Marriage and CA support

[mysterre]

Hello I live in California and I have a support question. I am currently paying support as a non-custodial parent and want to get married. I am afraid that the courts will try to include my wife's income when factoring support, which will probably cause us not to get married. Is this true and if so, what are some things I can do to protect her? Does she need a separate account?

Also, has anyone filed a motion for an appeal when their modfication reduction was denied? What was the outcome? I am recently unemployed and my modification was denied. I am almost completely out of money and I want to pay but I am in extreme financial trouble. California seems to be very hard on the father when they are the non-custodial parent and could care less if they end up on the streets.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Hello I live in California and I have a support question. I am currently paying support as a non-custodial parent and want to get married. I am afraid that the courts will try to include my wife's income when factoring support, which will probably cause us not to get married. Is this true and if so, what are some things I can do to protect her? Does she need a separate account?

MY RESPONSE: Your new spouse's income cannot be included in support calculations - - except under extreme, dire circumstances that affect your child's health and welfare. Absent those circumstances, your fiancé has nothing to worry about.




Also, has anyone filed a motion for an appeal when their modification reduction was denied? What was the outcome? I am recently unemployed and my modification was denied. I am almost completely out of money and I want to pay but I am in extreme financial trouble. California seems to be very hard on the father when they are the non-custodial parent and could care less if they end up on the streets.

MY RESPONSE: Here's the long and short of your problem. 1) You can't afford to be married. Hell, you can't afford a ticket for the movies. 2) California doesn't care about your unemployment. There's a child that needs to be fed, clothed, housed, and educated. That's what counts. So, I would suggest you learn how to flip hamburgers unless you want to end up in jail for Contempt of Court.

Moral of the story - - you don't have a pot to piss in, and you don't want to piss off a California judge. Really, you don't.

IAAL

 

[mysterre]

"you don't want to piss off a California judge"

I'm curious...does California have a much stricter Child Support Agency than the rest of the country? Can a case already a few years old be moved to another state if one person moves out of state?

 

[VeronicaGia]

"you don't want to piss off a California judge"

I'm curious...does California have a much stricter Child Support Agency than the rest of the country? Can a case already a few years old be moved to another state if one person moves out of state?

Some counties in CA can be very strict. CA law states that the court can impute income to you based on what you were making when you were working. That's likely one of the reasons you were denied a reduction. Also, both parents would have to move out of CA in order for CA to even consider allowing another state to take jurisdiction. If that happens, you, the obligor, would petition to have support moved to your state and your ex would petition to have custody issues handled in her new state. Once again, that's if CA would even give up the case.

 

[nextwife]

Dear IAAL:

Please explain under what conditions this would apply:

"MY RESPONSE: Your new spouse's income cannot be included in support calculations - - except under extreme, dire circumstances that affect your child's health and welfare. Absent those circumstances, your fiancé has nothing to worry about."

If a NCP has no income from which to provide CS, for example, because they were, say, injured severely in a car accident, and CP is needy for money, I do not understand why the WIFE of CP, who is also likely shouldering the responsibility for supporting THEIR kids, would be considered MORE responsible or capable to work and support NCPs kids than the actual mom of the NCPs kids?? I mean, doesn't it make more sense to have each mom support their own kids if the NCP becomes disabled?

If NCP DIED, one wouldn't expect widow of NCP to support both households (I hope)?

 

[oneandonly]

Exactly what Veronica said....

(and IAAL, too).
My husband deals with CA CSE and his ex tried to get her state to assume jurisdiction. Neither party lives in CA any longer (although the 6 month time requirement has NOT passed yet), however, her state did NOT have any authority to enforce any kind of order on my husband. CA retained jursidiction and her filings ended up delaying support by several weeks.
However, a change in jurisdiction is in the works regarding changing from CA to our state (support following the payor) but this is NOT a case of "state shopping" to avoid CA high support guidelines (which may be seen as a reason for moving in a judges eyes and a jurisdiction change NOT granted). My husband has a legitimate reason for moving and has some "helping hands" through CSE.
Anyway, what industry were you in that you lost your job and what cirmcumstances brought about your job loss? curious. I dont believe you can appeal this decision (did you have an attorney, by the way?) unless you can prove some kind of judicial misconduct or something like that. When you went for your reduction modification, how long had you been out of work?

Are you collecting unemployment?

What is your parenting time percentage?

AS a wife of a man who pays support--I highly advise that any and all assets (bank accounts, etc...) remain seperate, if in fact, you do get married. You will be faced with these issues (support, visitation, etc...) until at least the child reaches 18 and possibly longer. You will be a parent forever...can your future wife deal with this?
best wishes
heres another site you might find info/support from

www.deltabravo.net
take off the url and paste in your browser~

 

[VeronicaGia]

Dear IAAL:

Please explain under what conditions this would apply:

"MY RESPONSE: Your new spouse's income cannot be included in support calculations - - except under extreme, dire circumstances that affect your child's health and welfare. Absent those circumstances, your fiancé has nothing to worry about."

If a NCP has no income from which to provide CS, for example, because they were, say, injured severely in a car accident, and CP is needy for money, I do not understand why the WIFE of CP, who is also likely shouldering the responsibility for supporting THEIR kids, would be considered MORE responsible or capable to work and support NCPs kids than the actual mom of the NCPs kids?? I mean, doesn't it make more sense to have each mom support their own kids if the NCP becomes disabled?

If NCP DIED, one wouldn't expect widow of NCP to support both households (I hope)?

CA code states that if a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, and if it is in the best interests of the child, they can impute income to the NCP. If the NCP isn't working, the income of the spouse of the NCP can be taken into consideration. But, and IAAL will hopefully help with this one, I don't believe the court will create an actual garnishment against the spouse of the NCP/obligor. It's just that someone will be paying it; the NCP is unemployed, the spouse pays the bills.

 

[VeronicaGia]

CA Family Code Section 4057.5

4057.5. (a) (1) The income of the obligor parent's subsequent
spouse or nonmarital partner shall not be considered when determining or modifying child support, except in an extraordinary case where excluding that income would lead to extreme and severe hardship to any child subject to the child support award, in which case the court shall also consider whether including that income would lead to extreme and severe hardship to any child supported by the obligor or by the obligor's subsequent spouse or nonmarital partner.
(2) The income of the obligee parent's subsequent spouse or
nonmarital partner shall not be considered when determining or
modifying child support, except in an extraordinary case where
excluding that income would lead to extreme and severe hardship to any child subject to the child support award, in which case the court shall also consider whether including that income would lead to extreme and severe hardship to any child supported by the obligee or by the obligee's subsequent spouse or nonmarital partner.
(b) For purposes of this section, an extraordinary case may
include a parent who voluntarily or intentionally quits work or
reduces income, or who intentionally remains unemployed or
underemployed and relies on a subsequent spouse's income.
(c) If any portion of the income of either parent's subsequent
spouse or nonmarital partner is allowed to be considered pursuant to this section, discovery for the purposes of determining income shall be based on W2 and 1099 income tax forms, except where the court determines that application would be unjust or inappropriate.
(d) If any portion of the income of either parent's subsequent
spouse or nonmarital partner is allowed to be considered pursuant to this section, the court shall allow a hardship deduction based on the minimum living expenses for one or more stepchildren of the party subject to the order.
(e) The enactment of this section constitutes cause to bring an
action for modification of a child support order entered prior to the
operative date of this section.

 

[mysterre]

To answer your questions, I worked in high tech and my position was eliminated. I filed for a reduction I think the very next day.

I am filing a motion of appeal since I have been so far unsuccessful in finding another job almost 6 months later. I did not have an attorney when I filed for a reduction. I am collecting unemployment, but it is the extended benefits passed by congress a few months back and are only about $4000 which doesn't get you far in CA.

I have 0% with my child due to us living on opposite sides of the state.

My future wife has had a hard time dealing with this but loves me enough to work with it. For that I am forever grateful, but she has worked very hard to get where she is and get the things she has and it would kill me and probably us if the courts tried to use her income as a basis to raise support. I have alreay planned to get separate accounts but what about wanting to buy an apartment one day?

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to cheat the system in any way. I want to do the right thing. But I have learned that I need to be educated on this matter as much as any attorney so no one can use me as a free ATM machine to get whatever whenever they want.

 

[oneandonly]

hmmm.....

you have absolutely no visitation with your child?
Might I ask why? Being at opposite ends of the state does not seem reason enough as many parents deal with cross country visitation all the time...
How old is your child?

 

[mysterre]

I don't want to get into too much personal detail. I really am here for information. But I will answer your question. My child is 7 and I do not have contact because it is a great distance to drive and I cannot afford to do it for one. The other is that I have a not-so-great relationship with the mother (it was a one-night thing). It is obvious that she is under-employed to abuse the system and get the most out of me and it pisses me off.

One day, I hope this state realizes there are fundamental problems with this system that need to be addressed. Making it almost impossible for me to survive makes it impossible to be a father. I bet there are many dead-beats out there who are that way by no choice of their own.

When I went to court over this, I was still in school. I couldn't pay the amount the judge ordered and when I asked how I could do this, he said I should drop out of school. Luckily, I have loving parents that bailed me out for the remaining years. But if not, I'd be working some minimum wage job with no way out. Any unforeseen accident to me and I'd be thrown in jail because I wouldn't be able to pay. So then the state would be paying for me to rot in prison and paying my child because I couldn't. At least now I and my child have a chance if I could just get a descent middle-class job and I and my child might be able to survive any unforeseen issues ahead.

I wish I could afford law school. It takes a lawyer who has personally gone through this to truly understand its potentially catastrophic impact to question and fight this fundamentally flawed system.

 

[oneandonly]

I can totally understand your situation....

unfortunately, I believe an appeal will go nowhere.
I was trying to approach this in another way, ie...increase your parenting time.
Keep looking for employment and do not get married until this is resolved~
JMO

 

[stealth2]

One day, I hope this state realizes there are fundamental problems with this system that need to be addressed.

I'm sorry, but the fundamental problems lie not with the system but with people who f*ck around on "one night things". While you and the "one night thing" chick piss and moan about one another, the kid is the one who loses out.

Christ, no wonder we have so many screwed up kids.

 

[mysterre]

Stealth - go preach on someone else's choir.

I appreciate the information I received from you all. I'm off the post now since the holy rollers are getting in.

 

[stealth2]

LOL I'm hardly a "holy roller". But don't blame the system for your problems - you and Mommy Dearest created it for yourselves. The only innocent one in any of this is that kid.