"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"?-?" wrote in message
. com...

"teachrmama" wrote in

Yes, as a matter of fact. It may look good on paper, but it just
isn't done that way. When my husband went to court to have CS set
for the daughter he had just found out about, the judge told him
that his other children were irrelevant.

Funny, I was just told by immigration that lack of CS payments to my
child would not cause any hardship for her and I am to leave the
country. How does this work?

I don't know about your case. In my husband's case, he was told that
the almost-13-year-old he had just found out about was the only one
the courts would look at in setting CS--and that our 2 daughters were
irrelevant to how much $$$ he would be assigned to pay.

When are you going to accept that not only are subsequent children
irrelevant in CS cases for prior children, but subsequemnt
wives/husbands are, too?

Unless you think that when the CP has more children, the CS should go
up?


Even when the "subsequent" children come along first.
If a couple have a support order and have more children, you can bet the
C$ WILL go up otherwise, it's not HIS child so would be uninvolved in
the money side.
It has nothing to DO with children; it's simply options the weak latch
onto as a means to leech money.
Phil #3