CS for Steparents....its out of control

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Tracy" wrote in message
...

Do I know anyone in that situation? Not personally, but if my husband's
ex
wanted to push the fact she could potentially cause my husband's share
to
increase. Hence, lowering her obligation. The state recognizes it as a
legit rebuttal to the original state order support case.

I am agreeing with you to a point. My original response was the court can
take into account all sources of income, and the income you suggested as
coming from a person living within one of the parent's household is part
of
the ORS definitions.

Where I think we differ is in two technical areas. First, the income from
another person in the household is used after the basic CS obligation is
calculated to rebut the guideline amount for possible adjustment. You
have
correctly stated the Oregon law, but I believe the application of the
rebuttal is later in the process to show the calculated guideline amount
is
not appropriate.

And second, I believe the NCP's gross reserve for living expenses is
another
below the line item. If the CS guideline calculation takes the NCP's
gross
income after CS is deducted below the threshold the CS order is adjusted.

To my knowledge, only current CS and SS orders are deducted from a
parent's
income before the guideline calculations are run.

I believe we are fully in agreement, just stating things a bit differently.
I understand the court won't use my income to calculate support, but they
may take into consideration the two household's overall SOL to consider his
"available income" to support the kids. In my opinion his ex would be
stupid to fight the order based on our SOL since we have an agreement with
her that only requires her to pay $322/yr ($161 twice a year). My husband
and I have spoken about what would happen if things were reversed. The
subject comes up when she complains about helping with the clothing expenses
(per the $322/yr agreement). Early last month she wanted to help by paying
only $80 to help purchase clothing for two kids. The girl needed
everything, and the boy primarily needed pants & shoes. I was a bit upset
due to her attitude concerning my income, and my husband was a bit upset
because she had mention that since he supported the family 100% in the past
he should continue to do so. If things were reversed from the beginning I'm
sure she wouldn't be working right now and living off of alimony & child
support.

I just find it wrong that there are so many ways the courts allow one person
to screw someone else over. Earlier this week I remember reading in the
news how the government is supposed to take morals out of the constitution.
We can say that there are no morals within the child support system.
Morally I will continue to help support my stepchildren, because it is the
right thing to do. I told my husband prior to marrying him that it would
not be right to force his kids to live differently than we support ourselves
& my youngest son just because of the amount of CS their mother pays is not
"half" of the real cost in raising them. I feel confident that most people
would do the same thing for their own children and any stepchildren, and it
doesn't take a court to force anything.

I'll stop and get down off my soapbox now. The subject line caught my
attention due to my personal situation.

Thanks,
Tracy
~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/