Question about CS for 2nd family??

[representingself]

I am confused on the "2nd Family" issue.
Would someone please help me?

Scenario: (an example)...

Man and woman get married, have a child, then divorce.

Man pays $462/month for child support, based on gross income of $50,000 and CS Guidelines.

Same man gets married again, has a new child, gets another divorce....

So here is my question... How do they determine the new CS payments?

When calculating child support for the 2nd child, do they unilaterally charge the same Guideline amount based on his income, where the new child gets the same $462? So the Dad pays total of $924/month in CS?

OR

Do they automatically deduct previous support obligation from his income and THEN determine how much he has to pay for 2nd child?

(ie. $50,000 - $5544(1st CS) = $44,456 NEW Gross Income) therefore:

2nd child would get $410 while 1st child still gets $462,
So Dad pays total $852/month in CS?

OR

Do they take his income ($50,000) and his CS ($462) and divide it in half, whereas each child gets $231?

OR

Do they take his income ($50,000) base CS on 2 children in the "table" ($753), and divide that amount between the children, so that they both get $376.50?


Even asking this question is confusing, I hope what I am asking is clear enough

I am asking this out of sheer curosity. I am not personally in a situation where my ex has any other children, or even a wife for that matter.

After posting in a different thread, I realized my ignorance on this topic may be leading me to be incorrect in my assumptions.

If anyone can tell me how this system works, I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance.

[frustrated11]

I thin the 1st family still gets the full amount unless the NCP applies for a motion to vary due to obligations

and that the 3ns family gets the 367 a month based on the full amount of pre-taxed income (line 150)

[representingself]

Thanks for the response....

Does anyone else have any input??

[billm]

I will comment on what I think is fair, not what may/would happen in court.

It can be a complicated thing but it is best to start with what is the goal, then do the calculation to achieve that goal.

So is the goal that the two children in different households have the same standard of living? No I don't think so as this is dictated by what is going on in the house hold (one ex marries someone with more money than the other for example). It may suck that your half brother/sister has a higher standard of living but that is just the way things are in life - your cousins, your neighbours, etc all may have different standard of living.

So then I think the goal is that the parent spend a proportion of what a 'normal' person would spend if they were taking care of the child directly. This is represented by the CS tables, but the tables are made for the case where one parent takes care of the kids, and the other pays, and there are no other children, but it is a start anyway.

So the starting point is that the parent in this case pays the table amount for two children, then divide by 2 and pay that to each ($376.50).

BUT the difference is that raising 2 kids in the same home costs less than raising them in two homes, and this is reflected in the CS tables because as you add it child, you don't just add the amount for one child from the table, you add less.

So then perhaps the amount paid should be the single child amount to each household ($462).

BUT that ignores the fact that when you have more kids, 'normal' people have and spend less on each one, so then I think the fair solution is a number between ($462) and ($376.50). Maybe half way between (which is $419.25)? Anything other than half way between might be fair, it would require a look at how the tables were calculated, but to make it easy I say you would pay half way between half the table amounts for 2 children ($753/2 = $376.50) and the table amount for 1 child ($462), which is $419.25.

Note that I have 50/50 custody and if you add up what I am paying and look at our two incomes, I pay more than the tables suggest because it costs more to have the kids in two homes. We use the 'set off' method where we take my CS income amount and her CS income amount and I pay the difference - mathematically this means that I pay more than the table amounts say it costs to raise 3 kids with our two CS amounts, and that is okay because it costs more because there are two houses. Many people wiht split custody do it this way, so perhaps this is related to what would be fair in the case mentioned by the original poster.

(Here is the math for the above paragraph - let say my CS amount for 3 kids is 2000, and hers is 1000, then you might say that we should spend 3000 to raise our kids, or it costs 1500 in each household. Now I am to spend 2000, but it costs me 1500, so I pay her 500. She should spend 1000, but it costs her 1500, so she gets 500 from me and all is good. BUT with the set off method I pay her 1000 so that means that I am giving her double what the CS tables says it costs to raise them in the same house. So the set off method says it costs double to raise them in two houses, so now we are to spend $6000, $3000 in each house. I give her $1000 and spend $3000, so it costs me $4000 total. She received $1000, and spends $3000, so it costs her $2000. So from this method, extrapolated to the scenario in the original post, you would pay full amount for each child ($462). If anyone can understand this and can agree or disagree with my math or conclusions with this let me know. I don't think this is fair but that is what I am doing and so are other people...

[#1StepMom]

From what I've read, researched, heard, experienced... I think that in court, that father would be ordered to pay the guideline amount for 1 child based on his total income... for each child separately.

[singledad99]

From what I've read, researched, heard, experienced... I think that in court, that father would be ordered to pay the guideline amount for 1 child based on his total income... for each child separately.

It is so ironic...why the assumption is always that the father would be ordered to pay.....Does the law regarding CS only apply to fathers? I guess I should get used to it too, because it is starting to bother me too much now a days.

[representingself]

Ohh my goodness SD99...

Historically and statistically speaking it is almost always the father who pays child support. But the law applies to mothers too, in the right circumstances.

You can't let things like that affect you.
No one mean to get your boxers in a bunch.

But if you have an actual answer to my Child Support question, like an example of a case law, or a website that may have the answer, I sure would appreciate it.

[representingself]

Bill...

You totally lost me on your explaination...

I was actually thinking in terms of a sole custody situation.... I need to wrap my head around that first and then maybe we can come back to a joint custody scenario?

Thanks for your help

[Mess]

Ohh my goodness SD99...

Historically and statistically speaking it is almost always the father who pays child support. But the law applies to mothers too, in the right circumstances.

You can't let things like that affect you.
No one mean to get your boxers in a bunch.

But if you have an actual answer to my Child Support question, like an example of a case law, or a website that may have the answer, I sure would appreciate it.

I'm a male, my ex-wife earns 4x my income, and I have to say I find the statement about fathers paying bugs me too. My ex hasn't paid a penny of support for over 2 years since we separated. I care for my children 5 days a week and work full time and we're pretty much at the poverty line, she has a university degree and professional career with full benefits and a pension.

SD99 and I are free to get our shorts in whatever knot we want, thank you very much. What we're going through has us high strung, angry, anxiety prone, stressed and over sensitive. Sorry, but that's where we are. I go out of my not to make generalizations about women just because my ex is a deadbeat, so let's have that courtesy go both ways.

[representingself]

Unbelieveable...hahahaha

Of all the things to worry about, you get your knickers in a knot because #1StepMom said "father", in regards to a Support Payor??? Are you serious???

If you had READ theinitial post, the hypothetical scenario was about a MAN who paid support.

There was NO "assumption" made that the father would be ordered to pay. And I wasn't making any "generalizations", I was asking a question.

Ohhh and Boo freakin' Hoo if your boy feelings are hurt because in most situations, IT IS MEN who pay child support. Call a Spade a Spade gentlemen.

The FRO website www.goodparentspay.com has pictures of 25 Men on there RIGHT NOW, and and 1 Woman...

So you Mr. Mess are the EXCEPTION, not the rule, and you darn well know it!

[representingself]

Does anyone else have any answers or relevant comments on my initial questions? Your assistance is appreciated

[Mess]

Unbelieveable...hahahaha

Of all the things to worry about, you get your knickers in a knot because #1StepMom said "father", in regards to a Support Payor??? Are you serious???

If you had READ theinitial post, the hypothetical scenario was about a MAN who paid support.

There was NO "assumption" made that the father would be ordered to pay. And I wasn't making any "generalizations", I was asking a question.

Ohhh and Boo freakin' Hoo if your boy feelings are hurt because in most situations, IT IS MEN who pay child support. Call a Spade a Spade gentlemen.

The FRO website www.goodparentspay.com has pictures of 25 Men on there RIGHT NOW, and and 1 Woman...

So you Mr. Mess are the EXCEPTION, not the rule, and you darn well know it!

I can see why your marriage failed.

[HappyMomma]

Not to add fuel to the fire here but seriously - you're ex has an obligation to pay. Get her to court. Just because she's a woman means nothing - she is still required to financially support her kids. If you're not happy about it - do something about it.

[representingself]

Everytime I ask a question on this forum, I get bombarded by angry men because I am not "Politically Correct" enough.

[billm]

Unbelieveable...hahahaha

Of all the things to worry about, you get your knickers in a knot because #1StepMom said "father", in regards to a Support Payor??? Are you serious???

If you had READ theinitial post, the hypothetical scenario was about a MAN who paid support.

There was NO "assumption" made that the father would be ordered to pay. And I wasn't making any "generalizations", I was asking a question.

Ohhh and Boo freakin' Hoo if your boy feelings are hurt because in most situations, IT IS MEN who pay child support. Call a Spade a Spade gentlemen.

The FRO website www.goodparentspay.com has pictures of 25 Men on there RIGHT NOW, and and 1 Woman...

So you Mr. Mess are the EXCEPTION, not the rule, and you darn well know it!

I agree with you