Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GV70

:confused: :confused: :confused:

http://www.childsup.ca.gov/Portals/0...Calculator.pdf
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES
Page 24:New Spouse Income
"The information is used to calculate the tax, but is not added to the income considered when calculating child support payments."

---

As far as that reference is concerned it's a good one for using the calculator as it is not automatic that both incomes can be combined. But further in the document it talks about impuned income and that's when it can come into play. It must be by court order. Example : If an ex spouse were working as a secretary and then married having a child from previous relationship and decides to be a housewife ( domestic engineer ) and to dedicate herself to home and relationship ( i.e. quit qorking outside the home ) then that would not release the person from having a child support payment and for the purpose of calculation the new husbands income would be included. Same would be for going from full time work to part time. ( end example )

Marriage is a legal and binding contract and when 2 persons enter into it they also assume the wealth and debts of the other party. Unless somewhere it says that child support is always separate and never a part of a responsibility of a marriage then by the grounds that were formally stated any ex with a chip on their shoulder could sue because they don't think someone paid enough. There has to be an end somewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Concerned_DAD

Thanks all for your responces.The truth is:we waived all child support payments two years ago.I haven't paid child support for two years but it was our agreement.

---

And to you Sir. You should be paying child support until your child reaches emancipation. At a minimum put the monies into a trust for your child for collage or use for later in life. You have a legal and moral obligation to pay. And if you haven't been paying then the others are correct in what they say about collecting damages because you were negligent in your obligation. Your child's welfare should have been primary concern.

Hopefully questions aren't answered with lectures on this site. In my mind it would be a sure deterrent to asking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by purplewings

Hopefully questions aren't answered with lectures on this site. In my mind it would be a sure deterrent to asking.

---

There is often a thin line between the legal and the moral arguments - and I have crossed it myself.

Please don't judge anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

example : If an ex spouse were working as a secratary and then married having a child from previous relationship and decides to be a housewife ( domestic engineer ) and to dedicate herself to home and relationship ( i.e. quit qorking outside the home ) then that would not release the person from having a child support payment and for the purpose of calculation the new husbands income would be included. Same would be for going from full time work to part time. ( end example )

---

Second example:If an ex-spouse were working as a secretary and then married haaving a child from previous relationship and decides to remain a secretary,the CS will not be increased.If a person earns $3,000 a month and pays $ 750 as CS ,marry to a person who earns $ 6,000 a month the CS will remain same... and shoudn't be $1,750.

purplewings disagrees: I don't think it's up to you to tell me what to say. People don't come here for lectures.


Very surprised that you chose to post this as a "reddie."

Comments on this postpurplewings disagrees: I don't think it's up to you to tell me what to say. People don't come here for lectures.

First, may I call your attention to the guidelines for using the comments feature found here:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/feedba...ure-24951.html

I find this almost laughable. You don't think it up to Judy to tell you what to say, but you have no problem in telling her what to say. That anytime you post a public comment, ANYONE else has the right to add their own comment on what you posted as long as that comment doesn't violate the site's guidelines.

No, people don't come here for lectures, but sometimes, a lecture is an appropriate response to the question.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bEaUtIfUlbRuNeTtE

:)

---

English translation :

A person must make herself happy before another. Did you do it?


I cannot help it I am in love with me with emotion, on the spiritual level and physically. Confidence is the key with the fact of carrying out a good life with prosperity, the love, the respect and the beauty.

Link to online free translator :

AltaVista - Babel Fish Translation

[QUOTE=califdadof3]English translation :

A person must make herself happy before another. Did you do it?


I cannot help it I am in love with me with emotion, on the spiritual level and physically. Confidence is the key with the fact of carrying out a good life with prosperity, the love, the respect and the beauty.


I thought it meant: "Look - I can post a smiley face and speak French."

Thanks for the translation. (Interesting site - didn't know it existed.)

JudyKayTee, I apologize for responding with a rating. Didn't realize that was how this site rates, and you asked not to be messaged. If there is a way to remove the rating I will - let me know how. I wanted the comment between you and I and not as a post up for public censure. We all have opinions and no one of us is 100% right or wrong all the time.

BTW, there is another site that translates well also, and is free and immediate: I've used it for years. I used it days ago for this and got the same as posted above from Babel Fish.

Free Translation and Professional Translation Services from SDL International

Wishing you a lovely day.

[QUOTE=purplewings]JudyKayTee, I apologize for responding with a rating. Didn't realize that was how this site rates, and you asked not to be messaged. If there is a way to remove the rating I will - let me know how. I wanted the comment between you and I and not as a post up for public censure. We all have opinions and no one of us is 100% right or wrong all the time.



No problem - once it's posted I believe it's forever. The site is confusing at first, I agree.

As far as the "no private message" is concerned that's addressed to the lunatic fringe and you don't qualify.

Thanks for the apology, everybody makes mistakes... and welcome to the forum.

Where is the OP from? In my state, I could marry a millionaire and his income means squat as far as child support goes. The only thing considered (whether I were to work or not) is what I earn or am CAPABLE of earning based on previous employment and education. That is considered along with what BIO dad earns, or is capable of earning. (If he is holding a low paying job to get reduced payments he can still end up paying more due to his income potential.) And in my state, the cost of child care is a factor, although it doesn't significantly increase or reduce payments. Step-parents are not awarded damages for financial strain due to the cost of raising step-children. If you marry a person with a child you should either plan to contribute to the support of your new family, or have worked out the details of how finances will be run in the household before you marry. Besides, this man is probably just trying to blow smoke because he is angry at his ex/wife. Ignore it unless you are actually served.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Concerned_DAD

Thanks all for your responces.The truth is:we waived all child support payments two years ago.I haven't paid child support for two years but it was our agreement.

---

It seems to me this is the nut of the issue and several people here have not picked up on the legal point that GV70 has been making. Legally, neither parent can waive child support, no matter how much they agree. Support belongs to the child and is owed regardless of what either parent says. So an agreement between the mother and Concerned Dad that he will pay no support has no legal standing. You continue to owe child support; you just haven't paid it. That might be a surprise, but I am pretty confident about the truth of that. GV70 is right.

The reason that a mother (or father) cannot waive child support is that one parent could coerce the other parent into such an agreement. Since it is obviously not in the interest of the child, it is simply outlawed.

So the step father has a point if the unpaid child support was significant amount of money. Whether the step father can collect form Concerned Dad or the mother I have no idea.

I would be interested in knowing on what grounds you agreed not to pay child support. We don't need to know that, but I am curious to know what the reasoning was.

Good luck dealing with the angry step father.
Asking

That may be true but if so, why does the FOC have forms available for just that reason?
Is it there as an entrapment device?

My son had agreed to pay the mother quite a lot of money when she was having personal problems. They went together afterwards to Friend of Court and filled out the forms, that were then signed by the Referee. In other words he had paid all his payments to her and more -
A parent can pay support directly to the mother if FOC is not involved and that was how they decided to handle it in the future.

However, a few months down the road, FOC attached his bank account without any warning and took another several thousand dollars... Being a State Agency, there is no way he can even figure out what it's all about. No one on one communication available.

Is FOC friend of court? I don't know enough about the details of your son's case or your state's laws to know. I'm talking about an overarching principle of family law.

Child support cannot be waived (unlike alimony).

As long as the state does not have to provide funds to your son's children, the agreement can stand. As long as your son's family stays out of court, the agreement can stand. But once a judge becomes involved, he or she does not have to respect the agreement. And once the state finds itself paying anything to the family, it can then overturn the agreement and go after whichever parent owes money to the children. If the state has to pay money to the family, it will not respect any such agreement. It can only stand if the family stays out of court and does not ask for any kind of support from the state.

Does that make sense? I'm just saying the general idea. Obviously, I don't know anything about your son. I'm not implying that he's done anythng wrong! But I thought it would help you to know how the law thinks about it. Maybe FOC attached his bank account because your ex daughter in law made some claim for financial assistance? If she did, they would demand to know the name of her children's father and they would look to see if he was legally responsible for supporting the children. Even if they knew about the agreement--and it's possible they didn't--they could still ignore it. I'm just guessing wildly though. I obviously don't know what really happened.

I hope you are able to sort it out. I know how frustrating bureacracies are! But if you keep making phone calls, eventually you'll probably find someone who can explain what's going on. Sounds like you should get help from a family law attorney.

Good luck!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by purplewings

My son had agreed to pay the mother quite a lot of money when she was having personal problems. They went together afterwards to Friend of Court and filled out the forms, that were then signed by the Referee. In other words he had paid all his payments to her and more -
A parent can pay support directly to the mother if FOC is not involved and that was how they decided to handle it in the future.

---

I think he should assemble a written record of his payments to her, canceled checks and anything else he can find. If it was all cash with no receipts, it is going to be very hard to prove he paid her. Talk to a lawyer!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

Is FOC friend of court? I don't know enough about the details of your son's case or your state's laws to know. I'm talking about an overarching principle of family law.

Child support cannot be waived (unlike alimony).

As long as the state does not have to provide funds to your son's children, the agreement can stand. As long as your son's family stays out of court, the agreement can stand. But once a judge becomes involved, he or she does not have to respect the agreement. And once the state finds itself paying anything to the family, it can then overturn the agreement and go after whichever parent owes money to the children. If the state has to pay money to the family, it will not respect any such agreement. It can only stand if the family stays out of court and does not ask for any kind of support from the state.

Does that make sense? I'm just saying the general idea. Obviously, I don't know anything about your son. I'm not implying that he's done anythng wrong! But I thought it would help you to know how the law thinks about it. Maybe FOC attached his bank account because your ex daughter in law made some claim for financial assistance? If she did, they would demand to know the name of her children's father and they would look to see if he was legally responsible for supporting the children. Even if they knew about the agreement--and it's possible they didn't--they could still ignore it. I'm just guessing wildly though. I obviously don't know what really happened.

I hope you are able to sort it out. I know how frustrating bureacracies are! But if you keep making phone calls, eventually you'll probably find someone who can explain what's going on. Sounds like you should get help from a family law attorney.

Good luck!

---

Under very rare situaton child support can be waived. Most of the situations invole paying off the total amount in whole when there is little chance of deviation or in the case of overpayments then the credits can caus a child support case to be closed. In those types of cases the other obligations still remain ( health insurance and medical expenses of and for the child / children ). Also child support is intended for the child but in reality it belongs to the custodial parent to do with as they wish. There isn't laws that require child support to be used for only the benefit of the child. The only way waving child support is through the courts directly and not by separate agreement. The best interests of the children always must remain premier.

This wasn't my posting but you have helped me figure things out and I thank you for that.

Califdadof3 - "As long as the state does not have to provide funds to your son's children, the agreement can stand. As long as your son's family stays out of court, the agreement can stand. But once a judge becomes involved, he or she does not have to respect the agreement. And once the state finds itself paying anything to the family, it can then overturn the agreement and go after whichever parent owes money to the children. If the state has to pay money to the family, it will not respect any such agreement. It can only stand if the family stays out of court and does not ask for any kind of support from the state."
My son never married the mother of his child as they were both very young at the time. She later married and had two children by that husband.
She did apply for state aid after the agreement with my son, but I can't see how they could determine that amount was owed by my son while she had two other children living there.

Perhaps a family law attorney would be a good idea. Thank you Asking for you thoughts too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by purplewings

My son never married the mother of his child as they were both very young at the time. She later married and had two children by that husband.
She did apply for state aid after the agreement with my son, but I can't see how they could determine that amount was owed by my son while she had two other children living there.

---

"She did apply for state aid after the agreement with my son... "
What is relation between these two other children and CS which has to be paid by your son:confused: