everyone getting divorced?

[flower]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/381285/everyone-getting-divorced#post_3320674
The point is his wife wasn't forced to pay a nickle even though she had a working spouse. California is a community property state so what's his is also her's. On the other side of the equation they figured in my mom's income to come up with the amount my stepdad would have to pay. I realize the divorce agreement isn't a insulation from these kind of issues and my stepdad could have sued the ex to get part 0f the money he had to pay back but it wasn't enough to make it worth it.

Divorce is an awful, sad thing and when children are involved it's an even greater tragedy. It’s really a shame but the only cure is for folks to be a little more selective of who they choose as a lifelong mate. Divorce is too easy and young people change spouses like they changed companions as singles.
Sometimes it just can’t be helped, but most times marriages that fall apart after just a few years should never have taken place to start with…and children to complicate it…poor kids they are really the only innocent ones in all the mess.
I try very hard to not get involved, whatever went wrong. it's personal between the two of them. And I agree, somtimes life just isn't fair and the good guy doesn't aways win.

 

[deejeff442]

well just talked to my bro.he said her attitude changed and he is willing to try to work it out.he said mainly for the kids.she probably realized she has it good with him .we will see.i support him what ever happens.

 

[meowzer]

Well good for him (and them) if they mean it.....IMO staying together for the "kids sake" is not better.....
Kids need to see what a real loving relationship looks like....not some of these dysfunctional ones we see all too often

 

[reefraff]

My parent stayed together a lot longer than they should have. It's like I told my kid when he and his wife were having problems. It's better to have divorced parents than have parents who are always fighting. Staying together for the kids sake is not a good thing. When me and the first wife had problems I gave it as long as it took to figure out she wasn't going to change back to the person she was when we were dating. Felt bad for her kid because I was the only dad he had ever known but it wasn't going to help him if we were at each others throats all the time. Funny thing is we split up right as she came up pregnant. She ended up losing the baby but me supporting her through that led to us getting back together for a few months. At first I thought we were good but after a while I realized the reason was I didn't care any more. I spent weeks trying to figure out a way to bow out gracefully when out of the blue she announced "it wasn't working anymore".

 

[deejeff442]

well i really dont have much hope .my brother isnt always that easy going either.between us i give it 3 months but hope for the best.i told him to try counseling he said he might.only time will tell.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by deejeff442 http:///forum/thread/381285/everyone-getting-divorced/20#post_3320737
well i really dont have much hope .my brother isnt always that easy going either.between us i give it 3 months but hope for the best.i told him to try counseling he said he might.only time will tell.
Well if they are back together and BOTH working on resolving whatever problems they have it's a good thing. Just going through the motions for whatever reason and expecting the issues to fix themselves isn't.

 

[cranberry]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/381285/everyone-getting-divorced#post_3320674
The point is his wife wasn't forced to pay a nickle even though she had a working spouse. California is a community property state so what's his is also her's. On the other side of the equation they figured in my mom's income to come up with the amount my stepdad would have to pay. I realize the divorce agreement isn't a insulation from these kind of issues and my stepdad could have sued the ex to get part 0f the money he had to pay back but it wasn't enough to make it worth it.
But that isn't how the law is written. So either there is a piece of info that wasn't shared with you or something was misunderstood by your step dad. I've been through this is the last few years..... None of the new husband's and wives income was ever taken into account.
[Ca Fam § 4057.5]
Except in a specified "extraordinary case" that would otherwise result in "extreme and severe hardship" to the child, courts cannot consider the income of either parent's "subsequent spouse" when determining or modifying child support. Thus, a motion to modify child support based solely on the fact income from a parent's new spouse has increased the parent's ability to pay must be denied absent the requisite showing of extreme and severe hardship to the child.

 

[flower]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cranberry http:///forum/thread/381285/everyone-getting-divorced/20#post_3321001
But that isn't how the law is written. So either there is a piece of info that wasn't shared with you or something was misunderstood by your step dad. I've been through this is the last few years..... None of the new husband's and wives income was ever taken into account.
[Ca Fam § 4057.5]
Except in a specified "extraordinary case" that would otherwise result in "extreme and severe hardship" to the child, courts cannot consider the income of either parent's "subsequent spouse" when determining or modifying child support. Thus, a motion to modify child support based solely on the fact income from a parent's new spouse has increased the parent's ability to pay must be denied absent the requisite showing of extreme and severe hardship to the child.

My daughter married a man with 4 children from two different women. He was told to list all income into his household, which included my daughter’s income. Also for back child support they took both of their income tax money until the debt was paid. (My beautiful daughter picked a winner…NOT)
I believe they were following what was written on a paper they were given to fill out. They didn’t get a lawyer. Are you saying she was not responsible? Not that she can do a thing about at this time, those kids are all adults now. It just seemed very unfair at the time, or has the law changed? This was 14 yars ago.

 

[cranberry]

Not California.
Or it could have changed.

 

[meowzer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cranberry http:///forum/thread/381285/everyone-getting-divorced/20#post_3321055
Not California.
Not in NY or Oklahoma either......I have never heard that a STEP parents income was ever considered in a child support case

AND when they do tax intercepts, there is a form to fill out if the tax is a joint return.....too late for your daughter now Flower, BUT I hope other people realize they are NOT (legally) financially responsible for their spouses children from previous marriages/relationships.

 

[flower]

Quote:
Originally Posted by meowzer http:///forum/thread/381285/everyone-getting-divorced/20#post_3321056
Not in NY or Oklahoma either......I have never heard that a STEP parents income was ever considered in a child support case

AND when they do tax intercepts, there is a form to fill out if the tax is a joint return.....too late for your daughter now Flower, BUT I hope other people realize they are NOT (legally) financially responsible for their spouses children from previous marriages/relationships.

Ahh..The reason why I bothered to post her story. She lives up north in Wisconsin and they didn't get a lawyer. My daughter turned in that she was seperated so her tax income was not mixed with his..it was a loop hole to get out of it...or so she believed. 14 years is a long time and I hope I didn't mess up the story.
She has 5 children by this guy. He is MY age.

They have been married 14 years so I suppose it's working and none of my bees wax, so let me shut up...LOL What our children grow up to do to themselves..... By the time all those kids are grown, HE will need her to put diapers on him.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cranberry http:///forum/thread/381285/everyone-getting-divorced/20#post_3321001
But that isn't how the law is written. So either there is a piece of info that wasn't shared with you or something was misunderstood by your step dad. I've been through this is the last few years..... None of the new husband's and wives income was ever taken into account.
[Ca Fam § 4057.5]
Except in a specified "extraordinary case" that would otherwise result in "extreme and severe hardship" to the child, courts cannot consider the income of either parent's "subsequent spouse" when determining or modifying child support. Thus, a motion to modify child support based solely on the fact income from a parent's new spouse has increased the parent's ability to pay must be denied absent the requisite showing of extreme and severe hardship to the child.

This wasn't an issue of child support, it was restitution. The kid got thrown in Juvi hall or whatever they call it now days and they make the parents pay for the incarceration.
Not sure where he would have stood if she had went on welfare but I got a feeling his giving her the house and car wouldn't have mattered to the state.
Sad thing about all this is was stepdad was a very good man and all 3 of his own kids turned out to be extreme losers. That family could keep a army of shrinks tied up for years.

 

[reefraff]

There was a case a few years ago where this @#^@ left her husband after "their" child was 5 years old. When the man went for joint custody she told him it wasn't even his kid and that the real father was the guy she dumped him for. He did the test and sure enough it wasn't his kid. The state of New York order him to pay support because under that state's laws if you assume responsibility for x years you are stuck with it. Don't know how the case ultimately turned out but he was saying he'd go to jail rather than pay. That was so wrong....

 

[smartorl]

I read somewhere that in one state, if you are married to the mother at the time of the birth, you are the legal parent.
I prefer the Preying Mantis method. Much less drama.

 

[meowzer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by smartorl http:///forum/thread/381285/everyone-getting-divorced/20#post_3321099
I read somewhere that in one state, if you are married to the mother at the time of the birth, you are the legal parent.
I prefer the Preying Mantis method. Much less drama.
LOL...that's how it is in OK......my daughter was still legally married when she got prego with her 2nd child....even though the father was there, and willing to sign the paperwork...we had to fill out all kinds of forms, and send them to OKC ...we had to locate her "husband" and have him sign papers too saying he wasn't the father...it was so dumb
and when she had her 3rd (do not ask) same dad as the 2nd, but her divorce was not final yet.....we had to do all this over...I SAY WE...cause who do you think took care of all the paperwork.....

 

[cranberry]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/381285/everyone-getting-divorced/20#post_3321094
This wasn't an issue of child support, it was restitution. The kid got thrown in Juvi hall or whatever they call it now days and they make the parents pay for the incarceration.
Child support agreements include more than just a set sum that is paid on regular intervals. It includes paying for costs that pop along the way... you know like braces.... medical bills.... jail.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cranberry http:///forum/thread/381285/everyone-getting-divorced/20#post_3321185
Child support agreements include more than just a set sum that is paid on regular intervals. It includes paying for costs that pop along the way... you know like braces.... medical bills.... jail.
You would think it would have wouldn't you? Actually it doesn't remove a parent's responsibility for the kid's actions so if the kid were to trash a house or something both parent's are still liable for restitution. It also doesn't prevent the support paying parent from being liable for medical expenses either. I know someone who's ex let the insurance lapse when she changed jobs and the kid broke her wrist and had to go to urgent care or something like that to get casted up. He ended up having to cover the medical bills even though the support agreement required the ex to cover the kid under her insurance. Because the ex couldn't pay they came after him. He was able to pay reduced support until he got his money back out of her but he had to pay a lawyer to do it (which he got back too) but it took a long time, something like 25 bucks a month.

 

[flower]

Teenagers, I hate those years. I didn't have gray hair until that stage. Keeping your thumb (foot on neck in some cases) on the little darlings is no easy task but every state is different on restitution. On the one occasion my idiot kid had to pay for damages, I made sure HE paid not me. Every dime he earned went to pay and he was grounded until the debt was paid in full, $250.00 seemed like a million to him but he learned a lesson, and it was the last trouble he found to get into..
As for medical bills what can you do, I'm glad to of had good insurance. Kids are expensive in time, money and nerves. I read once that grandchildren are our rewards for not killing them. LOL...I do love the grandchildren.