If you read my previous post, I was "complaining" about how it's not fair bd was only ordered to pay $111 a month child support.

After reading the fine print of the order, they said that real amount is $210 a month, but since bd has another child (who he doesn't pay support for) then lo is only entitled to $111 a month. I thought that was bs too because he has seen his 7 yr old son like 3 times his whole life, BY THE MOM's CHOICE & bd won't file for visitation because he know's mandi will get a lawyer and prevent him from seeing him, and she refuses to file for child support as well and has mentioned in the past about him terminating his rights, but he always said no, so she quit asking. BUT anyways, I told him it's not fair that Chloe not get all the money she deserve because of another child that isn't being supported and it's not like I'm saying he doesn't deserve but if the mom doesn't want it and says she would burn the money, then why bother?!
SO, bd agreed to $160 a month, which I feel a lot better about, and that is what we're gonna change the order to, he agreed because I agreed to forgive the $200 arrears, because technically he could go to jail in 10 days if he doesn't come up with $311 , so I said Okay, I'll take $160 every month and be content, and he will also just hand me more if his checks are bigger, because the support order used his earning CAPACITY, which means he's capable of working 40 hr X min wage (7.25 here) so that came out to net income of 1080, then they got the figure $210 for child support, -$99 for other child (even though that's not how it really is) and got $111, but meanwhile bd only gets like $600 bring home a month usually. So I feel $160 is more far.

Do you think that I'm being a terrible person by suggesting that he give me more money because his other child's mother doesn't want the money?? Do you think he should voluntarily send her money, even though she said that she would burn it?

First child is always entitled to more money.

Do you work?

All children are entitled to money from both parents, and amounts are all based off off visitation and incomes. The courts decide what cs should be based off what each child SHOULD receive.

Your ex is entitled to a lower amount because he has other kids he should be responsible. If you chose to have other kids, the cs would go up because the amount of your income dedicated to your first child would go down.

It is all very fair, and if you ever have another child, you will be thankful for that rule.

Quoting º×ß¡±©µ×º:" Do you work?"

Yes, and I make significantly more than bd but I do put a roof over LO's head and everything else like that.Bd lives with his grandma, greatgrandma actually and gets $200 a month foodstamps

Quoting Nathaniel'sMom:" First child is always entitled to more money."

Well not in this case...first child was entitled to 99. If the mother filed they would split it down the middle.. so technically they did give me $6 more just because other child's mom didn't file, which is hypocritical..

Quoting ♥supermommy:" Well not in this case...first child was entitled to 99. If the mother filed they would split it down ... [snip!] ... down the middle.. so technically they did give me $6 more just because other child's mom didn't file, which is hypocritical.."

The support isnt split down the middle just because of two kids. The factor of how much the mom makes and needs of each child is a factor. Not just half and half because of each child.

The first child is also entitled to the support FIRST. Each child is entitled to support but the order of the children should be a factor too.

Quoting FroggysMommy:" The support isnt split down the middle just because of two kids. The factor of how much the mom makes ... [snip!] ... is also entitled to the support FIRST. Each child is entitled to support but the order of the children should be a factor too."

Uhh, I'm not sure who you're trying to convince that you're right but I called the office and that's what they said to me.

<blockquote><b>Quoting Nathaniel'sMom:</b>" First child is always entitled to more money."</blockquote>




??? That is a load of smurf. Just because the other child was born first does not make them more important or entitled to more money than a child who was born later.

Quoting Mz.Behavin:" <blockquote><b>Quoting Nathaniel'sMom:</b>" First child is always entitled to more ... [snip!] ... the other child was born first does not make them more important or entitled to more money than a child who was born later."

What I'm saying is... if a man has a child born and is paying 400 a bucks in child support, the court will take that into account and the other children he has will not get as much money because he cant make the same amount of money to pay 400 for the next child and still live. And they wont reduce child support of the first child just because a new child came along... its not fair but thats why guys need to wrap their smurf and both the girl and guy need to be cognizant of who they sleep with.

Im not saying it SHOULD be that way....

But I also feel that if a mother or father doesnt want a child they should be able to sign over their rights and not have to pay child support. If a girl decides to have a child and the father doesnt want it, he should not be forced to pay child support. I think its a bunch of bullsmurf that it happens a lot of the time. Most of the time, actually. Girls go for child support despite the guy CLEARLY not wanting to be there.

My husband has a child from a previous relationship. We have been together almost 10 years and have had 3 of our own. The courts lowered my husbands child support each time to accommodate our kids that we have living in our household. But I do totally agree on your last paragraph 100%

Quoting Mz.Behavin:" My husband has a child from a previous relationship. We have been together almost 10 years and have ... [snip!] ... each time to accommodate our kids that we have living in our household. But I do totally agree on your last paragraph 100%"

See now i think thats wrong in my opinion that they lower support because a guy keeps having more children they cant afford

I never said anything about not being able to afford it. But obviously our kids are entitled to a certain percent of his income just as much as the other one, no matter how many more kids we have... (Which we aren't going to be having any more.)

Quoting Mz.Behavin:" I never said anything about not being able to afford it. But obviously our kids are entitled to a certain ... [snip!] ... income just as much as the other one, no matter how many more kids we have... (Which we aren't going to be having any more.)"

i just believe the amount shouldnt change just cause the man keeps having children . why does the other parent have to pay more because the other parent has more children with someone else .

<blockquote><b>Quoting Mz.Behavin:</b>" <blockquote><b>Quoting Nathaniel'sMom:</b>" First child is always entitled to more ... [snip!] ... the other child was born first does not make them more important or entitled to more money than a child who was born later."</blockquote>




Well that's what it's like here. I'm the oldest child and my mother was told by the judge that she was asking to little($150/month) and because my younger sisters mother was receiving $250/month that my mother should be asking for $300 since I'm the oldest.