DivorceNet®

ive gone over the child support calculator for california support issues, and im having an issue with it. i have a one year old daughter from a wife of two years. im to have our daughter 40% of the time. i make about 100,000 per year and my 21 year old wife does not work... too much time with her girlfriends. btw im 35. but i have a son who is 15 that i raised his whole life but now is splitting time between his mother and i. the issue with the child support calculator is that i cant find a way to input the cost of caring for my 15 year old. different mother , and we both just pay for him when hes with either of us, no support issue there. so....100,00 a year, 40% of time with one year old with soon to be ex wife, and a 15 year old with me half time, from a previous relationship with no support issue. how much do i pay for my daughter

so even if my son lives with me there's no adjustment for what it costs to support him? like his bedroom. private school costs?

"so even if my son lives with me there's no adjustment for what it costs to support him? like his bedroom. private school costs?"

I believe even if you didn't have an existing CS for your son, he will be counted in the CS formula for your younger daughter since your son still lives with you some of the time and incurs some expenses on him. You just need to provide documents of how much time you have with him. I'm not in CA but it happened in my case.

I looked at a CA child support calculator online (which is not as complete as the dissometer), and the only deductions allowed there were actual child support or alimony payments.

'I believe even if you didn't have an existing CS for your son, he will be counted in the CS formula for your younger daughter since your son still lives with you some of the time and incurs some expenses on him. You just need to provide documents of how much time you have with him. I'm not in CA but it happened in my case.'

That is interesting. In my state the child's expenses when with the NCP would not be taken into consideration at all, only if an existing CS order were in place. In my state, the older child's expenses would not be taken any more into consideration for calculation of the child support, than that of subsequent children in a married situation. In otherwords, the new support order being calculated would not be affected or reduced at all. I guess it is assumed that in a situation where no support is exchanged, each parent is providing while with them, not gaining or losing money from the other party. And same in a married situation where no support is exchanged, expenses are just paid.

for arguments sake if I made 100 dollars a day and it cost 25 a day to support my 15 year old son. they would calculate off of 100 not 75. in turn compromising my sons well being?

It doesn't work that way shotfun. They take into consideration there are other children, but it doesn't cost less to support child 2 than it does child 1.

I don't want child two to have less support. I just don't want child one to lose out

'for arguments sake if I made 100 dollars a day and it cost 25 a day to support my 15 year old son. they would calculate off of 100 not 75. in turn compromising my sons well being?'

I do understand your point. And I am not the best one here to advice you on California law. So I will have to comment in general.

Taking your line of thinking, it costs 25 a day to support your son. If that 25 were taken into consideration for CS calculations, leaving a net income of 75 a day for daughter's calculations, the daughter would receive less in support.

It is true that you have expenses for your son when he is with you, and the mother has expenses when she is with her. Both are expected to cover those expenses individually since there is no child support exchanged.

Now to give a little different example, my husband has a child support order from an earlier marriage. He and I have a son together. Our son has expenses. But those expenses do no come into the child support calculations for his first child. The ongoing debate right on this very board, is that the first children should not be affected monetarily by the subsequent children. Just as the debate could easily be reversed to your situation, with the first children receiving no support. The fact is, in my state the child's expenses are not recognized in CS calculation's UNLESS there is a support order. Then the court orders for the different children are calculated accordingly.

So now that I have lost you...lol. Yes, your son needs a bedroom, food etc, just as mine does with my husband and I. But just as you as the Dad are expected to pay for it without 'assistance', so are we. For example my husband's gross pay is used to calculate is support. The CS is subtracted from the net, 30+ percent of his net, and the rest is 'left' to support our family and our son.

As I said, I am talking in general, and CA may view this differently. Apparently DVD's state did. But just giving an overview as the thinking behind it where we live and what may be the case where you do as well.

"In my state, the older child's expenses would not be taken any more into consideration for calculation of the child support, than that of subsequent children in a married situation."

Then it's not fair. Are you sure about it? It's different between being responsible for all EXISTING children during marriage and creating new children (applied for both NCP and CP) since the new spouse knews before hand that such person aleardy is responsible for own kids. If he/she got into it, then he/she must accept the fact that the existing children be counted in CS. However, the newly created kids AFTER a divorce is at own expense and risk, therefore, they can't be counted.

For example: At the time of my divorce, my ex married to me and knew I already had own kid. Therefore, the kid must be counted. The same will apply to her existing kid if any at the time of divorce. There is no different between CP or NCP.

Now, if I or she remarry and have subsequent (new, not existing) children, then they are at each own's expense and can't be counted either for me (CP) nor her (NCP) for the CS of the set of previous kids at the time of our divorce.

If she will get divorce in the future, then her two sets of children must be counted for her next divorce. Only her first set involves with me. The same will apply to me. If I remarry, have new kids, and get another divorce, then the new kids are my own with new spouse and can't be counted between her and I.

I am pretty sure that I am correct, but having never having been in that situation, I could be wrong. If I look at my state calculator, there is no mention of children other than a place for 'existing' child support orders. Therefore, I don't even see (unless of decided by a judge) how the amount could be figured.

Forgive me as I am trying to wrap my mind this. In all the years I have been on this board, I never remember this issue coming up before. I want to learn.

Please explain this to me. Say that I lived in your state, and my husband and I were to divorce, and we split custody 60 me/40 him. We agreed to no exchange of child support. Then my husband gets remarried, has a baby, and divorces and a CS order is to be established for him to pay for new baby. Our son, first child in this situation is taken into consideration as my husband incurs expenses when he is with him. Now, am I figuring this wrong...or not only is my husband at that point getting out of a CS obligation for my son (of course we agreed), but at the same time in a way, getting compensation for his expenses through a reduced support for new child?

Belle, my state is the same way. It is only taken into consideration if there is a support or alimony order in place.

I wonder, if it's the other way around... I have a DD from a previous marriage, my ex has an order for CS, I get married, have a baby, and get divorced, and am to recieve child support from the other ex.

Now, does the amount I'm recieving via court order in child support from my first ex count as income when doing the calculation to determine the amount that the new ex will pay me for child support.

(This is a for instance, haha, I don't have a new future ex that I'm planning to have a baby with)

I am glad you are following me here...lol. It is confusing.

But let's look at this example. You have a DD from a former relationship. She get's support. You have a new baby, new baby gets support. I think this is different, in the fact that you would not be paying support for new baby, so the older child would not come into play in calculations. Now say you were the one who had to pay support to the Father for new baby, does your older daughter receiving support come into play? Can her expenses during your time, qualify for an adjustment off the amount you owe? Would her receiving CS negate that qualification?

I don't the answers. But the more I think about it, I am more than sure that our state does not take any children being supported directly by a parent, unless there is actually a child support order.

"Then my husband gets remarried, has a baby, and divorces and a CS order is to be established for him to pay for new baby. Our son, first child in this situation is taken into consideration as my husband incurs expenses when he is with him."

That is exactly what I was trying to explain. Yes, he must be counted for your ex's new divorce's CS since his next spouse married him when he was with a child already.

"Now, am I figuring this wrong...or not only is my husband at that point getting out of a CS obligation for my son (of course we agreed), but at the same time in a way, getting compensation for his expenses through a reduced support for new child?"

That's because you and him agreed to no CS, and since this is from your decision, you must accept whatever you think unfair/consequence to you as a result. Otherwise, you shouldn't have to agree at all and you didn't have to. He is entitled to count both children in his new CS for the new kid. Even if he didn't pay any CS to you, he still incurs expenses for your child, too.

"I wonder, if it's the other way around... I have a DD from a previous marriage, my ex has an order for CS, I get married, have a baby, and get divorced, and am to recieve child support from the other ex."

Yes, if ordered, and the calculation would include expenses (minus CS from previous ex) for your old kid since the other new ex knew in advance that you had a kid when that ex married you.

"Now, does the amount I'm recieving via court order in child support from my first ex count as income when doing the calculation to determine the amount that the new ex will pay me for child support."

Of course, it does count since it helped to reduce your expenses.

What state do you live in?

'(This is a for instance, haha, I don't have a new future ex that I'm planning to have a baby with)'

Yeah, me too...all just examples.

Wow...some of you have completely missed his point. And all of this nonsense about what occurs first or second is just that...nonsense. There is only so much money to go around, and everyone has to give and take. When a married couple "accidentally" has another child, do we allow the court to say "well, you can't lower the standard of living of the other child?". If I understand the posts correctly, several of you are advocating the parent suffer (i.e. lives with less money) when he/she "chooses" to have additional children, because it wouldn't be "fair" to the original child, AND, none of you would ever advocate the new child be deprived. Of course, the opinions follow bio vs. step profiles. Also of course, none of that would even be discussed with married families. We don't let judges or anyone else tell married people how much to spend on themselves vs. any of their children (or parents, or whatever). Somehow we accept that by divorcing we need a strict monitary system to run everones lives.

He asked a very logical question which points out the illogicalness of the support equations. Remember, the formula is trying to determine what portion of his income should be spent on new child. But, the formula doesn't even know how much money he has because it doesn't know about the older child.

Do you realize that after the formula incorrectly causes him to transfer a large sum of money to his new ex each month in the form of CS, that he can then go back to court with the first ex to get that CS revised based on the fact he has a new CS order with 2nd wife? If the numbers worked out, he could actually get the first wife to pay him CS which he then could use to pay second wife. How fair would you find that? At that point, however, the revised CS from 1st wife affects 2nd order and you go back to court ad nausem.

Bottom line is that no formula in the world will ever work.

No Don, nobody missed missed his point. It is quite relevant to bring to light the order of birth. All states are different and we are simply entertaining theories and trying to learn as why it is relevant in one state and not another.

And of course nobody tells a married family how to spend their money. Not what is even in question here.

And the OP would less than likely not see support on his end for his child (his daughter), if CS were to be exchanged. He makes 100k, she makes zero. The split in time is 40 to him/60 to her.

Right...no formula will work for everyone. My question(s) are how are these formulas derived? The theory that they are based on.

wouldn't this fall under "hardship"? On the state of California calculator there is a place to input other children supported.

having other children doesn't qualify for automatic hardships - not having a job, and having other children qualifies for a hardship - but doesn't make it so you can continue at full support of the child you want to support, and less for another.

I wasn't trying to say one state was more correct than another, or one situation made more sense than another. In all actuality I believe that having a calculator to figure child support is a horrible process. Raising children is never just an issue of plugging in numbers. What one child might cost to raise, another might cost half. Does a child with a parent that makes 100K a year cost more to raise than a child of a 30K a year parent?

I think Bell put it well, we weren't questioning why he was concerned with the older child, we were more comparing the differences in states. How about Texas where the only thing figured into the equation is the NCP income, and who provides health care.

I don't think there is an easy fix to child support, but that doesn't mean the system can't be improved on.

"What one child might cost to raise, another might cost half. Does a child with a parent that makes 100K a year cost more to raise than a child of a 30K a year parent?"

But that's NOT ONLY the purpose of CS. CS for a child is NOT just enough amount to raise ANY child in general. It depends DIRECTLY on the parents' incomes and standard of living, therefore, CS can't be the same for every child. It's because a child has the right to inherit his/her parents' wealth/incomes and standard of living and not just enough to survive while the parents are well off. If the parents are poor, then the CS will suffer, too (not enough to survive in some cases -> wellfare).

Yeah, good point DVD.

'I don't think there is an easy fix to child support, but that doesn't mean the system can't be improved on.'

Agreed.

I have a friend who has a step-daughter. They have her most of the time. The BF got re-married and had a baby. He petitioned, and won, paying less CS based on the fact he has a new baby with his new wife.

They are in CA.

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

That is ludacris...they have no such right. Again, think of a married couple, the parents "choose" the child's standard of living. Some parents sacrafice their own wants and needs for their children while others do not. Also, the idea that children would be harmed if everywhere they live is not "equal" is hogwash. Should I buy the babysitter a 50" flat screen so that my child doesn't go without?

DING...DING...DING...we have a winner!!!

Belle, My apologies to you. Your posts were all about the law and how it varies from state to state. But, I do believe the original poster had a valid struggle attempting to understand the logic of the laws, which is hard to discern. On any logical level, supporting the first child affects his ability to support the second child.

'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.

"As far as the rest goes, I suspect Dvd likes to be a devil's advocate in some arguements."

Let me make it clear that I don't like to be anything here nor playing devil's advocate. I'm just a normal parent who can have an ABILITY to see both sides of the coin. It's plainly my opinions and my understanding of the rational behind the family laws on how it is the way it is. Some people may disagree or do not like it simply because of their position and situation, not because their points were correct. Some only see on the surface of the issue such as: Why must I (NCP) have to send MY MONEY (CS) to the other parent so that he/she can enjoy it?
They just simply think only about "my money" and that caused them to infuriate at the system or their ex. Of course, there are certain minority CPs who profited from CS if the amount is significant enough to enjoy. But the majority do not. The reality is there is a divorce and things must be devided and the child's rights must be protected. Therefore, parents, NCP or CP, can't expect things to be as in an intact family, and either is forced to comply certain things each doesn't like to do due to the divorce.
In addition, those who complained about "sending CS" WITHOUT LIGITIMATE reasons must learn to think deeper than just CS. It would take much much more to take care of a child than in term of money (or not any amount of money can buy it), and only those who went through knew what I'm talking about and I don't want to list it here. If they think a little further, in case they only concern about the money doesn't go to child, if any left over from CS after expenses, it will be in the CP's estate and to be inherited by the child anyway.

Of course, I'm not speaking for those who got biased by a particular judge, and they have every right to complain. However, to use such general argument as "transfer wealth from NCP to CP" is flausible.

"I'm just a normal parent who can have an ABILITY to see both sides of the coin. "

You may see both sides, by typically, you don't relay anything but the side of the CP parent that doesn't abuse the CS system, and takes care of their children. Which is understandable, that's who you are.

I think DVD's opinion does not fit Tali's state (CA), as their statutes specifically state that CS is for equalizing the incomes in the 2 non-intact households. I've also found DVD's posts to be very slanted towards the CP.

"you don't relay anything but the side of the CP parent that doesn't abuse the CS system"

Not neccessarily. Just because one is a CP or a NCP doesn't mean he/she can't relay or see the other side's point of view. Some do, some don't. I'm just not one of those who blindly defend own position at all costs. Sometimes, I defended a helpless NCP, other times, I defended a CP's point of view. To put it simply, I defend whatever I think is right regardless. Of course, we are human and I can't say that I'm not without infuence of own position. The important point is when I addressed a particular issue, I TRIED hard not to be influenced by it.

My point DVD isn't that you haven't EVER stuck up for a NCP, my point was that from what I've read of your posts/responses, you typically side with the CP, you typically have the opinion that is in line with the typical CP. I'm not saying you are right or wrong, I even called you a good father. My point was that you typically take the side of the Custodial Parent IMO.

When you say "take side" in general, it implies "blindedly" taking side which I'm not (you can believe so if you like). If what you called "taking side" were for the right reason, then so be it regardless of how often. Of course, one will always pay more attentions close to home and heart, and there is nothing wrong with that as long as being fair and subjective.

You win. I give up.

I've always thought of DVD's way of thinking to be like my ex....who said to me during the divorce, even though I had been the primary parent while married: "Why do you want shared custody. Don't you get it? Moms get custody and Dads pay."

Fortunately, DVD has me on ignore, so he/she doesn't read any of my posts, which is a good thing. Clearly, we have opposite opinions when it comes to most family law issues.

That's ok, I have him/her on ignore - because even as a CP - i quite often disagree with him.

And just for the record - I follow with EngineerDon on this one. I am not comfortable with my state's "Equalize the Household's Incomes" theory either. While I do support some of its elements - such as influencing the amount of child support based on the amount of time with the child, and allowing for shared costs of medical expenses; I think that it is very difficult to use a "one size fits all" glove approach to setting amounts.

The only problem is - I'm still waiting to see a plan that is better. I'm not sure we should sit around waiting for state legislators to come up with a solution. If someone were to find a better option, it could be tested through marriage settlement agreements to see if it works better. I wonder what might be the next evolution for child support plans?

"That's ok, I have him/her on ignore "

Please, use private message for this kind of "discussion".

Hmmm....DVD has me on ignore...and publicly posted so. Oh well.