Change in Situation * Child moving back

[Lolita123]

Good afternoon,

I know that in the law, the 'first' family always has precedent meaning that, child support for child 1 cannot be reduced based on new responsibilities towards the new family.

But anyone has any idea on how the following situation would play out?

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.

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...

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...

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.

 

[rockscan]

Hes still obligated to pay support for his kids regardless of family one two or three. He is looking at hardship and that is difficult to argue and the entire household income will come into play.

The mother will still be obligated to pay.

Time to tighten your belts and make some savings choices. This is a good thing that his daughter wants to live with him!!

 

[Lolita123]

I never said that he would not pay support anymore... I was talking about cases when the amount can be reduced... and oh trust me... we are not big spenders... and our belt is pretty tight as it is... I also have kids of my own which are 50/50.. I get no child support since my ex and I make pretty much the same... and barely any Gov. benefits since our combined income is higher. When you take into consideration basic things such as mortgage, electricity, car payments, insurance, etc... in the end, the NET that is left to pay, the mother of child 2-3 that gets over $1200 makes $150 LESS than us... I also have my dad living with me as a dependant... so the standard of living test would not work for her... since in the end, with the money that she gets from the Gov.. and being in a low tax bracket... she makes almost more than us... combined... she has 2 kids.. we have 5 between the 2 of us plus my dad...

I am in agreement with you that IF she would want to live with us it would be a good thing... but I doubt it since it was offered to her before but we live 1 hour away from where she lives presently ... all that to say that we are looking at how we could make this work ... (and we would not say no based on that).. but looking at options since now, technically, her living with us would have a significant change on our budget...

 

[Berner_Faith]

I don’t see how the cost of her moving in would be such an issue... Dad would be saving $375 a month from the support he pays mom and plus mom would have to pay CS... which even if it was only $100 a month (which I’m sure it would be more than that), that’s almost an extra $500 a month. Things like mortgage, car payment, insurance, etc would not change. Hydro might increase, a little increase in food costs but the reality is having her there won’t cost more than $500 a month.

His CS amount won’t change if she moves in, seeing as he will have more disposable income


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rockscan]

You wont be able to argue to have cs reduced and saying its kids from second marriage means nothing. Technically they are now number 1 kids because first family child is living with dad.

He should have thought about this when he had more kids and then split again and took up with wife #3.

 

[Berner_Faith]

You wont be able to argue to have cs reduced and saying its kids from second marriage means nothing. Technically they are now number 1 kids because first family child is living with dad.

He should have thought about this when he had more kids and then split again and took up with wife #3.

I agree with this... I have always wanted a large family, at least 4-5 kids but when I married my husband I knew that would be far fetched... I have two amazing step children who are 12 and 9, I knew his responsibilities towards them when I married him... they live with their mother so he pays full CS... we just had our first child together 3 weeks ago... I realize this may be my only biological child because by the time I would want to have another his son would be getting close to post secondary, plus the children have other expenses such as sports, etc. So I have come to terms that my “large family” actually consists of two step and one biological child but I have three children and I am okay with that.

I will never understand why new partners look for ways to reduce their husbands CS... I mean I get it, it sucks having a large chunk of your household income going towards another household but that’s what happens when you marry someone with children. There shouldn’t be any “his” and “mine” all children should be “ours”... at least that’s the way I see these situations. Remember none of the children asked for this to be their lives


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rioe]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Lolita123]

I agree with this... I have always wanted a large family, at least 4-5 kids but when I married my husband I knew that would be far fetched... I have two amazing step children who are 12 and 9, I knew his responsibilities towards them when I married him... they live with their mother so he pays full CS... we just had our first child together 3 weeks ago... I realize this may be my only biological child because by the time I would want to have another his son would be getting close to post secondary, plus the children have other expenses such as sports, etc. So I have come to terms that my “large family” actually consists of two step and one biological child but I have three children and I am okay with that.

I will never understand why new partners look for ways to reduce their husbands CS Because sometimes in life the situation changes... whether it's a loss of a job, sickness or a new dependant sometimes things change that have an impact on the family financially... and having a child live with us full time would mean that we would need a bigger house cause at this moment, we only have 3 bedrooms... which would not work to have a total of 5 kids ... I mean I get it, it sucks having a large chunk of your household income going towards another household but that’s what happens when you marry someone with children. There shouldn’t be any “his” and “mine” all children should be “ours”... I agree... if you read the post below it states the total opposite.. that my dad and MY children are MY responsibility... We live together so to me everyone under that roof is OUR responsibility...

at least that’s the way I see these situations. Remember none of the children asked for this to be their lives And that is why we try to make it the best that we can for them and even if really money is tight because of the large amount of support, we still make a budget for him and his kids to do something special like going away for an evening for example...

 

[Lolita123]

He is looking at hardship and that is difficult to argue and the entire household income will come into play.

Thank you that is the answer I was looking for... and with the entire household income (and responsibilities) it would be clear that we are below hers... and not because we spend a lot cause we don't..

 

[rockscan]

Because sometimes in life the situation changes... whether it's a loss of a job, sickness or a new dependant sometimes things change that have an impact on the family financially...

Nope nope nope nope and nope.

He has three kids period.

He is responsible for those three kids period.

If YOU have a problem with it then YOU should not have gotten involved with him. And if YOU wanted to stay with him then YOU need to stop trying to get HIM out of HIS obligations. PERIOD!

My partner has lost his job, run out of EI, dropped his savings and still paid his child support and s7. Why? Because he has an obligation to his kids.

Your partner needs to deal with his problems. Will it be tight? Probably but others survive on less. I grew up in a three bedroom townhouse with five siblings. We lived on welfare. We survived.

 

[Rioe]

I will never understand why new partners look for ways to reduce their husbands CS

Because sometimes in life the situation changes... whether it's a loss of a job, sickness or a new dependant sometimes things change that have an impact on the family financially... and having a child live with us full time would mean that we would need a bigger house cause at this moment, we only have 3 bedrooms... which would not work to have a total of 5 kids

... I mean I get it, it sucks having a large chunk of your household income going towards another household but that’s what happens when you marry someone with children. There shouldn’t be any “his” and “mine” all children should be “ours”...

I agree... if you read the post below it states the total opposite.. that my dad and MY children are MY responsibility... We live together so to me everyone under that roof is OUR responsibility...

at least that’s the way I see these situations. Remember none of the children asked for this to be their lives

And that is why we try to make it the best that we can for them and even if really money is tight because of the large amount of support, we still make a budget for him and his kids to do something special like going away for an evening for example...

Most times in life, you CONTROL the situation. When you lose your job, is it due to your own actions? If it was out of your control, then you get your CS lowered appropriately and you search for a new job.

If you get ill, and can't work, same deal, get sick leave, get disability, get your CS adjusted to match your new income.

Don't take on a new dependent (remarry, have more kids, care for an elderly parent, etc) without planning on how to afford it.

News flash - not all kids have to have their own bedroom.

You love this guy, and that means supporting him through ALL his problems, including possibly making room for his kid #1. But kids #2 and #3 are innocent in all this.

Maybe it's time to look at that budget again. If they see their dad not being there for their half-sister, they're going to start wondering if he'll fail to be there for them when they need him.

Adjusting the budget, making sure CS is in line with current income, those are measures you take BEFORE trying for undue hardship. You can search around here, but undue hardship is HARD. You pretty much have to be still about to lose the house after trimming ALL the frivolities like the whole entertainment budget, cable, dinners out, etc.

 

[Berner_Faith]

I agree with this... I have always wanted a large family, at least 4-5 kids but when I married my husband I knew that would be far fetched... I have two amazing step children who are 12 and 9, I knew his responsibilities towards them when I married him... they live with their mother so he pays full CS... we just had our first child together 3 weeks ago... I realize this may be my only biological child because by the time I would want to have another his son would be getting close to post secondary, plus the children have other expenses such as sports, etc. So I have come to terms that my “large family” actually consists of two step and one biological child but I have three children and I am okay with that.

I will never understand why new partners look for ways to reduce their husbands CS Because sometimes in life the situation changes... whether it's a loss of a job, sickness or a new dependant sometimes things change that have an impact on the family financially... and having a child live with us full time would mean that we would need a bigger house cause at this moment, we only have 3 bedrooms... which would not work to have a total of 5 kids ... I mean I get it, it sucks having a large chunk of your household income going towards another household but that’s what happens when you marry someone with children. There shouldn’t be any “his” and “mine” all children should be “ours”... I agree... if you read the post below it states the total opposite.. that my dad and MY children are MY responsibility... We live together so to me everyone under that roof is OUR responsibility...

at least that’s the way I see these situations. Remember none of the children asked for this to be their lives And that is why we try to make it the best that we can for them and even if really money is tight because of the large amount of support, we still make a budget for him and his kids to do something special like going away for an evening for example...

That’s along the lines of what I expected your response to be. Truth is, his CS will not be reduced if kid#1 comes to live with you. Stop looking for a way to reduce his responsibilities and start looking for ways to make this work.

Honestly in the past 8 years I have been with my husband there have been times we didn’t have money for gas or bills and had to turn to my parents but guess what? We never missed one of his CS payments. That was always paid because those are his children.

Do you have cable? Internet? Cell phone? Do you go out at all? Basically if you pay anything above and beyond the absolute basics he will not qualify for undue hardship. It’s not about him making less than her or having less disposable income, undue hardship means you are about to lose your house. It’s very hard to prove and research would show you that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lolita123]

Nope nope nope nope and nope.

He has three kids period.

He is responsible for those three kids period.

If YOU have a problem with it then YOU should not have gotten involved with him. And if YOU wanted to stay with him then YOU need to stop trying to get HIM out of HIS obligations. PERIOD!

My partner has lost his job, run out of EI, dropped his savings and still paid his child support and s7. Why? Because he has an obligation to his kids.

Your partner needs to deal with his problems. Will it be tight? Probably but others survive on less. I grew up in a three bedroom townhouse with five siblings. We lived on welfare. We survived.

Well... that is your point of view.. that I am trying to get him out of paying for his kids... but there are instances in the law that does permit an adjustment in CS based on the situation of both parties.. and one of them is a lower household income... and that IS the case...

Also, your comment about my 3 bedroom.. I have no problem.. but the MOM 2 does... the 14 year old doesn't come over often since she doesn't like to share a room.. and the MOM 2 well she's not comfortable with the kids sharing rooms and keeps saying that if he cannot provide proper accommodation for the kids (to her standards) that she may go to court and push that kids don't get overnights unless they have proper accommodation... that is the situation with only 4 kids most of the time... so can you imagine if we have the 14 year old living with us... I know that really she can't do anything about the fact that we have to have kids share room.. but it's just to show you what we have to deal with... amongst other things..

 

[Lolita123]

the MOM 2 has a problem with the 3 bedroom.. and the 14 year old says she doesn't come often because she doesn't like to share her room...

I have no problem with it.. but there are mechanism in the law to make sure that if a situation that arises that was not foreseen causes undue hardship if the full table is awarded, well if that is the situation why does someone get blamed for looking at that option...

 

[Lolita123]

Most times in life, you CONTROL the situation. When you lose your job, is it due to your own actions? If it was out of your control, then you get your CS lowered appropriately and you search for a new job.

If you get ill, and can't work, same deal, get sick leave, get disability, get your CS adjusted to match your new income.

Don't take on a new dependent (remarry, have more kids, care for an elderly parent, etc) without planning on how to afford it.

News flash - not all kids have to have their own bedroom.

You love this guy, and that means supporting him through ALL his problems, including possibly making room for his kid #1. But kids #2 and #3 are innocent in all this.

Maybe it's time to look at that budget again. If they see their dad not being there for their half-sister, they're going to start wondering if he'll fail to be there for them when they need him.

Adjusting the budget, making sure CS is in line with current income, those are measures you take BEFORE trying for undue hardship. You can search around here, but undue hardship is HARD. You pretty much have to be still about to lose the house after trimming ALL the frivolities like the whole entertainment budget, cable, dinners out, etc.

trust me the budget is very tight.. we don't go to restaurants, we don't have any savings ... I use price match for my groceries.. I have 2 jobs.. he doesn't because it's not worth it since it would not help our budget but only increase the CS that the MOM 2 gets... and let me tell you that it's NOT going to the kids.. so many issues of holes in the shoes.. UNDER the shoe where you see the socks!!! holes in the shirts... clothes too small... anyways... all that to say that I feel like payors many times are expected to pay even when they have nothing left to live... how many times do you hear stories about father living with roommates and all or in small 1 bedroom apartments because they pay pretty much all of their pay in child support... cause if we would not be together.. really that is all he could afford...

 

[rockscan]

His ex cannot deny him access to his kids. She can go to court to try but it wont happen. And if shes that difficult then good luck with your child support reduction because he wont succeed and will more than likely pay costs.

 

[Lolita123]

That’s along the lines of what I expected your response to be. Truth is, his CS will not be reduced if kid#1 comes to live with you. Stop looking for a way to reduce his responsibilities and start looking for ways to make this work.

Honestly in the past 8 years I have been with my husband there have been times we didn’t have money for gas or bills and had to turn to my parents but guess what? We never missed one of his CS payments. That was always paid because those are his children.

Do you have cable? Internet? Cell phone? Do you go out at all? Basically if you pay anything above and beyond the absolute basics he will not qualify for undue hardship. It’s not about him making less than her or having less disposable income, undue hardship means you are about to lose your house. It’s very hard to prove and research would show you that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

well lucky for you, you had family to turn to.. I don't... and one of them I take care of... I would be a horrible person to not take care of my father yet, I am a horrible person to take care of him and trying to Steal money from CS for his kids... that is ridiculous.. Cell phone, I have one and it's provided by work... Cable... no.. we just have internet and we watch all TV and all on that... Also, it's for my 2nd job which I work from home so I need that to earn an extra income ... I don't even have a home phone... and trust me.. if this would go to court and the judge would say no it does not qualify.. we will pay... and I am not saying that the day after the daughter would move in we would file.. I am saying that if it does get to a point that we can't make it work... what is the option... my question was more what was the reasons to go and seek a lower CS based on undue hardship... People assume that the goal is to pay the EX the less money possible... and it's not... trust me... we pay more than our fair share... even things that are above and beyond the child support we help pay... even if really it should be the mom that pays for those things... but we do because they are our kids.. anyways... this post was not a debate.. and people are really quick on assuming the worse...

 

[Lolita123]

His ex cannot deny him access to his kids. She can go to court to try but it wont happen. And if shes that difficult then good luck with your child support reduction because he wont succeed and will more than likely pay costs.

perhaps not deny access but she can for sure make them not want to come over... she's great at making things up... and make them 'stay' like taking them to a special place and all that we can't afford.. and being that young well they do.. and then they call their dad and say that they don't want to make him feel bad but they would really like to go with mommy but that means that they can't come over for the weekend...

Dad not wanting to put the kids in a bad place says that he totally gets it.. loves them still.. and it's all ok...

she pulls that stunt once in a while when she's not happy about something... last time, was because he asked to change a evening access to the following day cause he had to work that evening on an emergency at work...

 

[arabian]

This sounds like a truly pitiful situation.

Dad shouldn't work a second job???.... IMO he should work 3 jobs... whatever it takes to provide a decent standard of living for all these children he has created.

... writing is on the wall though... wonder how long till someone else gets pregnant.

Jeasus... this sounds like a shit-show

 

[Lolita123]

This sounds like a truly pitiful situation.

Dad shouldn't work a second job???.... IMO he should work 3 jobs... whatever it takes to provide a decent standard of living for all these children he has created.

... writing is on the wall though... wonder how long till someone else gets pregnant.

Jeasus... this sounds like a shit-show

Of course working 3 jobs so the mom gets even more supports when she makes about 80,000 gross a year considering all the mom taxable income she gets from gov and cs... and being taxed on 34,000... yet the father works extra time to supplement his income to be able to do stuff with his kids on his time but nope... that would also go to the mom... ... how is this fair... the issue is not the amount of cs it's the fact that even when a parent decide to take matter into their own hands to generate more income the other one benefits from it ... yet if the other parent who has custody gets a job at 140,000 a year and the dad 95,000 well he will still be expected to pay the same amount since the income of the custodial parent is not taken into consideration at all... how is that fair.? The custodial parent can decide to take matter into their own hand and make more money ...and go on trips every month if they want yet the other parent if they make 1000 extra in a year well that custodial parent will make sure that the income is adjusted for child support purposes ... does that make sense to you ... it should be that the main job of the parent is considered but what ever they decide to take on after the divorce as a second or third job should not count..

And no worries dear... we are both fixed and ...so I guess that you are saying that everyone who had children with two different moms ..1 young add stupid but still stepped up...and then a marriage of 10 years with 2 children and they got cheated on should not get involved with anyone else ? Or only with people with no kids ?

I have 2 kids from the same father who cheated on me over and over again ... this man is a good man and has always been there for his kid...

Those children have a great standard of living ...at their moms... because the way the guidelines are made...look the way Quebec does it ..makes way more sense... both parent are taken into the equation and parenting time even less than 40% is considered into the equationequation-