# Child Support



## 1stTime (Oct 14, 2015)

According to our state attorney general, my child support obligation, based on my income (and their formula) is supposed to be 1100 a month for 1 child.

We are going through an uncontested divorce, and have pretty much split everything 50/50 up to this point. There have been no contentions. Her thought on the child support is that it is what it is, and I should pay whatever the state says I should pay.

That said, is it worth my time to fight for a lower amount? I don't mind paying the 1100, but then again, I also don't want to just roll over either. I didn't ask for any of this, and now basically I get my family ripped away from me and a hefty bill every month for it.

Just curious what your experiences are. I really don't want to fight anything, especially if its going to cost me 1000s to save 100 dollars a month or something.


----------



## Pluto2 (Aug 17, 2011)

You have to have a good argument to reduce child support below the guidelines, although it definitely varies by state. Most of the permissible reductions, or justifications for downward deviations are set forth in the statute, and in most cases you will have to have a hearing.... with attorneys. Just pay it.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

This really is going to depend state to state. In the state I'm in the formula worked out to about $900 a month. Because this was going to be a larger financial burden than I could handle my ex-wife and I negotiated about half that. It was signed in the paperwork that we both agreed to it but when presented in front of the judge he simply crossed it out and stated that the state formula would overrule our decision and awarded my ex the full payment. My suggestion would be find out if it's even worth contesting. It May not be.


----------



## jb02157 (Apr 16, 2014)

I know that a lawyer that I talked to said in the state I was living in at the time it was $3200 for three kids...but that's just the start. The lawyer said that I also have to pay her and the kids medical insurance and the mortgage payment until we sold the house. He that that you could try to negotiate these but it's not worth the court time to do it because you'll lose. After I pay all of this it's was about 70% of my income. I wouldn't be able to afford a place to stay even in the lowest rent building in the worst part of town. Is it right to make a guy do this?


----------



## Bananapeel (May 4, 2015)

The easy way to lower child support is negotiate for more custody of your child. I'm doing a 50:50 split which saves me a bunch of money and also gives me extra time with my kids. It's a win-win.


----------



## C3156 (Jun 13, 2012)

Holy crap, your state calculation is $1,100 for one child?

Need a little more information to make an informed decision. 

- What is the parenting time for each parent? If you are settling for less than 50% time you are making a huge mistake.
- (Roughly) how much to you make and how much does your stbx make? 
- Does your stbx have a college degree?
- Who is paying for insurance?


----------



## Tango in Triple Time (Jul 14, 2015)

It's probably based on income and how many children. It's not $1100 across the board for everyone.


----------



## Janky (Nov 26, 2013)

Mine started at $900 with her making around 20K more a year than me.

The only way to lower it where i live is to negotiate more time.

Once one side figures out that keeping the other side at having the children every other weekend= the highest amount of CS, you will have a hard time getting more time.

My ex threw a fit when i took over my son's insurance coverage and her CS dropped.


----------



## Malpheous (May 3, 2013)

To get a better picture, what state and ballpark incomes are you looking at?

If she isn't working, is your attorney going after imputed income in the calculation?

Does your state allow for a deviation based on 50/50? For example, can you combine your income and hers. Determine the total CS. Then apply that to each of you based on a ratio, leaving you responsible to her for the appropriate disparagement in income? ie 60k + 40k = 100k x .17 = CS total. 60-40(60:40) is 20% of CS Total form you to her.


----------



## Orange_Pekoe (Jan 5, 2015)

1stTime said:


> According to our state attorney general, my child support obligation, based on my income (and their formula) is supposed to be 1100 a month for 1 child.
> 
> We are going through an uncontested divorce, and have pretty much split everything 50/50 up to this point. There have been no contentions. Her thought on the child support is that it is what it is, and I should pay whatever the state says I should pay.
> 
> ...


This isn't a good place for legal advice.

Get a free consultation with a lawyer. Or two or three. They will answer your questions.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

I think it's helpful, when considering what amount of cs is fair, to comsider all of the actual expenses associated with kids. A lot of non custodial parents think that if they have more time with her kids that should mean less or no cs, but the fact is that kids still have expenses. 

Here's an example: a divorced friend of mine had a verbal cs agreement with her ex of about $850 per month for two kids. Once he found a new gf he decided he needed more money to take her out so he unilaterally cut his cs to under $200 per month and started pushing to have them a couple more nights a week so he could claim shared parenting. 

Except that he pays for NOTHING beyond cs. She carries their insurance, pays their child care bills, buys their clothes, pays for everything they need. He has no idea what they cost beyond feeding them dinner at his house. 

So the response might be for them to discuss everything. All that will do is open a huge can where he just doesn't want to pay so he'll argue about whether they can go to a cheaper camp or whether they really need clothes or shoes. My friend's lawyer told her that judges do not like this arrangement for exactly that reason. 

I second what boltam says. If the state is likely to order it anyway be careful about the sh!t you start with your ex because you have to coparent with her and she can make your life very difficult. 

My friend was very easy for her ex to work with but had become much more difficult since he decided to be a pr!ck about his cs.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## helolover (Aug 24, 2012)

I recommend you check with your lawyer on this. Depending on your state, it depends on how many OVERNIGHTS per week you have and how much your incomes are. 

You can negotiate a deal outside of the guidelines but it needs explained. 

If you are trying to do this without a lawyer and you live in the US, I highly recommend you re-think your plan. At least have it reviewed.


----------



## SurpriseMyself (Nov 14, 2009)

jb02157 said:


> I know that a lawyer that I talked to said in the state I was living in at the time it was $3200 for three kids...but that's just the start. The lawyer said that I also have to pay her and the kids medical insurance and the mortgage payment until we sold the house. He that that you could try to negotiate these but it's not worth the court time to do it because you'll lose. After I pay all of this it's was about 70% of my income. I wouldn't be able to afford a place to stay even in the lowest rent building in the worst part of town. Is it right to make a guy do this?


This is the downside of traditional marriage. Any man who let's their wife stay home and not work needs to be aware of this.

I am a working mom who is about to separate. I make about $1000 less per month gross than he does, and we are doing joint custody with equal overnights at each home. Based on an online calculator, he will owe me approx $160 per month for two kids. I did the calculation again as if I were a stay at home mom, just to see what would happen, and even with him paying all child-related expenses (since in this scenario I have no income), he would still owe me $1170 a month in child support and probably alimony (not sure on that, but thinking that's the case). As stated by previous posters, the more overnights they have with you, the lower your child support. The $1170 hypothetical is based on equal overnights. If I change it to where he has the kids every other weekend (again, not doing this - just giving examples), payments go up another $400.

If you work and your wife doesn't, you really need to consider how strong your relationship is. If it's not good, you could take a serious hit financially in the event of divorce, especially with kids. It's a big risk to have one spouse not working.

Now, whether it's fair isn't relevant. If you were the stay at home parent and she worked, she would owe you monthly in the event of a divorce. It is what it is.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

$1100 per month is a lot but we don't know your details. The goal is to pay what you should; not too little; not too much. And these formulas generally calculate the high end of the range. They are guidelines a judge will use when looking at the support agreement.

I think you owe it to yourself to at least get a consult visit with a lawyer to find out if that formula is missing part of your specific puzzle. Even if you come out understanding that the calculated number is right, at least you won't feel like you're paying more than what's fair.


----------



## jb02157 (Apr 16, 2014)

SurpriseMyself said:


> This is the downside of traditional marriage. Any man who let's their wife stay home and not work needs to be aware of this.
> 
> 
> Now, whether it's fair isn't relevant. If you were the stay at home parent and she worked, she would owe you monthly in the event of a divorce. It is what it is.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You started out right and went downward fast. A definite downside of marriage for men, irregardless of whether they let their wife stay at home not, are going to get taken for all of their money. Whether it is fair IS relevant. Money should not be taken from a man who is going through a divorce. Instead of stay at home wives benefiting the most, they should should benefit the least because they bring in the least money and leave the family vulnerable to money problems. If they wouldn't gain anything from a divorce they would be more complelled to staying with the family instead of taking their husbands money. 

Men are more than just sources of money, they are people who should be able to make they own choice whether or not they want to stay in a marriage. That choice should not involve their financial destruction.


----------



## Pluto2 (Aug 17, 2011)

seriously? the great-big money earning men should get to decide whether they stay married?
what century do you live in?

If you don't want to support your kids, get a vasectomy and then don't have any kids.


----------



## jb02157 (Apr 16, 2014)

Pluto2 said:


> seriously? the great-big money earning men should get to decide whether they stay married?
> what century do you live in?


Ok, they why should only women be able to decide whether they want to stay married? ...and most men are not rich, that's why taking 70% of their income makes it so they can't even get an apartment. If a marriage is bad, a man should be able to leave the marriage without penalty. Women not only have the choice of leaving without penalty, they get money along with the deal. If someone offered me a deal where I could divorce my wife right now and get $4000/month on top of it, I certainly wouldn't think twice about it!


----------



## Pluto2 (Aug 17, 2011)

sorry the obligations of a marital contract are so hard for you to handle. 

I'm a woman who didn't get squat from my ex. It goes both ways.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

jb02157 said:


> You started out right and went downward fast. A definite downside of marriage for men, irregardless of whether they let their wife stay at home not, are going to get taken for all of their money. Whether it is fair IS relevant. Money should not be taken from a man who is going through a divorce. Instead of stay at home wives benefiting the most, they should should benefit the least because they bring in the least money and leave the family vulnerable to money problems. If they wouldn't gain anything from a divorce they would be more complelled to staying with the family instead of taking their husbands money.
> 
> Men are more than just sources of money, they are people who should be able to make they own choice whether or not they want to stay in a marriage. That choice should not involve their financial destruction.


I agree with the logic from a fairness perspective jb02157 but there's a personal trigger in there for me. You said (speaking of SAHMs)


> If they wouldn't gain anything from a divorce they would be more complelled to staying with the family instead of taking their husbands money.


I personally like to think my wife is with me because she wants to be and not because of finances. In our case she has an income so the fairness part is moot but if she were not working I would still not like to wonder if she was with me because she couldn't afford not to be.


----------



## DanielleBennett (Oct 9, 2015)

See if you can ask for an adjustment and if the price doesn't lower then just pay it. Too bad women can't provide receipts to prove that the child support goes to the child. Haha.


----------



## SurpriseMyself (Nov 14, 2009)

jb02157 said:


> You started out right and went downward fast. A definite downside of marriage for men, irregardless of whether they let their wife stay at home not, are going to get taken for all of their money. Whether it is fair IS relevant. Money should not be taken from a man who is going through a divorce. Instead of stay at home wives benefiting the most, they should should benefit the least because they bring in the least money and leave the family vulnerable to money problems. If they wouldn't gain anything from a divorce they would be more complelled to staying with the family instead of taking their husbands money.
> 
> Men are more than just sources of money, they are people who should be able to make they own choice whether or not they want to stay in a marriage. That choice should not involve their financial destruction.


You have not read a bit of what I posted, mainly because you would rather complain than look at facts. Good luck with that.


----------



## sixty-eight (Oct 2, 2015)

SurpriseMyself said:


> *This is the downside of traditional marriage. Any man who let's their wife stay home and not work needs to be aware of this.
> *
> I am a working mom who is about to separate. I make about $1000 less per month gross than he does, and we are doing joint custody with equal overnights at each home. Based on an online calculator, he will owe me approx $160 per month for two kids. I did the calculation again as if I were a stay at home mom, just to see what would happen, and even with him paying all child-related expenses (since in this scenario I have no income), he would still owe me $1170 a month in child support and probably alimony (not sure on that, but thinking that's the case). As stated by previous posters, the more overnights they have with you, the lower your child support. The $1170 hypothetical is based on equal overnights. If I change it to where he has the kids every other weekend (again, not doing this - just giving examples), payments go up another $400.
> 
> ...


I sympathize with anyone stuck in a marriage because of money. Right now i'm stuck living in the same house as my spouse while we are separated (we are waiting out our lease and the end of the school year for our oldest). If you look at some of jb's other posts, his wife seems to take advantage of his dilemma and his children are near adulthood. He is not trying to shirk responsibility. But since his wife stayed home, this is his situation now.

I agree with the bolded statements above and believe that he should have insisted that his wife go back to work once his kids were in school. But he doesn't have a time machine, and if he pushes her now, he feels like she will be the one who sets a divorce in motion which will have the same financial destruction end result.

For the OP, it's difficult to get legal advice here, as things vary greatly between states. Best to get a consultation.


----------



## Elizabeth001 (May 18, 2015)

Sixty-eight...you are almost my divorce twin. lol Do you have a main thread?

BTW...I'm embarrassed to admit how many divorces I've been through and didn't get squat but an attorney bill. Both dads skated child support. One still owes me over 80k and my son is 23. I get $18 & change per month now. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sixty-eight (Oct 2, 2015)

Elizabeth001 said:


> Sixty-eight...you are almost my divorce twin. lol Do you have a main thread?
> 
> BTW...I'm embarrassed to admit how many divorces I've been through and didn't get squat but an attorney bill. Both dads skated child support. One still owes me over 80k and my son is 23. I get $18 & change per month now.
> 
> ...


haha!! divorce twin.

I think many of the women who are here because of an unwilling partner are in a similar boat. It's a different kind of man who really just doesn't want sex and doesn't have a good reason. 

i have a newcomer thread, and one where i outlined the details of our separation. 

Lurking here has helped me exponentially. I believe if i hadn't found TAM i might have stayed longer trying to work on our relationship by myself. These forums gave me the courage to admit i have done enough, and that continuing in my near sexless marriage was wearing me down and was unlikely to change. With Mr.68, there is nothing to fix. He has really never liked sex, and while he pretended to enjoy it while we were dating, i was too inexperienced to see it for what it was. I honestly thought it would get better when we married and bought all his excuses hook line and sinker for years. Now i realize that investing any more of my life is a big mistake. Honestly, i think we are both happier now, already; even though things are difficult.

Do you have any advice for me? Anything you would have done differently during the divorce in retrospect? I want to safeguard my kids, as much as I can.


----------



## Elizabeth001 (May 18, 2015)

I'm not sure. See, I'm a little better off than you because he and I do not have children at home. His 2 previous and my 2 previous are grown and self-supporting. I'll go through your threads this evening. Thanks for the links!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

