allthumbs
Platinum
Reged: 07/12/07
Posts: 560
|
|
It is never easy for most of us. The courts expect the spouses to support two households on the same income that barely supported one household. And about the tax consequences, CS is not tax deductible for you and your STBX doesn't have to declare it as income. So often, attorneys try to get most of support shifted to CS for their supported clients. Now spousal support IS deductible for you and she would have to declare it as income, so I can see why her smart attorney wanted it all as CS. Also, the parenting time ratio, with her getting more than 50%, makes HER household, the primary residence of the children, which gets her "head of household" tax bracket status. Yours would only be single and at a higher tax rate. So her attorney is looking at the tax implications as well, and thereby saving her client money, which she is supposed to do. Your may not be "equal" after all the tax implications have been thoroughly addressed. A CPA maybe helpful in this matter if your att. cannot figure it out properly. I'd keep negotiating.
|
Jada
Platinum
Reged: 06/02/07
Posts: 3463
|
|
If child support guidelines say you pay $1,250 a month, then that is what a court will order. Whether or not parenting time is taken into consideration depends on what the guidelines state.
Now, if that is above the guidelines, you need to have it broken down and have the spousal support that is being added on labeled as spousal support. With a definite end date and a remarriage/cohabitation clause put in there.
The spousal support is taxable to her and tax deductible to you.
A judge will order the tax exemptions to be split. And when the oldest can no longer be claimed, the remaining exemption will be alternated.
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 5141
|
|
You say you have been the primary caregiver and probably still will be becasue she will dump them on you for babysitting regularly? Well then the custody arrangements you made are highly unfair. You need to push for more time with the children. What she's asked for is just a sham to force you to be the one to pay support.
It's also not fair that you're taking on her father's debts that he used her name on. That is fraud, I'm assuming, or she separately signed off on it if it's not... and if SHE doesn't want to pursue him to pay his own debts that doesnt' mean that YOU need to take it on for him. So go back and push for her to take on that as her separate debt and split what's left. The remaining debt payments might make whatever income remains after you pay support (if you end up still paying support) easier to live off of.
As is, if she doesn't start working more, you and she will be about even. How is it that you expect her to live? Assume she expects to continue to earn the same as she's earning now... does she have a plan?
The good news is that if she does start dumping the kids on you on a regular basis because she can NOT manage them with her schedule, you only need to keep a log of the fact that she does this all the time and then you run into court for a modification in about a year for a substantial and continuous change of circumstances... the change being that she obviously is not able to keep them 58% of the time as she had promised she would.
But it's harder to get them back once you've given them away, so see if it's possible to change the agreement you made this week... If you truly believe that you are going to end up with more than 50% time with them anyways, don't let her put herself down on paper for more than 50% JUST so she can get support from you. THAT is what will kill you... creating sham agreements where you pay off her Dad's debts, you let her keep the kids on paper even though you'll be seeing them in reality, etc...
Find out from your lawyer what kind of trouble it will take to fix this so it's no longer a sham that just gets her support... know that your lawyer is gong to be upset with you for agreeing to that sham in the first place, and it's going to be harder for you to get back more time with them now that you've given it up... you've put yourself in a weak negotiating position...
At some point you might need to weigh the price of pursuing this in terms of how much legal fees it's going to cost, versus keeping it like it is... but don't NOT pursue this because you're afraid of the legal bill. The next 15 years worth of $1250 a month may well be worth the legal bill to resolve it now!
|
Englishman
Bronze
Reged: 07/14/08
Posts: 28
|
|
Thanks....When I say agreed, it was a four way conferance (referred to as ligitation) and a stipulation is going to be prepared. Nothing is defianteive and final and nothing has been signed....SOrry for the wording error.
I worked out he nunbers and the amount after one deduction for the both of us and slipt it. The differant in incomes is exactly the CS amount of $1400.00 P/M. Now I am paying the insurance so even at 58% that I would have to pay her it would be $812.00 minus my 50% for insurance $100.00 equals to $712.00. I am prepared to pay her $850.00 Per month. Sounda fair considering that I pick would most likely on the days she would have them pick up the kids from school and do the remainder until she gets back from work (which is what is currently the case).
I guess you are right in terms of the 42/58 split and I need to continue to renegotiate or ask the questions as to whom would be picking them up from school and looking after them while she is at work. Considering that I have the first right of refusal, it would be me and therefore, it would not be appropiate for her to claim 58%...
Maybe I should just let the judge decide, but being in New York state, I know how diffcult things would be.
Honestly I do not care about the fact that she would claim head of household or the fact that I would have to pick up the kids, on the contraty, I would love that as I get to spend more time with them and make sure they have everything they need, including love and attention. The only difficulty is going to be the financial aspect of all this and how am I going to do it with the fact that I will pay over $500.00 more a month which need to be used to support the kids, which are the days they are with me and also when the days they are suppose to be with my stbx and I will have them. I just seems so unfair.
Does anyone know in New York state, if this goes infront of a judge, we have a parenting plan, will the judge take into consideration parenting time although it is joint legal and phycial custody?
I dont believe I am being unresonable but, I think its only what I need to provide for the kids, isn't that what CS is all about, looking out for the kids?????
I think it is worth the legal battle as it the kids, I am looking out for and I will do anything (infact just gave up my dream job) because it did not fit in with the kids schedule...hummm
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 5141
|
|
It's not unfair. What's unfair is asking you to agree to a sham arrangement where she CLAIMS 58% just becasue she wants child support, when that is not going to be reflected in reality... and convincing you to just GO WITH WHAT SHE SAYS because everyone knows that you'll get to see the kids more often anyways... so it's what's best for the kids cause you'll see them half the time and thier mother will be happy that she's able to claim primary parent.
But dont' you see that aside from a TINY little emotional thing of thinking it's embarassing for a mother to not have primary custody, it's a HUGE financial thing that she's demanding? She is NOT asking for primary becasue she thinks it's best for the kids.... she's asking for that because her EGO wants it... and her WALLET wants it!
When you say things like, "I don't care if she asks for primary, because I know she'll have me seeing them all the time anyways because that's just the way it is, so that may be what's best, let's let her say she's primary"... you're NOT saying anything that's in the best interests of the kids for the TIME that either of you spend with them, you're saying something that the ONLY effect is the FINANCIAL effect... or what school district they end up in...
The 58-42 split of time is SOOOO contrived...
WHenever people start talking about actualy NUMBERS OF DAYS or PERCENTAGES, I know it's more about the money than about the kids.
I've got one friend saying he wants his current wife to give him Mondays & Tuesdays & every other weekend for 3 days because that's teh time he's got his older kids & it's only right for the siblings to be all together at his house ... but the current wife is saying that's too much time. She wants him to have just 150 days a year and not 183 like he's asking for. The difference is just 30 days, just a couple days a month that she wants to cut away from him... but apparently that difference is huge to her in the amount of support she'll get.
So she's all over saying that every other monday SHE wants the day. It's a little nutty. and just SOOOO obvious. It was wierd when she first started saying that she wanted every other MOnday on top of her Wed, THurs & every other weekend... it made no sense. And then she started whining, "but if we do it like HE wants, he'd have 50-50 time and I don't want him to HAVE that. If I get every other Monday he only gets 150 days in the year and THAT is what C needs!"
HOW MUCH MORE OBVIOUS CAN YOU GET? It had nothing to do with convenience for the child, it had nothing to do with living in his school district or having time to interact with his older siblings. It was all about making sure the father had less than 50% time so she could say she had PRIMARY and then she gets more child support.
My friend knew better than to agree with this because he went through it in his first divorce. But so many men, wanting to just do what's right for the kids, don't realize that agreeing to a sham that involves NUMBERS or PERCENTAGES has nothign to do with what's right for the kids, but just involves money issues.
DOn't agree to a sham on issues of parenting time and child support. Those arrangements almost always end up bad.
|
Englishman
Bronze
Reged: 07/14/08
Posts: 28
|
|
Thanks gigi. I really appreciate it. I really did want them thre days a week one week and the other week, I would get them the four but, I guess they were seeing how far I would go. Getting this far has been a challenge and don't believe it is going to get easier but, I get the point and the support you have given me futher emphasie that this is not in the best interest of the kids and truely is not.
My stbx has many co-counsel which range from her father and her sister to then her lawyer. I have no one here in the USA, all in England and what you have said makes sense and when we sit down again I am going to fight to get the remainder of the time. It is not fair, me and my wife are having a dicorce not the kids, why should they suffer, whether it be financially or being kept away from the pther parent.
I guess I will update as things come in. I have left a message for my lawyer and see where it goes from there.
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 5141
|
|
If she has some reason she's made up to force her to get the more time... See if you can come up with a reason to get more time for vacations. Easy enough to do since your family is in England and visiting their paternal relatives will always require a big trip. You may be able to make up the stupid extra 30 days a year that you're losing to her just by taking a month in the summers to send them to England to their grandparents/aunts/uncles', before splitting the time up the rest of the year. And you get credit for that time with the kids because you are the one who would have to pay for thier flights & any activities they did while they were with your folks. HAH!!!
Nah, that's a little weird... and just does to her what she's tried to do to you. It MIGHT be great for the kids to spend a month in the summer with thier paternal relatives, but that is just something I thought up to manipulate the numbers, which is kind of what you should be avoiding in the first place.
No. I truly believe the better arrangement, and one that would be easier to remember who gets them when, is either a week on, week off OR an alternating 3 day weekend with one parent getting M & T & the other parent getting W, TH. It works out to 5-2-2-5, and the kids and parents both know that if they want to ... I don't knwo, set the kids up for weekly classes, they know WHICH DAYS they have for settin gup those classes. If you know you've always got Wednesdays, for example, and YOU wnat them to play piano, you set up thier piano lessons for WEdnesdays and all is well with the world. It's always a struggle if you want them to play piano and then decide that's the perfect way to mess wth the ex, is set them up for lessons on HER days and get the kids all excited about it so that SHE is required to take them and give up that hour on HER days with them. Nasty parents do that to each other, and the 5-2-2-5 plan can prevent that to some extent.
For EITHER the 5-2-2-5, OR the week on, week off, it's SO easy to remember whose week it is... except when schedules are disrupted for summer breaks & etc... that it really never gets too far off. THe plan you're talking about is just strange... ALWAYS gets one day a week, and the other 6 days, you alternate. THe kids will never know where they are!
If equal time is in their best interests, get it. I know it's a fight, but that's what it always is. Just because she's ready to fight for it doesn't mean you should give up just to keep the peace.
Good luck.
|
cedc
Platinum
Reged: 03/02/07
Posts: 560
|
|
Your falling on your sword here and you will regret this later. This is no longer an emotional decision,it's a business decision. Fight the alimony 10-12 year marriage is not that long. If she is capable of making more have her income imputed to where it should be. Never combine supports. Child support is $X per month Alimony is $X per month. You combine you lose the tax deduction for the alimony and if she ever gets a bug up her butt about her support she can say you have NEVER paid her the spousal and that extra money was a gift. Now your in trouble and still on the hook for the alimony. You need to fight for YOUR financial future as well. Your stressin about money already. Rethink this. Not slammin you, I almost did the same thing. I got the advice that I just gave you and boy I'm glad I took it.
--------------------
My X makes Peg Bundy look good.
|
Englishman
Bronze
Reged: 07/14/08
Posts: 28
|
|
I guess her lawyer is smart trying to get me to agree on the 42/58 split knowing that on paper it will show she is the Primary Care Giver not me.
Currently, when I go to work and they are in the hands of my stbx, they call me tell me she isn't doing anything and in bed, not looking after them etc. I know I have to be careful but, I know that it is the truth.
Today my daughter (11 years old) said she wanted to speak with the lawyers....I don't think this is possible. If she did, she would tell them how mummy is....
My lawyer will contact her lawyer and advise that the amount of CS is not agreeable and therefore they need to come up with something else.
My stbx agreed that although on paper it will be that I have them most of the time and Thursday's where she is suppose to have them all day according to the agreement, it is only on paper and if I wanted them I could....back to the sham agreement thing. I told her that we need to have it written so that we have a accuate agreement in place so that there is no disagreements.
Let's see what happens in a couple of weeks when the stip is prepared and we have to sit back down to renegotiate the items set forth.
I will if it goes to court be agreeable to not take any child support form her if I was granted the "custodial" parent. I would be able to keep the house (difficult but possible), provide the same school, same home and the same care for the kids with what they have been used to.
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
