CS for Steparents....its out of control

B. Statutory Duty of a Stepparent to Support a Stepchild

Twenty states now have statutes imposing a duty on stepparents to support their stepchildren:

(1) Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 501(b) (1994) (stepparent liable for support of stepchild during marriage);
(2) Haw. Rev. Stat. § 577-4 (1993) (stepparent liable for support of stepchild during marriage);
(3) Iowa Code Ann. §§ 252A.2(3) (Supp. 1996) (including stepchild in definition of children to whom a duty of support is owed);
(4) Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 205.310 (1995) (stepparent has duty to support stepchild during marriage);
(5) Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, § 752(6) (Supp. 1995) (support may be ordered against third party where such party takes custody after divorce after showing of parental unfitness);
(6) Mo. Ann. Stat. § 568.040 (Supp. 1996) (criminal nonsupport statute applies equally to parents and stepparents);
(7) Mont. Code Ann. § 40-6-217 (1995) (if stepparent receives stepchild into family and supports him or her, stepparent is presumed to do so as a parent);
(8) Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-706 (1995) (criminal nonsupport statute applies to stepparents);
(9) Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 62.044 (1996) (stepparent liable to same extent as parent for neglect and dependency of child);
(10) N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 546-A:1, -A:2 (1974) (stepparent owes duty of support to stepchild during marriage);
(11) N.J. Stat. Ann. § 30:4C-2 (Supp. 1995) (includes as child under neglect and dependency proceedings a stepchild);
(12) N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 415 (1983); N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 101 (1992) (stepparent liable for support of stepchild to prevent the same from becoming a public charge);
(13) N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-13.4 (1995) (any person standing in loco parentis to child has duty of support);
(14) N.D. Cent. Code § 14-09-09 (1991) (extending stepparent support duty during the marriage and so long thereafter as the stepchildren remain in the stepparent's family);
(15) Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 15 (1987) (stepparent has duty of support to stepchild);
(16) Or. Rev. Stat. § 109.053 (1990) (stepparent has duty of support to stepchild);
(17) S.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 25-7-8 (1992) (a stepparent shall maintain his spouse's children born prior to the marriage);
(18) Utah Code Ann. § 78-45-4.1 (1992) (imposes support duty on stepparent that terminates on divorce);
(19) Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 296 (1989) (stepparent has duty of support of stepchild);
(20) Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 26.16.205 (Supp. 1996) (imposes duty of support on stepparent which shall cease on termination of relationship between husband and wife).
These statutes have withstood a variety of attacks, constitutional and otherwise. E.g., Openshaw v. Openshaw, 639 P.2d 177 (Utah 1981) (father entitled to reduction of child support for natural child based on his new obligation to support his stepchild); Washington Statewide Organization of Stepparents v. Smith, 85 Wash. 2d 564, 536 P.2d 1202 (1975) (statute is not a violation of equal protection by imposing on stepparents the duty of support while not imposing on cohabitants the same duty, not does statute impair obligation of marriage contracts). See generally Patricia Jean Lamkin, Annotation, Validity, Construction, and Application of Statute Imposing Upon Stepparent Obligation to Support Child, 75 A.L.R.3d 1129 (1977).

Where a statute provides that a stepparent has a duty to support a stepchild, the statute is essentially no more than a codification of the doctrine of in loco parentis doctrine. The in loco parentis doctrine states that if a stepparent takes stepchildren into his or her family or under his or her care in such a way that he or she places himself or herself in loco parentis, then the stepparent assumes an obligation to support the stepchildren. See Adele Stuart Meriam, The Stepfather in the Family (1940) (tracing the doctrine of in loco parentis in the United States to Williams v. Hutchinson, 5 Barb. 122 (N.Y. App. Div. 1849)). Thus, the codification of the in loco parentis doctrine into state legislation has not expanded the support rights of stepchildren as defined under the common law.


With that said, does this really help fathers? Does it help mothers? When will this stop? Is Child Support a trend that will NEVER stop....Please enlighten me.

amb wrote:

B. Statutory Duty of a Stepparent to Support a Stepchild

Twenty states now have statutes imposing a duty on stepparents to
support their stepchildren:

(1) Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 501(b) (1994) (stepparent liable for
support of stepchild during marriage);
(2) Haw. Rev. Stat. § 577-4 (1993) (stepparent liable for support of
stepchild during marriage);
(3) Iowa Code Ann. §§ 252A.2(3) (Supp. 1996) (including stepchild in
definition of children to whom a duty of support is owed);
(4) Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 205.310 (1995) (stepparent has duty to
support stepchild during marriage);
(5) Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, § 752(6) (Supp. 1995) (support may be
ordered against third party where such party takes custody after
divorce after showing of parental unfitness);
(6) Mo. Ann. Stat. § 568.040 (Supp. 1996) (criminal nonsupport statute
applies equally to parents and stepparents);
(7) Mont. Code Ann. § 40-6-217 (1995) (if stepparent receives stepchild
into family and supports him or her, stepparent is presumed to do so as
a parent);
(8) Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-706 (1995) (criminal nonsupport statute
applies to stepparents);
(9) Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 62.044 (1996) (stepparent liable to same
extent as parent for neglect and dependency of child);
(10) N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 546-A:1, -A:2 (1974) (stepparent owes duty
of support to stepchild during marriage);
(11) N.J. Stat. Ann. § 30:4C-2 (Supp. 1995) (includes as child under
neglect and dependency proceedings a stepchild);
(12) N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 415 (1983); N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 101 (1992)
(stepparent liable for support of stepchild to prevent the same from
becoming a public charge);
(13) N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-13.4 (1995) (any person standing in loco
parentis to child has duty of support);
(14) N.D. Cent. Code § 14-09-09 (1991) (extending stepparent support
duty during the marriage and so long thereafter as the stepchildren
remain in the stepparent's family);
(15) Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 15 (1987) (stepparent has duty of
support to stepchild);
(16) Or. Rev. Stat. § 109.053 (1990) (stepparent has duty of support to
stepchild);
(17) S.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 25-7-8 (1992) (a stepparent shall
maintain his spouse's children born prior to the marriage);
(18) Utah Code Ann. § 78-45-4.1 (1992) (imposes support duty on
stepparent that terminates on divorce);
(19) Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 296 (1989) (stepparent has duty of
support of stepchild);
(20) Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 26.16.205 (Supp. 1996) (imposes duty of
support on stepparent which shall cease on termination of relationship
between husband and wife).
These statutes have withstood a variety of attacks, constitutional and
otherwise. E.g., Openshaw v. Openshaw, 639 P.2d 177 (Utah 1981) (father
entitled to reduction of child support for natural child based on his
new obligation to support his stepchild); Washington Statewide
Organization of Stepparents v. Smith, 85 Wash. 2d 564, 536 P.2d 1202
(1975) (statute is not a violation of equal protection by imposing on
stepparents the duty of support while not imposing on cohabitants the
same duty, not does statute impair obligation of marriage contracts).
See generally Patricia Jean Lamkin, Annotation, Validity, Construction,
and Application of Statute Imposing Upon Stepparent Obligation to
Support Child, 75 A.L.R.3d 1129 (1977).

Where a statute provides that a stepparent has a duty to support a
stepchild, the statute is essentially no more than a codification of
the doctrine of in loco parentis doctrine. The in loco parentis
doctrine states that if a stepparent takes stepchildren into his or her
family or under his or her care in such a way that he or she places
himself or herself in loco parentis, then the stepparent assumes an
obligation to support the stepchildren. See Adele Stuart Meriam, The
Stepfather in the Family (1940) (tracing the doctrine of in loco
parentis in the United States to Williams v. Hutchinson, 5 Barb. 122
(N.Y. App. Div. 1849)). Thus, the codification of the in loco parentis
doctrine into state legislation has not expanded the support rights of
stepchildren as defined under the common law.


With that said, does this really help fathers? Does it help mothers?
When will this stop? Is Child Support a trend that will NEVER
stop....Please enlighten me.

It will stop when it begins to concretely affect those who have the
ability to flex their political muscles and makes changes.

- Ron ^*^

"amb" wrote in message
...

B. Statutory Duty of a Stepparent to Support a Stepchild

Twenty states now have statutes imposing a duty on stepparents to
support their stepchildren:

(1) Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 501(b) (1994) (stepparent liable for
support of stepchild during marriage);
(2) Haw. Rev. Stat. § 577-4 (1993) (stepparent liable for support of
stepchild during marriage);
(3) Iowa Code Ann. §§ 252A.2(3) (Supp. 1996) (including stepchild in
definition of children to whom a duty of support is owed);
(4) Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 205.310 (1995) (stepparent has duty to
support stepchild during marriage);
(5) Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, § 752(6) (Supp. 1995) (support may be
ordered against third party where such party takes custody after
divorce after showing of parental unfitness);
(6) Mo. Ann. Stat. § 568.040 (Supp. 1996) (criminal nonsupport statute
applies equally to parents and stepparents);
(7) Mont. Code Ann. § 40-6-217 (1995) (if stepparent receives stepchild
into family and supports him or her, stepparent is presumed to do so as
a parent);
(8) Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-706 (1995) (criminal nonsupport statute
applies to stepparents);
(9) Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 62.044 (1996) (stepparent liable to same
extent as parent for neglect and dependency of child);
(10) N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 546-A:1, -A:2 (1974) (stepparent owes duty
of support to stepchild during marriage);
(11) N.J. Stat. Ann. § 30:4C-2 (Supp. 1995) (includes as child under
neglect and dependency proceedings a stepchild);
(12) N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 415 (1983); N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 101 (1992)
(stepparent liable for support of stepchild to prevent the same from
becoming a public charge);
(13) N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-13.4 (1995) (any person standing in loco
parentis to child has duty of support);
(14) N.D. Cent. Code § 14-09-09 (1991) (extending stepparent support
duty during the marriage and so long thereafter as the stepchildren
remain in the stepparent's family);
(15) Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 15 (1987) (stepparent has duty of
support to stepchild);
(16) Or. Rev. Stat. § 109.053 (1990) (stepparent has duty of support to
stepchild);
(17) S.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 25-7-8 (1992) (a stepparent shall
maintain his spouse's children born prior to the marriage);
(18) Utah Code Ann. § 78-45-4.1 (1992) (imposes support duty on
stepparent that terminates on divorce);
(19) Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 296 (1989) (stepparent has duty of
support of stepchild);
(20) Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 26.16.205 (Supp. 1996) (imposes duty of
support on stepparent which shall cease on termination of relationship
between husband and wife).
These statutes have withstood a variety of attacks, constitutional and
otherwise. E.g., Openshaw v. Openshaw, 639 P.2d 177 (Utah 1981) (father
entitled to reduction of child support for natural child based on his
new obligation to support his stepchild); Washington Statewide
Organization of Stepparents v. Smith, 85 Wash. 2d 564, 536 P.2d 1202
(1975) (statute is not a violation of equal protection by imposing on
stepparents the duty of support while not imposing on cohabitants the
same duty, not does statute impair obligation of marriage contracts).
See generally Patricia Jean Lamkin, Annotation, Validity, Construction,
and Application of Statute Imposing Upon Stepparent Obligation to
Support Child, 75 A.L.R.3d 1129 (1977).

Where a statute provides that a stepparent has a duty to support a
stepchild, the statute is essentially no more than a codification of
the doctrine of in loco parentis doctrine. The in loco parentis
doctrine states that if a stepparent takes stepchildren into his or her
family or under his or her care in such a way that he or she places
himself or herself in loco parentis, then the stepparent assumes an
obligation to support the stepchildren. See Adele Stuart Meriam, The
Stepfather in the Family (1940) (tracing the doctrine of in loco
parentis in the United States to Williams v. Hutchinson, 5 Barb. 122
(N.Y. App. Div. 1849)). Thus, the codification of the in loco parentis
doctrine into state legislation has not expanded the support rights of
stepchildren as defined under the common law.


With that said, does this really help fathers? Does it help mothers?
When will this stop? Is Child Support a trend that will NEVER
stop....Please enlighten me.

These statutes do not relate directly to the issues of CS payments we
discuss here. They do address a non-biological parent's responsibility to
support their family while married to a child's biological parent. This duty
of support ceases if the non-biological parent becomes divorced from the
child's biological parent. IOW - a stepparent only has financial
responsibility for the family while married.

Under that definition, these statutes do not help fathers paying CS for
their biological children, and in essence, provide for both the biological
father and a stepfather to support a mother's children. Where this type of
support could be considered in a CS hearing is when a state allows evidence
of "other resources available" to the CP. I have not heard of a stepparent
married to an NCP having their income used to support a step child not
living with them.

In article , amb says...


B. Statutory Duty of a Stepparent to Support a Stepchild

Twenty states now have statutes imposing a duty on stepparents to
support their stepchildren:

(1) Del. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 501(b) (1994) (stepparent liable for
support of stepchild during marriage);
(2) Haw. Rev. Stat. § 577-4 (1993) (stepparent liable for support of
stepchild during marriage);
(3) Iowa Code Ann. §§ 252A.2(3) (Supp. 1996) (including stepchild in
definition of children to whom a duty of support is owed);
(4) Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 205.310 (1995) (stepparent has duty to
support stepchild during marriage);
(5) Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 19, § 752(6) (Supp. 1995) (support may be
ordered against third party where such party takes custody after
divorce after showing of parental unfitness);
(6) Mo. Ann. Stat. § 568.040 (Supp. 1996) (criminal nonsupport statute
applies equally to parents and stepparents);
(7) Mont. Code Ann. § 40-6-217 (1995) (if stepparent receives stepchild
into family and supports him or her, stepparent is presumed to do so as
a parent);
(8) Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-706 (1995) (criminal nonsupport statute
applies to stepparents);
(9) Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 62.044 (1996) (stepparent liable to same
extent as parent for neglect and dependency of child);
(10) N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 546-A:1, -A:2 (1974) (stepparent owes duty
of support to stepchild during marriage);
(11) N.J. Stat. Ann. § 30:4C-2 (Supp. 1995) (includes as child under
neglect and dependency proceedings a stepchild);
(12) N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 415 (1983); N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 101 (1992)
(stepparent liable for support of stepchild to prevent the same from
becoming a public charge);
(13) N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-13.4 (1995) (any person standing in loco
parentis to child has duty of support);
(14) N.D. Cent. Code § 14-09-09 (1991) (extending stepparent support
duty during the marriage and so long thereafter as the stepchildren
remain in the stepparent's family);
(15) Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 15 (1987) (stepparent has duty of
support to stepchild);
(16) Or. Rev. Stat. § 109.053 (1990) (stepparent has duty of support to
stepchild);
(17) S.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 25-7-8 (1992) (a stepparent shall
maintain his spouse's children born prior to the marriage);
(18) Utah Code Ann. § 78-45-4.1 (1992) (imposes support duty on
stepparent that terminates on divorce);
(19) Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 296 (1989) (stepparent has duty of
support of stepchild);
(20) Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 26.16.205 (Supp. 1996) (imposes duty of
support on stepparent which shall cease on termination of relationship
between husband and wife).
These statutes have withstood a variety of attacks, constitutional and
otherwise. E.g., Openshaw v. Openshaw, 639 P.2d 177 (Utah 1981) (father
entitled to reduction of child support for natural child based on his
new obligation to support his stepchild); Washington Statewide
Organization of Stepparents v. Smith, 85 Wash. 2d 564, 536 P.2d 1202
(1975) (statute is not a violation of equal protection by imposing on
stepparents the duty of support while not imposing on cohabitants the
same duty, not does statute impair obligation of marriage contracts).
See generally Patricia Jean Lamkin, Annotation, Validity, Construction,
and Application of Statute Imposing Upon Stepparent Obligation to
Support Child, 75 A.L.R.3d 1129 (1977).

Where a statute provides that a stepparent has a duty to support a
stepchild, the statute is essentially no more than a codification of
the doctrine of in loco parentis doctrine. The in loco parentis
doctrine states that if a stepparent takes stepchildren into his or her
family or under his or her care in such a way that he or she places
himself or herself in loco parentis, then the stepparent assumes an
obligation to support the stepchildren. See Adele Stuart Meriam, The
Stepfather in the Family (1940) (tracing the doctrine of in loco
parentis in the United States to Williams v. Hutchinson, 5 Barb. 122
(N.Y. App. Div. 1849)). Thus, the codification of the in loco parentis
doctrine into state legislation has not expanded the support rights of
stepchildren as defined under the common law.


With that said, does this really help fathers? Does it help mothers?
When will this stop? Is Child Support a trend that will NEVER
stop....Please enlighten me.
====
This isn't new. PA has had such a statute for 50 years. I doubt it has ever been
dusted off and used, however. The intent behind the statute was to prevent a
wage earning stepparent from allowing his/her stepchildren to starve to death
while in his/her home. It is a basic survival needs assurance that applies to
all parents (except NCPs, of course, who are held liable for a higher standard).
Now, if steps were required to pay CS upon the breakup of the family, there
would be reason for alarm.
====
====

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

With that said, does this really help fathers? Does it help mothers?
When will this stop? Is Child Support a trend that will NEVER
stop....Please enlighten me.

These statutes do not relate directly to the issues of CS payments we
discuss here. They do address a non-biological parent's responsibility to
support their family while married to a child's biological parent. This
duty
of support ceases if the non-biological parent becomes divorced from the
child's biological parent. IOW - a stepparent only has financial
responsibility for the family while married.

Under that definition, these statutes do not help fathers paying CS for
their biological children, and in essence, provide for both the biological
father and a stepfather to support a mother's children. Where this type
of
support could be considered in a CS hearing is when a state allows
evidence
of "other resources available" to the CP. I have not heard of a
stepparent
married to an NCP having their income used to support a step child not
living with them.

A stepparent's income is typically not directly involved, but indirectly it
*could be* if the state is considering "disposable" income. I may not be
using the correct term, so if anyone knows of the correct term please
correct me. Disposable income is the income available to the CP & NCP above
their basic needs. Any CP or NCP who is currently married has a larger
disposable income if both them and their current spouse works because the
basic needs (dollar figure typically stipulated by the state) is reduce by
the dual income.

Ironically - regardless if this is a state regulation or not, my
stepchildren's mother strongly believes only my husband and I should be held
responsible for the kids' financial welfare. She feels she should not be
held responsible for their financial care. I'm sure her opinion would
remain the same regardless of who has custody of the children.

We may not like the wording, but we should probably ask - if the NCP is not
working but is married to a working spouse should the NCP pay child support?
If yes, who exactly is paying it? If not, then if the CP is not working but
is married to a working spouse should the NCP be held 100% financially
responsible for supporting the children? If yes, it that fair & why? If
no, then exactly who is supporting the children when the child support paid
by the NCP does not cover the full expenses of the children? In the long
run there are probably many stepparents financially supporting their
stepchildren than we are aware of - both directly & indirectly.

I can honestly say I am one of them supporting them directly. My husband
could not afford to support his children in the same manner we are living
today without a second income. I already know I could support my children
in the same manner we are living today without a second income - I've done
it for many years prior to marrying him.


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

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

With that said, does this really help fathers? Does it help mothers?
When will this stop? Is Child Support a trend that will NEVER
stop....Please enlighten me.

These statutes do not relate directly to the issues of CS payments we
discuss here. They do address a non-biological parent's responsibility
to
support their family while married to a child's biological parent. This
duty
of support ceases if the non-biological parent becomes divorced from the
child's biological parent. IOW - a stepparent only has financial
responsibility for the family while married.

Under that definition, these statutes do not help fathers paying CS for
their biological children, and in essence, provide for both the
biological
father and a stepfather to support a mother's children. Where this type
of
support could be considered in a CS hearing is when a state allows
evidence
of "other resources available" to the CP. I have not heard of a
stepparent
married to an NCP having their income used to support a step child not
living with them.

A stepparent's income is typically not directly involved, but indirectly
it
*could be* if the state is considering "disposable" income. I may not be
using the correct term, so if anyone knows of the correct term please
correct me. Disposable income is the income available to the CP & NCP
above
their basic needs. Any CP or NCP who is currently married has a larger
disposable income if both them and their current spouse works because the
basic needs (dollar figure typically stipulated by the state) is reduce by
the dual income.

Tracy is addressing the practicality of how CS orders work. Technically
there is a distinction between how orders are established and how orders are
paid. In the case of a remarried parent, the bio-parents' incomes are the
only incomes used to establish a CS order. But when it comes to paying, the
state is not concerned about where the money comes from to pay the CS order.
It is not uncommon for the non-bio parent's income to be used in pooled
resources to help pay the CS order.

In addition, there are legal distinctions made between children based on who
is their biological parent. The children of parents being ordered to pay CS
are referred to as "joint children." If one of the parents has a biological
children with another person, those children are referred to as "non-joint
children." The biological children of one of the parent's new spouse are
referred to as "stepchildren."

The OP commented on support of "stepchildren" under state support laws.
Support of stepchildren is a legally separate matter from support of
children under CS orders.

--

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is
proof against all
arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance--that
principle is contempt prior to investigation."
--Herbert Spencer
theelectricguns.com
"Tracy" wrote in message
...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

With that said, does this really help fathers? Does it help mothers?
When will this stop? Is Child Support a trend that will NEVER
stop....Please enlighten me.

These statutes do not relate directly to the issues of CS payments we
discuss here. They do address a non-biological parent's responsibility
to
support their family while married to a child's biological parent. This
duty
of support ceases if the non-biological parent becomes divorced from the
child's biological parent. IOW - a stepparent only has financial
responsibility for the family while married.

Under that definition, these statutes do not help fathers paying CS for
their biological children, and in essence, provide for both the
biological
father and a stepfather to support a mother's children. Where this type
of
support could be considered in a CS hearing is when a state allows
evidence
of "other resources available" to the CP. I have not heard of a
stepparent
married to an NCP having their income used to support a step child not
living with them.

A stepparent's income is typically not directly involved, but indirectly
it
*could be* if the state is considering "disposable" income. I may not be
using the correct term, so if anyone knows of the correct term please
correct me. Disposable income is the income available to the CP & NCP
above
their basic needs.
===============
I have to interupt here...My cs(sic)calculations were based on my
"disposable income",and my "disposable income"was all of my income. The only
"deductions" were deductions for my younger son from my current wife. No
"basic needs" exemptions here in NC....as far as I know...
Any CP or NCP who is currently married has a larger
disposable income if both them and their current spouse works because the
basic needs (dollar figure typically stipulated by the state) is reduce by
the dual income.

Ironically - regardless if this is a state regulation or not, my
stepchildren's mother strongly believes only my husband and I should be
held
responsible for the kids' financial welfare. She feels she should not be
held responsible for their financial care. I'm sure her opinion would
remain the same regardless of who has custody of the children.

We may not like the wording, but we should probably ask - if the NCP is
not
working but is married to a working spouse should the NCP pay child
support?
If yes, who exactly is paying it? If not, then if the CP is not working
but
is married to a working spouse should the NCP be held 100% financially
responsible for supporting the children? If yes, it that fair & why? If
no, then exactly who is supporting the children when the child support
paid
by the NCP does not cover the full expenses of the children? In the long
run there are probably many stepparents financially supporting their
stepchildren than we are aware of - both directly & indirectly.

I can honestly say I am one of them supporting them directly. My husband
could not afford to support his children in the same manner we are living
today without a second income. I already know I could support my children
in the same manner we are living today without a second income - I've done
it for many years prior to marrying him.


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

"The Beast" wrote in message
. com...

"Tracy" wrote in message
...

A stepparent's income is typically not directly involved, but indirectly
it
*could be* if the state is considering "disposable" income. I may not
be
using the correct term, so if anyone knows of the correct term please
correct me. Disposable income is the income available to the CP & NCP
above
their basic needs.
===============
I have to interupt here...My cs(sic)calculations were based on my
"disposable income",and my "disposable income"was all of my income. The
only
"deductions" were deductions for my younger son from my current wife. No
"basic needs" exemptions here in NC....as far as I know...

Feel free to "interupt". In Oregon it is $844. This amount can be adjusted
via a rebuttal process. Sorry to read your state does not recognize the
fact that the parent paying support needs to have the ability to support
themselves.



Here's more information on Oregon:



(http://www.dcs.state.or.us/calculator/effective/ - look up 137-050-0475)

The child support guidelines presume that the obligated parent needs a gross
income in the amount of $844 to support him/herself. The obligated parent's
income available for support is therefore calculated by subtracting $844
from his/her modified gross income. The child support obligation is the
lesser of the income available for support or the calculated child support
amount. (OAR 137-050-0475)



(from http://www.dcs.state.or.us/forms/csf020809.pdf)

What is the reason for the rebuttal? The statute and rule for rebuttals
set out sixteen factors that may constitute a reason for rebuttal. In
order to support the need for a rebuttal to the support obligation, the
evidence should prove one of these sixteen factors. The court has
ruled that this is not an exclusive list and other factors may be
considered. However, the chances of obtaining a rebuttal are better
if the circumstances meet one of the listed factors.
The factors are as follows:

a. Evidence of the other available resources of the parent
b. The reasonable necessities of the parent
c. The net income of the parent remaining after withholdings
required by law or as a condition of employment
d. A parent's ability to borrow
e. The number and needs of other dependents of the parent
f. The special hardships of a parent
g. The needs of the child
h. The desirability of parent remaining in the home as a full-time
parent and homemaker
i. The tax consequences, if any, to both parents resulting from
spousal support awarded and determination of which parent will
name the child as a dependent
j. The financial advantage afforded a parent's household by the
income of a spouse or another person with whom the parent lives
in a relationship similar to husband and wife or domestic
partnership
k. The financial advantage afforded a parent's household by
benefits of employment
l. Evidence that a child who is subject to the support order is not
living with either parent or is a "child attending school" as
defined in ORS 107.108
m. Prior findings in a Judgment, Order, or Settlement Agreement
that the existing support award was made in consideration of
other property, debt or financial awards
n. The net income of the parent remaining after payment of
financial obligations mutually incurred
o. The tax advantage or adverse tax effect of a party's income or
benefits
p. The return of capital



Letter (j) clearly states that a legit rebuttal to increase/descrease child
support can be based on the child's stepparent, or even the child's parent's
living boyfriend/girlfriend.


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

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

"Tracy" wrote in message
...

A stepparent's income is typically not directly involved, but indirectly
it
*could be* if the state is considering "disposable" income. I may not
be
using the correct term, so if anyone knows of the correct term please
correct me. Disposable income is the income available to the CP & NCP
above
their basic needs. Any CP or NCP who is currently married has a larger
disposable income if both them and their current spouse works because
the
basic needs (dollar figure typically stipulated by the state) is reduce
by
the dual income.

Tracy is addressing the practicality of how CS orders work. Technically
there is a distinction between how orders are established and how orders
are
paid. In the case of a remarried parent, the bio-parents' incomes are the
only incomes used to establish a CS order. But when it comes to paying,
the
state is not concerned about where the money comes from to pay the CS
order.
It is not uncommon for the non-bio parent's income to be used in pooled
resources to help pay the CS order.

See my response the "The Beast". I included links and an ORS. A CP, or
NCP, can indeed ask for adjustments due to a stepparent or domestic partner
living in either parents' homes.

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.


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

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

"Tracy" wrote in message
...

A stepparent's income is typically not directly involved, but
indirectly
it
*could be* if the state is considering "disposable" income. I may not
be
using the correct term, so if anyone knows of the correct term please
correct me. Disposable income is the income available to the CP & NCP
above
their basic needs. Any CP or NCP who is currently married has a
larger
disposable income if both them and their current spouse works because
the
basic needs (dollar figure typically stipulated by the state) is
reduce
by
the dual income.

Tracy is addressing the practicality of how CS orders work. Technically
there is a distinction between how orders are established and how orders
are
paid. In the case of a remarried parent, the bio-parents' incomes are
the
only incomes used to establish a CS order. But when it comes to paying,
the
state is not concerned about where the money comes from to pay the CS
order.
It is not uncommon for the non-bio parent's income to be used in pooled
resources to help pay the CS order.

See my response the "The Beast". I included links and an ORS. A CP, or
NCP, can indeed ask for adjustments due to a stepparent or domestic
partner
living in either parents' homes.

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.