Spousal Support for Men
- Thread starter dad43
- Start date
- Status
traumagirl
New member
you are entitled to it...
you are entitled to it...
I just went through trial with my ex in dec, and the judge's rulings were written Feb 1, 2010. We separated in late 2005. My income at that time was $60,000 and I gradually increased to $120,000 for last year. Ex made $115,000 in 2005 yet claimed less and less each year. I had the kids 80% of the time and got sole custody (whole other story).
Ex would have got spousal in the amount of $1,000 to $1,200 a month from me (for about 60 months) BUT because he contributed ZERO money to support his children for anything since nov 05, retro support owing to me cancelled out any spousal I would have to pay him.
The court did not approve of the fact he did not financially contribute to his kids big time.
Despite his claim of earning $55,000 and being able to solely care for the kids if awarded full custody (insert huge LOL here) less than 90 days ago in the courtroom, the orders come in and voila, he's suddenly 'not working right now' so he cant pay me support the judge ordered. Surprise. Not.
you are entitled to it...
I just went through trial with my ex in dec, and the judge's rulings were written Feb 1, 2010. We separated in late 2005. My income at that time was $60,000 and I gradually increased to $120,000 for last year. Ex made $115,000 in 2005 yet claimed less and less each year. I had the kids 80% of the time and got sole custody (whole other story).
Ex would have got spousal in the amount of $1,000 to $1,200 a month from me (for about 60 months) BUT because he contributed ZERO money to support his children for anything since nov 05, retro support owing to me cancelled out any spousal I would have to pay him.
The court did not approve of the fact he did not financially contribute to his kids big time.
Despite his claim of earning $55,000 and being able to solely care for the kids if awarded full custody (insert huge LOL here) less than 90 days ago in the courtroom, the orders come in and voila, he's suddenly 'not working right now' so he cant pay me support the judge ordered. Surprise. Not.
If the system applies the rules, you will no doubt be successful. However, I've been through enough case laws to say that because you have that thing between your legs, you may actually not get a fair treatment.
I many case laws where the couple have shared custody (50/50), and where the mother has a higher salary, the CS paid to the father is sometimes half the difference between the table amounts - which is actually the fair way of calculation CS in a shared 50/50 custody arrangement. However, when the father makes more than the mother the courts / lawyers will simply use the full setoff. While we may agree that it is somewhat more expensive to raise children in two homes rather than one, this has not been proven. The fact is, just because it would (may) cost more to do so, it doesn't mean that the money is available.
Going back to the "half the difference amount", in your case (based on a 146k and 41k income) her contribution (as per the tables) is $2993/month and yours is $939/month. The sum of those two numbers is $3932/month. That is the total amount that both of you should contribute every month to raise your children. Since you have 50/50 shared custody, you should both take 50% of the pot, hence $1966/month each. Since your contribution is $939/month she would have to give you $1027/month. That leaves her with the same amount.
Now, if we were to agree that it cost 1.5 x the total amount to raise the children in two households then the total amount to the pot would increase to $5898/month (that's a lot of after tax money!). As your contribution would also have to be increased by the same factor (1.5 x), she would have to give you $1540.50/month.
Using the full setoff approach and adding 50% would have her give you twice that amount at $3081/month [(2993 - 939) x 1.5]. To demonstrate how ridiculous this approach is, this last number ($3081/month) is more than the full table amount ($2993/month) that she would have to pay you if you had full custody of the children!!!
JDaddy
I many case laws where the couple have shared custody (50/50), and where the mother has a higher salary, the CS paid to the father is sometimes half the difference between the table amounts - which is actually the fair way of calculation CS in a shared 50/50 custody arrangement. However, when the father makes more than the mother the courts / lawyers will simply use the full setoff. While we may agree that it is somewhat more expensive to raise children in two homes rather than one, this has not been proven. The fact is, just because it would (may) cost more to do so, it doesn't mean that the money is available.
Going back to the "half the difference amount", in your case (based on a 146k and 41k income) her contribution (as per the tables) is $2993/month and yours is $939/month. The sum of those two numbers is $3932/month. That is the total amount that both of you should contribute every month to raise your children. Since you have 50/50 shared custody, you should both take 50% of the pot, hence $1966/month each. Since your contribution is $939/month she would have to give you $1027/month. That leaves her with the same amount.
Now, if we were to agree that it cost 1.5 x the total amount to raise the children in two households then the total amount to the pot would increase to $5898/month (that's a lot of after tax money!). As your contribution would also have to be increased by the same factor (1.5 x), she would have to give you $1540.50/month.
Using the full setoff approach and adding 50% would have her give you twice that amount at $3081/month [(2993 - 939) x 1.5]. To demonstrate how ridiculous this approach is, this last number ($3081/month) is more than the full table amount ($2993/month) that she would have to pay you if you had full custody of the children!!!
JDaddy
Thanks
Thanks
Thanks goes out to all that have replied. She has now submitted her affadavit and it is a total joke, she paints herself as "super mom".
She has all kinds of crap in there about how she was just wonder woman and how I contributed nothing towards raising the kids... what a joke. She's been away from home so much this last 3 years it's ridiculous. Who does she think has been raising the kids??? Does the judge see thru all this crap? How is anything thats occured in her mind 15 years or more ago have any bearing on the situation now? My thought is that she is trying to stop the entitlement thing. My lawyer says it is garbage and the judge will either ignore all that crap or look at it and push it to trial..... great! So that leaves me a 50/50 shot at success here? Very frustrating, as someone said if not for the thing between my legs this would be slam dunk if the roles were reversed.
Thoughts?
Thanks
Thanks goes out to all that have replied. She has now submitted her affadavit and it is a total joke, she paints herself as "super mom".
She has all kinds of crap in there about how she was just wonder woman and how I contributed nothing towards raising the kids... what a joke. She's been away from home so much this last 3 years it's ridiculous. Who does she think has been raising the kids??? Does the judge see thru all this crap? How is anything thats occured in her mind 15 years or more ago have any bearing on the situation now? My thought is that she is trying to stop the entitlement thing. My lawyer says it is garbage and the judge will either ignore all that crap or look at it and push it to trial..... great! So that leaves me a 50/50 shot at success here? Very frustrating, as someone said if not for the thing between my legs this would be slam dunk if the roles were reversed.
Thoughts?
Dad43, your ex just copied my ex's affadavit.
I hadn't even been seeking spousal, but she made ridiculous claims about working 60 hours a week, AND doing all the housework AND doing 100% of the childcare, to try to argue against paying child support. (Which wouldn't have worked anyway).
I had to respond with clear picture of how we split the duties, which included me leaving work at 2pm to pick up the kids after school and covering all sick days so she could focus on her career and change jobs every year. I had school records and work records showing I missed 40-50 days per year covering sick days and a letter from the school's daycare director that we'd pulled the kids out of afternoon care, saving thousands of dollars.
Because she forced me to respond to her crap, we ended up with a full description of me being economicly disadvantaged (I think that's the term my lawyer used) which was what leads to spousal.
The judge simply said, "If the genders were reversed, we wouldn't even be having this conversation". She (the female judge) immediately wrote an interim order both for the CS I had asked for, and the spousal that I didn't ask for.
Since her arguments collapsed at the case conference, she has been more willing to negotiate. She is still stubborn and will lie about the situation to friends and family, but she seems ready to sign a standard CS/spousal agreement, I will know for sure by next week.
I hadn't even been seeking spousal, but she made ridiculous claims about working 60 hours a week, AND doing all the housework AND doing 100% of the childcare, to try to argue against paying child support. (Which wouldn't have worked anyway).
I had to respond with clear picture of how we split the duties, which included me leaving work at 2pm to pick up the kids after school and covering all sick days so she could focus on her career and change jobs every year. I had school records and work records showing I missed 40-50 days per year covering sick days and a letter from the school's daycare director that we'd pulled the kids out of afternoon care, saving thousands of dollars.
Because she forced me to respond to her crap, we ended up with a full description of me being economicly disadvantaged (I think that's the term my lawyer used) which was what leads to spousal.
The judge simply said, "If the genders were reversed, we wouldn't even be having this conversation". She (the female judge) immediately wrote an interim order both for the CS I had asked for, and the spousal that I didn't ask for.
Since her arguments collapsed at the case conference, she has been more willing to negotiate. She is still stubborn and will lie about the situation to friends and family, but she seems ready to sign a standard CS/spousal agreement, I will know for sure by next week.
Wow!
Wow!
That's amazing! Sounds like we were married to the same woman!
Yes, she's amazing, cooks, cleans, does all the laundry, takes the kids eveywhere.......just amazing.
I've responded to all her items in her "fairy tale" with the truth on every point.
Good Luck next week, let me know how you make out. I hope I get a judge like the one you had.
dad43
Wow!
That's amazing! Sounds like we were married to the same woman!
Yes, she's amazing, cooks, cleans, does all the laundry, takes the kids eveywhere.......just amazing.
I've responded to all her items in her "fairy tale" with the truth on every point.
Good Luck next week, let me know how you make out. I hope I get a judge like the one you had.
dad43
dadtotheend
New member
You're kidding right? Do you really need this to be proven to you?
billm
New member
I would not think that I owed her nothing, to the contrary I would think that we both decided to limit her earning potential and not mine to raise the kids, so that should be dealt in a divorce agreement. That is what SS is for. Let's keep it staight, SS should be for the spouse, and based on the relationship between the spouses, and CS should be for the kids and based on their needs. At least that is the way I think it should be - don't mix SS and CS!
I pay my former spouse SS for damage to her career (but not for all the damage, she has to take some of the hit for that too!). I DONT share my income with her anymore, as we are NO LONGER MARRIED - but I do pay SS that is based on the PAST, not the present. My SS that I pay is purely compensatory, and not needs based. Just so happens in my case that the damage to her career was easily ascertainable and limited - so works for us, and she had nothing to do with my career (good or bad). So my agreement puts an end to our relationship, which is the point. Others may not be so lucky in that the career damage is pernament or hard to determine.
I pay CS based on our current incomes (AFTER accounting for SS) and our shared parenting of 50/50.
AND FYI based on my agreement, I actually had less NDI than my former spouse in the last year, DESPITE me earning more than her. That is because I made less money than our SS agreement used to calculate the amount of her career damage I should pay for and because SS is fixed in my agreement. This is fair because it was based on the past and not the present, and I am totally okay with that. What happens in the present/future does not change our agreed to (decreasing and time limited) SS payments. CS on the other hand will adjust as our incomes change.
- Status