intentional umemployment

[usedstepmom]

intentional unemployment?

What is the name of your state? Texas
My husband just received a motion to modify child support. My question is--would a judge consider that the cp is intentionally unemployed when reviewing the child support order? Every time she quits a job or decides to go back to school she wants the child support increased. I feel it is not my husband's responsibility to supplement her income when she decides to not work. He is fulfilling his obligation to his child already, plus 2 children at home. I was curious as to why the courts can see the NCP as being intentionally unemployed, but why not the CP?

 

[NCP Dad in TN]

I am simply going to pass along the information that everyone has so kindly given ME about a similar situation I am in...
Your husband can request that the courts impute an income to her.
Will the pros please step in on this and elaborate further...
LOL... my wife (also a stepmom) would like your username.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

What is the name of your state? Texas
My husband just received a motion to modify child support. My question is--would a judge consider that the cp is intentionally unemployed when reviewing the child support order? Every time she quits a job or decides to go back to school she wants the child support increased. I feel it is not my husband's responsibility to supplement her income when she decides to not work. He is fulfilling his obligation to his child already, plus 2 children at home. I was curious as to why the courts can see the NCP as being intentionally unemployed, but why not the CP?

Unless you provide a lot more fact no one can LEGITIMATELY answer your question. If the ex is unemployable or at an age where schooling is necessary then that may be a condition of furthering her employability.

Otherwise, yes, the court can inpute an income to her. Whether it makes a difference or not would depend on how much hubby pays now and how close it is to the state guidelines.

 

[ceara19]

What is the name of your state? Texas
My husband just received a motion to modify child support. My question is--would a judge consider that the cp is intentionally unemployed when reviewing the child support order? Every time she quits a job or decides to go back to school she wants the child support increased. I feel it is not my husband's responsibility to supplement her income when she decides to not work. He is fulfilling his obligation to his child already, plus 2 children at home. I was curious as to why the courts can see the NCP as being intentionally unemployed, but why not the CP?

Typically, Texas does not consider the income of the cp. The Attorney General's office almost never uses cp as a factor in child support. Some judges do take the cp's monetary resources into consideration. Personally, I've never heard of a case in Texas where it has had any bearing, but it is within the judges discression.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Typically, Texas does not consider the income of the cp.

Excuse me?

The statutes clearly stipulat that the income (or potential thereof) IS to be considered in determining the level of support to be ordered.

The 19 criteria are:

(1) the age and needs of the child;
(2) the ability of the parents to contribute to the support of the child;
(3) any financial resources available for the support of the child;
(4) the amount of possession and access to the child;
(5) the net resources of the parent to pay support, including the earning potential of the parent to pay support if the actual income of that parent is significantly less than what that parent could earn, if intentionally unemployed or underemployed;
(6) any childcare expenses necessary for the employment of either parent;
(7) whether a parent has custody of another child and any child support expenses being paid or received for the care of another child;
(8) the amount of alimony being currently paid or received;
(9) provisions for health care;
(10) any educational or health care needs of the child, including college expenses;
(11) any benefits a parent receives from an employer;
(12) any debts or obligations of a parent;
(13) any wage or salary deductions of the parents;
(14) the cost of traveling to visit the child;
(15) any positive or negative cash flow from any assets, including a business or investments;
(16) any provisions for health care or insurance;
(17) any special or extraordinary educational, health care, or other expenses of the parents or the child;
(18) whether either parent has a car or housing furnished by an employer or other person or business; and
(19) any other relevant factor.

Texas Codes Annotated; Family Code, Chapters 154.001 to 154.309

 

[ceara19]

Excuse me?

The statutes clearly stipulat that the income (or potential thereof) IS to be considered in determining the level of support to be ordered.

The 19 criteria are:

(1) the age and needs of the child;
(2) the ability of the parents to contribute to the support of the child;
(3) any financial resources available for the support of the child;
(4) the amount of possession and access to the child;
(5) the net resources of the parent to pay support, including the earning potential of the parent to pay support if the actual income of that parent is significantly less than what that parent could earn, if intentionally unemployed or underemployed;
(6) any childcare expenses necessary for the employment of either parent;
(7) whether a parent has custody of another child and any child support expenses being paid or received for the care of another child;
(8) the amount of alimony being currently paid or received;
(9) provisions for health care;
(10) any educational or health care needs of the child, including college expenses;
(11) any benefits a parent receives from an employer;
(12) any debts or obligations of a parent;
(13) any wage or salary deductions of the parents;
(14) the cost of traveling to visit the child;
(15) any positive or negative cash flow from any assets, including a business or investments;
(16) any provisions for health care or insurance;
(17) any special or extraordinary educational, health care, or other expenses of the parents or the child;
(18) whether either parent has a car or housing furnished by an employer or other person or business; and
(19) any other relevant factor.

Texas Codes Annotated; Family Code, Chapters 154.001 to 154.309

As I said, TYPICALLY, Texas does not take this into consideration. In cases where child support is to stray from the norm, i.e.; not the standard 20% for one child per say, they do take all of the items you mentioned into consideration. Also, a judge CAN take them into consideration when either party requests it. Otherwise, the following formula is used:

§ 154.125. APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES TO NET RESOURCES OF
$6,000 OR LESS. (a) The guidelines for the support of a child in
this section are specifically designed to apply to situations in
which the obligor's monthly net resources are $6,000 or less.
(b) If the obligor's monthly net resources are $6,000 or
less, the court shall presumptively apply the following schedule in
rendering the child support order:

CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES BASED ON

THE MONTHLY NET RESOURCES OF THE OBLIGOR

1 child 20% of Obligor's Net Resources

2 children 25% of Obligor's Net Resources

3 children 30% of Obligor's Net Resources

4 children 35% of Obligor's Net Resources

5 children 40% of Obligor's Net Resources

6+ children Not less than the amount for 5 children

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995.


§ 154.126. APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES TO NET RESOURCES OF
MORE THAN $6,000 MONTHLY. (a) If the obligor's net resources
exceed $6,000 per month, the court shall presumptively apply the
percentage guidelines to the first $6,000 of the obligor's net
resources. Without further reference to the percentage recommended
by these guidelines, the court may order additional amounts of
child support as appropriate, depending on the income of the
parties and the proven needs of the child.
(b) The proper calculation of a child support order that
exceeds the presumptive amount established for the first $6,000 of
the obligor's net resources requires that the entire amount of the
presumptive award be subtracted from the proven total needs of the
child. After the presumptive award is subtracted, the court shall
allocate between the parties the responsibility to meet the
additional needs of the child according to the circumstances of the
parties. However, in no event may the obligor be required to pay
more child support than the greater of the presumptive amount or the
amount equal to 100 percent of the proven needs of the child.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995.


I know for a FACT it is against policy for the AG's office to act contrary to the above guidelines. Judges, however, have a lot of discretionary leeway, in Texas anyway.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

As I said, TYPICALLY, Texas does not take this into consideration. In cases where child support is to stray from the norm, i.e.; not the standard 20% for one child per say, they do take all of the items you mentioned into consideration. Also, a judge CAN take them into consideration when either party requests it. Otherwise, the following formula is used:

§ 154.125. APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES TO NET RESOURCES OF
$6,000 OR LESS. (a) The guidelines for the support of a child in
this section are specifically designed to apply to situations in
which the obligor's monthly net resources are $6,000 or less.
(b) If the obligor's monthly net resources are $6,000 or
less, the court shall presumptively apply the following schedule in
rendering the child support order:

CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES BASED ON

THE MONTHLY NET RESOURCES OF THE OBLIGOR

1 child 20% of Obligor's Net Resources

2 children 25% of Obligor's Net Resources

3 children 30% of Obligor's Net Resources

4 children 35% of Obligor's Net Resources

5 children 40% of Obligor's Net Resources

6+ children Not less than the amount for 5 children

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995.


§ 154.126. APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES TO NET RESOURCES OF
MORE THAN $6,000 MONTHLY. (a) If the obligor's net resources
exceed $6,000 per month, the court shall presumptively apply the
percentage guidelines to the first $6,000 of the obligor's net
resources. Without further reference to the percentage recommended
by these guidelines, the court may order additional amounts of
child support as appropriate, depending on the income of the
parties and the proven needs of the child.
(b) The proper calculation of a child support order that
exceeds the presumptive amount established for the first $6,000 of
the obligor's net resources requires that the entire amount of the
presumptive award be subtracted from the proven total needs of the
child. After the presumptive award is subtracted, the court shall
allocate between the parties the responsibility to meet the
additional needs of the child according to the circumstances of the
parties. However, in no event may the obligor be required to pay
more child support than the greater of the presumptive amount or the
amount equal to 100 percent of the proven needs of the child.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995.


I know for a FACT it is against policy for the AG's office to act contrary to the above guidelines. Judges, however, have a lot of discretionary leeway, in Texas anyway.

And since when has the Attorney General's office been granted judicial powers? You simply have no idea what you're talking about. Child support is set by the court NOT the AG's office. EVEN in a backward state that gives us people like GW.

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

As I said, TYPICALLY, Texas does not take this into consideration. In cases where child support is to stray from the norm, i.e.; not the standard 20% for one child per say, they do take all of the items you mentioned into consideration. Also, a judge CAN take them into consideration when either party requests it. Otherwise, the following formula is used:

§ 154.125. APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES TO NET RESOURCES OF
$6,000 OR LESS. (a) The guidelines for the support of a child in
this section are specifically designed to apply to situations in
which the obligor's monthly net resources are $6,000 or less.
(b) If the obligor's monthly net resources are $6,000 or
less, the court shall presumptively apply the following schedule in
rendering the child support order:

CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES BASED ON

THE MONTHLY NET RESOURCES OF THE OBLIGOR

1 child 20% of Obligor's Net Resources

2 children 25% of Obligor's Net Resources

3 children 30% of Obligor's Net Resources

4 children 35% of Obligor's Net Resources

5 children 40% of Obligor's Net Resources

6+ children Not less than the amount for 5 children

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995.


§ 154.126. APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES TO NET RESOURCES OF
MORE THAN $6,000 MONTHLY. (a) If the obligor's net resources
exceed $6,000 per month, the court shall presumptively apply the
percentage guidelines to the first $6,000 of the obligor's net
resources. Without further reference to the percentage recommended
by these guidelines, the court may order additional amounts of
child support as appropriate, depending on the income of the
parties and the proven needs of the child.
(b) The proper calculation of a child support order that
exceeds the presumptive amount established for the first $6,000 of
the obligor's net resources requires that the entire amount of the
presumptive award be subtracted from the proven total needs of the
child. After the presumptive award is subtracted, the court shall
allocate between the parties the responsibility to meet the
additional needs of the child according to the circumstances of the
parties. However, in no event may the obligor be required to pay
more child support than the greater of the presumptive amount or the
amount equal to 100 percent of the proven needs of the child.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995.


I know for a FACT it is against policy for the AG's office to act contrary to the above guidelines. Judges, however, have a lot of discretionary leeway, in Texas anyway.

Do you even have a clue? The poor poster may just listen to you.

 

[tankerwife03]

i live in texas and my income has never once been taken in consideration for child support when i go to court with the ag's office. i have had a open case with them for 10 yrs

 

[BelizeBreeze]

i live in texas and my income has never once been taken in consideration for child support when i go to court with the ag's office. i have had a open case with them for 10 yrs

And again, the AG's office has nothing to do with determining the amount of child support that is ordered BY THE COURT.

 

[stargazer0725]

BB & Paradise: Per Texas Family Code 154.125(b), it clearly states that the court will presume to compute child support based solely on the Obliger's net income, unless there are "special circumstances" to consider.

In order to answer the OP's question, we first need to know whether the Obliger's support has been established within guidelines, or if the CP has been asking for "extras" (i.e. half of daycare expenses, half of private school tuition, etc.)

If NCP's support has been modified each time within guidelines, then the CP's income does not come into play during a modification and she would have the right to work/not work as she saw fit (without her work status affecting the guideline support). However, if lots of extras are being tacked on, then the court can consider her ability to help support her kids when determining the Obliger's contribution towards them.

 

[usedstepmom]

brief description

Well, here is a brief description of the situation. The CP has been in and out of school for the last 16 years, and has never finished a degree and also lives on a ranch where they have no utilities or rent. She is 35 years old. The cs has not been modified since 94, but my husband took a large paycut in 98 but didn't file for a decrease in cs. We also have 2 children now to support. My husband has always supported his daughter financially. We also live 11 hours one way from them and it is very difficult to have any visitation whatsoever. So basically she never has to deal with visitation, works and doesn't work whenever she feels like it and sicks the ag's office on my husband when she feels she needs more income. Hope this helps. I appreciate all the input! Oh, also he has overpaid his cs by $4000 through the courts....

 

[betterthanher]

Well, here is a brief description of the situation. The CP has been in and out of school for the last 16 years, and has never finished a degree and also lives on a ranch where they have no utilities or rent. She is 35 years old. The cs has not been modified since 94, but my husband took a large paycut in 98 but didn't file for a decrease in cs. We also have 2 children now to support. My husband has always supported his daughter financially. We also live 11 hours one way from them and it is very difficult to have any visitation whatsoever. So basically she never has to deal with visitation, works and doesn't work whenever she feels like it and sicks the ag's office on my husband when she feels she needs more income. Hope this helps. I appreciate all the input! Oh, also he has overpaid his cs by $4000 through the courts....

The AG's office won't do anything unless a parent is seriously delinquent in paying child support. Is your husband still overpaying? What's the deal with that?

 

[Inquiry123]

BB: GW calling...

And since when has the Attorney General's office been granted judicial powers? You simply have no idea what you're talking about. Child support is set by the court NOT the AG's office. EVEN in a backward state that gives us people like GW.

http://www.oag.state.tx.us/child/faq.shtml

"To encourage parental responsibility, the Office of the Attorney General establishes paternity of children, establishes court orders for financial and medical support, and enforces support orders."

 

[betterthanher]

Not So Fast!!

http://www.oag.state.tx.us/child/faq.shtml

"To encourage parental responsibility, the Office of the Attorney General establishes paternity of children, establishes court orders for financial and medical support, and enforces support orders."

Uhh, hold on here a minute. The spin stops here. I noticed you "forgot" to include this wordage in the sentence prior to the one you decided to quote:

"The Child Support Division in the Office of the Attorney General...."

Please notice the boldfaced language.

"IN the office of..."

The child support division is simply UNDER the supervision/direction of the Office of the AG. It's like in many states, the child support division is under the supervision of the Department of Jobs/Family Services, for example. It's NOT the AG office who personally handles it.

I am sure the AG office will personally handle a case when it becomes delinquent or to the point their office would take over.

If some of you are going to quote stuff, at least get it right. This isn't Fox News Channel. LOL

BB was right.