Amusing...

[Jon]

You are wrong on your assessment. In Oregon, there is a formula that takes
the combined total income from both parents, and pro-rates proportionately
the amounts for child support. So if the woman made $75K and the guy $25K,
then the total support would be based on a $100K income, probably in the
$1500 per month range. Then they would say that the woman is responsible
for 75% and the guy 25%.
I used to have the oregon website that has the calculator, but not any more.
Jon



Werebat wrote:
> A friend of mine insists that if a man marries a woman and earns less
> than she does, they have a child, and later divorce (and she gets full
> custody of the child), that the man will not have to pay any child
> support.
>
> I was so stunned, but then I remembered that there was I time I had
> thought this was true, too.
>
> What web sources can I point to him to get an education? He still
> thinks I'm wrong when I tell him the father would have to pay the
> same amount of CS as he would if the mother made NOTHING!
>
> - Ron ^*^

[Jon]

You are wrong on your assessment. In Oregon, there is a formula that takes
the combined total income from both parents, and pro-rates proportionately
the amounts for child support. So if the woman made $75K and the guy $25K,
then the total support would be based on a $100K income, probably in the
$1500 per month range. Then they would say that the woman is responsible
for 75% and the guy 25%.
I used to have the oregon website that has the calculator, but not any more.
Jon



Werebat wrote:
> A friend of mine insists that if a man marries a woman and earns less
> than she does, they have a child, and later divorce (and she gets full
> custody of the child), that the man will not have to pay any child
> support.
>
> I was so stunned, but then I remembered that there was I time I had
> thought this was true, too.
>
> What web sources can I point to him to get an education? He still
> thinks I'm wrong when I tell him the father would have to pay the
> same amount of CS as he would if the mother made NOTHING!
>
> - Ron ^*^

[Tracy]

http://dcs.state.or.us/calculator/ :)

CS would be $231/month for one child considering the conditions you mention
below, and without joint custody.
CS would be $82/month for one child using the conditions you mention below,
and with joint custody of 70/30 split.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***


"Jon" > wrote in message
...
> You are wrong on your assessment. In Oregon, there is a formula that
takes
> the combined total income from both parents, and pro-rates proportionately
> the amounts for child support. So if the woman made $75K and the guy
$25K,
> then the total support would be based on a $100K income, probably in the
> $1500 per month range. Then they would say that the woman is responsible
> for 75% and the guy 25%.
> I used to have the oregon website that has the calculator, but not any
more.
> Jon
>
>
>
> Werebat wrote:
> > A friend of mine insists that if a man marries a woman and earns less
> > than she does, they have a child, and later divorce (and she gets full
> > custody of the child), that the man will not have to pay any child
> > support.
> >
> > I was so stunned, but then I remembered that there was I time I had
> > thought this was true, too.
> >
> > What web sources can I point to him to get an education? He still
> > thinks I'm wrong when I tell him the father would have to pay the
> > same amount of CS as he would if the mother made NOTHING!
> >
> > - Ron ^*^
>
>

[Tracy]

http://dcs.state.or.us/calculator/ :)

CS would be $231/month for one child considering the conditions you mention
below, and without joint custody.
CS would be $82/month for one child using the conditions you mention below,
and with joint custody of 70/30 split.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***


"Jon" > wrote in message
...
> You are wrong on your assessment. In Oregon, there is a formula that
takes
> the combined total income from both parents, and pro-rates proportionately
> the amounts for child support. So if the woman made $75K and the guy
$25K,
> then the total support would be based on a $100K income, probably in the
> $1500 per month range. Then they would say that the woman is responsible
> for 75% and the guy 25%.
> I used to have the oregon website that has the calculator, but not any
more.
> Jon
>
>
>
> Werebat wrote:
> > A friend of mine insists that if a man marries a woman and earns less
> > than she does, they have a child, and later divorce (and she gets full
> > custody of the child), that the man will not have to pay any child
> > support.
> >
> > I was so stunned, but then I remembered that there was I time I had
> > thought this was true, too.
> >
> > What web sources can I point to him to get an education? He still
> > thinks I'm wrong when I tell him the father would have to pay the
> > same amount of CS as he would if the mother made NOTHING!
> >
> > - Ron ^*^
>
>

[Kenneth S.]

I think it's incorrect to say flat-out that he is wrong. You may be
correct in your description of what happens in Oregon. However, not all
states in the U.S.have the kind of income-sharing formula that you
describe for Oregon.

Some states set so-called "child support" at a percentage of the income
of the non-custodial parent (read, "father"). So, in those states, the
mother could be a millionaire, and the father a pauper, and the father
would still be required to pay the mother. That used to be the case in
Wisconsin, for example, and for all I know may still be the case.





Jon wrote:
>
> You are wrong on your assessment. In Oregon, there is a formula that takes
> the combined total income from both parents, and pro-rates proportionately
> the amounts for child support. So if the woman made $75K and the guy $25K,
> then the total support would be based on a $100K income, probably in the
> $1500 per month range. Then they would say that the woman is responsible
> for 75% and the guy 25%.
> I used to have the oregon website that has the calculator, but not any more.
> Jon
>
> Werebat wrote:
> > A friend of mine insists that if a man marries a woman and earns less
> > than she does, they have a child, and later divorce (and she gets full
> > custody of the child), that the man will not have to pay any child
> > support.
> >
> > I was so stunned, but then I remembered that there was I time I had
> > thought this was true, too.
> >
> > What web sources can I point to him to get an education? He still
> > thinks I'm wrong when I tell him the father would have to pay the
> > same amount of CS as he would if the mother made NOTHING!
> >
> > - Ron ^*^

[Kenneth S.]

I think it's incorrect to say flat-out that he is wrong. You may be
correct in your description of what happens in Oregon. However, not all
states in the U.S.have the kind of income-sharing formula that you
describe for Oregon.

Some states set so-called "child support" at a percentage of the income
of the non-custodial parent (read, "father"). So, in those states, the
mother could be a millionaire, and the father a pauper, and the father
would still be required to pay the mother. That used to be the case in
Wisconsin, for example, and for all I know may still be the case.





Jon wrote:
>
> You are wrong on your assessment. In Oregon, there is a formula that takes
> the combined total income from both parents, and pro-rates proportionately
> the amounts for child support. So if the woman made $75K and the guy $25K,
> then the total support would be based on a $100K income, probably in the
> $1500 per month range. Then they would say that the woman is responsible
> for 75% and the guy 25%.
> I used to have the oregon website that has the calculator, but not any more.
> Jon
>
> Werebat wrote:
> > A friend of mine insists that if a man marries a woman and earns less
> > than she does, they have a child, and later divorce (and she gets full
> > custody of the child), that the man will not have to pay any child
> > support.
> >
> > I was so stunned, but then I remembered that there was I time I had
> > thought this was true, too.
> >
> > What web sources can I point to him to get an education? He still
> > thinks I'm wrong when I tell him the father would have to pay the
> > same amount of CS as he would if the mother made NOTHING!
> >
> > - Ron ^*^

[Werebat]

A friend of mine insists that if a man marries a woman and earns less
than she does, they have a child, and later divorce (and she gets full
custody of the child), that the man will not have to pay any child
support.

I was so stunned, but then I remembered that there was I time I had
thought this was true, too.

What web sources can I point to him to get an education? He still thinks
I'm wrong when I tell him the father would have to pay the same amount of
CS as he would if the mother made NOTHING!

- Ron ^*^

[Werebat]

Perhaps wrong in a detail, but not the big picture -- the guy *still*
has to pay child support, even though she makes three times his
salary.

- Ron ^*^


Jon wrote:
>
> You are wrong on your assessment. In Oregon, there is a formula that takes
> the combined total income from both parents, and pro-rates proportionately
> the amounts for child support. So if the woman made $75K and the guy $25K,
> then the total support would be based on a $100K income, probably in the
> $1500 per month range. Then they would say that the woman is responsible
> for 75% and the guy 25%.
> I used to have the oregon website that has the calculator, but not any more.
> Jon
>
> Werebat wrote:
> > A friend of mine insists that if a man marries a woman and earns less
> > than she does, they have a child, and later divorce (and she gets full
> > custody of the child), that the man will not have to pay any child
> > support.
> >
> > I was so stunned, but then I remembered that there was I time I had
> > thought this was true, too.
> >
> > What web sources can I point to him to get an education? He still
> > thinks I'm wrong when I tell him the father would have to pay the
> > same amount of CS as he would if the mother made NOTHING!
> >
> > - Ron ^*^

[Werebat]

Perhaps wrong in a detail, but not the big picture -- the guy *still*
has to pay child support, even though she makes three times his
salary.

- Ron ^*^


Jon wrote:
>
> You are wrong on your assessment. In Oregon, there is a formula that takes
> the combined total income from both parents, and pro-rates proportionately
> the amounts for child support. So if the woman made $75K and the guy $25K,
> then the total support would be based on a $100K income, probably in the
> $1500 per month range. Then they would say that the woman is responsible
> for 75% and the guy 25%.
> I used to have the oregon website that has the calculator, but not any more.
> Jon
>
> Werebat wrote:
> > A friend of mine insists that if a man marries a woman and earns less
> > than she does, they have a child, and later divorce (and she gets full
> > custody of the child), that the man will not have to pay any child
> > support.
> >
> > I was so stunned, but then I remembered that there was I time I had
> > thought this was true, too.
> >
> > What web sources can I point to him to get an education? He still
> > thinks I'm wrong when I tell him the father would have to pay the
> > same amount of CS as he would if the mother made NOTHING!
> >
> > - Ron ^*^

[Mel Gamble]

Correct. And even in oregun, if you look at more common incomes, like
around $2k/month for the father, and the mother with an income equal to
or less than the father's, the mother's income has little effect on what
the father ends up paying. At some levels of income for the mother,
small increases in her income can actually result in an *INCREASE* in
what the father is ordered to pay.

Mel Gamble

"Kenneth S." wrote:
>
> I think it's incorrect to say flat-out that he is wrong. You may be
> correct in your description of what happens in Oregon. However, not all
> states in the U.S.have the kind of income-sharing formula that you
> describe for Oregon.
>
> Some states set so-called "child support" at a percentage of the income
> of the non-custodial parent (read, "father"). So, in those states, the
> mother could be a millionaire, and the father a pauper, and the father
> would still be required to pay the mother. That used to be the case in
> Wisconsin, for example, and for all I know may still be the case.
>
> Jon wrote:
> >
> > You are wrong on your assessment. In Oregon, there is a formula that takes
> > the combined total income from both parents, and pro-rates proportionately
> > the amounts for child support. So if the woman made $75K and the guy $25K,
> > then the total support would be based on a $100K income, probably in the
> > $1500 per month range. Then they would say that the woman is responsible
> > for 75% and the guy 25%.
> > I used to have the oregon website that has the calculator, but not any more.
> > Jon
> >
> > Werebat wrote:
> > > A friend of mine insists that if a man marries a woman and earns less
> > > than she does, they have a child, and later divorce (and she gets full
> > > custody of the child), that the man will not have to pay any child
> > > support.
> > >
> > > I was so stunned, but then I remembered that there was I time I had
> > > thought this was true, too.
> > >
> > > What web sources can I point to him to get an education? He still
> > > thinks I'm wrong when I tell him the father would have to pay the
> > > same amount of CS as he would if the mother made NOTHING!
> > >
> > > - Ron ^*^

[Mel Gamble]

Correct. And even in oregun, if you look at more common incomes, like
around $2k/month for the father, and the mother with an income equal to
or less than the father's, the mother's income has little effect on what
the father ends up paying. At some levels of income for the mother,
small increases in her income can actually result in an *INCREASE* in
what the father is ordered to pay.

Mel Gamble

"Kenneth S." wrote:
>
> I think it's incorrect to say flat-out that he is wrong. You may be
> correct in your description of what happens in Oregon. However, not all
> states in the U.S.have the kind of income-sharing formula that you
> describe for Oregon.
>
> Some states set so-called "child support" at a percentage of the income
> of the non-custodial parent (read, "father"). So, in those states, the
> mother could be a millionaire, and the father a pauper, and the father
> would still be required to pay the mother. That used to be the case in
> Wisconsin, for example, and for all I know may still be the case.
>
> Jon wrote:
> >
> > You are wrong on your assessment. In Oregon, there is a formula that takes
> > the combined total income from both parents, and pro-rates proportionately
> > the amounts for child support. So if the woman made $75K and the guy $25K,
> > then the total support would be based on a $100K income, probably in the
> > $1500 per month range. Then they would say that the woman is responsible
> > for 75% and the guy 25%.
> > I used to have the oregon website that has the calculator, but not any more.
> > Jon
> >
> > Werebat wrote:
> > > A friend of mine insists that if a man marries a woman and earns less
> > > than she does, they have a child, and later divorce (and she gets full
> > > custody of the child), that the man will not have to pay any child
> > > support.
> > >
> > > I was so stunned, but then I remembered that there was I time I had
> > > thought this was true, too.
> > >
> > > What web sources can I point to him to get an education? He still
> > > thinks I'm wrong when I tell him the father would have to pay the
> > > same amount of CS as he would if the mother made NOTHING!
> > >
> > > - Ron ^*^

[Mel Gamble]

Tracy...

Tracy wrote:
>
> http://dcs.state.or.us/calculator/ :)
>
> CS would be $231/month for one child considering the conditions you mention
> below, and without joint custody.
> CS would be $82/month for one child using the conditions you mention below,
> and with joint custody of 70/30 split.

.... who has the 70% in your example? My understanding is that at 30%
custody, the father gets ZERO credit against his CS. Unless things have
changed in oregun, the father gets about a 2% credit at 35% because that
is the point at which the time share *STARTS* to be included in the
calculation. It is also the point at which the "presumed amount" takes
a 50% jump (for some unknown reason {yeah, 'unknown'}), which is WHY a
35% custody share only equals a 2% reduction in CS instead of a 35%
reduction.

What it still boils down to is that, for most of us poor slobs, the
mother's income has little - or negative - effect on our CS obligation.

Mel Gamble

> Tracy
> ~~~~~~~
> http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
> "You can't solve problems with the same
> type of thinking that created them."
> Albert Einstein
>
> *** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***
>
> "Jon" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You are wrong on your assessment. In Oregon, there is a formula that
> takes
> > the combined total income from both parents, and pro-rates proportionately
> > the amounts for child support. So if the woman made $75K and the guy
> $25K,
> > then the total support would be based on a $100K income, probably in the
> > $1500 per month range. Then they would say that the woman is responsible
> > for 75% and the guy 25%.
> > I used to have the oregon website that has the calculator, but not any
> more.
> > Jon
> >
> >
> >
> > Werebat wrote:
> > > A friend of mine insists that if a man marries a woman and earns less
> > > than she does, they have a child, and later divorce (and she gets full
> > > custody of the child), that the man will not have to pay any child
> > > support.
> > >
> > > I was so stunned, but then I remembered that there was I time I had
> > > thought this was true, too.
> > >
> > > What web sources can I point to him to get an education? He still
> > > thinks I'm wrong when I tell him the father would have to pay the
> > > same amount of CS as he would if the mother made NOTHING!
> > >
> > > - Ron ^*^
> >
> >

[Mel Gamble]

Tracy...

Tracy wrote:
>
> http://dcs.state.or.us/calculator/ :)
>
> CS would be $231/month for one child considering the conditions you mention
> below, and without joint custody.
> CS would be $82/month for one child using the conditions you mention below,
> and with joint custody of 70/30 split.

.... who has the 70% in your example? My understanding is that at 30%
custody, the father gets ZERO credit against his CS. Unless things have
changed in oregun, the father gets about a 2% credit at 35% because that
is the point at which the time share *STARTS* to be included in the
calculation. It is also the point at which the "presumed amount" takes
a 50% jump (for some unknown reason {yeah, 'unknown'}), which is WHY a
35% custody share only equals a 2% reduction in CS instead of a 35%
reduction.

What it still boils down to is that, for most of us poor slobs, the
mother's income has little - or negative - effect on our CS obligation.

Mel Gamble

> Tracy
> ~~~~~~~
> http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
> "You can't solve problems with the same
> type of thinking that created them."
> Albert Einstein
>
> *** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***
>
> "Jon" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You are wrong on your assessment. In Oregon, there is a formula that
> takes
> > the combined total income from both parents, and pro-rates proportionately
> > the amounts for child support. So if the woman made $75K and the guy
> $25K,
> > then the total support would be based on a $100K income, probably in the
> > $1500 per month range. Then they would say that the woman is responsible
> > for 75% and the guy 25%.
> > I used to have the oregon website that has the calculator, but not any
> more.
> > Jon
> >
> >
> >
> > Werebat wrote:
> > > A friend of mine insists that if a man marries a woman and earns less
> > > than she does, they have a child, and later divorce (and she gets full
> > > custody of the child), that the man will not have to pay any child
> > > support.
> > >
> > > I was so stunned, but then I remembered that there was I time I had
> > > thought this was true, too.
> > >
> > > What web sources can I point to him to get an education? He still
> > > thinks I'm wrong when I tell him the father would have to pay the
> > > same amount of CS as he would if the mother made NOTHING!
> > >
> > > - Ron ^*^
> >
> >

[Tracy]

"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> Tracy...
>
> Tracy wrote:
> >
> > http://dcs.state.or.us/calculator/ :)
> >
> > CS would be $231/month for one child considering the conditions you
mention
> > below, and without joint custody.
> > CS would be $82/month for one child using the conditions you mention
below,
> > and with joint custody of 70/30 split.
>
> ... who has the 70% in your example? My understanding is that at 30%
> custody, the father gets ZERO credit against his CS. Unless things have
> changed in oregun, the father gets about a 2% credit at 35% because that
> is the point at which the time share *STARTS* to be included in the
> calculation. It is also the point at which the "presumed amount" takes
> a 50% jump (for some unknown reason {yeah, 'unknown'}), which is WHY a
> 35% custody share only equals a 2% reduction in CS instead of a 35%
> reduction.
>
> What it still boils down to is that, for most of us poor slobs, the
> mother's income has little - or negative - effect on our CS obligation.


The primary custodial parent has the 70%. All I did was plug in Jon's
figures and used a 70/30 joint custody split versus non-joint custody (which
doesn't consider the parenting time split).


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

[Tracy]

"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> Tracy...
>
> Tracy wrote:
> >
> > http://dcs.state.or.us/calculator/ :)
> >
> > CS would be $231/month for one child considering the conditions you
mention
> > below, and without joint custody.
> > CS would be $82/month for one child using the conditions you mention
below,
> > and with joint custody of 70/30 split.
>
> ... who has the 70% in your example? My understanding is that at 30%
> custody, the father gets ZERO credit against his CS. Unless things have
> changed in oregun, the father gets about a 2% credit at 35% because that
> is the point at which the time share *STARTS* to be included in the
> calculation. It is also the point at which the "presumed amount" takes
> a 50% jump (for some unknown reason {yeah, 'unknown'}), which is WHY a
> 35% custody share only equals a 2% reduction in CS instead of a 35%
> reduction.
>
> What it still boils down to is that, for most of us poor slobs, the
> mother's income has little - or negative - effect on our CS obligation.


The primary custodial parent has the 70%. All I did was plug in Jon's
figures and used a 70/30 joint custody split versus non-joint custody (which
doesn't consider the parenting time split).


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

[B]

In article <Fu_Lb.17592$nt4.37482@attbi_s51>, "Tracy" > wrote:
>"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
>> Tracy...
>>
>> Tracy wrote:
>> >
>> > http://dcs.state.or.us/calculator/ :)
>> >
>> > CS would be $231/month for one child considering the conditions you
>mention
>> > below, and without joint custody.
>> > CS would be $82/month for one child using the conditions you mention
>below,
>> > and with joint custody of 70/30 split.
>>
>> ... who has the 70% in your example? My understanding is that at 30%
>> custody, the father gets ZERO credit against his CS. Unless things have
>> changed in oregun, the father gets about a 2% credit at 35% because that
>> is the point at which the time share *STARTS* to be included in the
>> calculation. It is also the point at which the "presumed amount" takes
>> a 50% jump (for some unknown reason {yeah, 'unknown'}), which is WHY a
>> 35% custody share only equals a 2% reduction in CS instead of a 35%
>> reduction.
>>
>> What it still boils down to is that, for most of us poor slobs, the
>> mother's income has little - or negative - effect on our CS obligation.
>
>
>The primary custodial parent has the 70%. All I did was plug in Jon's
>figures and used a 70/30 joint custody split versus non-joint custody (which
>doesn't consider the parenting time split).
>
>
>Tracy
>

In plugged in my own numbers (from Canada). In Oregon I would be paying $800
less a month. WOW!!!

[B]

In article <Fu_Lb.17592$nt4.37482@attbi_s51>, "Tracy" > wrote:
>"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
>> Tracy...
>>
>> Tracy wrote:
>> >
>> > http://dcs.state.or.us/calculator/ :)
>> >
>> > CS would be $231/month for one child considering the conditions you
>mention
>> > below, and without joint custody.
>> > CS would be $82/month for one child using the conditions you mention
>below,
>> > and with joint custody of 70/30 split.
>>
>> ... who has the 70% in your example? My understanding is that at 30%
>> custody, the father gets ZERO credit against his CS. Unless things have
>> changed in oregun, the father gets about a 2% credit at 35% because that
>> is the point at which the time share *STARTS* to be included in the
>> calculation. It is also the point at which the "presumed amount" takes
>> a 50% jump (for some unknown reason {yeah, 'unknown'}), which is WHY a
>> 35% custody share only equals a 2% reduction in CS instead of a 35%
>> reduction.
>>
>> What it still boils down to is that, for most of us poor slobs, the
>> mother's income has little - or negative - effect on our CS obligation.
>
>
>The primary custodial parent has the 70%. All I did was plug in Jon's
>figures and used a 70/30 joint custody split versus non-joint custody (which
>doesn't consider the parenting time split).
>
>
>Tracy
>

In plugged in my own numbers (from Canada). In Oregon I would be paying $800
less a month. WOW!!!

[Mel Gamble]

So...

Tracy wrote:
>
> "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Tracy...
> >
> > Tracy wrote:
> > >
> > > http://dcs.state.or.us/calculator/ :)
> > >
> > > CS would be $231/month for one child considering the conditions you
> mention
> > > below, and without joint custody.
> > > CS would be $82/month for one child using the conditions you mention
> below,
> > > and with joint custody of 70/30 split.
> >
> > ... who has the 70% in your example? My understanding is that at 30%
> > custody, the father gets ZERO credit against his CS. Unless things have
> > changed in oregun, the father gets about a 2% credit at 35% because that
> > is the point at which the time share *STARTS* to be included in the
> > calculation. It is also the point at which the "presumed amount" takes
> > a 50% jump (for some unknown reason {yeah, 'unknown'}), which is WHY a
> > 35% custody share only equals a 2% reduction in CS instead of a 35%
> > reduction.
> >
> > What it still boils down to is that, for most of us poor slobs, the
> > mother's income has little - or negative - effect on our CS obligation.
>
> The primary custodial parent has the 70%. All I did was plug in Jon's
> figures and used a 70/30 joint custody split versus non-joint custody (which
> doesn't consider the parenting time split).

....(if that's what the state calculator spits out) it would appear there
have been some significant changes in the last year or 2. Not good yet,
but it would appear that time-split is being handled more fairly than
before.

Mel Gamble

> Tracy
> ~~~~~~~
> http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
> "You can't solve problems with the same
> type of thinking that created them."
> Albert Einstein
>
> *** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

[Mel Gamble]

So...

Tracy wrote:
>
> "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Tracy...
> >
> > Tracy wrote:
> > >
> > > http://dcs.state.or.us/calculator/ :)
> > >
> > > CS would be $231/month for one child considering the conditions you
> mention
> > > below, and without joint custody.
> > > CS would be $82/month for one child using the conditions you mention
> below,
> > > and with joint custody of 70/30 split.
> >
> > ... who has the 70% in your example? My understanding is that at 30%
> > custody, the father gets ZERO credit against his CS. Unless things have
> > changed in oregun, the father gets about a 2% credit at 35% because that
> > is the point at which the time share *STARTS* to be included in the
> > calculation. It is also the point at which the "presumed amount" takes
> > a 50% jump (for some unknown reason {yeah, 'unknown'}), which is WHY a
> > 35% custody share only equals a 2% reduction in CS instead of a 35%
> > reduction.
> >
> > What it still boils down to is that, for most of us poor slobs, the
> > mother's income has little - or negative - effect on our CS obligation.
>
> The primary custodial parent has the 70%. All I did was plug in Jon's
> figures and used a 70/30 joint custody split versus non-joint custody (which
> doesn't consider the parenting time split).

....(if that's what the state calculator spits out) it would appear there
have been some significant changes in the last year or 2. Not good yet,
but it would appear that time-split is being handled more fairly than
before.

Mel Gamble

> Tracy
> ~~~~~~~
> http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
> "You can't solve problems with the same
> type of thinking that created them."
> Albert Einstein
>
> *** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***