I wish there was a similar situation in Minnesota. I have my son more often than your husband does, and I get -no- credit for it. What’s more, I pay 100 % of his financial needs while he’s with me, plus 100% of his costs while he’s with her.
You see, she doesn’t work. She’s able to, but she doesn’t want to. I guess, after she remarried and had another couple of kids, she decided that she’d be a stay-at-home mom and do her charming little arts and crafts projects.
Now, all of her kids are in school full-time, but yet she doesn’t work.
If her hubby agrees with that, more power to him. But I’m kinda pissed that I have to support his kids as well as mine.
One final question, though, and it’s not meant to be argumentative…
Bodypoet, you said that he’s 13 months in arrears, but you also said that you’re still waiting for the “provisional” hearing. Does that mean the very first hearing? In other words, if you haven’t had any hearing at all yet, and since you’re still married, then, at least here in Minnesota–then he’s not in arrears at all. As far as I know, they don’t award “back support” before the initial date of the first support order.
Rysdad, you’re correct–we haven’t had our first hearing yet, in spite of the long separation. My understanding from the attorneys I’ve consulted so far is that in their experience with the courts here, judges typically award support from the date of separation. I don’t know if it’s a written law, or if it’s just the standard they use in child support hearings, but it’s typical in every case I know of.
I was a SAHM with no income for several years during my second marriage. It never occurred to me to expect my first husband to pay more support so that I could do so. I believe that here, the custodial parent’s income, if she doesn’t work, is calculated on a minimum-wage job–in other words, even if she doesn’t work, she is expected to contribute to the child’s upbringing. That seems reasonable to me, at least in most cases.
Ludovic brings up a point that has quite a lot of validity. I’m willing to deal with the financial shortfall because I think the extra overnight is important to my kids, but what if I wasn’t? What if I couldn’t afford to lose that extra money, or I was willing to cut their visitation for my own financial gain? Conversely, what if he, for purely financial reasons, insisted upon (and got) 150 overnights per year, in which case his support payments would be reduced by nearly 60%?
It’s going to be interesting to see how it all plays not–not just in my situation, but in general. So many people are NOT going to put the needs of their kids first once money starts being a factor like this, I’m afraid.
On second thought, that would not be such a novel phenomenon, would it?
And Shirley is, of course, correct–the kids and I will be fine when we finally get moved into our own place. It’ll be a new beginning for us.
Unfortunately, I also think it will be difficult to pull off, for various reasons, not least of which is trying to find a home big enough AND in our price range.
I’ll just try to think of it as an…adventure. Yeah, that’s it!