to choose from
When NJ made its order in 2004 they had 75% of the pie to choose from (taking into account the 25% being paid to NY)
When NY just did this latest modification, they again calculated my income at 100% which is where I feel the injustice is and was just asking if one state could force another to modify.

Because, until the first child ages out of child support, NY will always have 100% of the pie to choose from, to use your words. That order came first, so they get first dibs on the money.

 

[Proserpina]

I am not sure where the hostility is coming from. I've never said I don't want to pay.

The NJ order isn't really that much more than guideline support - I believe it's $100-120 more per month to help mom cover copays and medications without having to submit receipts, etc. I would still be responsible for those costs in addition to the support so I guess I worded my post incorrectly. I am in effect pre-paying my 1/2 of the uninsured medical.

My main issue with the new order is that (let me see if I can explain this correctly):

When NY made their order in 2002 they had 100% of the pie to choose from
When NJ made its order in 2004 they had 75% of the pie to choose from (taking into account the 25% being paid to NY)
When NY just did this latest modification, they again calculated my income at 100% which is where I feel the injustice is and was just asking if one state could force another to modify.

As for the questions/comments about having additional children:

I had ONE additional child while I was paying for the ones already here. I have never had arrears (except now since they're charging me back to the date of filing) and was able to afford all 3 of my children adequately - I never bitched or complained about paying or not being able to afford my kids. (well, until now)

I have been told to get a 2nd job, but wouldn't that just mean more money to be garnished? And while I'm working 2 jobs, when will I see my kids? Especially my NJ daughter?

(BL appears to be posting-while-intoxicated)

 

[torimac]

The first state has priority.
Your options:
Appeal if you think there is a legal technicality, although you might be past that date.
File for an adjustment for the second state.
File for social security for the child with special needs.

 

[BL]

(BL appears to be posting-while-intoxicated)

I could not have been yesterday I was hospitalized with a brain bleed...