Posted on 06/15/2005 2:32:06 PM PDT by freespirited
This wife only takes care of the kids 50% of the time.
However, she wants to be fully retired at age 43 for 100% of the time......and have her ex-husband pay for it.
If the court had gone by state guidelines, he would have been paying a lot more. I think for three kids, it's 34% of gross, after FICA, though there is an income ceiling. I couldn't find a good link to get concrete numbers, cuz I didn't wanna spend an hour looking for it. I don't think this site takes into account the ceiling.
http://www.alllaw.com/calculators/Childsupport/wisconsin/
The children spend 50/50 time with the parents. The children are all of school age. Tell me why her refusal to provide for the children is justified? There is a difference between being a stay at home mom for the sake of your children and a stay at home mom because you are too lazy to get and keep a job and/or soak father for more money. Fathers are nothing more than paychecks to the family court system. Anybody who says otherwise hasn't been in front of the judge.
I have read that kids need their parents MORE when they are pre-teen and teenagers than when they are little. There may be reasons why she wants to spend more time with them ... perhaps one of them has emotional problems etc. We don't really know
In any case, my point was that the majority her at FR seem to believe that a mom's place is taking care of the children. Yet when one woman wants to do that, the general consensus is against her.
I'm just commenting on the dissonance.
One of 'em is right here. This is a pretty unique case for me to be commenting on, however. I do believe that, in light of what appears to be a rather acrimonious divorce, the children here could probably stand to have more parental involvement--either parent, I'm not trying to make a judgement call. What I don't really understand is how the mother can actually be more involved with her kids, given their ages. Is she planning on homeschooling them? If not, she's going to spend her days rattling around in her mansion while her kids are in class. Doesn't sound a whole lot like SAHMothering to me. Hell, I just returned to part time work because two of my three kids are now school age.
No clear winners in this case, just a couple of real losers.
In other words, Chen doesn't see the kids between 8 and 3 every day during the weeks when she supposedly has custody of them, and doesn't see them at all during the weeks when she doesn't have custody. Clearly she's not really a stay-at-home mom who is breastfeeding a baby, caring for a toddler, and homeschooling a six-year-old. She is sitting by the pool and having lunch with her girlfriends. She's taking advantage of having a successful husband as if they were still married. What a sow. No wonder he's squawking. Four grand a month is four grand a month no matter how rich you are, and it's particularly grating to know that you're supporting a lazy ex.
I write this as a woman who is grateful for every penny my hard-working ex provides to our children.
Well let them both quit and go on welfare after the money is gone. Frankly they are probably both first class Shits.
Yes, I agree--but in my state the mother's labor in taking care of the children is considered to have monetary value, and I appreciate that. I was a stay-at-home mother when my children were young and my son was sick all the time.
something does not add up.
This must be a nuance of the Wis. support law.
Under the Model laws, his support obligation based on his income is essentially seperate from the mothers.
The interesting thing about this article is that if the situation were reversed, a husband who was intentionally underemployed (ie if this doctor intentionally worked a minimum wage job as a means of legally provable evasion) would not be an unusual phenomenon.
With a bit of humor, it seems this is a case of SIDS. Sudden Income Deficiency Syndrome.
hmmm anyone else think these docs are overpaid? Where are all the illegal alien docs to hold wages down? These obviously are jobs Americans won't do for 100k. Oh I forgot the AMA and BAR are monopolies exempt from Bush's plan to lower wages.
Wisconsin has an alternative formula for high-income payers. See Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter DWD 40.04(5).
He only paid a couple hundred plus the college fund when they were both working because their incomes were close to the same.
See my last post. Wisconsin child support law does take into consideration the income of both parents, percentage of placement, as well as adjusting for high-income payers.
The interesting thing about this article is that if the situation were reversed, a husband who was intentionally underemployed (ie if this doctor intentionally worked a minimum wage job as a means of legally provable evasion) would not be an unusual phenomenon.
Wisconsin also takes into account "income imputed based on earning capacity" (DWD 40.03(3)).
The only loophole I see here is that the administrative code says courts "may" (rather than "shall") impute income to a parent based upon their ability to earn. If the state supreme court ruled on this basis, then they were simply upholding the discretion of the district court judge.
No, it would just make getting out of the "contract" of marriage about as hard as any other, so maybe the participants would think a little more before entering it and while in it...
Crop dusters seldom set records.
Definitely a bummer when you pay for the boob job and don't get to enjoy the results!
Thanx for the link. I see they've made changes since the last time I looked. It's been a couple of years.
No, I'm not gonna do the worksheet. LOL Looks they didn't impute any income for her & he's paying standard high income rate for three kids (17%), for half the time.
Yeah, IIRC the most recent changes went into effect in December '03.
Is child support tax deductible, does anyone know?
No, just as most expenses for children living with their married parents are not tax deductible. I say most, because of the deductions for things like medical care & college tuition.
The state also has something called family care, which would include a portion for something like alimony (called spousal support) & the tax deductibility of that pulls out a CS portion, as nondeductible & leaves the spousal portion as deductible for payer & taxable income for the recipient. If these are after tax dollars, that really is a big bite.
Course it is a really big bite. Paying the freight to raise kids is a big bite, even when the marriage is intact. Thing is, the parents are not as likely to think of it that way when they are still together. The guy probably pays more money to support Uncle Sam & other tax entities than he pays toward his kids.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.