|
Post by appleblossom on Nov 1, 2010 23:54:59 GMT -5
I want to know what yall think about the "first families first" way of determining child support. This is where basically the first born gets the most and any subsequent children the father has gets what's left over.
My 33 year old cousin had a child with his long term girlfriend when he was 21 years old (they had been dating for 3 years. Long story short, she left him, they got court ordered child support and visitation set, he paid regularly and spent time with the child. Life went on.
Fast forward 10 years. He dated a woman, they got married and had twins. He went to court to get child support modified because he claimed the birth of the twins caused an economic hardship. Denied!! Judge told him he should have thought about that before he had the first one. Also that it wouldn't be fair to give the first child less simply because he chose to start another family.
This really makes me think about marrying a man who already has a child (although this may be difficult because I am 30 and it's hard to find a partner at this late stage in the game who doesn't have at least one child).. I think his child deserves support, but what about the children we have together? I wouldn't want to decrease the support significantly, but also don't think a child we may have together should just be ignored by the courts as if it doesn't exist or matter. Oh, my cousin's BM is remarried and doing fine.
I'm a bit neurotic and have been stressing over this scenario.
|
|
|
Post by appleblossom on Nov 1, 2010 23:57:16 GMT -5
Sorry I didn't give names and stuff, but I don't want the sitch to sound too familiar if the BM or my cousin sees this. He wouldn't be too appreciative about me putting his business all out there like that.
|
|