Is the income of the new spouse factored into child support?

[nhinson]

In the state of California, does the "new spouse" of the child's parent's income get factored in when calculating child support? In other words, if one parent remarries do you count only that <b>parent's</b> income or the income of the parent PLUS their new spouse's income?

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

In the state of California, does the "new spouse" of the child's parent's income get factored in when calculating child support? In other words, if one parent remarries do you count only that <b>parent's</b> income or the income of the parent PLUS their new spouse's income?

My response:

Did you see the search button, up top? Use it. Type in "new mate".

IAAL

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

COPIED FROM A PREVIOUS, RECENT, RESPONSE OF MINE - -

My further response:

You know, people, this is a California thread - - not someone writing from Georgia. There was a legally cognizable reason why I asked the above question, and our original writer has, thus far, deigned not to reply thereto.

This is not unfamiliar territory for any of you. You've read my responses to similar situations. There are certain, extreme, circumstances, like I've said many times on these forums to similar questions, where a "new mate" is legally required to support another's child, but I wanted to read the explanation to the above question. However, it appears that our writer won't be coming back - - but that doesn't mean that other people can't learn from this situation.

Extreme and severe hardship:
Where a child would suffer extreme and severe hardship if the court does not consider new mate income, the court must look to it (unless other supported children would thereby suffer extreme and severe hardship, see below). [Marriage of Wood, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at 1067, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d at 241]

Intentionally suppressing income as "extraordinary case":
The statute recognizes the following circumstances as noninclusive examples of an "extraordinary case" potentially warranting consideration of new spouse/nonmarital partner income in fixing guideline child support (Ca Fam § 4057.5(b)):

• A parent who voluntarily or intentionally quits work or reduces income (Ca Fam § 4057.5(b)); or

• A parent who intentionally remains unemployed or underemployed and relies on a "subsequent spouse's" income (Ca Fam § 4057.5(b)).

However, as noted above, the court may look to new mate income in such circumstances only in order to prevent extreme and severe hard-ship to the supported child. [Marriage of Wood, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at 1067, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d at 241]

Not exclusive--discretionary case-by-case approach:
The above situations are simply examples of suitable "extraordinary cases." An uncodified statement of legislative intent makes clear that § 4057.5 does not lock trial courts into any standardized approach for determining whether a particular case is "extraordinary" so as to potentially warrant consideration of new mate income. I.e., this is another area under the statutory scheme where trial courts retain discretion. [See Stats. 1994, Ch. 1140, § 3 - - "It is the intent of the Legislature that the restrictions specified in (§ 4057.5) . . . are not subject to court standardization, but are subject to judgment on a case-by-case basis" (emphasis added)]

Indeed, that trial courts are supposed to approach the "extraordinary case" issue under § 4057.5 on a discretionary basis is further evidenced by the Legislature's express statement of intent that § 4057.5 "prohibit the establishment or use of any formula or local court guideline devised to determine when consideration of a subsequent spouse or nonmarital partner's income is relevant." [See Stats. 1994, Ch. 1140, § 3 (emphasis added)]

Limitation re "new mate" income:
By statute, the income of a parent's subsequent spouse or nonmarital partner "shall not be considered" in determining child support except in specified "extraordinary cases" where excluding the new mate income would cause the supported child extreme and severe hardship. [See Ca Fam § 4057.5]

I wanted to read the reasons given by the County of San Luis Obispo, California, why this writer was being, or could be, forced into support - - especially since the bio-father was still coming around, and why, perhaps, the bio-mother hasn't seen fit to file a Petition for Contempt against the bio-father.

IAAL

 

[nhinson]

COPIED FROM A PREVIOUS, RECENT, RESPONSE OF MINE - -

Extreme and severe hardship:
Where a child would suffer extreme and severe hardship if the court does not consider new mate income, the court must look to it (unless other supported children would thereby suffer extreme and severe hardship, see below). [Marriage of Wood, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at 1067, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d at 241]

IAAL

I found the search button and am using it. Meanwhile I will add a few more details.

I, the father, live in CA where we resided before the divorce 10 years ago and the case still remains in CA. The mother moved to Nevada inspite of my protest in court about 6 years ago. We have joint legal and, 'I think', physical custody of our 12 yo daughter whom I have her every weekend, (NOT the usual every other weekend), but due to the distance between us, (150 miles), I ONLY see her on the weekends.

I make $44K p/ year. She makes ~70k p/ year. Her new husband makes ~60k p/ year. We split all her expenses 50/50. (School, clothes, camp, medical, etc.) I even pay for my daughters lunch program at her school. ($50 p/ month)

Because my daughter is now 12 her mother is suing to cut my visitation in half so she can get child support from me. I am still single and my household income is less than one third of hers. If I have to pay her child support I will no longer be able to afford the gas to go pick her up every weekend. <u>Would this be considered a hardship?</u>

It would hardly be fair to take my daughter away from me every other weekend and then make me unable to see her on my remaining days. I believe that if his income was considereed in the case I would still be able to see my daughter every other weekend if my time with her was indeed cut in half.

In light of the fact that she is now 12 it is very possible I may lose every other weekend.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

I found the search button and am using it. Meanwhile I will add a few more details.

I, the father, live in CA where we resided before the divorce 10 years ago and the case still remains in CA. The mother moved to Nevada inspite of my protest in court about 6 years ago. We have joint legal and, 'I think', physical custody of our 12 yo daughter whom I have her every weekend, (NOT the usual every other weekend), but due to the distance between us, (150 miles), I ONLY see her on the weekends.

I make $44K p/ year. She makes ~70k p/ year. Her new husband makes ~60k p/ year. We split all her expenses 50/50. (School, clothes, camp, medical, etc.) I even pay for my daughters lunch program at her school. ($50 p/ month)

Because my daughter is now 12 her mother is suing to cut my visitation in half so she can get child support from me. I am still single and my household income is less than one third of hers. If I have to pay her child support I will no longer be able to afford the gas to go pick her up every weekend. <u>Would this be considered a hardship?</u>

It would hardly be fair to take my daughter away from me every other weekend and then make me unable to see her on my remaining days. I believe that if his income was considereed in the case I would still be able to see my daughter every other weekend if my time with her was indeed cut in half.

In light of the fact that she is now 12 it is very possible I may lose every other weekend.

My response:

What does all of this have to do with your original question?

IAAL

 

[nhinson]

My response:

What does all of this have to do with your original question?

IAAL

I am trying to figure out whether or not I am going to have to pay her child support when their combined income is 3x what mine is. Her's alone is only 1.5 times what mine is. (The bottom line is I only have my daughter 2/7th's of the time so I still might have to pay.)

If his income is not factored into the child support equation I could wind up paying her child support and no longer be able to afford the trips to Nevada. In which case I need to figure out how I am going to approach this case so that I will still be able to afford to continue seeing my daughter.

I'm trying to develop a strategy. All I want is to be with my daughter!

 

[nhinson]

Thank you for the 'search' tip!

My response:

Did you see the search button, up top? Use it. Type in "new mate".

IAAL

To IAAL - Thank you SO much for the 'search' tip! I found this:

------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by BelizeBreeze:
The court looks at both parents’ entire financial situation when making decisions about support. Thus, the income of a new live-in partner or spouse and other adults and children in each parent’s household must be told to the court – and the court may consider this information when setting support.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you think this applies in California as well???

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

To IAAL - Thank you SO much for the 'search' tip! I found this:

------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by BelizeBreeze:
The court looks at both parents’ entire financial situation when making decisions about support. Thus, the income of a new live-in partner or spouse and other adults and children in each parent’s household must be told to the court – and the court may consider this information when setting support.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you think this applies in California as well???

My response:

No, it most certainly does not.

In addition to the fact that the above does not apply to California, and even if it did, you're forgetting that the "new mate" is not a resident of California. California does not have any jurisdiction over a non-citizen of California. The new mate, as I understand it, is a resident of Nevada.

IAAL

 

[nhinson]

Not what I wanted to hear .....

My response:

No, it most certainly does not.

In addition to the fact that the above does not apply to California, and even if it did, you're forgetting that the "new mate" is not a resident of California. California does not have any jurisdiction over a non-citizen of California. The new mate, as I understand it, is a resident of Nevada.

IAAL

It is true that the 'new-mate' is not a resident of California. Although this is not what I wanted to hear, it does prepare me. Now that I know this I can move forward with a new strategy and figure out where to go from here.

It is sad that the court system does not take these things into account. The person who will ultimately pay for it is my daughter. The money I was putting away for college will now to go to support someone who NOT ONLY doesn't need it, but has also clearly demonstrated that she no intention to save for my daughter's college education.

These are trully sad times we live in!
Thank you for your time and attention.

 

[LdiJ]

It is true that the 'new-mate' is not a resident of California. Although this is not what I wanted to hear, it does prepare me. Now that I know this I can move forward with a new strategy and figure out where to go from here.

It is sad that the court system does not take these things into account. The person who will ultimately pay for it is my daughter. The money I was putting away for college will now to go to support someone who NOT ONLY doesn't need it, but has also clearly demonstrated that she no intention to save for my daughter's college education.

These are trully sad times we live in!
Thank you for your time and attention.

Can I point something out? You state that you are currently splitting the child's expenses plus paying for school lunches.

You do realize that if child support gets ordered you no longer have to do any of that? Your share of the child's expenses would be covered by child support. Therefore, paying child support might not be as bad as it looks at first glance.

Plus, even though its been six years since mom and child moved, you still may be able to get mom to be ordered to be responsible for providing the bulk of the transportation costs for visitation....since she is the one who moved and created the distance.

There also may be something else going on here that you are not aware of.
You state that you have your child every weekend and that your child is 12.
12 is about the age where a girl gets far more interested in her friends and social activities than in her parents. Its a natural transition. What may be happening is that your daughter has no opportunity for normal socializing because she is with you every weekend, and she may actually be wanting to have some time with her friends. This will only get worse as she gets further into the teen years.

Therefore, its possible that this is something your daughter wants, and that mom is taking on the role of the "bad guy", so that your daughter doesn't have to tell you that she wants some weekend time with her friends.

Please think about that....because you don't want to end up with a frustrated and resentful teen who feels deprived of the normal opportunities for a social life.

 

[tigger22472]

I have a few questions for the poster....

1.How do you feel about the step-father getting information from your daughters school?

2. How do you feel about the step-father going to and get information at doctor appointments?

3. If Mom were to tragically die would you be willing to share custody with step-father? I don't mean you simply agreeing... I mean legally on paper, signed by a court.

My guess would be you wouldn't like any these regardless of what you say here. If this step-father were doing things such as above or other things you would be all sorts of ticked off but it's ok to add his income in to figure support.

As pointed out at your daughters age she likely is behind this too with good reason. She may not even be vocalizing that to you because she doesn't want to hurt your feelings.

I'm sorry that you may lose parenting time but reality is that is what happens when you divorce. My husband has 50/50 with his child and has her for two weeks at a time. I commented to a friend of ours (a NCP dad) that if bio-mom were to ever file for full custody and win it would kill my husband to only see her EOW. He got kind of offended and said "Why should he be any different than the rest of us dads?" It's sad.. but it's true. EOW is done consistantly all around this country. And the only way to even try to aleviate that is for you to possibly move close to mom, as the judge gave her permission to do so. I realize this isn't always an option but it might be your only option to possibly keep the schedule you have now with the least damage done to your daughter.

 

[nhinson]

Can I point something out? You state that you are currently splitting the child's expenses plus paying for school lunches.

You do realize that if child support gets ordered you no longer have to do any of that? Your share of the child's expenses would be covered by child support. Therefore, paying child support might not be as bad as it looks at first glance.

This is a good point. I hadn't really looked at it from that POV.

Plus, even though its been six years since mom and child moved, you still may be able to get mom to be ordered to be responsible for providing the bulk of the transportation costs for visitation....since she is the one who moved and created the distance.

I didn't know this. I assumed it was to late. This may actually be the perfect solution to the entire problem! I will pursue it.

There also may be something else going on here that you are not aware of.
You state that you have your child every weekend and that your child is 12.
12 is about the age where a girl gets far more interested in her friends and social activities than in her parents. Its a natural transition. What may be happening is that your daughter has no opportunity for normal socializing because she is with you every weekend, and she may actually be wanting to have some time with her friends. This will only get worse as she gets further into the teen years.

I am very aware of this and yes, this is what they are telling me. But the truth is that when she does stay at her mom's house over a weekend, (without a social event), she does nothing with her friends. Her mother lives a fair distance from town so it's a bit too far for parents to pick up and drop off. But whenever there is a birthday party, etc., I always let her stay so she can attend.

The bottom line is she is 12. I am completely resolved with the changes that will take place around 14. This is pretty much my last 1-2 years with her as a child and I don't want to squander them. I am not unrealistic. I am aware that they all grow up.

Yours is the best advise so far in this forum. You're obviously someone who cares. Thank you very much!!

 

[nhinson]

I have a few questions for the poster....

1.How do you feel about the step-father getting information from your daughters school?

Not a problem. It is standard routine.

2. How do you feel about the step-father going to and get information at doctor appointments?

Not a problem. Again, standard routine.

3. If Mom were to tragically die would you be willing to share custody with step-father? I don't mean you simply agreeing... I mean legally on paper, signed by a court.

It wouldn't make me happy, but I have been a step father too and I am not unfamiliar with the territory. If somthing happened to mom I wouldn't take my daughter away from a man she has just spent the past 10 years of her life around. And when the court papers were drawn ... you bet your @$$ my new wife's income, (if I remarried), would be taken into account when it came his turn to pay child support to continue seeing my daughter.

What seems the strangest to me, is that everyone thinks it's about money. I always thought it was supposed to be about the kids. I always thought that our Family Law system was supposed to be fair. Isn't being a good example to our children something to be strived for??

How is NOT taking into account the entire financial picture fair? How is taking money away from a household that makes $44K a year and giving it to a household that makes $130K a year fair? What really gets me is that the step -father has skipped out on 10 years of child support for his own child and is hiding from the law. Ironic isn't it?!

My guess would be you wouldn't like any these regardless of what you say here. If this step-father were doing things such as above or other things you would be all sorts of ticked off but it's ok to add his income in to figure support.

With all due respect, you are wrong.

I'm sorry that you may lose parenting time but reality is that is what happens when you divorce.

I know this is reality but it doesn't make it hurt any less. It probably would have been easier to deal with had I been the one who sought the divorce.

My husband has 50/50 with his child and has her for two weeks at a time. I commented to a friend of ours (a NCP dad) that if bio-mom were to ever file for full custody and win it would kill my husband to only see her EOW. He got kind of offended and said "Why should he be any different than the rest of us dads?"

You know, the botom line, all dad's AREN'T created equal. I admire the fact your husband sought 50/50. 90% of men don't care enough about their kids to do that. I was a single father for 10 years. I raised my daughter 50/50 from 2 to 7 being both mom, dad and home schooler, without help from anyone. No wife, girlfriend or family. THAT is why men like me and your husband ARE DIFFERENT than the rest of the dads! I bet your NCP friend can't say that.

Plz give my respect to your husband!
Thank you very much for your response,
-neal
.

 

[nhinson]

For those of you following this thread ...

For those of you following this thread, I just got seriously screwed over in court. I now pay 1/5th of my gross income to a household that makes 3x what I do.

I believe that the name should be changed fom "California Justice System" to the "California IN-Justice System".

Take my advise and go download a 30 day trial of Dissomaster so that you will not go into court unprepared like I did.

http://www.cflr.com/download/

-nhinson

p.s. Anybody up for a class-action suit against the state of California???

 

[tigger22472]

For those of you following this thread, I just got seriously screwed over in court. I now pay 1/5th of my gross income to a household that makes 3x what I do.

I believe that the name should be changed fom "California Justice System" to the "California IN-Justice System".

Take my advise and go download a 30 day trial of Dissomaster so that you will not go into court unprepared like I did.

http://www.cflr.com/download/

-nhinson

p.s. Anybody up for a class-action suit against the state of California???

How do you figure you were screwed? What did the court order or not order that you believe they should have? Let me guess they wouldn't let you use the step-father's income.... YOU are still responsible for your child, not the step-father.