Decreased CS once BM gets married

[angelnmo]

I would like some opinions. I don't question the fact that a man should provide financially for his child. But, once the BM remarries or gets married to another man, do you think that the BD should pay less money now that there is another man in the BM's life, the same, or what.

I have noticed that quite a few BMs think that the BD should pay child support to not only benefit the child, but to supplement her lifestyle so that their child can also benefit. But what's happens when the BM marries a man, and she no longer needs the BDs money to supplement her lifestyle, only to provide for the child's basic needs.

Shouldn't it be fair that the BD would be eased financially of the burden of caring for not only his child, but his BM too. There is another man in the picture to care for her needs now.
Opinions.

[just2beme]

No, I think that the CS should not be reduced. CS is based on the parent's incomes. Even though the BM may choose to use some of the money to "supplement her lifestyle"; when the courts compare the income, the CS amount truly based on the income. If the BM marries, it is not her new DH's responsibility (legally) to support the child unless DH legally adopts the child.
If you are asking whether or not the BM SHOULD just agree to reduce the child support when she gets married then don't hold your breathe.

Another reason that I say "NO" is because it opens the door up for the wife's income to be factored into child support when she marries a baby daddy. I will take care of the child when he is at my home to visit my DH, but I do not want to be financially responsible for a child that is not mine. The child has two parents and both parents are financially responsible for him. Definitely not me or a future spouse of the BM (unless we WANT to be financially responsible).

I would not spend too much time worrying or hoping that BM gets married to help relieve child support. She feels like she is entitled to the child support and more. In truth, her child is entitled to the child support. If the mother chooses to use the child support for herself it is okay. In most cases the BM is going to use her own income to support the child in other areas (food, clothes, rent, transportation).

[BAD CHICK]

Just2beme, I couldn't have said it better.

[MEMYSLFNI]

THANK GOD FOR THOSE AWSOM MEN THAT DO ADOPT THE CHILD AS THEIR OWN TALK ABOUT RELIEF

[memyslfni]

I would like to add to your post anglnmo that I believe once a bm marries cs support should be recalculated. Now that she has a husband of course its not his responsibility to provide for her child BUT the bm is now his responsibility and therefore bd shouldnt have to support her a$$ any longer...ONCE AGAIN THANK GOD FOR THOSE WONDERFUL MEN!!!

[angelnmo]

I wanted to know opinions because of a comment the BM made.

She can't wait until we get married so that she can run to court and increase child support based on my future husband's and I combined household income. Thanks for the heads up stupid. We went to a lawyer and are taking the necessary legal steps to keep the BM out of my pocket. And yes, it is legally possible to stop the BM from increasing child support based on the other spouse's income.

I just think it's funny that unless the BD and his new wife take the necessary legal precautions, the BM gets CS based on the new combined household income if she wants to pursue it.

But when the BM gets married, her new household income isn't factored into the future CS checks.

Quite a few people say that even though all the money the BD sends doesn't go directly to the child, the child still bebefits indirectly because the child shares the same roof as the BM.

Well shouldn't that logic work both ways? When the BM gets married, even though the new husband isn't legally responsible for providing financially to the child, doesn't his added income benefit the child indirectly because the new husband shares the same roof as the child?

Why is the new wife automatically held financially responsible for the BM's child (unless precautions are taken) but the BM's new husband isn't.

And isn't it funny that, even if the BM marries a man that makes significantly more than the BD the child support usually stays the same. Yes, I know the new husband isn't responsible for the child, but reality please? If new hubby is a doctor and puts BM in a huge house, buys lots of new clothes, new cars, vacations, etc., doesn't the child benefit. I thought the system was set up for the best interest of the child. Seems like the child is being well taken care of in their new family to me?

Some say that when the BM gets married, the child is not the new husband's responsibility. On what planet?! When you get married 2 become one. That means you accept responsibility for the BM and her child. You cant just pick the parts you like about someone when you marry them. It's a package deal.

Best interest of the child I disagree. Best interest of the BM. It's all about that Baby Mama Check (not child support check).

What about the best interest of MY future children? And I don't want to hear that ghetto mentality about " the baby that comes first has top priority and deserves more". That's ridiculous! Are you telling me that because a woman gives birth before I do, her child deserves more than mine?

When you are married, is the first born considered more important than any and all subsequent children. Do you treat the first born child any better than the younger siblings, or do you love and treat your children equally. That's the way it should be, but the courts are enforcing their idea that "first come first served" gets served more!!

That is ignorant in my book!!

Oh well. I'm done. Just my thought for the day.

[memyslfni]

Hats off to u anglnmo, if that wasnt a reality check! Thanks for the heads up. I will definitely keep this in mind when/if I decide to get married. Cause I'll be d**ned if Im gonna support bm for takin care of her own kids. Now when u decide to send them kids to our home, thats a different story. Some women like to play that pimp role like I'll have him, him and him take care of me and my children. "We'll never go broke..."

[awsomalx]

You know Angel, I was told in that using logic and intellect in this situaton of CS/BM in essence was wrong. It was said that I was making myself un-happy (HILARIOUS if you know me). So please, stop putting any thought into this and just accept it (words typed by BadChick, lol) ...........................And if you take any of that crap that BadChick spewed as helpful, Black folk would still be under the oppression of Jim Crow laws (after all, it was nothing more then an injustice and according to her, you shouldn't concern yourself with injustices in society)

[tellitlikeitis1]

angelnmo, I believe it based on your State's laws. DH & I have been through 3 child support reviews since our marriage. BM took him for more child support right after we got married. She may have thought that my income would be considered and she would get an increase but Child Support has never factored in my income. Although I love my step child, she is not my child, so I am not going to pay for a child that is not mine.

If your State allows the spouse of the BD's income to be factored into the equation, then it should work both ways. It is worth checking into it. You seem to be handling your business.

[angelnmo]

Yeah, i've looked into it, but thanks for the input. The state where I reside is a community property state. Nuff said.

[destini1969]

Child support is governed by each state law, whereas one state may take the spouse income into consideration whereas another state may not. I would definitely review your state law in that regard.

[nomoredrama]

But in most cases, community property has to do with marital property acquired during the marriage. It is not related to children before the marriage.

I would encourage you to maintain your own separate checking account though. During a review, the courts ask for your checking account information and the amount in the bank.

[angelnmo]

Yep, separate checking and savings accounts, and filing separate taxes. Also, anything acquired is placed in my name so she doesn't try to base more support on his increased assets. I told everyone, we are a team!

[destini1969]

Angelnmo community property states and bylaws regarding child support are treated separately. Within the United States, Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin are community property states.

For example, DH and I reside in a community law state, but my salary, etc is not a factor regarding child support laws.

[angelnmo]

Hmm. Interesting. I wonder where BM got that crazy idea that she could get more money once BD got married. Well, anyway, the lawyer we spoke to said it would be beneficial to protect our separate assets and to have separate checking accounts instead of joint.

I guess he meant that if we had joint checking accounts, then when the courts asked for bank statements to help determine CS, those figures would be used instead of just my husband's alone. And that if we had separate checking accounts, the figures would only show what he makes and not what we make combined? Did I get that right?