previous support order not being calculated

[NotSoNew]

Because they are still together. Would it work if she went to court and said ok we are living together? No. it wouldn't. That's why i call it the Sean Combs scam. He has to pay his girlfriend 17k a month but ended up getting back with her so in essence the money is still his.

ok lets say we drop it and we say we live together and he gets the credit of 3100 (family credit) and she gets the 8112 a year she is getting now. How is that fair? How do you tell me it costs 3100 a year to raise my daughter but 8112 a year to raise hers?

ps the amount he pays me now is 3900 a year.
oh yeah stealth it would be good if daddy stopped making babies but it doesnt change the situation now.

 

[nextwife]

While dad should stop making babies, maybe so should moms who have babies with guys who already have a support (whether court ordered or not) responsibility - unless they are willing to assume the bulk of the responsibilty for supporting their later born child. After all, the money for those OTHER kids was already earmarked BEFORE they chose to make a baby with the guy.

 

[saintkbsmom67]

ok lets say we drop it and we say we live together and he gets the credit of 3100 (family credit) and she gets the 8112 a year she is getting now. How is that fair? How do you tell me it costs 3100 a year to raise my daughter but 8112 a year to raise hers?

ps the amount he pays me now is 3900 a year.
oh yeah stealth it would be good if daddy stopped making babies but it doesnt change the situation now.

I see what you mean with the money, BUT it still goes back to you guys. It's like you guys never broke up if you understand my point. Is it safe to say that all parents who have children together, go before the court and get cs put in place to protect them from daddy stepping out and having to pay for another child? And is that legal? Can his other child's mother bring you to court and say you gusy are living together? Would that make a difference? Sorry if I am hijacking the thread.

 

[NotSoNew]

I see what you mean with the money, BUT it still goes back to you guys. It's like you guys never broke up if you understand my point. Is it safe to say that all parents who have children together, go before the court and get cs put in place to protect them from daddy stepping out and having to pay for another child? And is that legal? Can his other child's mother bring you to court and say you gusy are living together? Would that make a difference? Sorry if I am hijacking the thread.

it doesnt go back to US it goes back to ME, but regardless its money to support his child, why shouldnt he get credit for supporting his child, be it if we are together or seperated. mom #2 wont take us to court and say we are living together for several reasons. 1. we just started living together, although we have been back together for several months. 2. she knows the difference is only 800 dollars a year in the credit she is getting. 3. we are all on good terms right now. 4. her a$$ should be working to support her own child and she isnt. 5. she knows how many times we have broken up and gotten back together and understands why I just leave it in place.

 

[brisgirl825]

MI law allows for a deviation from the cs guidelines. The court is w/i its right to do so.


I agree 100% that people, both males and females, should not procreate when they cannot support the child/ren. However, I don't get to decide that.

This is no doubt a scam on the part of the parents to keep the cs in the home and deny mom #2 the right to fair amounts of support. The fact is, is that when co-habitating, the things that are supposed to be paid for with cs, dad is now helping with. This includes every bill in the home as well as the care of the child. The court would never order cs for a person who is living with the other parent for this very reason.

 

[LdiJ]

MI law allows for a deviation from the cs guidelines. The court is w/i its right to do so.


I agree 100% that people, both males and females, should not procreate when they cannot support the child/ren. However, I don't get to decide that.

This is no doubt a scam on the part of the parents to keep the cs in the home and deny mom #2 the right to fair amounts of support. The fact is, is that when co-habitating, the things that are supposed to be paid for with cs, dad is now helping with. This includes every bill in the home as well as the care of the child. The court would never order cs for a person who is living with the other parent for this very reason.

I have actually seen many people with valid CS orders who are living together. I have also seen judgesuphold arrearages when parents have gotten back together (after a child support order) and then split up again.

However, I believe that one factor that has come out here kind of negates any motive for a "scam"...

The difference in the credit is 800.00 per year (according to the OP) 17% of 800 is about 136. 136 divided by 52 weeks is less than 3 bucks a week.....that's a negligible difference.

 

[VA_Mom]

Okay this now brings up a question I had on another thread.

What if there is a child support order for child #1, the parents live together again for 5 months and child #2 is born (no need to comment!) but during the 5 months they resided at his brand new place (lease was only in his name) the CP finds out the NCP parent never paid a dime on the rent while she was handling ALL other finances. Therefore, CP permanently ends the relationship.

Does NCP still recieve credit during that time frame? Wouldn't NCP need to prove that he supported the child in some way during the time period he made no CS payments or paid the rent? The CP also made over twice NCP's salary.

 

[LdiJ]

Okay this now brings up a question I had on another thread.

What if there is a child support order for child #1, the parents live together again for 5 months and child #2 is born (no need to comment!) but during the 5 months they resided at his brand new place (lease was only in his name) the CP finds out the NCP parent never paid a dime on the rent while she was handling ALL other finances. Therefore, CP permanently ends the relationship.

Does NCP still recieve credit during that time frame? Wouldn't NCP need to prove that he supported the child in some way during the time period he made no CS payments or paid the rent? The CP also made over twice NCP's salary.

The arrearages would automatically accumulate...so they would be out there anyway, unless of course they had petitioned the court to stop the CS.

 

[Sugarbaby1977]

From what I have seen and heard court order is court order no matter what. Whether the parents live together or not. I have seen cases where like the originaor of this thread the CP filed a support order to be sure she got the support for her child. It's not a scam if the courts know they live together. I do believe the courts should change the law when 2 people co-habitae and aren't married they should be considered a common-law married couple and support orders should not be made. That is a waste of courts time and tax payers money.

 

[VA_Mom]

I do believe the courts should change the law when 2 people co-habitae and aren't married they should be considered a common-law married couple and support orders should not be made. That is a waste of courts time and tax payers money.

How is it a waste of taxpayers money?