Stepmom paying CS to bio-dad who pays CS to bio-mom?

[dinkyface]

I will be entering a common law relationship with the dad of a toddler. He pays CS to bio-mom, who has sole custody. Dad has about 35% access time.

If we split up 5 or 10 years later, could I become liable for paying CS to bio-dad or bio-mom?

What factors might affect this: Length of our relationship? Degree of my involvement (in time or emotion or money) as a parent? Whether we marry? Whether he gains sole or joint custody? Whether we have a child of our own?

Please, let's not discuss CS for the 2nd child unless it is a factor above - I think that is a different topic.

Thanks!

[standing on the sidelines]

I may be wrong but considering she has sole custody and you going to be involved with the NCP then she has no claim for CS from you later and neither does he. It may have been different if he had sole custody but as it stands I am fairly certain that you will not have to pay anything if you split up.

[singledad99]

I agree with SOTS. I don't think you would be liable for CS for his kid who is not in his custody.

The golden rule to remember is that its always the custodial parent who gets all the benefits and the non-custodial parent is there to be screwed. My case is exception. I am a CP but still am getting screwed.

[allay]

Sorry for the bad news but it depends on the judge.(Ont)

I went to court and it back fired.

I went to stop my cs payments bc the boys where of age. (19 +)

What I got

the judge used 4 children instead of 2 on the tables.

2 children first claw

2 children 2nd claw both under 8 yrs

Used spouses income to impute an extra $25

Then back dated all by ten years.

My lawyer said nothing but agreed with the judge.

If she told this up front i never would have gone to court.

Then there's the legal bill...

There is no way to clean this up, so we are going our separate ways.

Never allow the family court to see your spouses finical matters, I mean never. Never marry and always file taxes separate.
Couples can live under the same roof research this out.

If you do not have allot invested in him leave.

If you don't mind paying for his kid stay.

It appears courts are leaning to wards payor's household income and life style to figure out payments.

So yes you can end up paying.

[billm]

Originally Posted by allay

Sorry for the bad news but it depends on the judge.(Ont)

I went to court and it back fired.

I went to stop my cs payments bc the boys where of age. (19 +)

What I got

the judge used 4 children instead of 2 on the tables.

2 children first claw

2 children 2nd claw both under 8 yrs

Used spouses income to impute an extra $25

Then back dated all by ten years.

My lawyer said nothing but agreed with the judge.

If she told this up front i never would have gone to court.

Then there's the legal bill...

There is no way to clean this up, so we are going our separate ways.

Never allow the family court to see your spouses finical matters, I mean never. Never marry and always file taxes separate.
Couples can live under the same roof research this out.

If you do not have allot invested in him leave.

If you don't mind paying for his kid stay.

It appears courts are leaning to wards payor's household income and life style to figure out payments.

So yes you can end up paying.

Sorry allay, but I don't understand your post - could you clarify - whose kids are whose, $25/month, $25K income per year?,...

[allay]

1 st relationship 2 kids now 19+yrs (ex)

new relationship 10 yrs old, 2 kids with current spouse under 8 yrs (current)

Add $25K to my income (impute)

Used tables for 4 kids total and given credit to my ex.

I received no credit for having 2 kids with me.

Then back dated it 10 yrs ie I should have paid more bc my new cl spouse makes a decent living.
In other words should not have based it on my income.

kinda clearer now?

[dinkyface]

In a nutshell (I almost gave up on figuring out your post!) aside from my concerns about becoming liable AFTER ending claw relationship, I may also be liable DURING the claw relationship. Strange - the 'official' cs guideline indicates step's income is only considered if cs payee claims undue hardship.

Thanks for the warning and suggestion about taxes.

[got2bkid]

These kind of rulings are unbelievably unfair. The new partner's income is NOT supposed to be a factor in assigning CS, only the income of the paying parent. At least that is what the guidelines tell us.

Too many judges are over-ruling the guidelines and penalizing the paying parent's new spouse and children. It's almost as if the judges are saying "how "dare" a divorced payor have a new relationship and think they can get on with life?!" Grossly unfair.

[standing on the sidelines]

Originally Posted by got2bkid

These kind of rulings are unbelievably unfair. The new partner's income is NOT supposed to be a factor in assigning CS, only the income of the paying parent. At least that is what the guidelines tell us.

Too many judges are over-ruling the guidelines and penalizing the paying parent's new spouse and children. It's almost as if the judges are saying "how "dare" a divorced payor have a new relationship and think they can get on with life?!" Grossly unfair.

gotta agree with you. Unless the new spouse is rich (i mean like a millionare or something like that) and the NCP stops work because they do not need to work anymore.

[got2bkid]

Yes, I think in a case where a payor married a millionaire and quit working, they should impute their old income and make him/her pay CS on that.