Child under 3


#1

Financially, you are responsible for ALL children you father whether or not the Moms work. I’m not really understanding your question. It sounds as if since your current wife is not working, and you have a child under 3 with her, then you should not have to support that child as well as the child your Ex-wife has (and is not working). One doesn’t cancel the other out. You still support your current family as well as the child from marriage #1. They’re still your kids.

I keep seeing this situation all the time on this site. It’s a double-edge sword for lack of a better term. A couple has a child, the Mom stays home to care for the child…never goes back to work–or never worked in the first place. Sometimes the Dad stays home. Some families CHOOSE this in the best interest of the children and some do not. Eitherway, IF THE MARRIAGE FAILS, then the man(or woman) is set to burden a huge financial obligation child support-wise and alimony wise. Some folks use that to their advantage-some do not. Some pull their bootstraps up and decide to fend for themselves and they get a job, only asking for the other parent to support the kids. Is it fair to the Dad/Mom to have to pay so much? Is it fair to the Mom/Dad to have to give up caring for her kids at home? There is no right answer. There is no ideal solution. [V] [|)] [:0]


#2

Something else that comes up alot is when a new husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfrined is added to the mix. Just because your ex has improved their financial situation by sharing the finances with someone else does not reduce the child support payer’s obligation the THEIR child. Notice I said child support.
As to the point about paying child support when the parent has a child under the age of 3 and how that effects the previous children’s support… Isn’t there another form for child support? One that includes the income of the ex’s new husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend and how it will impact the total child support.
In your particular case, the post is too vague to say what is going on.


#3

Let me be more specific.
My husband pays child support for his 2 children from his first marriage. Years ago, when we first got together, his ex-wife was not working, was staying at home with her under 3 daughter from her new husband. No income was imputed on her. My husband’s child support obligation for THEIR 2 sons was higher as a result. Fine.

Now, we have 2 children together and one of them is under 3. I am not working - I stay home with my 7 month old. But when refiguring child support for his 2 sons (that will be paid to the ex-wife mentioned above) and we list obligations for our 2 children, it cuts the total amount in half - in essence indicating that I am responsible for that half of our 2 children’s support. In other words, no one’s trying to impute income on me, but they may as well be because they are HALVING his responsibility for our 2 kids. I’m not suggesting that he should be paying way less support for my stepsons, but rather why do I not have the same benefit of getting to care for my child under 3 without penalty like his ex-wife did her child with another man and no income imputed.

Does that make more sense?


#4

I didn’t know there was a place to imput children’s financial obligation for current married situation on a child support form. My understanding of ‘other support obligation’ is if your current husband was paying child support for another child from another past marriage (ie: 2 kids from ex-wife 1, and 1 kid from ex-wife #2), not for his current children from his current marriage. He’s not ‘paying child support’ in those terms. Maybe I’m not understanding the calculator-but that doesn’t sound right to me.


#5

I’m referring to the line on Worksheet B - “Minus responsibility for other Children” - I may have worded it incorrectly, but you definitely get to claim that for however many other children you have. Do you see what I mean?


#6

Yes, I do now. I never had that come into play in my case so I was confused [;)]

I dont’ know what to say other than he’s given ‘credit’ for having 2 children other than the ex’s to support, but he’s still obligated for support of the first ones. I know it may seem unfair that you don’t get the same ‘benefit’ that #1 got, but 4 kids is 4 kids…she just had them first. It’s part of the baggage (and I hate that term) that comes with second marriages. I’m still a bit confused on how you see your income or lack of it plays into what the Dad owes. It’s a figurative thing where you’re concerned. HE is the one obligated to all children-not you–but it may seem so since it takes away from family income when he pays support.


#7

If a mother chooses not to work to stay home with a child under the age of 3 the courts will most likely not impute income to her. If you husband is paying child support to his ex and you have children together then your income can be included. If the ex has had children with her new husband…(I thought I read that her child under age of 3 is with her new husband) then her new husband’s income should be included also. His child support would be higher without an income for her but she is choosing to stay home with the child from the 2nd marriage that he is not obligated for.
If I understand this correctly, your husband has 4 children, two with the ex and 2 with you. His ex has 3 children, 2 with your husband and one with her new husband…
If this is the case, the I suggest running the calculator with all 4 incomes and all 5 children total. If this has not gone through the courts, then come up with a figure that everyone agrees to and go with that…


#8

I did a quick run of the calculator on the ncchildsupport.com website… there doesn’t seem to be an option for if staying home with a child under age 3 on either one. You may be able to get more information on that specific option by calling CSE.


#9

I am afraid I do not fully understand your question. When the child support amount is reduced based on the fact that you and your Husband now have children of your own it is taking into account the fact that he has additional financial responsibilities and cannot pay as much as the guidelines have determine are necessary to support his 2 sons with his previous Wife. They do not require you to pay half, they are requiring him to pay less overall to acknowledge the addition of extra children.

Helena M. Nevicosi
Attorney with Rosen Law Firm

4101 Lake Boone Trail, Suite 500
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
919.787.6668 main phone
919.787.6361 main fax

Charlotte Office
301 McCullough Drive
Suite 510
Charlotte, NC 28262
Main Phone: (704)307.4600
Main Fax: (704) 9343.0044

Durham & Chapel Hill Office
1829 East Franklin Street
Building 600
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
(919) 321.0780

ROSEN.COM

The response posted above is based upon the limited factual information made available and is not intended as a full and complete response to the question. The only reliable manner to obtain complete and adequate legal advice is to consult with an attorney, fully explain your situation, and allow the attorney sufficient opportunity to research the applicable law and facts required to render an accurate opinion. The basic information provided above is intended as a public service only, a full discussion with an attorney should be undertaken before taking any action. The information posted on this forum is available for public viewing and is not intended to create an attorney client relationship with any individual. These answers are provided for informational purposes only, a person should consult with their own individual legal counsel before taking any action that could affect their legal rights or obligations.


#10

I know that if the woman receiving child support is not working due to having a child (not involved in the support at hand) under 3 years old, there is no income imputed on her. How about if the current wife of the dad paying the child support to that woman is staying home with THEIR child under 3 and therefore has no income? Does the dad bear full financial responsibility for the newest children (not part of the order) until the youngest is 3? Why or why not?