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

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

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".

-nhinson

My response:

You're an idiot. You don't read, and you don't understand anything I've written to you about the law. You just want to believe what you want to believe, and you believe that someone else should contribute to your child.

You deserve what happened to you because you keep tripping over your own stupidity. Let me guess, you attempted to argue the "household" income bull crap in court. Of course you did, because you keep mentioning it!

Go away and come back when you're all grown up.

IAAL

 

[nhinson]

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.

I hope someday you find yourself in this predicimament. One where you have to give 1/5 of your income to an ex who's re-married someone wealthy and doesn't need your money... only they still do it just out of spite. Which, in turn, disables you from being able to afford the gas to see your child. If you say that won't bother you then you are a liar.

 

[nhinson]

My response:

You're an idiot. You don't read, and you don't understand anything I've written to you about the law. You just want to believe what you want to believe, and you believe that someone else should contribute to your child.

You deserve what happened to you because you keep tripping over your own stupidity. Let me guess, you attempted to argue the "household" income bull crap in court. Of course you did, because you keep mentioning it!

Go away and come back when you're all grown up.
IAAL

I'm an idiot??? Now that's truly funny!! I will blow your doors off in an IQ test every day of the week and twice on Sunday. On the contrary you are the one who is illiterate and lacking. My complaint is not taking care of my own child, (but I can't expect someone of your diminished mental capacity to comprehend this). It is about fairness. The taking away of my ability to build strong lasting memories with my child through activities I can no longer afford and giving that ability to someone who doesn't need it, (because SHE already makes excellent money, as does He), nor will even do so because she is not about the child she is about the money!

As far as going away and growing up. It is obvious that you will never grow any more than your puny little mind already has. You are not helping human evolution. So how about doing all of us a favor by going down to the local sporting goods, buying yourself a firearm of some type and removing your genes for our pool. You are obviously too incompetent to hanging around this place! Go away!

Let me guess, you're a lawyer, right? Figures!

 

[tigger22472]

I hope someday you find yourself in this predicimament. One where you have to give 1/5 of your income to an ex who's re-married someone wealthy and doesn't need your money... only they still do it just out of spite. Which, in turn, disables you from being able to afford the gas to see your child. If you say that won't bother you then you are a liar.

What you are not getting is that it is NOT that man's responsiblity to care for YOUR child. My husband's ex wanted to put in a court order that I be responsible for insurance on their child. If I had it available I wouldn't mind doing it but there isn't a judge that is going to order it because she's NOT my child. When they start adding in the income of step-parents, they will have to start giving them rights, and that's not going to happen. There's just no reason to even fight it, or argue it... it's the law and that's what happens when you divorce with children.

 

[nhinson]

rebuttal ...

What you are not getting is that it is NOT that man's responsiblity to care for YOUR child. My husband's ex wanted to put in a court order that I be responsible for insurance on their child. If I had it available I wouldn't mind doing it but there isn't a judge that is going to order it because she's NOT my child. When they start adding in the income of step-parents, they will have to start giving them rights, and that's not going to happen. There's just no reason to even fight it, or argue it... it's the law and that's what happens when you divorce with children.

With all due respect you misunderstand. I totally understand what you are telling me and I agree... step parents should NOT be held responsible for someone else's children. But I think it SHOULD be taken into consideration as to how much the first parent has to pay. In other words, it should bottom out at $0 when the other family doesn't need your money. If one family is wealthy then the poorer parent shouldn't have to pay a large portion of their income to the family that doesn't need it because that just opens the door that allows the second parent to be cruel and malicious. But by NO means does that mean the wealthier family should pay the poor family ... that would be wrong because, like you said, it's not THEIR child.

I program so I understand how to write software. DissoMaster only needs one line of code to make it fair. First consider the new spouse's income and then add this one single line of code:

if ($AmountOwed < 0) then $AmountOwed == 0;

That's it. One line of code and ALL IS FAIR. Step parents don't HAVE to be given any rights because they are not paying anything. You know that there are mean and malicious people out there. That's what I'm up against. I want to be able to go and do things with my daughter, not depend on my ex to do it because she has all of my disposable income.

All I desire is fairness. I think it's sad that our court system doesn't recognize this. Personally I think it's just plain and simple laziness on the courts behalf. I believe with all my being that this would be the more fair resolution.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. My fiancee' is a veterinarian doctor. She has her own practice and makes excellent money. Once we are married I DON'T want her to have to pay my daughter's expenses. But if our household made $500k+ a year I would NOT accept child support from my daughter's mother because it's just NOT RIGHT! But that's because I have a sense for fairness and justice. Plz explain to me how our family legal system doesn't see it the same way? I just don't understand it. Justice is sacrificed for the sake of simplicity. I would have thought the human race would have evolved beyond this.

I'm going to pay what the court has ordered me to pay. Plain and simple. I'm sad because I won't be able to take my daughter to the movies, to the fair, to the museum, theme parks, camping and all the other things we used to do together on the weekends. (The truly expensive piece of the pie.) Instead it will be left up to her mother to do those things. All the memories we have been building will be left up to her mother to do... though I know she won't. Why? Because the reason she has sought support from me is because she is incapable of living within her means. I've known her for 20 years and she hasn't changed. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that is why she sought support from me. But the court doesn't care. It's too much work on their behalf. So I accept the injustice placed upon me and my child. Much like being raped in prison... nobody cares. It's easier to say, "there's a reason for it", than it is to seek the truth.

Jamaican's have it right! If you get involved with someone who has a child you take responsibility for that person as a package. If you marry that person you take responsibility for their children as well. That prevents people from breaking up family units for sexual reasons. (It sure solves a lot of problems!)

Tigger22472, you seem like a reasonable person. (Unlike "IAAL" who is the ultimate jerk who uses this forum as a means to express his false sense of self -perceived superiority.) I think you understand where I am coming from. I am signing off and won't be back. I wish someone would see my side of the argument. I wish someone had the humility to face the hard cold facts and do something about it. But I'm not going to hold my breath. Life isn't fair and I realize that.

Be thankful, as I am, that your husband has a good heart.

God bless you,
-neal

 

[tigger22472]

With all due respect you misunderstand. I totally understand what you are telling me and I agree... step parents should NOT be held responsible for someone else's children. But I think it SHOULD be taken into consideration as to how much the first parent has to pay.

No, you still aren't getting it. By including their income AT ALL no matter what side of the fence you are on, it is ordering a step-parent to pay for a child that is not theirs.

In other words, it should bottom out at $0 when the other family doesn't need your money. If one family is wealthy then the poorer parent shouldn't have to pay a large portion of their income to the family that doesn't need it because that just opens the door that allows the second parent to be cruel and malicious. But by NO means does that mean the wealthier family should pay the poor family ... that would be wrong because, like you said, it's not THEIR child.

But it's ok for their income to be figured in to LOWER the amount. That is just bias on your part and predjudice. The law doesn't not nor will it pick and choose which way the income would come into play. Either it comes into play or it doesn't and in this situation it doesn't and the law is correct. Until they give step-parents parental rights it should remain that way.

The two types of people that come here and irritate me are the bio-parents like you who want to have the step-parent's income included for support issues but don't want those same people to have equal rights "because it's NOT their kid" and the step-parents who come here and want rights but heaven forbid their income be included to figure support. IMO it goes hand in hand. To put this into light, I don't have an income, however, if they were to assess me one it would be a very low one but I would get rights to that child (if that's how the law were or how I perceive it should be). I don't want them, nor do I need them. My husband's ex makes 3 times what my husband does, he could file for support but doesn't. In this theory, when bio-mom was married the household income came close to 200k but that did NOT excuse my husband from caring for his child. Nor would it have if she had full custody.

I program so I understand how to write software. DissoMaster only needs one line of code to make it fair. First consider the new spouse's income and then add this one single line of code:

if ($AmountOwed < 0) then $AmountOwed == 0;

That's it. One line of code and ALL IS FAIR. Step parents don't HAVE to be given any rights because they are not paying anything. You know that there are mean and malicious people out there. That's what I'm up against. I want to be able to go and do things with my daughter, not depend on my ex to do it because she has all of my disposable income.

THEY ARE paying in your theory. Kids aren't free! They COST money to raise. It's not growing on trees! Money that the step-parent makes and brings into the household goes out to support children that aren't theirs.

All I desire is fairness. I think it's sad that our court system doesn't recognize this. Personally I think it's just plain and simple laziness on the courts behalf. I believe with all my being that this would be the more fair resolution.

First off, life isn't fair. Secondly, the courts are correct. You bring a child in this world and you should be responsible for their care. You can believe what you think is fair all you want, I believe 'with all my being' that it's 'fair' the way it is. Have you seen the divorce statistics? Do you know how long an average marriage lasts in this country? If your ex were to divorce it totally changes the dynamics of what you are proposing here. The likelyhood of her being divorced is higher than her chances of being disabled or losing her job and having NO income.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. My fiancee' is a veterinarian doctor. She has her own practice and makes excellent money. Once we are married I DON'T want her to have to pay my daughter's expenses. But if our household made $500k+ a year I would NOT accept child support from my daughter's mother because it's just NOT RIGHT! But that's because I have a sense for fairness and justice. Plz explain to me how our family legal system doesn't see it the same way? I just don't understand it. Justice is sacrificed for the sake of simplicity. I would have thought the human race would have evolved beyond this.

OMG... you don't expect your fiancee's income(if you were married) to be included but you expect your ex's husband's to be included...and again.. if income is included THEY ARE PAYING! The law states or holds that you and the bio-mom are responsible for your child. Period. It's fair, it's clear and it's reasonable, there is NO sense in arguing this point.

I'm going to pay what the court has ordered me to pay. Plain and simple. I'm sad because I won't be able to take my daughter to the movies, to the fair, to the museum, theme parks, camping and all the other things we used to do together on the weekends. (The truly expensive piece of the pie.) Instead it will be left up to her mother to do those things. All the memories we have been building will be left up to her mother to do... though I know she won't. Why? Because the reason she has sought support from me is because she is incapable of living within her means. I've known her for 20 years and she hasn't changed. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that is why she sought support from me. But the court doesn't care. It's too much work on their behalf. So I accept the injustice placed upon me and my child. Much like being raped in prison... nobody cares. It's easier to say, "there's a reason for it", than it is to seek the truth.

The courts ordered it and she was granted it because it is the LEGAL RIGHT. It is your OBLIGATION to pay support. Don't sit here with this guilt trip about how you can't do anything anymore.. wah wah wah. Spending time with your child is not all about the things you buy or places you go. You are making this about money and that is what will RUIN your relationship with your daughter, not the fact that you don't believe you can go do things. Did you hear me? This attitude will RUIN your relationship with your child. Not what the mother does, not what the mother says but YOU.

Jamaican's have it right! If you get involved with someone who has a child you take responsibility for that person as a package. If you marry that person you take responsibility for their children as well. That prevents people from breaking up family units for sexual reasons. (It sure solves a lot of problems!)

That's the most asinine thing I've read today! Why not just give up your parental rights and let the step-dad adopt your child. You obviously have a hang up... UGH!!

Tigger22472, you seem like a reasonable person. (Unlike "IAAL" who is the ultimate jerk who uses this forum as a means to express his false sense of self -perceived superiority.) I think you understand where I am coming from. I am signing off and won't be back. I wish someone would see my side of the argument. I wish someone had the humility to face the hard cold facts and do something about it. But I'm not going to hold my breath. Life isn't fair and I realize that.

Oh you'll be back, We've seen it a million times. And NO I don't see where you are coming from because I don't live under that rock....

 

[nagol818]

Poster

I can tell you really love your daughter.