Increased Access

[CCB]

Well it looks like it's in my husband's best interest at this point to leave his current access arrangement in place for the time being. Reason being - his ex won't budge on letting him surpass that 40% mark and if we press the issue, she could at any time re-open the CS calculation asking for the full table amount and apparently she need not provide any reason for doing this. She just added two kids to her family, so she might need some extra money, I wouldn't put it past her. How screwed up is that.

My husband finished his deployments (forever) in January, so he has more time available to spend with his 9 year old son. My question is in a year or two from now, would it still be reasonable for him to use that as a reason why he wants more access? At least 40%, possibly 50%. I think it's referred to as material change of circumstance?

Also, as the boy gets older, he is building a close relationship with his two younger brothers in our home and he is wanting to spend more time here. As he approaches the age of 12 years, could my husband use that as a reason for wanting to expand the access time he spends with his son?

I'm just confused about the fact that it seems like there has to be a huge life change take place to prove why my husband wants to see his son more. As kids get older, things change. The teenage daughters want to spend more time with their Mother, and the son will want to spend more time with his Father. If his ex-wife is dead set against this because she doesn't want to lose child support, then how does Dad make this happen?

[Gary M]

Oh my sweet goodness, that magical mystical 40% mark pisses me right the fuck off. Or, rather, "parents" who exploit it do. Oh well, that wasn't your question...

IMHO, no it would not be the same if he waited. His change of circumstances (no more deployments) has taken place now, and so the time to say "the reason I couldn't parent my son 50% of the time has disappeared and so now I would welcome that honour" is now - not later. A couple of years from now the reply will be "oh yeah? where were you two years ago when you stopped deploying?"

Just my opinion and it's worth nothing - but I think the optics would be bad should he wait.

Cheers!

Gary

[CCB]

I'm so confused and I really wanted to put this aside when my husband and I go down south next week, but I just can't stop thinking about it.

The conciliator in our case hinted very strongly that we should leave the access alone right now because the amount of C/S he pays is well beneath the tabled amount.

My husband's access right now is 39%. He has always wanted 50/50, but she has out right refused that from the beginning. We thought maybe 60/40 would be more appealing to her, but apparently her lawyer has cautioned her that it means that C/S will be reduced for her.

This really sucks, how do you access your kid more because you genuinely want to and not be made to look like you're just trying to pay less C/S?

[NBDad]

It's pretty much that you capitalize on a material change in circumstance ONCE it happens, or you (by virtue of your inaction) are agreeing to keep the status quo the same.

She could try the CS thing at any point ANYWAY, so that is ALWAYS a possibility. How much of a difference is it in CS payments? Is he paying close to what "offset" would be now? He could always use THAT as proof that the understanding was always that he would get more time when his deployments were finished.

Judges tend to be patriotic, so penalizing a father who was serving in the military isn't really their style.

The other choice is wait until the kid is 12-16 years old and is able to start having a say himself on where he wants to live.

[CCB]

His table amount is $1400 a month
He pays $800 a month
The offset payment would be ~$350 a month

[NBDad]

What if....he offered to simply keep CS the same for the time being in exchange for an extra day or two a month?

[CCB]

I'm sure that might be appealing, but then he's overpaying by $500 a month and our entire household is losing income but costing us more to have the kids there more.

Correct me if I'm wrong, at this point, I'm so confused, I'm thinking in circles LOL!

[NBDad]

Method to the madness.....bear with me...

Offer to keep CS the same for now. Then when it's time to recalculate the next time after you get the new order granting 40%....THEN you go after the decrease.

The kicker is to make HER look like she's all about money. It'll appear she sold you the extra time for the CS staying the same. Payment wise you are NO worse off than you are now, you get to settle out of court with her (avoiding a judge trying to reopen CS) AND get the extra time ratified by a new order.

After the ink dries, you wait a few months and THEN file for CCTB as shared. Then wait a few more months and THEN file to reduce CS.

[HammerDad]

I'm sure that might be appealing, but then he's overpaying by $500 a month and our entire household is losing income but costing us more to have the kids there more.

Correct me if I'm wrong, at this point, I'm so confused, I'm thinking in circles LOL!

You are currently under-paying by $600 a month, so why would the idea of over paying by $435 be such a concern?

What NB is suggesting is first getting status quo with a 60-40 or 50/50 schedule and then moving to change c/s.

Either way, it looks like this is mainly financially motivated to reduce c/s. I bet dad does want his kid more, but how it is being painted right now screams of money motives.

[May_May]

This really makes me mad when one parent wont' let the other parent have equal access. How about now that he is no longer going on any further deployments, he files for access/custody change and offers her EOW and 1 night opposite weeks ?

[CCB]

My husband is trying to see his son more, his ex-wife won't let him because...no reason...she doesn't have a reason, she doesn't want to lose the child support payment.

Things are further complicated by the fact that his ex and her husband will be posted next summer and they will be trying to move to ONT with the kids. So, we will likely be in court next year anyhow because she is adamant that she will be able to get a court order to move the kids, unless we can prove she's an unfit mother...yes, I know LOL.

The conciliator hinted to us that we should accept an extra two days a month for now, and 8 months down the road ask for another few days to bring us to 60/40 or 50/50 after everything has been "running smoothly". She didn't seem concerned about the fact that his employment schedule would have changed nearly a year before that time.

Unfortunately it is always about money in one way or the other, how can it not be? That's family law for ya.

[standing on the sidelines]

why is he not paying the table amount for the child support?? Is he under a court order to pay less due to travel costs or something??

[CCB]

That's the amount they settled on at their settlement conference in 2009. The tabled amount for child support is what a judge will order you to pay. If you come to an agreement outside of court, there is flexibilty in what you pay.

His lawyer prepared an undue hardship claim for trial which he passed, so he wouldn't have paid the table amount anyway.

[standing on the sidelines]

so he really isnt underpaying at all then. Just hope that there is no way it can bite him in the ass later. Never good to have something the ex can use against you later.

[CCB]

Unfortunately our situation is that he wants more time with his son, but if he pisses her off too much, she will file to increase his C/S as retaliation.

He doesn't want to reduce his C/S, he just wants to see his son as much as he can and pay what he's supposed to for that amount of time.

I can totally understand why some men say you know what, frig it. Let her have what she wants, I can't take it anymore. Because I'm a woman and I'm almost at that point LOL!