Hello,

My husband and I live in NY and share 50/50 physical custody of two kids w/his ex-wife. My husband pays her CS that's about twice what we pay for our mortgage each month. She does not work, and recently came into a large inheritance. She and her husband, who makes an income comparable to my husband's, are now planning to purchase a rather large vacation home, a boat and some other luxuries. They already live in a much nicer home and can afford a lot more amenities than we do.

My husband is reluctant to go back to court to seek a modification of his CS. He fears that the NY courts only consider parental incomes (technically, she has none) and not the overall picture -- remarriage, support from her new spouse, inheritance, etc. He's also afraid that the court will INCREASE the amount of CS he's obligated to pay because of the raises he's gotten at work over the past several years. He makes about 35% more now than he did at the time.

I'm just steamed because he didn't want a divorce in the first place and I feel he's been taken advantage of so much already. I think he was screwed by her and then by the court. He's not a drinker, cheater, abuser, gambler, etc. ... she just wanted to "grow and find herself." Well, she certainly did find herself a very comfortable situation! Do we have any recourse???

Hello,

My husband and I live in NY and share 50/50 physical custody of two kids w/his ex-wife. My husband pays her CS that's about twice what we pay for our mortgage each month. She does not work, and recently came into a large inheritance. She and her husband, who makes an income comparable to my husband's, are now planning to purchase a rather large vacation home, a boat and some other luxuries. They already live in a much nicer home and can afford a lot more amenities than we do.

My husband is reluctant to go back to court to seek a modification of his CS. He fears that the NY courts only consider parental incomes (technically, she has none) and not the overall picture -- remarriage, support from her new spouse, inheritance, etc. He's also afraid that the court will INCREASE the amount of CS he's obligated to pay because of the raises he's gotten at work over the past several years. He makes about 35% more now than he did at the time.

I'm just steamed because he didn't want a divorce in the first place and I feel he's been taken advantage of so much already. I think he was screwed by her and then by the court. He's not a drinker, cheater, abuser, gambler, etc. ... she just wanted to "grow and find herself." Well, she certainly did find herself a very comfortable situation! Do we have any recourse???
Not really. Your husband is correct in that the court could raise his support since it has never been reviewed and he is making substantially more than he was when the child support was ordered. Whether she married Donald Trump or inherited the crown jewels, it does not negate your husbands obligation to support his children. If I were your husband, I would leave this alone.

Also check your state laws on child support. Though usually excluded, some states will consider one time inheritances (and certainly will consider income from interest or payments from trusts as income) if the sum is large and contribute to unusual circumstances. In addition they will consider unusually low expenses in offsetting the usual formula that they apply. Finally, if she owns investments jointly with her husband, income derived from such investments can be considered as well. These are not the norm, so your husband would probably want to get a clearer idea of which of these sources of income (or level of inheritance, expenses) would be considered by the court. Often the threshold to go beyond the state formula is pretty extreme and defined by case law rather than specifics in the regulations.

It's an extremely large estate, several million dollars. We don't know how much his ex got outright or how much (if any) was put in trust for the kids.
My husband's family are farmers and laborers. He remembers using an outhouse as a kid. He was the first in his family to go to college.

My husband has no argument with supporting his kids. We live pretty frugally and have some significant investments and savings for the kids, on top of all the CS. It's hard to sit by and watch a lot of that CS get frittered away on weekly clothes shopping trips by his ex.

The idea of CS is supposed to be ensuring the kids have the same financial resources/lifestyle as they would have if the parents had remained married. But somehow, even though they live with us exactly half the time, my husband is the only one paying. His ex's lifestyle is far beyond our means.

If investments and other resources, her own or those shared with her new spouse, would count against CS then that would explain why she hasn't requested more from us.

More than anything, I just wish we could ensure that the money he's paying in CS each month, a considerable amount, goes to their college fund or to otherwise get them started in life and not to support his ex's lavish lifestyle.

It's an extremely large estate, several million dollars. We don't know how much his ex got outright or how much (if any) was put in trust for the kids.
My husband's family are farmers and laborers. He remembers using an outhouse as a kid. He was the first in his family to go to college.

My husband has no argument with supporting his kids. We live pretty frugally and have some significant investments and savings for the kids, on top of all the CS. It's hard to sit by and watch a lot of that CS get frittered away on weekly clothes shopping trips by his ex.

The idea of CS is supposed to be ensuring the kids have the same financial resources/lifestyle as they would have if the parents had remained married. But somehow, even though they live with us exactly half the time, my husband is the only one paying. His ex's lifestyle is far beyond our means.

If investments and other resources, her own or those shared with her new spouse, would count against CS then that would explain why she hasn't requested more from us.

More than anything, I just wish we could ensure that the money he's paying in CS each month, a considerable amount, goes to their college fund or to otherwise get them started in life and not to support his ex's lavish lifestyle.


not to be mean here but if she inherited millions, then his cs is not supporting her lavish lifestyle.....

not to be mean here but if she inherited millions, then his cs is not supporting her lavish lifestyle.....
My thought exactly. OP, unless those children are naked, hungry and have no place to sleep, the child support is being used. Is she writing a check that is specifically noted "Jimmy's Shoes"? No. There is no way to seperate day to day expenses. Eventually, it all comes out right. And you are right. It is the responsibility to support the kids as if they were still married. What you seem to be suggesting is that if they were still an intact family, because she inherited a large estate, he would live off of her money. After all, if they were still married, and he continued to work, the money would be spent in one way or another to support the kids. Can somebody please explain to me why this concept is so hard to grasp? You are not entitled to an accounting of how she spends every penny, as long as the children are healthy, fed, clothed, and all of their needs are being met.

Even though she has come into a considerable amount of money, your husband would most likely STILL have his cs raised, as HE is also making a substantially larger amount. If the parents were still married, the total faminly income would have increased. Well, they are not married, but the kids' parents' COMBINED financial standing has improved, therefore, the judge would deem that the children are entitled to more cs from both parents. The difference is that you send your cs to her (or CSE, who forwards it to her) while she pays out every day.

not to be mean here but if she inherited millions, then his cs is not supporting her lavish lifestyle.....

Just to clarify - her lifestyle was already lavish before the inheritance. Not because of her family wealth, which she really had no part of until a couple of weeks ago.

This is not part of my question or argument, just a point of information: until the inheritance, and if there were no CS in the picture, she and her husband would have almost exactly the same income as my husband and I.

but the situation now involves her inheritance, which makes the arguement of what should have been before moot

Just to clarify - her lifestyle was already lavish before the inheritance. Not because of her family wealth, which she really had no part of until a couple of weeks ago.

This is not part of my question or argument, just a point of information: until the inheritance, and if there were no CS in the picture, she and her husband would have almost exactly the same income as my husband and I.


I agree with your feelings here. My husband is in a similiar situation. He has to pay his own mother who is rather wealthy a sum that we are not exactly comfortable despite the fact she don't need a penny and the child has more than enough "lifestyle" there. And my dad is paying about half his ssi check, his only income, for back support for me to the state. Unfortunetely CS law is set up in a way, where is looks at the NCP income, not the assets of the CP. It doesn't make much sense, but the law is unfortuntely the law. And until someone changes it, it is what judges will follow.

I agree with your feelings here. My husband is in a similiar situation. He has to pay his own mother who is rather wealthy a sum that we are not exactly comfortable despite the fact she don't need a penny and the child has more than enough "lifestyle" there. And my dad is paying about half his ssi check, his only income, for back support for me to the state. Unfortunetely CS law is set up in a way, where is looks at the NCP income, not the assets of the CP. It doesn't make much sense, but the law is unfortuntely the law. And until someone changes it, it is what judges will follow.
KV (you are now down to initials :p ), this actually depends on the state. Some take into account the NCP's income, but most take into account both parents' income. Your situation is different because it is not one of the parents that has custody of your step son. Frankly, your case is a mess. :(

KV (you are now down to initials :p ), this actually depends on the state. Some take into account the NCP's income, but most take into account both parents' income. Your situation is different because it is not one of the parents that has custody of your step son. Frankly, your case is a mess. :(



Yes every state is different. But there is a trend against the NCP. My dad is in NY and they still take back ssi out of his check.....His case is a mess too. In fact in NY they gave me, not my mom the cs money which I find strange now after being on this site.
Yes it is. And unfortuntely my lovely dear husband is too stressed to take my good advice that I have been researching for him. He is still with the whole let the lawyer deal with it attitude which will probably end him in jail with no parental rights the way the court system seems to deal with him even though he has done nothing wrong but trust people.

Several million dollars inheritance would qualify as significant and is worth a trip to consult an experienced family law attorney IF your husband wants to pursue it. Again, inheritance is not considered by rule but by exception and decisions that include inheritance in determining support levels will rely on established case law for which an experienced family law attorney in your state should already be familiar as to the relavant thresholds and circumstances the courts will take into consideration.

Several million dollars inheritance would qualify as significant and is worth a trip to consult an experienced family law attorney IF your husband wants to pursue it. Again, inheritance is not considered by rule but by exception and decisions that include inheritance in determining support levels will rely on established case law for which an experienced family law attorney in your state should already be familiar as to the relavant thresholds and circumstances the courts will take into consideration.

Thank you - we will consult an attorney. I did some research and found that what akbuyer said earlier is true - while courts in different states have disagreed as to whether "income" includes inheritance, lottery winnings, insurance settlements & things like that, most have ruled that inherited money by itself is not considered income - hence not applicable in determining the level of CS.

However, any income derived from an inheritance IS applicable.

So unless the money is sitting in trust (which would be fine with us, but then it wouldn't be paying for an expensive vacation home, a boat for her hubby, etc.) - it's considered income. As are the investments & stuff she has with her current spouse, and we know she's been dabbling in stocks quite a bit.

Moreover, regardless of how the CS issue turns out, we can petition the court to have her set aside all or part of the inheritance in trust for the kids.

Thanks, akbuyer.

This is the kind of info I was looking for - not spurious comments about kids running around naked and hungry.

I don't know why it's so hard to grasp the concept that we too are buying half of the food, clothing, shoes, entertainment, furniture, utilities, gimcracks and presents, vacations, etc. AND paying for health insurance and college savings for these kids - ON TOP of the CS. While a woman who cheated on her husband, abandoned her kids (before the divorce, she flew around the country chasing guys she'd met on the Internet), pretends to be too ill and weak to work (but can go on day-long shopping trips, or skiing, or whatever) is a self-indulgent freeloader who MORALLY, it not legally, has a lot of gall in continuing to take money from the man she screwed when it's so obviously not needed?

Thank you - we will consult an attorney. I did some research and found that what akbuyer said earlier is true - while courts in different states have disagreed as to whether "income" includes inheritance, lottery winnings, insurance settlements & things like that, most have ruled that inherited money by itself is not considered income - hence not applicable in determining the level of CS.

However, any income derived from an inheritance IS applicable.

So unless the money is sitting in trust (which would be fine with us, but then it wouldn't be paying for an expensive vacation home, a boat for her hubby, etc.) - it's considered income. As are the investments & stuff she has with her current spouse, and we know she's been dabbling in stocks quite a bit.

Moreover, regardless of how the CS issue turns out, we can petition the court to have her set aside all or part of the inheritance in trust for the kids.

That would be a hard fight though......

Thanks, akbuyer.

This is the kind of info I was looking for - not spurious comments about kids running around naked and hungry.

I don't know why it's so hard to grasp the concept that we too are buying half of the food, clothing, shoes, entertainment, furniture, utilities, gimcracks and presents, vacations, etc. AND paying for health insurance and college savings for these kids - ON TOP of the CS. While a woman who cheated on her husband, abandoned her kids (before the divorce, she flew around the country chasing guys she'd met on the Internet), pretends to be too ill and weak to work (but can go on day-long shopping trips, or skiing, or whatever) is a self-indulgent freeloader who MORALLY, it not legally, has a lot of gall in continuing to take money from the man she screwed when it's so obviously not needed?


this what every new SO thinks of the previous SO, remember there are always 3 sides to the story :)

Good Luck NYr.

Thank you - we will consult an attorney. I did some research and found that what akbuyer said earlier is true - while courts in different states have disagreed as to whether "income" includes inheritance, lottery winnings, insurance settlements & things like that, most have ruled that inherited money by itself is not considered income - hence not applicable in determining the level of CS.

However, any income derived from an inheritance IS applicable.

So unless the money is sitting in trust (which would be fine with us, but then it wouldn't be paying for an expensive vacation home, a boat for her hubby, etc.) - it's considered income. As are the investments & stuff she has with her current spouse, and we know she's been dabbling in stocks quite a bit.

Moreover, regardless of how the CS issue turns out, we can petition the court to have her set aside all or part of the inheritance in trust for the kids.

Thanks, akbuyer.

This is the kind of info I was looking for - not spurious comments about kids running around naked and hungry.

I don't know why it's so hard to grasp the concept that we too are buying half of the food, clothing, shoes, entertainment, furniture, utilities, gimcracks and presents, vacations, etc. AND paying for health insurance and college savings for these kids - ON TOP of the CS. While a woman who cheated on her husband, abandoned her kids (before the divorce, she flew around the country chasing guys she'd met on the Internet), pretends to be too ill and weak to work (but can go on day-long shopping trips, or skiing, or whatever) is a self-indulgent freeloader who MORALLY, it not legally, has a lot of gall in continuing to take money from the man she screwed when it's so obviously not needed?
If your husband were still married to this woman, would your husband stop working and contributing to the financial support of his children? If so, then who would be the free loader? Also, according to you, your husband does not want to modify the cs order because HIS support will most likely be raised, as he is making significantly more than he was when support was ordered, and there has never been a review. So, it's okay to for HIM to not pay as much support as would normally be ordered, but it is NOT okay for her to pay (be responsible) when SHE came into alot of money. Why?

Not really. Your husband is correct in that the court could raise his support since it has never been reviewed and he is making substantially more than he was when the child support was ordered. Whether she married Donald Trump or inherited the crown jewels, it does not negate your husbands obligation to support his children. If I were your husband, I would leave this alone. I agree with mommyof4. I would certainly leave it alone. His ex may not even think more on the issue. Let her enjoy her life with her family and you do the same! " Think positive". Hello mommyof4, how was your holiday? :)