Amending child support

[kelly001]

I have a question about amending child support as it relates to my brother in law.
He has been divorced for 13 years and at that time they had an agreement he would pay $800 per month.
Now his ex wife sent a letter from her lawyer wanting his financials back to 1998 and going after retroactive from that point. Is that possible to get retroactive. She also wants a life insurance policy with her as the full beneficiary. My brother in law is 48 years old and a diabetic and life insurance is basically impossible for him to get due to his health.
I can understand the child support being rasied to meet the child support guidelines tables, he now has my sister(she works) and her two kids to support and my elderly mother lives with them as well, i dont know how much of a factor that would be as i think there is a first family rule.
I know they are struggling to make ends meet now, and an extra 400 -500 would be from what i understand almost impossible to meet. I know undue hardship is virtually impossible to prove. For the record, his exwife makes more than he does, she is in the 150K range for income and he makes around 85-90K plus my sister makes around 40-45K.
Can anyone offer an opinion on what his chances are. He already just finished paying her an additional 21K as when they first divorced, he had the kids 50% of the time so she agreed to reduce the support to $400 a month and then came after him for the difference(he had nothing in writing).

I feel so bad for him and my sister. He is a great dad and loves his kids and has been paying his support, but what about my sister and her kids. Should the courts not take into consideration all the kids involved, not just hers.

[HammerDad]

Your mother and your sister and her children have no bearing on your brothers support payments and will not be considered at all in court. He has an obligation to support his children, and he should consider this obligation prior to taking on any more responsibilities.

The ex may be able to get his financials for 7 years, which is the prescribed length of time financials must be kept prior to being destroyed. While she may be going for arrears for the past number of years, it is unlikely she will get anything prior to her date of filing with the courts.

You mentioned something of his has the kids 50% of the time. Do you mean he has 50% of the overnights, or shares custody? If this is so, then c/s should be an offset amount with her paying him support.

The insurance is actually a good idea, however, I don't know if a court will order it. If he did get insurance on himself, I would argue that the beneficiaries be the children, and if they are minors, in trust for them.

[kelly001]

My brother in laws ex wife always had full custody on paper, but when they first divorced, he had the kids an equal amount of time, so they agreed verbally to reduce the support to half. His fault, he should have gotten it in writing, but he didnt. Years later, she came after him for the difference in support and got it.
I know there is a rule in principle about the first family getting first priority, however, he has a right to move on with his life.
I can see him not getting any break on the child support amounts as indicated by the support guidelines, but i dont think it fair she can go back for retroactive from 1998.
My brother in law has an appt with a lawyer on Monday, so i guess we will see what the lawyer tells him.
As for insurance, i dont' know how he can get any and i dont know how the court can enforce that as insurance companies will not ensure him, as he is diabetic and his age and weight are against him.
If he could get coverage, it would be an astronomical amount.

[billiechic]

She is not likely to get it, she waited over 13 years. The court usually doesn't go back more than 3 years.

There is no way the court can force him to get insurance, even if he could get it. And ABSOLUTELY no way they could stipulate that he make his ex the beneficiary. She's blowing smoke. Talk to the lawyer.

[HammerDad]

My brother in laws ex wife always had full custody on paper, but when they first divorced, he had the kids an equal amount of time, so they agreed verbally to reduce the support to half. His fault, he should have gotten it in writing, but he didnt. Years later, she came after him for the difference in support and got it.

What your brother should've been doing then was documenting the amount of time he was spending with the children, and when she reneged, taken her to court for status quo.

I know there is a rule in principle about the first family getting first priority, however, he has a right to move on with his life.

He has a right to move on with his life understanding his obligations to his children of his previous marriage.

I can see him not getting any break on the child support amounts as indicated by the support guidelines, but i dont think it fair she can go back for retroactive from 1998.

She won't get back to 1998. She MIGHT get 3 years, as it is the payors obligation to notify the recipient of any increases in income. It is more likely she will get from the point she filed with the courts.

As for insurance, i dont' know how he can get any and i dont know how the court can enforce that as insurance companies will not ensure him, as he is diabetic and his age and weight are against him.
If he could get coverage, it would be an astronomical amount.

As I said, it is unlikely the courts will order if it would cause undue hardship on him and they cannot order a provider to insure him if he is virtually uninsurable.

[blinkandimgone]

If he has the children 50% of the time and she makes more than him I believe she should be paying HIM child support based on the offset method. Technically he would have been overpaying for years and SHE would be in arrears owing HIM money, nto the other way around.

He should agree to produce his financials for the given time and she as well, this could end up working out in his favour instead.

As for the insurance, not sure how that would go. It would likely cost a great deal for him to get insurance coverage so not sure if a judge would order him to get it if it would cause financial issues. The children could be named the beneficiaries either way and he can appoint a trustee of his choosing until they are legal adults - she cannot force him to put her name on it.

[kelly001]

My brother in law consulted a lawyer i referred him tol. He told him to fax a copy of his pay stub to her lawyer and start paying the new amount right away, he said there is no way she will be able to get retroactive the most he said is 1 year.
I didnt think he would not have to pay the amounts, as set by the guidelines and rightfully so, however, her wanting to go back to 1998, is ludricous. So that is a victory for him. He was also told that once the kids reach university, he is only responsible for a 1/3 of the university costs.
He is very relieved as she already ripped him off for 35K the first time she went after him for child support when he had the kids 50% of the time. He got incredibly bad legal advice the first time.They are older now, and they only come over every other weekend.

[billiechic]

No, he is responsible for his proprotionate share of the children's post secondary education. In general the child is expected to contribute 1/3, so he would be responsible for his proprtionate (to income) share of the remaining 2/3.

It would only work out to 1/3 if their incomes were equal