Change in CS - what do you think?

S

stripes

New member
Here's another question on behalf of a friend who is not me:

Barney and Betty are the parents of teenage son Bam-Bam. Barney and Betty have been divorced for four years, their court order specifies joint custody and shared parenting (50/50). Child support is therefore offset. Bam-Bam has a volatile relationship with both parents, typical teenage stuff about rules and expectations.

In October, Bam-Bam had an argument with Betty about household rules (homework, chores) and went to stay with Barney. Barney and Bam-Bam came to Betty's house when she was at work and removed Bam-Bam's stuff. Betty objected to this and has made it clear she does not agree that Bam-Bam should live permanently with his father.

Since then, relations between Betty and Bam-Bam have gradually gotten better and they get together for dinner or on weekends, but Bam-Bam is still residing with Barney.

Barney wants CS to be recalculated so that he gets full table support on the grounds that Bam-Bam is no longer living equally with each parent. Betty does not agree, because the court order specifies shared parenting, even though Barney has undermined it by letting Bam-Bam live with him indefinitely.

Betty's position is that CS is based on the court order, which has not changed. (She points out that in the past when Bam-Bam got into arguments with Barney and wanted to move in with her full-time, she did not enable him and told him he had to work things out with his father, which he did).

Barney's position is that CS follows the child, and the child is at his house full-time. Barney says that he is not seeking to change custody, just to recalculate CS.

Bam-Bam is happy with the situation as it is (he gets to stay somewhere with minimal rules and expectations, but can hang out with his mom when he feels like it).

What do you think? What's relevant here? What would be a good compromise? What might happen if Barney took this to court?
 
the CS is based on a court order, but the court order should follow the reality - which is that a child is living with one parent. Note that the court order orders the PARENTS to do something, the child can laugh at the order and can freely wipe his ass off with it.
And why would mom get any child support if the father feeds/dresses/accommodates the kid?
 
IMHO,

Barney has to keep paying Betty child support until he files a motion in court to change their order from shared (50/50) to having Bam-Bam reside primarily with him.

Especially since Betty has made it clear she does not agree with the change and they cleared out all his stuff while Betty was at work.

Just because Bam-Bam wants to live with less rules and Barney wants table support from Betty doesn't mean it's in Bam-Bam's best interest.

Changing the status-quo after four years should be done either through mediation or a motion given Barney's willingness to sideswipe Betty.
 
YoungDad,

That's pretty much what I thought - the order is meant to be followed, not to be disregarded by parents whenever they feel like it, and there are proper procedures for seeking a change in the order. But I can also see Barney's position - Bam-Bam is de facto living with him, he is carrying all the expenses and so he should be receiving support for those expenses.

I have to say my sympathy is with Betty because I think Barney is a jerk, and that might cloud my judgment - hence my interest in finding out what others think.
 
YoungDad23 said:
IMHO,

Barney has to keep paying Betty child support until he files a motion in court to change their order from shared (50/50) to having Bam-Bam reside primarily with him.

Especially since Betty has made it clear she does not agree with the change and they cleared out all his stuff while Betty was at work.

Just because Bam-Bam wants to live with less rules and Barney wants table support from Betty doesn't mean it's in Bam-Bam's best interest.

Changing the status-quo after four years should be done either through mediation or a motion given Barney's willingness to sideswipe Betty.
Click to expand...

^^^ This.

Until the order is changed, the order is to be followed. If Barney wants c/s, he should file a motion to change the custody order based off of the current living situation. Until then, tough. If the situation really is as provided, and has been going on for sometime, the courts would generally rubber stamp it. And it is not unreasonable for Betty to challenge it as she has reasonable belief that the situation is not in the child's best interests.

Barney shouldn't be undermining the kids relationship with Betty, but you can't fix stupid. Some people can't help but take any opportunity to hurt their ex, even if it is at the detriment of the child.....which each instance normally is.
 
Great. So it sounds like Betty's best strategy right now is to ignore Barney's requests unless/until the order is formally changed. I too suspect that if Barney ever does take it to court, it'll be rubber-stamped because the current situation has been going on for so long, but Betty will at least have a chance to make the case that living with Barney is not in Bam-Bam's best interest (and there are plenty of other reasons why Barney's house is not a great place).

Also, given how volatile Bam-Bam is, the whole situation could flip-flop in a month and he could be back at Betty's door after another argument with Barney.
 
stripes said:
Great. So it sounds like Betty's best strategy right now is to ignore Barney's requests unless/until the order is formally changed.
Click to expand...

Careful, if Bam-Bam is over the age of 16 your friend could be racking up arrears. Everyone is very correct that Barney is a dolt but, the reality is if the child is over the age of 14 there isn't much that can be done to make the child live with either parent.

The best thing that Barney could do is send an official offer to settle for full table support. Then when that is rejected by your friend to bring a motion to change child support (15A) and attach the offer to settle to the case conference.

Some parents don't realize that judges will (and often) back date child support to the point in time a child changes residences. If the child moved because they wanted to and is in fact having a relationship with the other parent (as you suggested) there is no argument that it was under the influence of the other parent. (e.g. manipulation)

I would strongly recommend you tell your friend to talk to a qualified lawyer. You are not dealing with <14 year old children and you stated that Bam-Bam is a teenager. If over the age of 14 it can get very complex and your friend could be paying back money to the other parent.

Both parties are expected to be reasonable.

If Bam-Bam is living with the other parent they should consider what a court might order and the costs that come with being stubborn.


stripes said:
I too suspect that if Barney ever does take it to court, it'll be rubber-stamped because the current situation has been going on for so long, but Betty will at least have a chance to make the case that living with Barney is not in Bam-Bam's best interest (and there are plenty of other reasons why Barney's house is not a great place).
Click to expand...

If Barney brings it on a motion to change child support Betty may have to make a fresh new Application for a change in custody. Courts will not make children who don't hate their parents go live with one or the other parents. If the child is expressing that they are living with the other parent because they don't like them or have ill feelings... That is a whole different ball of wax. OCL or Section 30 will have to get involved. If the child is a teenager they could end up being 18 by the time it is all in court proper. Then Betty will be up the creek and really have to pay... if the child goes to college and remains a child of the marriage.

stripes said:
Also, given how volatile Bam-Bam is, the whole situation could flip-flop in a month and he could be back at Betty's door after another argument with Barney.
Click to expand...

Excellent point. Betty is best play her cards right. This could very well happen. Children of divorced parents in their teens are difficult for parents and courts to manage. Courts are reluctant to order children to live with a specific parent. It isn't like Betty doesn't have access to Bam-Bam and he is refusing to see her.

Good Luck!
Tayken
 
HammerDad said:
^^^ This.

Until the order is changed, the order is to be followed. If Barney wants c/s, he should file a motion to change the custody order based off of the current living situation. Until then, tough. If the situation really is as provided, and has been going on for sometime, the courts would generally rubber stamp it. And it is not unreasonable for Betty to challenge it as she has reasonable belief that the situation is not in the child's best interests.

Barney shouldn't be undermining the kids relationship with Betty, but you can't fix stupid. Some people can't help but take any opportunity to hurt their ex, even if it is at the detriment of the child.....which each instance normally is.
Click to expand...

I'm a long way from having a teenage son but just a few years ago I was the teenage son of separated parents (since I was 10).

There is nooo way my dad would have encouraged me to get around mom's rules by going to live with him. (never mind my mom would have kicked his butt in court if he had tried it).

I did go to live with my dad when my mom moved 40 km away, back to the town I grew up in. I was 18 by then and both my parents agreed it was fine for me to stay where I was going to school, working and all my friends were.

I'm trying to future think this scenario when my toddler son gets to his teens and even now both my parents (his grandparents) stress how important it is that I don't undermine my ex's rules for our son or be the more indulgent parent since she has primary residence.

I'd have to say I am working on being consistent and firm with discipline while he is with me because I can see he gets confused when things aren't predictable even at his young age.
 
Thanks Tayken and YD23. In this scenario, Bam-Bam doesn't appear to hate either parent, he just seems to prefer (for now) the less constrained atmosphere at Barney's house. Barney, unfortunately, is letting him drive the bus. Betty is smart enough not to go over to Barney's and launch a campaign to force Bam-Bam to be returned to her place. I guess if Barney moves ahead and sends an offer to settle, Betty will have to weigh the risk of losing in court and getting costs assigned vs the cost of paying full CS going forward (or until Bam-Bam changes his teenage mind once again).

This situation does indeed give food for thought. I've wondered how I would handle it if my kid decided she didn't want to live with her father as a teenager. She's brought the subject up a couple of times, asking if she could just stay at my place rather than going to her father's on transition day, and I've told her no, because her father and I have agreed that living with both of us is the best arrangement for her. I can't imagine saying "yes, of course, and let's sneak over when your dad's at work so we can get all your things plus a few of his". However, when your kid is complaining about the other parent, it's tempting to sympathize, but that's a temptation that has to be resisted.
 
So the mom wants to keep child support even if she doesn't have the kid?

She should at least not take the CS (not even talking about the fact she should be PAYING) for the time being since the child is living with the dad until the situation changes....

How low class...no wonder the kid doesn't want to live with her. Actions speak
louder than words...
 
Isn't there something about waiting six months to see if the situation is stable before changing CS to follow the child? If the kid is going back and forth on whims, having CS follow him perfectly is going to be very challenging.

This is very much like http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f3/police-called-what-rights-does-my-son-have-19001/ thread only from the other side. And on that thread, advice has been consistently to wait for there to be an official change in the court order.
 
Last edited:
Links17 said:
So the mom wants to keep child support even if she doesn't have the kid?

She should at least not take the CS (not even talking about the fact she should be PAYING) for the time being since the child is living with the dad until the situation changes....

How low class...no wonder the kid doesn't want to live with her. Actions speak
louder than words...
Click to expand...

Hmm but it was okay for Barney and bambam to sneak into the house while the betty was at work to get things instead of talking to betty first???
 
standing on the sidelines said:
Hmm but it was okay for Barney and bambam to sneak into the house while the betty was at work to get things instead of talking to betty first???
Click to expand...

The child left the mom's house and he wanted to get his stuff, the child has the right to get his own property. Speaking to the mom is besides the point she has no right to "his stuff".

This idea that children have no freedom of choice and are trapped by the orders of the judges are ludicrous. I pity the children of people that treat the kids as imbeciles with no right to choose where to live. Why do "adults" have the right to live with whom they want but children don't.

Also, its already been 9 months (as this all started in October).
 
The child took not only his own property but some of Betty's as well. He and Barney never notified Betty or discussed the situation with her, preferring to sneak in a back door when nobody was home. Who's low class here?

Adults have the right to choose whom they live with because they are ... adults. They are presumed to have more knowledge and good judgment than kids. In this case, Bam-Bam does not have a good reason to live solely with Barney, strong enough to override the importance of having an equal relationship with both parents. Bam-Bam went to Barney's because he didn't like Betty's house rules about cleaning up after yourself and going to school every day. In the past, he's tried to move in full-time with Betty because he didn't like Barney's new girlfriend and he thought Barney was "boring". It's in the nature of teenagers to get offended by minor things and want to get away, but parents need to rein them in.

If Bam-Bam had a strong reason for wanting to live primarily with one parent, and the parents sat down with him and came to an agreement about it, that would be fine. But letting his whims dictate where he lives is not fine. If he really wants to live full-time with Barney, Barney can initiate the process to change the order, explaining why this change is in Bam-Bam's best interests. Betty will have a chance to respond explaining why she thinks the existing order represents Bam-Bam's best interests.
 
The situation has been reversed in the past - Bam-Bam has turned up at Betty's house after a fight with his dad and wanted to move in full-time, and Betty has said no, we're sticking with 50/50 because you can't use me to get away from your father when you're mad at him. You have a relationship with him, you have to work it out. She's also called Barney to report what's happened.

(If there were something really major - if Bam-Bam were endangered or abused at Barney's house, Betty's response would probably be different, but we're talking run-of-the-mill stuff about curfew and internet use and back-talk).
 
You are missing something here.

I am not going to judge whether the kid is an idiot but lets ASSUME he is IS an idiot.

He is currently and HAS been living with his dad since October and we are now July 1st. This is 8 months.

In these 8 months she is legally obligated to pay child support - pointe finale!

Now, she doesn't agree with her access rights or whatever, then she can pursue that separately.

If she cared so much about where the kid lives she would have been in court trying to get the kid back or negotiating but I don't see how withholding child support is an effective tactic. She is officially below a deadbeat parent and clearly the money is for her and not for the child otherwise it would follow the child.

I would never let my kid leave me to go live with their mom so he get out of school and if you went to court and proved to a judge that is what was happening they would order the kid back, I guarantee.
 
Last edited:
The child took not only his own property but some of Betty's as well.
Click to expand...
If he took the mom's stuff (like what her kitchen spoons?) then yes that is low class.

I wont make too much of a big deal over coming when she wasn't home - he wants to avoid her and get his stuff. If he was a victim of domestic violence it wouldn't be an issue either and a

How old is bam bam?
 
She is not withholding child support. She is paying according to the order. Barney is not following the order by allowing Bam-Bam to remain indefinitely at his house.

Because this situation has gone on for a while, Barney may have good reasons to seek a change in the order. He would have to show that living with him is in Bam-Bam's best interests. Betty's position is that the existing order represents Bam-Bam's best interests. A judge or arbitrator would have to decide who is right.

If the judge favoured Barney's position and Betty refused to pay full support, then she would be a deadbeat. But at the moment, she is the one who is complying with the order that she and Barney signed. Barney is the one who is not abiding by it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top