Can a remarrying mother claim child support from divorced husband

DB wrote:

Considering that the spirit of CS law is to ensure a child has the basics,
does this not end when daddy#2 makes those sacred vows to the mother?
(And do you take this woman and her CS income to be your lawfully wedded
wife?)

The "spirit of CS law" is not to ensure that a child has the basics.
Most states' family law codes contain language concerning the
obligations of parents--obligations that exist irrespective of custody,
marriage, remarriage, etc. CS legislation reflects this. For example,
Maryland's family law code w/r/t children contains this language (sec.
5-203b):

(b) Powers and duties of parents.- The parents of a minor child, as
defined in Article 1, § 24 of the Code:
(1) are jointly and severally responsible for the child's support, care,
nurture, welfare, and education.

It does not say "jointly and severally responsible until one parent
remarries, at which point the stepparent in residence becomes responsible."

"Gini" wrote in

Ah yes, I forgot the constitution guarantees some of us a good standard
of living in accordance with a spouce's income.
==
Which is only for children of divorce/separation. Children in intact
families have no such guarantee.
Blatent violation of equal protection but what the hey, the gov gets a cut
and as long as it can
effectively demonize NCPs, it'll work.

Yes, the state government gets a cut from the federal government which is
your tax dollars, but the National debt can't go unpaid forever and military
expenses are only going to escalate, how much longer can the federal
government afford to support this whole mess?

"DrLith" wrote in message
...
DB wrote:

Considering that the spirit of CS law is to ensure a child has the
basics, does this not end when daddy#2 makes those sacred vows to the
mother?
(And do you take this woman and her CS income to be your lawfully wedded
wife?)

The "spirit of CS law" is not to ensure that a child has the basics. Most
states' family law codes contain language concerning the obligations of
parents--obligations that exist irrespective of custody, marriage,
remarriage, etc. CS legislation reflects this. For example, Maryland's
family law code w/r/t children contains this language (sec. 5-203b):

(b) Powers and duties of parents.- The parents of a minor child, as
defined in Article 1, § 24 of the Code: (1) are jointly and severally
responsible for the child's support, care, nurture, welfare, and
education.

It does not say "jointly and severally responsible until one parent
remarries, at which point the stepparent in residence becomes
responsible."

I think he is referring to the fact that there is now 3 incomes going into
the combined household is the woman and her husband is working.
While the divorced man is living alone his standard of living has gone down
while helping the ex-wife and the new husband gain higher ground.
Sure there is obligation for the parents, but why does one need to help
their ex and new spouse get better off financially?

"Trent" wrote
..................................
I think he is referring to the fact that there is now 3 incomes going into
the combined household is the woman and her husband is working.
While the divorced man is living alone his standard of living has gone
down while helping the ex-wife and the new husband gain higher ground.
Sure there is obligation for the parents, but why does one need to help
their ex and new spouse get better off financially?
==
According to the letter of the law, they aren't. The child support is for
the support of the child, not the
family.

"DrLith" wrote in

(b) Powers and duties of parents.- The parents of a minor child, as
defined in Article 1, § 24 of the Code: (1) are jointly and severally
responsible for the child's support, care, nurture, welfare, and
education.

It does not say "jointly and severally responsible until one parent
remarries, at which point the stepparent in residence becomes
responsible."

Notice it doesn't define what a parent is, could be step parent, grand
parent, Foster parent or anyone in the child's care.

DB wrote:
"DK" wrote in

If the new husband wants to adopt the child and the father agrees,
then the child support will stop.

If the new Husband was willing to marry the mother, does that mean for
better or worse?
Considering that the spirit of CS law is to ensure a child has the basics,
does this not end when daddy#2 makes those sacred vows to the mother?

No


Fathers seldom get custody, but if there is some way to show the
mother is unfit, then there is a chance.

Who is to say he challenged for custody when they separated, he can file for
custody any time.
Especially now that another man he does not know anything about will be
around his child!
Who are the next frequent abusers in line after the mother?

I would apply.

Gini wrote:

Which is only for children of divorce/separation. Children in intact
families have no such guarantee.

Not sure about other States, but in Illinois, they are also gauranteed
their parent have a hefty life insurance policy, medical insurance and
post secondary education..nice for the State to ensure kids of divorced
parents get that but the ones who's families are intact do not...

"Gini" wrote in message
news:0YAhh.3609$uq5.452@trndny04...

"Trent" wrote
.................................
I think he is referring to the fact that there is now 3 incomes going
into the combined household is the woman and her husband is working.
While the divorced man is living alone his standard of living has gone
down while helping the ex-wife and the new husband gain higher ground.
Sure there is obligation for the parents, but why does one need to help
their ex and new spouse get better off financially?
==
According to the letter of the law, they aren't. The child support is for
the support of the child, not the
family.

And who is auditing where the money goes?

Gini wrote:

According to the letter of the law, they aren't. The child support is for
the support of the child, not the
family.

In a perfect world. However, in the real world, that simply does not
happen. Again, I only use Illinois as an example. I have been paying an
incredile sum for 16 years now ($4,500 a month). When we first
divorced, she kept the house (ALL OF IT), the car, all the furniture,
the assets, 1/2 my 401K, and received $2000 a month in spousal support
for 4 years to "pay for her rehabilitive education" because she had not
worked during our marriage. I was the sole income earner. 3 months
after I was out, her boyfriend moved in, didn't have a job (till this
day, still does not). They married the same month alimony ended. I also
pay for braces for my kids, all educational expenses, medical, life
insurance. Neither adult has ever worked. They both drive new cars,
like in a huge house, etc. My kids dress like crap and I buy them
clothes. Courts wouldn't do a thing. It's been 11 years now.

Relayer wrote:
Gini wrote:

According to the letter of the law, they aren't. The child support is for
the support of the child, not the
family.

In a perfect world. However, in the real world, that simply does not
happen. Again, I only use Illinois as an example. I have been paying an
incredile sum for 16 years now ($4,500 a month). When we first
divorced, she kept the house (ALL OF IT), the car, all the furniture,
the assets, 1/2 my 401K, and received $2000 a month in spousal support
for 4 years to "pay for her rehabilitive education" because she had not
worked during our marriage. I was the sole income earner. 3 months
after I was out, her boyfriend moved in, didn't have a job (till this
day, still does not). They married the same month alimony ended. I also
pay for braces for my kids, all educational expenses, medical, life
insurance. Neither adult has ever worked. They both drive new cars,
like in a huge house, etc. My kids dress like crap and I buy them
clothes. Courts wouldn't do a thing. It's been 11 years now.

Oopps..I meant 11 years, noot 16..also, she never DID go to school with
the money I gave her..bought the guy a "Monster Truck" instead.