custody change

[egbrn]

We are considering getting married, but my boyfriend has 2 children that he pays support on. I am supporting a son in medical school. Can his ex-wife attach my salary as an increase in his income for child support?

[mommyof4]

No. You have no responsibility to support their children.

That said, I strongly advise you to keep all finances seperate. If, for some reason, he falls into arrears and your money is co-mingled, if they seize that money from him or intercept the tax return, that money taken will be yours and you will have no recourse to recover your portion.

[KMCLAIN]

What State?

Depends on the state in which you live. In California if the father is responsible for support of his children outside his home by court order and falls behinds the court can attach the wifes wages. As she is just as responsible for support those children as he is.

[mommyof4]

Depends on the state in which you live. In California if the father is responsible for support of his children outside his home by court order and falls behinds the court can attach the wifes wages. As she is just as responsible for support those children as he is.

ONLY in VERY, VERY limited circumstances and ONLY when all other attempts to collect have failed...and ONLY when it has been proven that the NCP is purposely not working or is underemployed and the new spouse is the main source of income.

Even in CA, just because an NCP remarries, that does not automatically mean that the new spouse will have any responsibility.

A step parent is NOT legally responsible for the children. As stated, if it is shown that the new spouse is the source of income, then it is possible (but very rarely done) that the spouse's income will be used for CS. However, even then, a modification will NOT be based on the new spouse's income. Only enforcement of said order.

[KMCLAIN]

California

Well I have grown up as a child in a support matter in California. As well as I have 2 boys with cases out of California for support. My oldest son who is 9 years old his father was married for less than a year and he works full time and pays all support on time but he fell behind when he tried to take me to court for modification to lower his support. But in turn his amount got higher and was only behind one month of support for 6 months and they took his wifes and his taxes and sent it to me. It doesnt rarely happen it depends how much arrears you own and how long you have not been current.

[mommyof4]

Well I have grown up as a child in a support matter in California. As well as I have 2 boys with cases out of California for support. My oldest son who is 9 years old his father was married for less than a year and he works full time and pays all support on time but he fell behind when he tried to take me to court for modification to lower his support. But in turn his amount got higher and was only behind one month of support for 6 months and they took his wifes and his taxes and sent it to me. It doesnt rarely happen it depends how much arrears you own and how long you have not been current.

...and if she had kept her finances seperate from her husband's and filed her tax return seperately, her tax return would not have been taken.

That said:

1. We don't know that this poster is in CA and CA laws are vastly different than all other states
2. Here is the actual statute for CA. You will see that what I posted is correct.

4057.5. (a) (1) The income of the obligor parent's subsequent
spouse or nonmarital partner shall not be considered when determining
or modifying child support, except in an extraordinary case where
excluding that income would lead to extreme and severe hardship to
any child subject to the child support award, in which case the court
shall also consider whether including that income would lead to
extreme and severe hardship to any child supported by the obligor or
by the obligor's subsequent spouse or nonmarital partner.
(2) The income of the obligee parent's subsequent spouse or
nonmarital partner shall not be considered when determining or
modifying child support, except in an extraordinary case where
excluding that income would lead to extreme and severe hardship to
any child subject to the child support award, in which case the court
shall also consider whether including that income would lead to
extreme and severe hardship to any child supported by the obligee or
by the obligee's subsequent spouse or nonmarital partner.
(b) For purposes of this section, an extraordinary case may
include a parent who voluntarily or intentionally quits work or
reduces income, or who intentionally remains unemployed or
underemployed and relies on a subsequent spouse's income.
(c) If any portion of the income of either parent's subsequent
spouse or nonmarital partner is allowed to be considered pursuant to
this section, discovery for the purposes of determining income shall
be based on W2 and 1099 income tax forms, except where the court
determines that application would be unjust or inappropriate.
(d) If any portion of the income of either parent's subsequent
spouse or nonmarital partner is allowed to be considered pursuant to
this section, the court shall allow a hardship deduction based on the
minimum living expenses for one or more stepchildren of the party
subject to the order.
(e) The enactment of this section constitutes cause to bring an
action for modification of a child support order entered prior to the
operative date of this section.

Your EX filed for a downward modification and subsequently had his CS raised, not because he was remarried, but because the guidelines indicated that he should be paying more. You had no grounds for an upward modification just because he was remarried and his spouse earns her own money. If he was current on his CS, there was no reason for the court to to initiate collection action. His (and his wife's) tax return was only intercepted when he fell into arrears, although he was probably considerably more than one month behind. It takes longer that one month to even initiate collection.

[KMCLAIN]

You are right he did owe more due to his employment raised. However in a case when you become deliquent for more than 6 months in CA. Then they go to all aspects to collect support. CA is one of the top states for collecting CS due to the fact that they are not afraid to do what it takes to support these children. From License supension, to jail time of 5 days for each month support is not paid, to attaching assets, to attaching spouse income. I currently recieve payment for the step parent. That is something the court issued. So you dont know it all. If you did you wouldnt be on this site all day copying and pasting all the crap you find online. Get a life. Some of us are here to really find answers and get support from others who are in similar situations.

[mommyof4]

You are right he did owe more due to his employment raised. However in a case when you become deliquent for more than 6 months in CA. Then they go to all aspects to collect support. CA is one of the top states for collecting CS due to the fact that they are not afraid to do what it takes to support these children. From License supension, to jail time of 5 days for each month support is not paid, to attaching assets, to attaching spouse income. I currently recieve payment for the step parent. That is something the court issued. So you dont know it all. If you did you wouldnt be on this site all day copying and pasting all the crap you find online. Get a life. Some of us are here to really find answers and get support from others who are in similar situations.

Actually, I am very clear on what steps may be taken. As I stated, in CA using a new spouse's income is a LAST RESORT and may only happen in EXTRAORDIARY circumstances.

You, yourself, just confirmed exactly what I said happened. His support was NOT raised because he was remarried. It was raised because HIS income fell within the guidelines for a modification.

I'm not so sure why you are so adamant about arguing this. You changed your explanation. You admitted that I was correct. The ONLY reason you "recieve" anything from the new spouse is because their finances are joint.

If you truly have an order that states that the new spouse's income is being used to determine child support and that the new spouse must pay the child support, then post it.

The step parent is NEVER legally responsible for the support of the child. If that were the case, then the new spouse would still have to continue to pay the child support even when the new spouse got fed up with the legal games and divorced the responsible parent of the child.

If you want to learn something, then just sit back and read. I posted that information solely for your benefit. Just because it's not exactly what you believe, that does NOT make it incorrect.

Oh, and just so you know...I live in TX. TX successfully collects child support and goes after parents in arrears almost double the national average. I am also intimately familiar with the FEDERAL prosecution for non payment of support once the amount of arrears is over $5,000 and the parties live in different states.


*****************************************

OP, the answer I gave you was correct. Unless he is waaaaayyyy behind in child support, you are rich as God, ALL other measures have been taken for collection AND you live in CA, you really don't have much to worry about.

The CP does NOT have grounds to file for an upward modification of support just because he remarries. The support of the children will NEVER be your responsibility.

[KMCLAIN]

Misunderstanding

Maybe this is where you and I BOTH are getting confused. I NEVER stated that they can up child support due to a marriage. What I was telling you and anyone else that has read these is that it is very much possibly to go after a step parent for support of if the NCP is in arrears or not paying as they should. I know that my mother had to pay support for my step brothers (due to there father working under the table and being behind 6 months plus) till their divorce was final. Then had to sue for all the money she did pay. I was born and raised in California and am very familar with the CS laws there as i said I have lived through it along with my 2 childern who I am now going through the system for. THE ONLY point I was making is that it is possible to collect for the spouse of a non custodial parent. Its really not as hard as you think it is. The state take big priority for those 6 months or more past due. Going through the first steps starting at 2 months past dues going forward and attaching assets are looked at to collecting from spouses. I recieve it. that was my only point. Never did i say it was impossible. But it happens more than you think. So dont "X" it out completly thinking it would never catch up when in fact it can happen sooner than you think. Thats ALL!!!

[egbrn]

Thanks!

Thanks to all of your for your information. It gives us help in where to start and will make things easier.

[mommyof4]

Maybe this is where you and I BOTH are getting confused. I NEVER stated that they can up child support due to a marriage. What I was telling you and anyone else that has read these is that it is very much possibly to go after a step parent for support of if the NCP is in arrears or not paying as they should. I know that my mother had to pay support for my step brothers (due to there father working under the table and being behind 6 months plus) till their divorce was final. Then had to sue for all the money she did pay. I was born and raised in California and am very familar with the CS laws there as i said I have lived through it along with my 2 childern who I am now going through the system for. THE ONLY point I was making is that it is possible to collect for the spouse of a non custodial parent. Its really not as hard as you think it is. The state take big priority for those 6 months or more past due. Going through the first steps starting at 2 months past dues going forward and attaching assets are looked at to collecting from spouses. I recieve it. that was my only point. Never did i say it was impossible. But it happens more than you think. So dont "X" it out completly thinking it would never catch up when in fact it can happen sooner than you think. Thats ALL!!!

You are missing a HUGE point. Even IF the state imputs the spouse's income for purposes of determining child support, the new spouse is NEVER responsible for paying the child support. It is up to the parent ordered to pay support to pay. Now, if the new spouse wants to help out, that's all well and good. However, the new spouse is NOT ordered to pay the support.

I stated before that in extraordinary circumstances that the new spouse's income may be used for determination of CS (and of course, there is recourse to rebut a court's determination that the new spouse's income may be used.

I stand by that the new spouse is NOT LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE for paying the child support.

It does not happen easily and it is not something that happens all of the time. It is RARE...as laid out by the CA statutes and case law. Just because you happen to be one of the few (I'll take your word on it) doesn't mean it is a common occurance.

I am asking you again to post the actual order that names the new spouse as the responsible party to pay you child support. (please block out all identifying information.)

[Baystategirl]

Maybe this is where you and I BOTH are getting confused. I NEVER stated that they can up child support due to a marriage. What I was telling you and anyone else that has read these is that it is very much possibly to go after a step parent for support of if the NCP is in arrears or not paying as they should. I know that my mother had to pay support for my step brothers (due to there father working under the table and being behind 6 months plus) till their divorce was final. Then had to sue for all the money she did pay. I was born and raised in California and am very familar with the CS laws there as i said I have lived through it along with my 2 childern who I am now going through the system for. THE ONLY point I was making is that it is possible to collect for the spouse of a non custodial parent. Its really not as hard as you think it is. The state take big priority for those 6 months or more past due. Going through the first steps starting at 2 months past dues going forward and attaching assets are looked at to collecting from spouses. I recieve it. that was my only point. Never did i say it was impossible. But it happens more than you think. So dont "X" it out completly thinking it would never catch up when in fact it can happen sooner than you think. Thats ALL!!!

OMG! You ARE this dumb!!