# Child support court results



## Houstondad

Hey everyone,
Just wanted to share a few things about my child support modification case:

1. Hire a lawyer. My EX hired a lawyer and if it wasn't for my lawyer's expertise and knowledge, I would have been taken advantage of. How?
- EX and her lawyer tried using her 2013 tax return as the basis of the CS. She started a new job in 2015 which pays considerably more. Also, we discovered they calculated it incorrectly.

How much of a difference in child support was it? The amount literally doubled.

2. She tried to argue she was in debt and needs child care. After my lawyer's cross examination, it was dismissed.

3. Airtravel. She spends $6000 a year in travel to see the kids and wanted to deduct that from the gross pay. It would have lowered the CS by $150 a month! My lawyer fought on my behalf and in the end, the judge awarded my ex only half the travel. Not what I was hoping, but it could have been worse.

Before the case started, my EX's lawyer panicked and wanted to postpone the hearing for 2 reasons:
1- Their miscalculation on the CS ( I really believe they were trying to sneak that through.)
2. My lawyer told him we knew that my EX's father was paying for her Airfare!! The lawyer panicked and wanted to subpoena her dad.

Luckily, the judge denied their request to postpone the hearing. And yes, you read that correctly about her dad paying the kids air fare. 
I discovered texts over the last 3-4 years that show her father paying for nearly all of the airfare back and forth for my children. My ex would put it on her credit card, and then he would wire her money to reimburse her. AND he also has been sending her additional money that matched her child support exactly.
So her dad has been paying my kids child support (including health coverage) and air travel expenses all these years. Roughly $24,000 a year. I'm sure many non-custodial parents wish they had a family member do this for them, but then where lies the responsibility?

My EX lacks the ability to accept responsibility. She's untrustworthy and in denial.

And once the judge made his ruling I walked over to her and told her that her dad had no business being subpoenaed by her lawyer and that he didn't need to be a part of all this BS. 
She replied that she's in all this debt because of the air travel, child support, etc. and how is she going to pay? I responded one last time before walking away by saying, " You know how you remedy all that debt, you can begin by living closer to your kids". 

Felt pretty good. In the end, the kids and I didn't get the full travel deduction dropped, just half. But my kids child support nearly doubled so we can live a more stable life, which I am thankful for.


----------



## MarriedDude

Very nice. 

Having a good or even great lawyer is the only way to go


----------



## Lila

> So her dad has been paying my kids child support (including health coverage) and air travel expenses all these years. Roughly $24,000 a year. I'm sure many non-custodial parents wish they had a family member do this for them, but then where lies the responsibility?..


While I'm happy to hear that your children will continue to receive the child support they are legally entitled to, I'm don't understand why you're upset about where the c.s. money is originating. Be happy that regardless of whether she can or cannot pay it, the kids are getting the child support they are do. Don't use c.s. as a tool to punish your ex w.


----------



## Pluto2

Wonderful.

Its nice to see kids get what they actually deserve from a ncp.
Here's to a fiscally stable year!!


----------



## Pluto2

Lila said:


> Don't use c.s. as a tool to punish your ex w.


He never has.


----------



## MJJEAN

How to save money and get out of debt for your ex wife.
1) stop paying lawyers for frivolous BS.
2) move closer to your children
3) get a better paying job or a 2nd job 
4) live within your means


----------



## Lila

Pluto2 said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't use c.s. as a tool to punish your ex w.
> 
> 
> 
> He never has.
Click to expand...

Then I hope he'll drop the dad thing. Take the money and don't worry about where it came from.


----------



## BetrayedDad

Lila said:


> While I'm happy to hear that your children will continue to receive the child support they are legally entitled to, I'm don't understand why you're upset about where the c.s. money is originating. Be happy that regardless of whether she can or cannot pay it, the kids are getting the child support they are do. Don't use c.s. as a tool to punish your ex w.


I kind of agree. It's inconsequential where she gets the money from as long as the kids are getting what they are entitled too OP. Just concern yourself with that.


----------



## Houstondad

Seriously Lila?
Bringing it up was to counter her argument that her paying for the airfare caused her to be in debt which as a result would make her struggle to make ends meet. But the truth is that she hasn't paid a dime for the travel, her father has been reimbursing her for it since the divorce. And if you knew the whole story, the fact is that she moved away to another state (before we divorced) which had nothing to do with a job. It was completely her choice....and ultimately her responsibility.

That was the only reason why I brought it up. From her dad's perspective, I get it. He feels bad for her and is trying to help his daughter (even though I feel it's enabling, but I have never brought it up with him, nor ever will).

And if I wanted to punish her, I could have made the ruling retroactive to when she was served back in October. She would have owed me an additional $2000. 

So you're wrong that it's about punishing an EX and I'll always believe that we should be responsible for the choices you make and I'll call your ass on it if you're lying.


----------



## Bananapeel

Glad the court worked out well for you.


----------



## MarriedDude

Houstondad said:


> Seriously Lila?
> Bringing it up was to counter her argument that her paying for the airfare caused her to be in debt which as a result would make her struggle to make ends meet. But the truth is that she hasn't paid a dime for the travel, her father has been reimbursing her for it since the divorce. And if you knew the whole story, the fact is that she moved away to another state (before we divorced) which had nothing to do with a job. It was completely her choice....and ultimately her responsibility.
> 
> That was the only reason why I brought it up. From her dad's perspective, I get it. He feels bad for her and is trying to help his daughter (even though I feel it's enabling, but I have never brought it up with him, nor ever will).
> 
> *And if I wanted to punish her, I could have made the ruling retroactive to when she was served back in October. She would have owed me an additional $2000.
> *
> So you're wrong that it's about punishing an EX and I'll always believe that we should be responsible for the choices you make and I'll call your ass on it if you're lying.


That would not have been punishment. It's what is right and proper. 

She owes it -she needs to pay it.


----------



## MJJEAN

Lila said:


> While I'm happy to hear that your children will continue to receive the child support they are legally entitled to, I'm don't understand why you're upset about where the c.s. money is originating. Be happy that regardless of whether she can or cannot pay it, the kids are getting the child support they are do. Don't use c.s. as a tool to punish your ex w.


He wasn't. 



Lila said:


> Then I hope he'll drop the dad thing. Take the money and don't worry about where it came from.





BetrayedDad said:


> I kind of agree. It's inconsequential where she gets the money from as long as the kids are getting what they are entitled too OP. Just concern yourself with that.


It's not about where the money comes from. It's about the exW crying poor to the courts in an effort to reduce her CS payments while she's actually getting her CS payments and her travel expenses paid by someone else in addition to her now higher salary. The now higher salary she tried to conceal from the court when she gave them 2 year out of date income information.


"_I discovered texts over the last 3-4 years that show her father paying for nearly all of the airfare back and forth for my children. My ex would put it on her credit card, and then he would wire her money to reimburse her. AND he also has been sending her additional money that matched her child support exactly.
*So her dad has been paying my kids child support (including health coverage) and air travel expenses all these years. Roughly $24,000 a year.*_"

Frankly, she has some nerve. She's trying to get her support lowered while her income has increased and someone else is paying not only the support, but medical and travel, too.


----------



## header

Houstondad said:


> And once the judge made his ruling I walked over to her and told her that her dad had no business being subpoenaed by her lawyer and that he didn't need to be a part of all this BS.


You had no business walking over to her and telling her that.


----------



## Houstondad

header said:


> You had no business walking over to her and telling her that.


It's possible that you're judging me by *assuming* my tone was scolding, but it wasn't. To be more accurate, I told her that I'm glad we didn't have to get her father involved with placing him on the stand because it's well-known that her father utterly despises lawyers and the court. 

Before making our way to the judge, my lawyer and I both agreed that if the judge felt the need to subpoena her father, that we would drop the text message discovery so we can avoid brining her father into this mess and get it over with.

Not sure what sensitive wound I managed to poke, but like I said, my tone was coming from *a sense of relief for BOTH of us*, instead of punishing or scolding. I was shocked she would even allow her lawyer to bring her dad into it.


----------



## MJJEAN

Houstondad said:


> It's possible that you're judging me by *assuming* my tone was scolding, but it wasn't. To be more accurate, I told her that I'm glad we didn't have to get her father involved with placing him on the stand because it's well-known that her father utterly despises lawyers and the court.
> 
> Before making our way to the judge, my lawyer and I both agreed that if the judge felt the need to subpoena her father, that we would drop the text message discovery so we can avoid brining her father into this mess and get it over with.
> 
> Not sure what sensitive wound I managed to poke, but like I said, my tone was coming from *a sense of relief for BOTH of us*, instead of punishing or scolding. I was shocked she would even allow her lawyer to bring her dad into it.


Were I you, I wouldn't feel sorry for her dad if he got hauled into court. He raised that monster. He keeps enabling her. He inserted himself into the legal drama by paying her CS and other expenses. If that comes back to bite him in the butt, so be it.


----------



## BetrayedDad

MJJEAN said:


> Frankly, she has some nerve. She's trying to get her support lowered while her income has increased and someone else is paying not only the support, but medical and travel, too.


The child support is based on her income level, period. So I agree with the fact that it was a snake move to try to use 2013's tax returns. I'm surprised she didn't get in trouble for trying to defraud the court.

However, if daddy wants to foot the bill then it's frankly none of OP's business. So people now are supposed to be punished for helping their kids out? 

That's crap. He's getting the money he's supposed to get based on HER income level either way. What relevance is it who pays?


----------



## Lila

Houstondad said:


> Seriously Lila?
> Bringing it up was to counter her argument that her paying for the airfare caused her to be in debt which as a result would make her struggle to make ends meet. But the truth is that she hasn't paid a dime for the travel, her father has been reimbursing her for it since the divorce. And if you knew the whole story, the fact is that she moved away to another state (before we divorced) which had nothing to do with a job. It was completely her choice....and ultimately her responsibility.
> 
> That was the only reason why I brought it up. From her dad's perspective, I get it. He feels bad for her and is trying to help his daughter (even though I feel it's enabling, but I have never brought it up with him, nor ever will).
> 
> And if I wanted to punish her, I could have made the ruling retroactive to when she was served back in October. She would have owed me an additional $2000.
> 
> So you're wrong that it's about punishing an EX and I'll always believe that we should be responsible for the choices you make and I'll call your ass on it if you're lying.


Although I don't post much, I do read quite a bit of the threads on TAM. I vaguely remember yours and do recognize that your ex-wife is probably a piece of work. I wouldn't want to be in your shoes dealing with someone like her, so for that you have my deepest sympathy. However, bringing her dad into your child support arguments is not productive as it would not have made a difference to the judge. You are kidding yourself if you think the judge ruled in your favor based on the fact that her dad was sending her money to pay for child support. 

The court system is already bogged down with frivolous suits. Could you imagine what would happen if judges began taking into account grandparent monetary support into child support arguments? Every time grandma buys the kids clothes and shoes could be consider a reason for reducing C.S. Every time the kids go over to grandma's house for dinner would be reason for reducing C.S. Every time grandma/grandpa spend any kind of money on the kids would be reason for a reduction in C.S. etc... It would be madness. 

Child support, at least in my state but I'm sure elsewhere, is based entirely on each parent's legal income. The reason being that "family subsidy monies" come and go at will. This isn't an income. It's entirely based on the generosity of the giver. If a judge were to take these subsidies into account, the courts would be filled with revolving door suits between the custodial and non-custodial parent. It would never end. Yesterday grandpa was helping out. Today he's not. Tomorrow.....who knows. 

The reason the ruling went against your ex wife is that she lied about her legal working income, plain and simple. It had nothing to do with the fact that her dad helps her out. Had you only had those text message conversations to go on, you most likely would be feeling the sting on a lowered c.s. payment. 

Now based on your last post, I may have gotten it completely wrong and it wasn't you who brought the subsidy from grandpa into the court.



> It's possible that you're judging me by assuming my tone was scolding, but it wasn't. To be more accurate,* I told her that I'm glad we didn't have to get her father involved *with placing him on the stand because it's well-known that her father utterly despises lawyers and the court.
> 
> Before making our way to the judge, my lawyer and I both agreed that if the judge felt the need to subpoena her father, that we would drop the text message discovery so we can avoid brining her father into this mess and get it over with.
> 
> Not sure what sensitive wound I managed to poke, but like I said, my tone was coming from a sense of relief for BOTH of us, instead of punishing or scolding. *I was shocked she would even allow her lawyer to bring her dad into it*.


I'm confused. Did you bring her dad, and his money, into court or did she?


----------



## Lila

MarriedDude said:


> That would not have been punishment. It's what is right and proper.
> 
> She owes it -she needs to pay it.


I completely agree with this statement.

Get every dime to which your children are legally entitled to.


----------



## 3Xnocharm

header said:


> You had no business walking over to her and telling her that.


Seriously?? Why is everyone trying to make her a victim here??


----------



## MJJEAN

BetrayedDad said:


> The child support is based on her income level, period. So I agree with the fact that it was a snake move to try to use 2013's tax returns. I'm surprised she didn't get in trouble for trying to defraud the court.
> 
> However, if daddy wants to foot the bill then it's frankly none of OP's business. So people now are supposed to be punished for helping their kids out?
> 
> That's crap. He's getting the money he's supposed to get based on HER income level either way. What relevance is it who pays?


She was claiming to the court she needed her support lowered because she had incurred debt due to the travel expenses. Travel expenses paid for by her father.

She has her increased income and her father paying her child support, her travel expenses, and her share of the kids healthcare costs. Yet she is appearing in court and claiming she is in debt and she needs her support lowered when, in all reality, she isn't even the one paying it or any of the other expenses. That's why it matters.

I don't care who actually writes the CS checks. I do think it's above and beyond ballsy in a bad way to ask the court to lower your obligation when you A) aren't actually the one paying it and B) are trying to lie about your higher income level.


----------



## header

Houstondad said:


> It's possible that you're judging me by *assuming* my tone was scolding, but it wasn't. To be more accurate, I told her that I'm glad we didn't have to get her father involved with placing him on the stand because it's well-known that her father utterly despises lawyers and the court. .


What did you hope to accomplish by speaking to her?

Having been through a messy, complicated, expensive divorce I've learned that the best approach is to speak to the ex as little as possible- and only about business and matters related to the children.


----------



## Houstondad

In hindsight, it probably accomplished nothing by talking to her. But my comment about airfare and debt had everything to do with living thousands of miles away from her kids and how my kids and I feel about her living so far away. 

Not fighting harder for the retroactive $ was my fault. Once the ruling was made and the assistant attorney general was typing up the papers, I brought it up with my lawyer and ag. They looked at me like I was someone who enjoyed inflicting further pain on my ex (who was an emotional mess at that point). My lawyer said I shouldn't because my ex was a hot mess currently and that sticking it further would make things worse in trying to get along in the future. Even the AG agreed. I had mixed feelings that I agreed it would make her more upset, but that my kids and I were not getting what we were entitled to. But it's too late now.

The next thing I'm going to say is I'd like to apologize for offending anyone in advance. It's not my intention, but only an observation that surprised me in hindsight.
One thing I felt was the bias (probably unintentional) from the lawyer, court and AG regarding the fact that further pursuing the retroactive compensation for CS is not in my best interests because of the current emotional state of my EX. I'm a male receiving CS from my children's mother and how I felt there was pity for her coming from many there. My lawyer and AG are both female and I'll always wonder if gender played a role. I really hate saying this, because I do my best to stay neutral on this topic. But I'll be damned that if the tables were turned, the outcome might have been different. In the end, it shouldn't matter if it's male vs female, what matters are the children, and that's why I have regret for letting them down and not fighting hard enough for them.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## arbitrator

*Congratulations, @Houstondad ~ Justice often prevails in some strange and mysterious ways! 

I am really surprised that in the Court's rightful denial of her lawyer not being able to place her Dad on the witness stand for questioning, that your own attorney didn't request to just cross-examine your W's attorney as a hostile witness; and when he started waffling and vacillating about their gross "miscalculation" of the work product expenses, as he, in most jurisdictions as an officer of the Court, can be turned into a witness, greatly provided that there is the compelling presence of culpability and he was a party to it! It would have been such fun for him to be waffling and lying away up there on the witness stand, just digging himself deeper and deeper into the hole with each passing question ~ truth be told, he would have probably been taken ill and asked for a recess.

Just a question: Does your child support come directly through your W, or does it come to you through the County, who enforces the support by having your W mail it in to them under the threat of a contempt clause? Texas courts often mandate that as a means of keeping child support payments current!

It just crossed my mind that if "Daddy" doled out the "geedas" for the kids air travel, and knowing that it is not illegal to do so, what's to keep him from doing the same for child support?

Given that premise, the real "kid" here is not your children, but much rather your XW!*
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Houstondad

There were only 2 cases that morning in the courtroom and mine was last. I spent the first hour in the court room watching her lawyer come over and talk with mine privately and then mine coming to tell me what they were suggesting,etc. It was similar to mediation and it was during this time that the discussion about her dad paying for the child support and flights were brought up. We didn't care that he sends her money, (even though I'm sure she doesn't file the 18,000 dollars during tax time), but to discredit her claim that she wanted a reduction in CS because she struggled to pay flights and CS and it would be impossible if the cost of CS went up.


----------



## Houstondad

And the child support comes from her employer via the Texas OFFICE attorney general.


----------

