Why is it that if my fiance's ex was NOT working he would only pay like half of what he is paying in child support? That does not make any sense to me. You would think it would be the opposite.

People cannot pay what they do not have or cannot make in terms of pay- think about it.

People cannot pay what they do not have or cannot make in terms of pay- think about it.

I think you misunderstood. I am engaged to the father of three children. If his ex wife was not working he would only pay half of what he is paying now in child support. For example with her working he is paying $403 per week if she wasn't working he would only have to pay like $200 per week. That does not make since. You would think that he would pay less if she were working not more.

I think you misunderstood. I am engaged to the father of three children. If his ex wife was not working he would only pay half of what he is paying now in child support. For example with her working he is paying $403 per week if she wasn't working he would only have to pay like $200 per week. That does not make since. You would think that he would pay less if she were working not more.

What makes you think he would be paying half as much money if she doesn't work? If the support is refigured after she quits her job AND she is allowed to claim $0 income, it would go UP, although it won't be double what he pays now. But he can have her income inputed to reflect her most recent income when figuring the CS, which would leave his CS that same as it was before.

What makes you think he would be paying half as much money if she doesn't work? If the support is refigured after she quits her job AND she is allowed to claim $0 income, it would go UP, although it won't be double what he pays now. But he can have her income inputed to reflect her most recent income when figuring the CS, which would leave his CS that same as it was before.

I checked the Virginia Child Support Guidelines. He would be made to only pay half of what he is paying now. They base it on combined family income which means they add his income and her income together. Based on that total they have a base child support. He would be made to pay half and that is not right.

I checked the Virginia Child Support Guidelines. He would be made to only pay half of what he is paying now. They base it on combined family income which means they add his income and her income together. Based on that total they have a base child support. He would be made to pay half and that is not right.

It's not right and he doesn't HAVE to have the child support changed. If she is quitting because she WANTS to, he should have to pay MORE though. Anytime parents start thinking in terms like "how MUCH can I get" or "what's the LEAST I can pay", there are problems.

If mom is losing her income through no choice if her OWN (illness, being laid off), dad should try to help out a bit more IF he can afford to. It doesn't just mean sending money either. He could buy some clothes for the kid or take her to the next doctor's appt. and pay the full bill. Little things like that can be a BIG help. Even spending extra time with the child could help.

Parents SHOULD be able to decide TOGETHER what is best for the CHILD, regardless of what the law allows. The laws were created for worse case senerios where one or both parents can't or won't agree as to what is best. Most of the time, the laws aren't GOOD for either party.

If your fiance really believes it's RIGHT to only pay half of the support if mom quits or loses her job, you might want to reconsider the marraige thing.

It's not right and he doesn't HAVE to have the child support changed. If she is quitting because she WANTS to, he should have to pay MORE though. Anytime parents start thinking in terms like "how MUCH can I get" or "what's the LEAST I can pay", there are problems.

If mom is losing her income through no choice if her OWN (illness, being laid off), dad should try to help out a bit more IF he can afford to. It doesn't just mean sending money either. He could buy some clothes for the kid or take her to the next doctor's appt. and pay the full bill. Little things like that can be a BIG help. Even spending extra time with the child could help.

Parents SHOULD be able to decide TOGETHER what is best for the CHILD, regardless of what the law allows. The laws were created for worse case senerios where one or both parents can't or won't agree as to what is best. Most of the time, the laws aren't GOOD for either party.

If your fiance really believes it's RIGHT to only pay half of the support if mom quits or loses her job, you might want to reconsider the marraige thing. When i paid support, the total income was 95,000 which was all mine. the standard tax deduction for a dependent was used and since i made 100% more than her, i had to pay 100% of the support allowance. Crazy ****!!! If she would have worked, it would have been less.

It's not right and he doesn't HAVE to have the child support changed. If she is quitting because she WANTS to, he should have to pay MORE though. Anytime parents start thinking in terms like "how MUCH can I get" or "what's the LEAST I can pay", there are problems.

If mom is losing her income through no choice if her OWN (illness, being laid off), dad should try to help out a bit more IF he can afford to. It doesn't just mean sending money either. He could buy some clothes for the kid or take her to the next doctor's appt. and pay the full bill. Little things like that can be a BIG help. Even spending extra time with the child could help.

Parents SHOULD be able to decide TOGETHER what is best for the CHILD, regardless of what the law allows. The laws were created for worse case senerios where one or both parents can't or won't agree as to what is best. Most of the time, the laws aren't GOOD for either party.

If your fiance really believes it's RIGHT to only pay half of the support if mom quits or loses her job, you might want to reconsider the marraige thing.

My fiance is a great father who takes care of his children. His ex wife is the lazy one. He gives her $403 per week leaving him with only $160 per week to live on. She does not even take care of the kids with that money. The kids are ALWAYS sick with rashes and severe colds, etc. They are never dressed properly, clothes are too small or have summer clothes on during winter, winter during summer, etc. And you can't say it is because she has so many bills. She has no house payment because she lives in a house her parents gave to her. No car payment. All she has is electricity, car insurance, and phone bill. Plus she works on top of the $403 per week she is getting. So she is bringing in about $700 per week. He has tried to get along with his ex and be able to talk about the kids with her, etc., but she is the one with the problem, NOT HIM. So if you don't know the whole situation please don't talk about him being a bad father. Heck, I do more with those kids than the mother does. We are fighting for full custody, and not because of child support but because the mother cares too much about herself to worry about her kids. As I stated before, she does not physically take care of the kids. And she also mentally abuses them. She badgers the oldest one everytime he has weekend visitation with his father. She confuses him and gets him to the point of tears. He is only seven years old and thinks that he has to take care of him mommy. And he has stated that to us. He has also told us about how his mommy goes to bed leaving him up with his 2 year old sister and if the ten month old wakes up he has to fix her a bottle, etc.

Ceara- I don't know if you have a bad ex who is a dead beat father but if you do, NOT all guys are like that and my fiance is one that is not. If he was I would not marry him. I have two children of my own, but luckily my ex and I can communicate.

My whole point in this thread was originally how it makes no sense that by the state of Virginia's code for child support that it would only take half of what he is paying now to support his children if she wasn't working. I don't understand why they don't have a set standard for each child regardless of what you make. Pretty much saying that no matter what you make you should pay x amount of money per child and you better find a way to pay it.

When i paid support, the total income was 95,000 which was all mine. the standard tax deduction for a dependent was used and since i made 100% more than her, i had to pay 100% of the support allowance. Crazy ****!!! If she would have worked, it would have been less.


If she was working you would still probably pay the same or more due to the fact that she would have to pay for child care cost and I am sure she would not be making near as much as you.

Like Virginia they have a base child support but then added on top of that is health care, child care, etc. With my fiance's ex not working it would take away the child care and he would only be made to pay half of what he is paying. Doesn't make sense.

Maybe I can put this in clearer terms. If the ex and your fiancee are both working, the combined amount of income is higher, therfore, resulting in higher support payments from both parents.

If she is NOT working, the combined income base is lower, therefore resulting in LOWER support payments.

Not only does the cse look at individual income levels, they also look at combined income levels.

So, like boats on the water, the water goes up, all of the boats go up. The water drops, all of the boats drop.

And just a reminder that while your fiancee is ordered to pay support, she too pays support, (theoretically). She pays out every day.

Now it may not be fair, but that is the basic explanation.


And they don't have a set amount per child, because not all parents make the same amount. Children are born to parents that have all different levels of financial security (or lack thereof). You can't consign one child to live in relative poverty (comparitively), if the child has been born to a well to do family; and yet elevate one child to live in relative wealth, if the parents do not make that kind of money. The US is not socialistic (although it is getting closer), and that is the basic foundation of your idea. (OPINION ALERT ) While it sounds good in theory, it doesn't work very well in real life. I do not believe in reallocating funds to support others that have done nothing to earn them.

Ceara- I don't know if you have a bad ex who is a dead beat father but if you do, NOT all guys are like that and my fiance is one that is not. If he was I would not marry him. I have two children of my own, but luckily my ex and I can communicate.

My whole point in this thread was originally how it makes no sense that by the state of Virginia's code for child support that it would only take half of what he is paying now to support his children if she wasn't working. I don't understand why they don't have a set standard for each child regardless of what you make. Pretty much saying that no matter what you make you should pay x amount of money per child and you better find a way to pay it.
I based my answers on the information YOU gave. The manner in which YOU posed the question was that it would be UNFAIR if your boyfriend paid LESS in child support. Usually, when a person is defending their loved one, they don't imply that the person would be acting in what YOU described as an unfair manner.

I have absolutely NO opinion of you or your boyfriend. If she's not spending the money on the kids, what does it matter if he pays less, it wouldn't impact the kids if they don't benefit from the support as it is now?

Maybe I can put this in clearer terms. If the ex and your fiancee are both working, the combined amount of income is higher, therfore, resulting in higher support payments from both parents.

If she is NOT working, the combined income base is lower, therefore resulting in LOWER support payments.

Not only does the cse look at individual income levels, they also look at combined income levels.

So, like boats on the water, the water goes up, all of the boats go up. The water drops, all of the boats drop.

And just a reminder that while your fiancee is ordered to pay support, she too pays support, (theoretically). She pays out every day.

Now it may not be fair, but that is the basic explanation.


And they don't have a set amount per child, because not all parents make the same amount. Children are born to parents that have all different levels of financial security (or lack thereof). You can't consign one child to live in relative poverty (comparitively), if the child has been born to a well to do family; and yet elevate one child to live in relative wealth, if the parents do not make that kind of money. The US is not socialistic (although it is getting closer), and that is the basic foundation of your idea. (OPINION ALERT ) While it sounds good in theory, it doesn't work very well in real life. I do not believe in reallocating funds to support others that have done nothing to earn them.

I liked your analogy, but when my husband was using Utah's state calculator to see what his obligation would be, he found that his support payment would be lower (not by much, but still lower) if his ex had her income imputed at minimum wage for 40-hour work week. So does it vary state to state? Utah uses the shared income calculator.

I based my answers on the information YOU gave. The manner in which YOU posed the question was that it would be UNFAIR if your boyfriend paid LESS in child support. Usually, when a person is defending their loved one, they don't imply that the person would be acting in what YOU described as an unfair manner.

I have absolutely NO opinion of you or your boyfriend. If she's not spending the money on the kids, what does it matter if he pays less, it wouldn't impact the kids if they don't benefit from the support as it is now?

You misunderstood again. I was saying that it is unfair that he has to pay twice as much now even though she is working. To me that does not make since. He should be paying less since she is working. As I stated before after paying child support and insurance he only brings home $160 per week. Now you tell me, Who can live off of that? NO ONE. He can't even support himself off of $160 per week more or less do anything for his kids when he has visitation.

Everyone's situation is different also and DCSE should take that into consideration, but they don't. Like his ex does not have rent/mortgage. All the money she gets goes to her. The only bills she has is electricity, phone, and car insurance. Does it take $403 per week to feed kids, or put clothes on them, etc. I don't think so. I know I don't spend that much on my kids per week and my kids have everything thing they need and pretty much everything they want. Believe it or not there are plenty of mother's out here only worried about the money and not the kids.

Maybe I can put this in clearer terms. If the ex and your fiancee are both working, the combined amount of income is higher, therfore, resulting in higher support payments from both parents.

If she is NOT working, the combined income base is lower, therefore resulting in LOWER support payments.

Not only does the cse look at individual income levels, they also look at combined income levels.

So, like boats on the water, the water goes up, all of the boats go up. The water drops, all of the boats drop.

And just a reminder that while your fiancee is ordered to pay support, she too pays support, (theoretically). She pays out every day.

Now it may not be fair, but that is the basic explanation.


And they don't have a set amount per child, because not all parents make the same amount. Children are born to parents that have all different levels of financial security (or lack thereof). You can't consign one child to live in relative poverty (comparitively), if the child has been born to a well to do family; and yet elevate one child to live in relative wealth, if the parents do not make that kind of money. The US is not socialistic (although it is getting closer), and that is the basic foundation of your idea. (OPINION ALERT ) While it sounds good in theory, it doesn't work very well in real life. I do not believe in reallocating funds to support others that have done nothing to earn them.

I also liked how you put that into words. For some reason I guess I was having a hard time explaining it. Thanks now maybe other people will understand what I was trying to say.

Only one thing, she does not pay out for these kids. She really has no bills. She doesn't use the money to buy clothes for the kids, etc. Plus she will take her friends out to lunch or supper and get a babysitter for the kids instead of taking them and she does this several times a week.

This whole situation is messed up. She is only worried about the money and not for the kids sake. That is what makes me so mad. I know if I was getting $403 per week child support my kids would be dressed to impress everyday from head to toe. They wouldn't be wearing pants that are too short or clothes that are too tight. They would be well taken care of.

Thanks again

I liked your analogy, but when my husband was using Utah's state calculator to see what his obligation would be, he found that his support payment would be lower (not by much, but still lower) if his ex had her income imputed at minimum wage for 40-hour work week. So does it vary state to state? Utah uses the shared income calculator.
Different states use different guidelines and have different variables they apply to their cs cases. That's why there is so much confusion among people trying to find info on cs guidelines and such a difference in so many cases. It would make it alot easier if there was ONE set of guidelines for cs nationwide, especially for interstate cases. It would also eliminate a parent trying to move to a state and trying to get the child support changed based on his or her new state's guidelines. But, again, nobody nominated me to be ruler of the country. But, maybe the "people" will reconsider! :p

That's it. I'm going to report every post you make to dead threads that contain no helpful legal infomation.

Because 6 months is not long....truly....why are you so bothered by that?

If you don't like it, skip it.

I am shocked by your ATTITUDE...if rudeness. .....

PLEASE EXPLAIN YOURSELF>>

This forum is for legal advice. There are hundreds of people posting every day. By bringing up old threads, you keep those needing new questions answered from getting their chance. As you do by making useless comments. This is for legal advice. Many posters come here for just a couple of days. "Old" threads should be left alone.

Try going to the "New post" link at the top of the screen, and just work from there. Please!