Just read something interesting RE: child support.

[mathnerd]

I'm doing some research in an effort to determine if it's worth it to me to go to court to have my child support case transferred from my home state to the state I currently live in. In my reading, I came across some information that I thought would be interesting to discuss.

Apparently, in my state, while stepparents/domestic partners have no legal obligation to support the children of his/her spouse/partner, they do have the legal right to attempt to recover money they've paid in the support of those children from the children's other biological parent.

So, for example: I and my three children live with my boyfriend. He does not charge me rent or expect me to pay for any of the utilities/mortgage/insurance on the house. I do buy 90% of the food, but that's the sum total of my financial contribution to the household. My children and I cost my boyfriend a not-unreasonable, but still significant amount of money. We crunched numbers not too long ago and determined that his increase in utilities is about $150/mo, with some of that being rate increases, though most of that being the simple increase in use that four extra people would be. Also, it would be reasonable for him to ask for some amount of money to be contributed to the house itself. Extra people mean extra wear and tear, and things do need to get fixed when they break. Also, that mortgage and insurance are there as well, and while that would be a fixed cost with or without us, I don't think that anybody would think it ridiculous for him to ask for some sort of contribution to those expenses.

So, let's say that BF is spending about $400 per month on the care and upkeep of my children. According to my state's laws, he has the right to sue my ex-husband to recover that money (in the form of back pay for the months that have already passed and increased child support for me for future months.)

I'm curious what people think about this.

[Canarr]

Would that be in addition to any child support the biological parent already pays?

[mathnerd]

Yes, it would be. In my individual case, I can see it as a good thing. I only get $334 per month for three kids: a ridiculously small amount by any standard. My boyfriend has no obligation to support my kids, yet he does quite happily. He adores my kids and is more of a father to them than their "real" father has ever been, and he does what he does because he wants to, not because he thinks he'd be getting anything out of it. My kids mostly like him (there have been a few tense moments as we all adjust), and even introduce him as their stepfather.

As a general rule though, I don't know how I feel about it. I wouldn't think it would be fair to a non-custodial parent who was already paying a fair amount in support to be saddled with an additional judgement just because a stepparent had the resources to raise the children's standard of living. But maybe the law is on the books so the option is there in cases like mine, and allows the courts to sort it out.

[Shangri-laschild]

I could see this being good and bad and I wonder why they didn't instead just change the rules on child support so that the mother could get more. I'm not sure how it's calculated now. I'm curious about how this law came about. Seems it would work best for everyone if mothers just got more in child support because it sounds like with this, the only way to get more is to live with someone and have an extra income rather than living on your own with the children. I would think more people are benefited the other way around? You might check and see if the new state calculates child support different as well and might up the amount you would get.

[Canarr]

I'm uncertain, here. In theory, the court or another institution established the child support to be paid at a level the non-custody parent can sustain based on their income, right?

So, if the custody-parent found a new partner, possibly with more disposable income, who chooses to spend more money in the children than the non-custody parent could afford, then they'd still be liable to pay back that money, even if they never chose to spend it? That seems somewhat unfair to me.

To use the op's example: while 334$ certainly isn't much to spend on three kids, presumably their father isn't rolling in money? Now if your boyfriend chose to spend (exaggerated) 1,000$ a month on them your husband would suddenly be liable to pay that? In addition to the 334$ he's already paying? Seems excessive to me.

[mathnerd]

In theory, yes, which is why I'm not sure how I feel about this. In reality, people get screwed over all the time.

Going back to my individual case: home state determines chd support based on the percentage of the total household income each parent contributes. At the time of my divorce I was on medical leave from a very well paying job. My ex husband was working under the table and lied about it, claiming to be unemployed. As I was in the hospital trying to stay alive long enough to deliver a baby capable of surviving, I couldn't do much to prove he was lying. He was assessed the minimum amount they could legally order. On top of that, the order was originally for only the two kids who had already been born. At the final divorce heating, my lawyer missed that part and stipulated that child support was already ordered instead of having it adjusted for the birth of the third child. My ex husband makes far more money than I do. This is the primary reason why I am researching re-opening the case.

So I'm feeling a little bit like maybe this law is a good thing as long as it's not abused, but the potential for abuse is high, so maybe not.

[cewfa]

I'd say you had a crummy lawyer. From what you have said about your ex husband, I would have no qualms going after him for additional money. In this case, I think you have a legitimate use of the law.

[gremcint]

well is the 334 a significant part of his income or no? That's really the main thing that would affect the decision for me. I mean it's one thing if the guy makes a ton and pays so little but if he barely scrapes by it may be blood from a stone kind thing as well as it's not a good idea to piss off someone you share custody with.

[s_stabeler]

from the sounds of it, it isn't.

and to me, it sounds like this law is intended for situations like school uniforms- where the non-custodial parent should really contribute to the cost- and the situation is that the non-custodial parent refused to pay, the boy/girlfriend paid instead so the kid didn't lose out, and wants the non-custodial parent to cough up what they should have contributed in the first place.

IOW, it shouldn't be considered a supplement to child support as such- if it's used to generate additional income each moth for the custodial parent, it's an abuse, and you really should revisit child support.

oh, and on a related note, mathnerd, if you were screwed over in child support, if you can prove that your ex is earning significantly more than was revealed when child support was set, feel free to re-open the case. Do be aware though, that if he's enough of an asshole, it might mean he simply stops paying.

[Canarr]

+1 on the shitty lawyer. And I agree with others here: if you were awarded too little child support, then the right course would be to try and reopen the case in court, not try to use some loophole in a different law. Get that cheap, lying bastard nailed, but do it right.

In any case, my sympathies for your situation, and good luck.

[mathnerd]

To be clear, this was just something I ran across when I was researching moving jurisdictions for my case. I live in a different state now, so I was looking for information to help me decide if it's worth doing. There are other issues for me in deciding to do this. First and foremost is that the only reason I get child support at all is that my home state garnishes my ex's wages. He has never willingly paid support for his kids. I don't think I'd even use the loophole, but used my situation as an example.

I think s_stabler might have the right idea about what the law is for. For example, again using my own case, my ex is supposed to provide health insurance for my kids but he doesn't. That's in the divorce decree. If my boyfriend was paying for that, I could see wanting to try to recover that money, as it's something the ex is supposed to be paying but isn't.

As for my case, I really just want to take him back to court and get an increase in the amount, but I'm afraid if I change jurisdictions then the garnishment order would be lifted and I won't get anything for however long it takes to get another one entered. Right now, even the tiny amount I receive is better than nothing. And yes, I got screwed. I had a crappy lawyer and I was too sick in the beginning, and then dealing with three young children, including a very sick newborn, and wasn't on top of things towards the end. They used my full income, which was not insubstantial, and his claimed unemployment to come to this paltry sum. Even then he could have afforded more. He's an IT professional. His parents gave him a house, and said house is paid off. His wife has a good job. He could more than afford to pay a more reasonable amount.

[s_stabeler]

the garnishment order would stay intact, from my understanding of things- he still owes the money, so there is no real reason for the order to be lifted. HOWEVER, the garnishment WOULD need to be refiled to cover any increase.

ultimately, however, issues related to the garnishment should probably be discussed with a lawyer. For example, in an ideal case, a new garnishment could be filed for and granted before the next due date, in which case, it is largely irrelevant if it stays in force or not.

[Andara Bledin]

Just a note:

If you do decide to go back to court and change jurisdictions, talk to your lawyer about the potential to declare any agreements you made while sick as being potentially non-binding. You have to be of sound mind to enter into a contract or agree to same, and if you were on meds at the time it was all going down (or even an extreme amount of stress, which nearly dying and having a child hanging on by a thread would qualify), it could be declared that any agreement you made at the time might not be legally binding.

But that is the sort of thing where you'd really want every single duck lined up in a perfect row before broaching. Any potential backfire would be super-messy.

[Canarr]

Seconded - especially with regards to having this double-checked by a competent lawyer.

While I have no idea about US law on this matter, German law makes any contract that is successfully contested in this way null and void - retroactively. If US law is similar, this would then mean that mathnerd would be required to repay any money received on this judgement, ever, since the underlying contract legally never existed.

Of course, she'd then receive a hopefully larger settlement instead, which the ex would be required to pay. However, that doesn't really help her much if her ex's wages are under the table and thus not available for garnishing.

So, tread carefully.

[mathnerd]

Question though about all that: If the agreement is declared null and void retroactively, does that make the divorce itself null and void? It seems if one part of the agreement is nullified the entire agreement would be.

And I'm definitely treading carefully. There would be three states involved: Homestate, my new state, and ex's new (not really new, but post-divorce) state. The digging around I've done indicates that most of his income is under the table, but he does maintain a decent enough job to keep him from getting arrested for failure to pay. He's also married and the wife has a very good job. Some states take that into account and others don't. I'm not sure where either of the two non-homestate states fall in this matter.

Honestly, I just don't think it's right that he's getting away with this. He has zero contact with the kids. The last time he had any contact was on my oldest child's 4th birthday, and that was a five minute phone call. Before that it had been about 7 or 8 months. He hasn't physically seen his children for 13 years. I've reached out multiple times to try to get him involved, but he refuses. It's not fair that I have to shoulder almost the entire burden. It's been rough. Before I moved in with my boyfriend, I was in a homeless shelter. I've scrimped and saved and worked myself to the bone and I still can't give them the kind of life they deserve. He should be paying far more. He had these kids too. Why am I the only one who has to suffer?

Anyway, that's a bit of a tangent. I'm still in the research phase. I don't have a lot of extra money to spend, so if I hire a lawyer, I want to know there's a very good chance of a positive outcome.