Indiana, law about Child support and college fees?

[Proserpina]

(from ssa.gov)

Your divorced spouse can get benefits on your Social Security record if the marriage lasted at least 10 years. Your divorced spouse must be 62 or older and unmarried.

The amount of benefits he or she gets has no effect on the amount of benefits you or your current spouse can get.

Also, if you and your ex-spouse have been divorced for at least two years and you and your ex-spouse are at least 62, he or she can get benefits even if you are not retired.

 

[Cainlord]

something as a bit of heads up for you on this site, you will get answers straight to the point, and if they come across as harsh, don't take it personally.

Better to get the right advice than a sugar coated one that makes you feel good that is wrong.

Your best bet honestly if you are worried about the the money situation for your family is for you to become the person who brings in the lion share of the money to the marriage. He will always have his obligation (and rightfully so) to his kids with his ex-wife, but what you bring in as income cannot be touched. So make sure your husband keeps working, and see about you becoming the fat cat dollarwise.

 

[Zigner]

Yes, you can adjust support.

WRONG - OP has no standing in this matter.

 

[nextwife]

she can get whatever we make!Is there any way we could keep money from stock, or heritage for ourselves?
3. My husband was fooled during divorce, they put off divorce and made their marriage lasted 10 years and 6 days. He told me because of this, she is authorized to take half of his retirment money when the time he gets his retirment. Is it true? Is their any way to avoid this?

No, anything YOU make is not subject to child support nor would his ex be entitled to ANY portion of retirement funds YOU accrue. So, if you want more income for YOUR child and your household, you should consider bringing a nice income, which his ex can't count for CS.

If ex had handled his divorce properly, he should have made sure she was only entitled to half the PORTION of his retirement that accrued during his marriage to her. He also should have been entitled to half of whatever retirement she accrued during the marriage.

 

[goddessoflubboc]

Well for once I am rendered temporarily speechless.

OP's rant is ridiculous for the most part.

I especially like that she calls the kids' mom on the carpet on MORALITY issues? Pot calling the kettle black much? You've been married to him since July 08 (about 17 months ago), the new baby is 14 months old, and you've been in the country 18 months? Did you meet in China? A rhetorical question.

Sounds to me like someone is jealous. Do you work? Just because the mom can pay her bills, drive nice cars, and not have to be employed is none of your concern (or his). If the kids are neglected and uncared for, I'm all for calling in the authorities. Then maybe the kids will be moved to YOUR house and you'll find out how much it costs to raise kids.

Otherwise, worry about your own baby.

 

[ecmst12]

The children who were born first get priority because...they were born first. Husband should have considered whether he could afford another child before he went and impregnated you (assuming he is the one who impregnated you, given the timing of your marriage). It's not like he didn't KNOW he was going to have to continue supporting the first 3 when he created the 4th.

 

[nextwife]

The children who were born first get priority because...they were born first.

Actually, the CS laws do NOT assign percentage of CS by birth order. A later born child can have a CS order that takes a larger percentage of the parents income than prior born kids receive from that parent.

 

[ecmst12]

That's not what's been posted here before...why would that happen?

 

[Proserpina]

That's not what's been posted here before...why would that happen?

It's not who was born first...but which Mom actually files for support first..

 

[ecmst12]

Ah, important distinction, I will keep that in mind. The rest of the point was valid though - he knew he had to support kids 1-3 before 4 came into the picture, he should have planned for it.

 

[Proserpina]

Ah, important distinction, I will keep that in mind. The rest of the point was valid though - he knew he had to support kids 1-3 before 4 came into the picture, he should have planned for it.

I couldn't agree more!

The word "irresponsible" doesn't quite touch it...