DivorceNet®

'So perhaps the fact that he pays less because he has a new baby would reflect on your situation.'

It's not standard in my state, as subsequent children are not part of the basic calculations. But if an increase were requested, than it can be brought to the courts attention, and it would be subjective as to the amount they could/would reduce the increase. In the past, and to circumstances on how CS was figured, we have never made this request.

"That is ludacris...they have no such right. Again, think of a married couple, the parents "choose" the child's standard of living."

Sorry, but parents can only have such right in an intact marriage. Once divorced, it's not the child's fault/decision for the divorce, the child is the innocent party and therefore, it's rights must be protected. You forgot that divorce made the parents mad and retaliate one another by using the child's expenses as a weapon. As a result, the child will be suffered. Once divorced, the parents, if not agree between them, handed much of their rights to the court. Ultimately, it's the parents who chose to lose such right. If you can't comprehend that, then I'm not surprised of your opinion.

Herein lies the crux of the problem. In 80% of divorces, only 1 party wants it. Thus, one parent loses their rights due to the choice of the other.

You think that's ludacris - I'm still blown away by the legal concept of palimony. The fact that one's boyfriend or girlfriend is supposedly entitled to a lifestyle just boggles the mind.

Tali,

I'm not sure I agree with the sequence of the CS order being the end-game. Doesn't the creation of a second order create a change of circumstance such that the first order can be revisited? And if so, doesn't that go on infinitely?

I don't really see how having additional kids could financially benefit the father? There is only so much money and more kids means less each. Yes, there are idiots that have more kids than they can afford...married or divorced. You can't legislate away idiocracy. I am saying that it has to impact the existing children which is unfathomable to first wive CPs. That is only because they are taking a personal (and understandable) viewpoint. But, if you look at it as a third party (or, middle party in this case) it makes complete sense.

If CS is actually being calculated correctly as many people here erroneously assume, then the original poster would be financially better off if he had only 20% visitation of the first child. Because, then instead of paying directly to support said child he would give the money to the first wife in the form of CS (based on an order) and then second wife would get less. But, because he came to an amicable settlement with the first wife, and is a good father that wants his child with him as much as he can, the second wife benefits. How is this good policy?

Ya, Palimony is also ludacris. If you can't get the person to marry you by a certain point doesn't that contradict the argument of expecting lifetime support? It is sort of a verbal contract to NOT support in my view.

It is the attitude that dvd is expressing that irks me. Actually, what irks me is that because it is law, policy, or procedure, people take it and attempt to explain that it is "right". We don't have law, policy, or procedure governing the lives of married couples and their parenting, why should we have it in divorce? We only need the government to protect against aggregeous (sp?) behaviors.

dvd - no, I don't think the courts are doing crap for the children. They are transferring the money from one adult to the other who is free to do whatever they like with the money. If you want the court to step in for the child's sake, then they need to do it all (which is when I move to South America). The most annoying policy is this concept of "equal lifestyle" or whatever is it called. Of all of the things in the world that could cause a child psychological damage, living in a two greatly different homes is not very high on the list. If anything, it will motivate them to be successful in life.

For all of my griping, I don't have nor have I ever seen a good solution to CS calculations. However, I would first start with presumption of 50/50 custody and CS based on cost of living in the given area. Then, have the parties go to court to argue for any deviations from that. I believe the presumption of 50/50 custody would instantly reduce the number of cases in court and the associated dysfunction in the families involved.

"dvd - no, I don't think the courts are doing crap for the children. They are transferring the money from one adult to the other who is free to do whatever they like with the money."

Why must you equate "transferring the money" from one parent to the other is "crap"? You called it "crap", perhaps, based on your personal bad experience or wrongly preconceived, but most (NOT ALL) parents (especially CPs) have child's best interest in mind. You can't assume most divorced parent are just use it on themselve.

"For all of my griping, I don't have nor have I ever seen a good solution to CS calculations. However, I would first start with presumption of 50/50 custody and CS based on cost of living in the given area."

This argument has been debated many times before (brought up by Beaver, hope you are not him) and the presumption is not valid in MOST cases. May be it's in your interest, but not for most, and that's why it's not acceptable.

That is awfully presumptuous of you. I have been here longer than you, and it certainly has not been "presumed" not valid. I stated that I feel that the starting point should be 50/50 and cost-of-living...any scenario that you provide to contest that concept is simply a deviation, which is what I am suggesting the court could make given sufficient evidence.