View Single Post
  #7  
Old 11-28-2017, 10:35 AM
Rioe's Avatar
Rioe Rioe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,351
Rioe will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lolita123 View Post
Child 1: This child was born but no real relationship ever existed between mom and dad but dad as always paid CS... would see child every other weekend and summers... child lived primarily with mom.
So he has one kid. Kid lives with mom, so he pays CS for one kid. So far so good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lolita123 View Post
Child 2-3: those children are from a 10 year relationship. Now separated since 2 years... paying over $1200 in child support... on top of support for child number 1... This is also a situation of kids living primarily with mom due to distance between dad's residence and mom's residence...
So he decides to have two more children. Presumably his existing CS obligation was taken into account for whether or not to afford more children.

These kids now live with mom, who moved away. So he made a decision not to have more access and to let her move them, or at least not fight this move away which is the same thing. He pays CS for two more children on top of his previous CS obligation. So far so good still.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lolita123 View Post
Child 1 has been living with her grandmother for over a year since she doesn't like her step father (she's 14 and the step dad has been in her life since she was 3)... Dad had asked grandma if he wanted to get the support paid directly to her.. she said no... Now, seems like grandma will move and child 1 is stating that she may not be able to live with her grandma (not sure why) .. and that she doesn't want to go back to live with her mom...
This is where I start having trouble following. So he offered the CS mom #1 was getting for kid #1 to grandma, but grandma didn't want it? Did he keep paying mom #1 for a kid who wasn't even with her, or stop paying anybody altogether? Is that why suddenly having kid #1 with him seems like a bigger expense? He should have been paying grandma regardless of grandma's wishes, or at least saving the money, because that's his legal obligation. By the way, mom #1 should have been paying CS to grandma too.

Now grandma is moving away and kid #1 doesn't want to move with her. Poor kid! Hated her situation with Mom #1, found a place with grandma instead, and now that is falling apart beneath her. This kid just wants a safe home where she can be a kid, in her stable city, with her existing friends. She probably doesn't want to move in with her dad in another city any more than she wants grandma to move away or to have her mom choose a stepfather over her.

THAT should be the priority in all this, finding a good living situation for this kid and getting her life stabilized.

I also worry considerably about a situation in which living with a stepfather became intolerable for a girl as she hit puberty. I don't like what that implies. At all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lolita123 View Post
Here is my question. If she was to come and live with us, would this count as a change in situation and since his responsibility would increase having his 14 year old live full time with us, could a reduction of child support for the 'second' family be considered... He presently pays $375 a month for child 1 and other things as there is a need... Having her full time would certainly increase the cost since the mother doesn't make much money and not much support would be anticipated.
Of course kid #1 coming to live with her dad is a change in situation. Now, mom #1 should be paying her CS to the dad instead. Dad would not pay CS to anybody for kid #1. He now uses that money to support his own house as well as what he receives from mom #1.

Nothing else changes though. Why should kids #2 and #3 suffer because of the events in kid #1's life? There's no reason to lower their CS.

It doesn't matter that he now lives with you, your father and your own half-time children. Those people are your financial obligation, not his. The fact that you have financially teamed up with this man helps you both.

The lesson, as always, is not to take on financial obligations (ie, having more kids) than you cannot afford.

The priority here though, as I said, is making sure kid #1 makes it through this upheaval in her life as well as possible. Money is secondary.
Reply With Quote