Decresing Child Support b/c of new baby

[February2003]

What is the name of your state? Illinois

My husband pays 20% of his salary to his ex-wife for child support, whcih is actually 27.5% of his "take home"... which is way more than 50% of the cost of raising the child (who is 9). We claim him every other year on taxes.

My question is when he has more children... when we start our family, is that grounds for a decrese in child support he pays for his first ( and currently only) child?

Surely if a man has 5 kids he can't support each of them with 20% of his salary, b/c then there is no money left over....but then it isn't "fair" to support one child with 20% and the others with some percent less than that.

How is this handled?
Thanks!

 

[Silverplum]

Here's two links on IL child support:

http://ocse3.acf.dhhs.gov/ext/irg/sps/report.cfm?State=IL

http://www.ilchildsupport.com/

I didn't see anything about reducing CS for a subsequent family. Maybe if you read it more carefully, you will find it. So far as I can tell, CS is a set percentage of the NCP income.

The way it works is this: the parent/s know they already have one or more child/ren to support. A support order is entered and enforceable. IF the parent/s decide to have more kid/s, they did so knowing they had a previous obligation of support to the first family.

 

[haiku]

In most states there must be some other reason besides just subsequent children, to ask for a decrease. such as a decrease in income. Subsequent children can always be used as a defense against a raise in support though.

one thing to remember as a support paying family is, that you do not get to use that 20% of your husbands income NOW, so don't count what your husband makes on paper as his income, when dealing with your own financial matters, count what he makes AFTER the support is paid.

My husband pays 32% of his income in child support. We own our own home, ( we chose a house with a mortgage, that added in with the child support made a reasonable monthly payment for example) We live a pretty comfortable life, and I stay home with our child we have together.

It takes planning, but you can pay your support obligation, and live a good life at the same time.

 

[curiouscat623]

I don't know about IL, but in PA they only consider 'new children' only if the NCP is paying over 55% of his/her income. If the NCP is single s/he can pay up to 55%, if not then no more then 50%. Its a raw deal. BC if the NCP had another child with the CP then the CP would get more money, but if s/he has another child with his/her wife/husband then that child gets whats left over.

 

[VeronicaGia]

What is the name of your state? Illinois

My husband pays 20% of his salary to his ex-wife for child support, whcih is actually 27.5% of his "take home"... which is way more than 50% of the cost of raising the child (who is 9). We claim him every other year on taxes.

My question is when he has more children... when we start our family, is that grounds for a decrese in child support he pays for his first ( and currently only) child?

Surely if a man has 5 kids he can't support each of them with 20% of his salary, b/c then there is no money left over....but then it isn't "fair" to support one child with 20% and the others with some percent less than that.

How is this handled?
Thanks!

The usual rule is "first kids first." If he cannot afford to have more kids, he shouldn't, since your last statement will only make a judge tell you that it's not fair to the first child that he should have to go with less just because your husband decided to have more kids.

 

[stepmom&mom]

I'm sure this varies from state to state, but in Oklahoma, all biological children are considered in cs calculations whether former or subsequent. I don't really agree with the ideology that the first child comes first. Let's assume that a couple has one child and decides to have another. Logically, by having another child, that will mean that the same amount of income (assuming that neither parent retains a better paying job) will be split by four people instead of three. If they had a third child, then the same income must be split among five family members. We would not argue that child one should have more clothes than child two because child two came second. Nor would we suggest that because child two was born that child one shouldn't receive any clothes! Therefore, morally speaking, all children should have the same benefits. Now, it goes without saying that one should not have more and more children solely to reduce child support. However, if the courts decide that one parent gets to have the child spend most of their time with that parent and that the other must support that child, is it fair to say that the NCP should never have kids again and shouldn't be able to experience the joys of full time parenting just because they have a child from a previous relationship? I don't think so. Unfortunately, there is no good answer, legally, about how this should be resolved. If everyone did the right thing, they would take care of all children which they produce equally. But we all know that just doesn't happen. Anyways, just thought I'd give my personal opinion here. It in no way reflects the law.

 

[AHA]

What is the name of your state? Illinois

My husband pays 20% of his salary to his ex-wife for child support, whcih is actually 27.5% of his "take home"... which is way more than 50% of the cost of raising the child (who is 9). We claim him every other year on taxes.

My question is when he has more children... when we start our family, is that grounds for a decrese in child support he pays for his first ( and currently only) child?

Surely if a man has 5 kids he can't support each of them with 20% of his salary, b/c then there is no money left over....but then it isn't "fair" to support one child with 20% and the others with some percent less than that.

How is this handled?
Thanks!

So the first child has less needs after a half sibling is born? What if you two have kids and get divorced in a few years, would you want your kid's needs to be lowered if he starts a third family with a new wife?
Good rule of thumb, don't have kids if you can't afford them.

 

[curiouscat623]

So the first child has less needs after a half sibling is born? What if you two have kids and get divorced in a few years, would you want your kid's needs to be lowered if he starts a third family with a new wife?
Good rule of thumb, don't have kids if you can't afford them.

In any family when another child is born there is less to go around. Of course if he started a third family she wouldn't want support to be lowered, but in intact families resources will be divided when another child is born, families that are seperated should be no different. I think that the law is very unfair in this aspect. It doesn't have anything to do with not being able to afford the kids. If the intent of the law is to ensure that children are supported as if the family were intact, then in my opinion it should truly operate as such.

 

[AHA]

In any family when another child is born there is less to go around. Of course if he started a third family she wouldn't want support to be lowered, but in intact families resources will be divided when another child is born, families that are seperated should be no different. I think that the law is very unfair in this aspect. It doesn't have anything to do with not being able to afford the kids. If the intent of the law is to ensure that children are supported as if the family were intact, then in my opinion it should truly operate as such.

I'm sorry, but in my personal opinion, what you can afford is highly relevant before you start having kids like rabbits. If you can't afford to financially support one child, it would be pretty selfish to keep having kids that will have less and less to live on. How do you think kids end up on the street or abandonded or adopted off? Kids grow and for that they need good food several times a day, they need a safe comfortable home, they need new clothes more often than an adult do. Not to mention child care, transportation, school fees, supplies for sport activities, health insurance, in some cases braces, glasses or other expensive aids. And the bigger the kids the more expensive the toys. Money has a lot to do with bringing up kids.

 

[haiku]

Actually child support is not split evenly between children to begin with. Subsequent kids whether of the order or not do not count much towards the bottom line.

for example, I mentioned that my husband pays 32% of his income as child support. he has 3 children. 28% of the award is based on his oldest child, his other 2 children each count as 2% of the order. As each child comes of age the next child takes over the oldest position assuming the 28% spot.

now how this pertains to children in the "second" family- broad example for easy math purposes-say my husband makes 90,000.00 a year, and pays his ex 30,000.00 of it as child support. this means he and his subsequent household then live on 60,000.00 a year even though his tax return says 90,000.00.

if I were to divorce him, my child support would be based upon the 60,000 we were already living on.

 

[curiouscat623]

I'm sorry, but in my personal opinion, what you can afford is highly relevant before you start having kids like rabbits. If you can't afford to financially support one child, it would be pretty selfish to keep having kids that will have less and less to live on. How do you think kids end up on the street or abandonded or adopted off? Kids grow and for that they need good food several times a day, they need a safe comfortable home, they need new clothes more often than an adult do. Not to mention child care, transportation, school fees, supplies for sport activities, health insurance, in some cases braces, glasses or other expensive aids. And the bigger the kids the more expensive the toys. Money has a lot to do with bringing up kids.

Perhaps you misundersood me. Money is absolutely VITAL for bringing up children. My children 2 that live with me, and 1 that doesn't are more then comfortable. I would in no way advocate that people should have children when they cannot afford them. Trust me, I know that children are expensive (though worth every cent!). My wife is a social worker, I know all too well from what her experiences what happens when people have child after child that they cannot afford. Its my opinion (which may not count for much) that our support system is unfair. In PA the law states that the goal of CS is to treat the children of disjointed families as if they were an intact family. I was just stating that in the case of subsequent siblings born, that the law does not provide for children that live in other households the same way that they would if the child were living in an intact family. Because again in any family, no matter the resources available to them, siblings must share resources (time, money, etc.). I personally feel that they should be taken into account.

 

[critterperson]

Been there with the EX the answer is NO!

What is the name of your state? Illinois

My husband pays 20% of his salary to his ex-wife for child support, whcih is actually 27.5% of his "take home"... which is way more than 50% of the cost of raising the child (who is 9). We claim him every other year on taxes.

My question is when he has more children... when we start our family, is that grounds for a decrese in child support he pays for his first ( and currently only) child?

Surely if a man has 5 kids he can't support each of them with 20% of his salary, b/c then there is no money left over....but then it isn't "fair" to support one child with 20% and the others with some percent less than that.

How is this handled?
Thanks!

I live in Illinois and having gone through the c/s thing, this was one of the questions I asked my attorney (I am the C/P) FIRST OF ALL NO-ONE FREAK…….I AM GIVING MY SCENERO BASED ON DAD BEING NCP HAVING MULTIPLE FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN REQUIRING SUPPORT……….
Here we go……..My ex can go out, and impregnate as many women as he wants...Our child will not suffer because he couldn't keep it in his pants, and they (the other women) didn’t realize that in the law they are “after the fact” (not a legal term, but one my attorney used to describe C/S orders entered after mine) and will get whatever % of whatever income is left after I get the child support for our son........

Unfortunately if you are a subsequent mom you will get a percentage of what is left over after my C/S (first mom) is paid. Any subsequent women will have to share what is left (up to 55% of his income could be higher % if he has arrears)...... Basically this guy will be in financial purgatory……….

EXAMPLE:
If you are the first Mom in line (1 child) you are entitled to your full 20% (higher % if more than 1 child) of net income. If you are the second Mom in line and you have one child you will get 20% (higher % for more than 1 child) of what is left after first mom gets theirs right off of the top........ If you are the third woman you can get up to 15% of what is left after 1st and 2nd woman get theirs (total of 55% of his income)…If you are the fourth woman…………I would challenge your intelligence ……… (sorry, but the first time may have been a fluke, maybe even the second time….. but by the third and fourth time he was tagged, and you stepped into it up to your armpits)………

I know this for a fact………..when my ex and I split……he met a woman that was 7 months pregnant, and the father of the baby was MIA (heard to have run for the boarder….really sad for the baby…. this woman also had another child that a different father abandoned.... again very sad for this little boy…..) Well my ex signed the birth certificate, and an acknowledgement of paternity hoping to use this other child as a reason to pay less C/S to me………..Backfired big time!!!
September 30th of 2004 the Supreme Court in Illinois ruled…….. that if you sign a acknowledgment of paternity, and don’t rescind it within the allotted time frame (60 days from birth) you are financially responsible for that child until they turn 18……….Here is the kicker…….Even if Bio-dad wanted to be in the child’s life and support him/her the courts would not allow a DNA test in order to reverse an acknowledgment of paternity……. even in the event that DNA was done, and you are not the father you are stuck…….Basically you are going to be paying for a child that is not yours………
So, basically my ex is now financially bound to a child that is not his, and he still has to pay me full child support (judge said if he couldn’t afford a second child he shouldn’t have had one...) In the event that he and she break up…she will get 20% of what is left after he pays the child support to me………….I guess it serves him right for trying to get off cheap with our son……….gotta love him……..

 

[February2003]

That is a shame that isn't a reason to lower support. I could understand in some situations that it makes sense... when a parent is already receiving less money than it takes to raise the child... why lower that to even less b/c he has more kids.

But, in our scenario, the 20% we pay far exceeds what she spends on the child... that support $$ pays for everything and then some left over for herself... so it's not like lowering the child support will have any ill effects on the child.

And actually, the timing of it will be such that his first child will be too old for daycare... making the support mom receives far, far, more than what she spneds on the child... while our baby will be racking up daycare bills that are sooo high b/c it's an infant. And to top it all off, she makes more $$ than my husband does anyway.

Yeah, but all of us who are married to non-custodial dads, good dads-- know how unfair most of the system is for them.

 

[MandyD]

That is a shame that isn't a reason to lower support. I could understand in some situations that it makes sense... when a parent is already receiving less money than it takes to raise the child... why lower that to even less b/c he has more kids.

*If a parent is already receiving less money than it takes to raise a child, they should not have any more children.

But, in our scenario, the 20% we pay far exceeds what she spends on the child... that support $$ pays for everything and then some left over for herself... so it's not like lowering the child support will have any ill effects on the child.

*How do you know what she spends on the child? You do realize that CS goes for much more than just clothes and food for the child, don't you? It also includes a portion of the rent/mortage, heat, electric, water, etc.



QUOTE]

 

[haiku]

But, in our scenario, the 20% we pay far exceeds what she spends on the child... that support $$ pays for everything and then some left over for herself... so it's not like lowering the child support will have any ill effects on the child.

And actually, the timing of it will be such that his first child will be too old for daycare... making the support mom receives far, far, more than what she spneds on the child... while our baby will be racking up daycare bills that are sooo high b/c it's an infant. And to top it all off, she makes more $$ than my husband does anyway.

Yeah, but all of us who are married to non-custodial dads, good dads-- know how unfair most of the system is for them.

but you see, the child support is set up so that the child is entitled to 20% of what your husband makes, as your husbands contribution to his welfare. it does not matter if there is money left over-and how exactly do you know this? how do you know what money is 'yours" and what is 'hers"?

And does your husband pay daycare now? If the child reaches a point where daycare is not utilized your husband can go back to court and modify to remove daycare from the order.