[ScottGem]

In my opinion, and this is just my opinion, I'm sure others would disagree with me, but.... his income should not have anything to do with it.

I'm going to disagree with you. A woman marries a man with the idea that he will support the family ans she will provide a home. I know this is a stereotype and there are other ways this can go, but this is often the case. So if the marriage breaks up, very often the wife and mother is forced to get a job without a lot of training and experience. In such a case, it is certainly fair for the father to contribute more towards the children's care.

But if we just look at the OP's specific situation, what seems to have happened here, is the father said, look, I'll pay for an attorney who will handle everything. That attorney represented his interest not the mother's and the mother wound up on the short end of the stick.

In this case, BOTH their incomes should be considered. They should each contribute the same PERCENTAGE of income towards the childrenb's care. That is the equitable arrangement. If there incomes are equal then it's a wash. But if one earns more than the other, then they should contribute more and their share should be offset by what the other pays.

[cntrlof1sdestny]

"We both support them and love them. Its just not equally. Children are not cheap and he makes enough money to provide for them without me. So then why does he ask me for money for this and that for things they do in his care...and then try to make me feel like a peice of crap Mom if I dont run him out a check???"

I am not doubting that you love your children, and trust me, I realize just how expensive they can be as I am a single mother of 2. No money should change hands except for items which are necessities such as clothes, shoes, school supplies, etc. You shouldn't be giving him money for any extra-curricular activities, and if you are, STOP! Let him know that you cannot afford the extras, and if he can, then more power to him.

[Amandalyn]

This is the part I don't understand. At the very least, if you each have the children half the time, then you should each pay for the children only when they are in each's care. You should not be giving him money and vice versa.

If you do give him money I don't see why, unless its ordered by a court and if it is ordered by a court them you got the short end of the stick. So you are right to go back to the court for a modification.

Well he does not give me money EVER. But I have lots of checks I have wrote him that I am taking to court with me.

[cntrlof1sdestny]

[QUOTE=ScottGem]I'm going to disagree with you. A woman marries a man with the idea that he will support the family ans she will provide a home. I know this is a stereotype and there are other ways this can go, but this is often the case. So if the marriage breaks up, very often the wife and mother is forced to get a job without a lot of training and experience. In such a case, it is certainly fair for the father to contribute more towards the children's care.

Sorry Scott, but I think you just may have offended a ton of the ladies on this site.
1. Get in the 21st Century. I know our salaries are still not equal to that of men's, but what twenty or thirtysomething year-old woman do YOU know who recently got married with the intention of being "taken care of."... sounds nice and wonderful, but this isn't the 50's anymore and really doesn't happen.
2. If what you said IS the case, why didn't she get alimony in the divorce?
3. Why is she bringing this up now, because he is remarried?
4. Why wasn't she willing to spend $800 on an attorney before?
5. If money is that tight, why in the heck did she have another baby? That was pretty irresponsible in the first place, and what kind of message is she sending the children by getting pregnant out of wedlock?

[JudyKayTee]

Ok I will help you understand. The father does not have to pay for EVERYTHING when the children are in his care. Do you understand that now? Ok good. He gave me three of his kids and then left me. I never worked when him and i were together. I took care of the children...I still do provide for my children. All he does is work and leave them with Stepmom...while I work too. Plus he asks me for money all the time and his income is so much higher than mine. Is that fair?

Once again - argumentative. Can't explain herself with the "do you understand that now?" sarcasm.

Also somewhere along the way the needing to spend time with the children has gone away and the post is all about support -

Speaking for myself only - I never thought the support was fair. It was the visitation/custody that I had problems with, particularly because custody became an issue after 4 years, after the stepmother appeared on the scene.

[stinawords]

"We both support them and love them. Its just not equally. Children are not cheap and he makes enough money to provide for them without me. So then why does he ask me for money for this and that for things they do in his care...and then try to make me feel like a peice of crap Mom if I dont run him out a check???"

Don't let him make you feel like a piece of crap mom. I still firmly believe that necessities should be split equally. The extra things he wants to do like soccer (just a random extra thing I though of) he should pay for. When they are in his care the expenses are his problem don't give him any money! When they are in your care the expense is on you. While I don't think you should give him anymoney (unless he does the cloths/school shopping) I still find it hard to want him to have to pay for you to want to cut back to part time rather than you finding a better job so you will be more stable. There is also another baby on your plate that adds to your expenses that he didn't father which was also a decision that you made. While I'm not saying you aren't allowed to have as many children as you want I do think the responsible thing is to only have as many as you can afford. I have kids too no one will argue that they are expensive but as was pointed out before it dosen't seem like you had any of these problems before he got remarried.

[JudyKayTee]

I'm going to disagree with you. A woman marries a man with the idea that he will support the family ans she will provide a home. I know this is a stereotype and there are other ways this can go, but this is often the case. So if the marriage breaks up, very often the wife and mother is forced to get a job without a lot of training and experience. In such a case, it is certainly fair for the father to contribute more towards the children's care.

But if we just look at the OP's specific situation, what seems to have happened here, is the father said, look, I'll pay for an attorney who will handle everything. That attorney represented his interest not the mother's and the mother wound up on the short end of the stick.

In this case, BOTH their incomes should be considered. they should each contribute the same PERCENTAGE of income towards the childrenb's care. That is the equitable arrangement. If there incomes are equal then its a wash. But if one earns more than the other, then they should contribute more and their share should be offset by what the other pays.

As far as BOTH incomes being considered - here's my problem with that. The OP has already said she would reduce her work hours in order to spend time with her children. That obviously and automatically reduces her income.

I don't know how the Court would make the situation equitable - women have posted that their "ex's" work off the books, work part-time, do whatever it takes to reduce the child support obligation. Women also do the same thing.

As I said - I don't know how the Court would order and supervise either party working to his/her full potential but it seems this is a flaw in the legal system.

If the OP and her "ex" had not had this agreement 4 years ago at the time of the divorce, I have no doubts the support issue would be very different. She says she didn't work, she was the children's caretaker, very different circumstances than today. Now she - and any other woman in this position - might/could/would simply cut down on her hours or quit altogether (she has a baby) so I don't know how you would do equitable percentages.

Maybe he has changed circumstances here - and I don't know if Iowa recognizes the income of the new stepmother - in that he has received salary increases. His inheritances shouldn't matter because it's all about income, at least in NYS. But the OP has gone from living with her mother to having her own place and a supportive boyfriend and a baby so I don't know it's not a wash. Add the income of the stepmother; add the income of the boyfriend - ?

If calm heads can prevail I'll be interested to see how this plays out.

I also don't know a single Attorney who will review a case, let alone take on the fight, for $800 so maybe this is a small town - ?

But if we just look at the OP's specific situation, what seems to have happened here, is the father said, look, I'll pay for an attorney who will handle everything. That attorney represented his interest not the mother's and the mother wound up on the short end of the stick.

I'm rather surprised that Iowa allowed one Attorney to represent both people - in NYS, at least recently, the Courts give you a rough time, insist that you consult with independent counsel and someone tells you your legal rights. Then you can decide how to proceed and often if you choose to go with one Attorney the Order as written as cannot be appealed, amended, for a certain time.

[cdad]

As far as BOTH incomes being considered - here's my problem with that. The OP has already said she would reduce her work hours in order to spend time with her children. That obviously and automatically reduces her income.

I don't know how the Court would make the situation equitable - women have posted that their "ex's" work off the books, work part-time, do whatever it takes to reduce the child support obligation. Women also do the same thing.

As I said - I don't know how the Court would order and supervise either party working to his/her full potential but it seems this is a flaw in the legal system.

If the OP and her "ex" had not had this agreement 4 years ago at the time of the divorce, I have no doubts the support issue would be very different. She says she didn't work, she was the children's caretaker, very different circumstances than today. Now she - and any other woman in this position - might/could/would simply cut down on her hours or quit altogether (she has a baby) so I don't know how you would do equitable percentages.

Maybe he has changed circumstances here - and I don't know if Iowa recognizes the income of the new stepmother - in that he has received salary increases. His inheritances shouldn't matter because it's all about income, at least in NYS. But the OP has gone from living with her mother to having her own place and a supportive boyfriend and a baby so I don't know it's not a wash. Add in the income of the stepmother; add in the income of the boyfriend - ?

If calm heads can prevail I'll be interested to see how this plays out.

I also don't know a single Attorney who will review a case, let alone take on the fight, for $800 so maybe this is a small town - ?

One common remedy if someone wants to reduce their work capacity or eliminate it altogether is for the courts ( a judge ) to impune and amount on the person subject to the change. Example if someone was making 40k per year and now only wants to work 1/2 time aka 20k per year then the other 20k can be impuned upon them. If the courts remand one party to work full time inorder to provide for support then they also must impune the other side as well. That way the obligation and best interests of the child aren't interfered with and should the parent choose then they will have to modify their lifestyle to their new wage plan.

[Fr_Chuck]

There has been some issues with the same person using multiple ID posting on this post, plus the OP is really not working on advise and wanting more to hear what they want to hear, not some real truths.

POST closed

[ScottGem]

Sorry Scott, but I think you just may have offended a ton of the ladies on this site.

No I don't think I did. As I said, I understand it's a stereotype and not as valid as it once was, but I think many woman want to be mothers and homemakers, just as many women want jobs outside the home.