waive to recieve maintence

[tuffbrk]

I miss interpreted OP's three year statement. My apology.

If maintenance ends when the children age out, then say it that way. To me that clause means when the children age out the court will review whether the maintenance should continue. Am I wrong?

Or does "held open" mean that Sara can go back to court and ask for more whenever she wants?

Either way, I don't like it.

I don't like it either. Child support is child support and Maintenance is alimony. Two separate issues with, as LdiJ notes, different tax treatments. There is no reason whatsoever to combine the two. OP does not mention the length of the marriage or the salary difference to know if maintenance is even an issue.

 

[LdiJ]

Family support is for 7 years, the child ages out in 6 years. Jeff's employment is contract work. The contract ends in three years, that's why the speculation that his income may be reduced.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of making the family support non-modifiable?

Again, thank you for your information. Enen though this had been confusing, the information is helpful.

You cannot make family support non-modifiable. Its major component is child support and that cannot be made non-modifiable.

This whole "family support" bit is truly problematic. Maintenance/alimony/spousal support (three different names for the same thing) is one thing, child support is another. Maintenance can be made non-modifiable, child support cannot. Maintenance is tax deductible to the payer, child support is not.

Why is "family support" being used instead of breaking the two into their proper components?

 

[Bali Hai]

You cannot make family support non-modifiable. Its major component is child support and that cannot be made non-modifiable.

This whole "family support" bit is truly problematic. Maintenance/alimony/spousal support (three different names for the same thing) is one thing, child support is another. Maintenance can be made non-modifiable, child support cannot. Maintenance is tax deductible to the payer, child support is not.

Why is "family support" being used instead of breaking the two into their proper components?

After doing some googling, my understanding is that this is a common practice in Wisconsin. Even after reading it's still confusing to me.

Remember, Paul Ryan (loser on the Republican ticket in the last Presidential election thank God) is from this state.