Child support advice

[How to communicate after a contentious divorce...]

In the beginning their parenting schedule had mom with more overnights but the same number of days. Part of this was out of need since DH has no family here and he thought it would be best to have mom have the kids while he worked weekends versus having a stranger/sitter. He paid CS from the day he moved out before there was even a CO


As of August of this year we now have a 50/50 plan in place. They split expenses 50/50 and DH pays $300 a month in child support. They make about the same amount of money in salary and now that they have 50/50 we are wondering about support. It isn't about the money at all, although she will say it is. Honestly we would take the kids full time without any money from mom 

Is it worth it to persue? Does anyone have experience with this?

The other thing that could impact this: When they were married they lived in an area that did not have good public shcools, so they decided to send SD to a private, catholic school. When dad moved out of the house, he moved to an area with an exceptional school system. At the time he oculd not afford the tuition and suggested to the ex that they switch schools for SD since it was still early on in her school years. Mom said no. Fast forward two years when it was time for SS to start school, his ex did not want to "pay" to have him go to the private school and instead she let DH enroll him in the public elementary in which he went for kindergarten.

When we went back to court to modify the parenting schedule mom made a big deal about SS not going to private school and so one of the things we negotiated was for him to start private school in first grade. The only stipulation is that mom had to pay for it since it is what she wanted, and both kids have access to two really good public schools. She agreed.

We don't want to seem greedy but feel like since they share custody now, make the same amount and split expenses that we shouldn't pay child support. Since it isn't our idea nor desire to send them to private school we shouldn't have to continue to pay CS becasue of this?

[Swiggle]

In the beginning their parenting schedule had mom with more overnights but the same number of days. Part of this was out of need since DH has no family here and he thought it would be best to have mom have the kids while he worked weekends versus having a stranger/sitter. He paid CS from the day he moved out before there was even a CO


As of August of this year we now have a 50/50 plan in place. They split expenses 50/50 and DH pays $300 a month in child support. They make about the same amount of money in salary and now that they have 50/50 we are wondering about support. It isn't about the money at all, although she will say it is. Honestly we would take the kids full time without any money from mom 

Is it worth it to persue? Does anyone have experience with this?

The other thing that could impact this: When they were married they lived in an area that did not have good public shcools, so they decided to send SD to a private, catholic school. When dad moved out of the house, he moved to an area with an exceptional school system. At the time he oculd not afford the tuition and suggested to the ex that they switch schools for SD since it was still early on in her school years. Mom said no. Fast forward two years when it was time for SS to start school, his ex did not want to "pay" to have him go to the private school and instead she let DH enroll him in the public elementary in which he went for kindergarten.

When we went back to court to modify the parenting schedule mom made a big deal about SS not going to private school and so one of the things we negotiated was for him to start private school in first grade. The only stipulation is that mom had to pay for it since it is what she wanted, and both kids have access to two really good public schools. She agreed.

We don't want to seem greedy but feel like since they share custody now, make the same amount and split expenses that we shouldn't pay child support. Since it isn't our idea nor desire to send them to private school we shouldn't have to continue to pay CS becasue of this?

[david]

I live in PA. According to our state laws cs is supposed to be looked at every two years and adjusted if there is a change in the circumstances. I believe there are many websites that follow the states calculations to see what happens depending on the particular situation. I am fairly certain that Pa looks at income of both parties to determine the total support amount. It is then divided according to each parents proportion of  income. It is then slightly adjusted by things like who pays health insurance, the number of overnights ( I think they have a sliding scale in my state) , and a few other minor adjustments. Of course, a judge can modify it based on things not covered in the written laws.

I would consult an atty to see what the implications are about the private school situation. Since ex agreed to pay for it I would think cs should not be considered as a part of the calculation. I assume it is in writing. If it was then, in effect, the cs would be paying for the schooling and would not be following the agreement that was already reached. If you go in that direction I would also have a backup to have SS go to the public school in your district since ex may want to change her mind.

[ForeverDad]

I really don't have a suggestion except that a lawyer may inform him whether he has to wait a certain length of time from the most recent time in court before he can file to have child support recalculated.  And there are risks with private schools and expensive colleges, it's usually wise to ensure and order goes no farther than including the basic or default costs of a public school price structure.

One father here a few years back reported that his ex moved their son from public school to private school as soon as she had custody.  Father's order listed him as obligated to pay for standard boilerplate "school costs".  He ended up back in family court since he didn't agree to the change and didn't agree pay the high tuition and court ruled that the standard but vague order said he paid school expenses and that included whatever his ex decided to do as custodial parent.  In effect, she decided and he paid.  So my warning and advice is to be sure that he makes sure his order doesn't vaguely make him pay for school or college expenses above and beyond the standard public options.  Make sure it is specific in such areas.  Vague orders almost always tend to benefit the disordered parent who knows how to stretch credulity and manipulate the system.  Vague orders work only for reasonable parents.

One of the prime points made by Bill Eddy in his book High Conflict People in legal disputes is that the court's usual assumption or presumption that the parents will both be reasonable won't work when personality disordered persons who act out are involved.  The standard boilerplate phrases such as "reasonable telephone contact" or "mutually agreeable location for exchange" simply won't work or will be reinterpreted by the disordered ex to mean whatever the disordered ex wants it to mean.

Be specific wherever possible.  Spell it out.  Anticipate big bloopers and plug those loopholes.

One father here has been in court repeatedly for years because the order states he pays for school costs.  You and I would interpret that to mean the usual fees the schools charge for school supplies, extracurricular activities, etc.  Well, not his disordered ex.  She enrolled the child in a private school and interpreted school costs to mean that he has to pay the high costs of her decision to use private schools, something he never anticipated.  The courts have been reluctant to take a stand that school costs covered only normal school costs and not extra costs she incurred by her choices.  Now, if the order would have stated basic school costs or normal costs of public schooling, or something similar, he might have been able to avoid that reinterpretation.

Then what happens when the child graduates?  Some orders go beyond age 18 and include initial years in college.  Is that addressed clearly?  What if the disordered parent (or the child) chooses the most expensive school?

What about medical or school appointments?  Most orders state both parents have rights to the records, but will the disordered parent notify you when the child is taken to a nurse, doctor, Urgent Care, hospital Emergency Department, or is attended to by emergency responders such as police, paramedics or ambulances?  (In my case, the only way I found out was by insurance processing notifications or the preschooler happening to mention it.  The only time she told me was at exchanges where he had bruises or abrasions and she showed proof she went to the doctor, probably so I wouldn't call CPS on her.)  Well guess what, having the right to the records is no assurance you will be notified of the records!

Of course, any language added to the order will generally apply to you both, so don't push for something that you aren't prepared to comply with yourself.

So try to look at every item.  Still, there will always be something you miss.  You can only do your best and hope... .

Here is the original thread about the court decision posted by Love the man hate the BP:

https://bpdfamily.com/message_board/index.php?topic=65324.0

[Swiggle]

The old order didn't state anything about tuition cost. The new order states "mother shall be residential parent of minor children for school enrollment for as long as they attend St. xyz. The minor children are currently enrolled at St. xyz. Mother and Faterh agree that it is their intention that the children shall continue their education st St. xyz through 8th grade, so long as the mother is financially able to satisfy the tuition requirement. when each child no longer attends st. xyz the parties agree to dicuss said child's enrollment in the school system where each parent resides, along with the option of private schooling to determine whihc is best for the child. If paries are unable to agree they may attempt mediation or file appropriate motion with the court, at a minumum of 3 months prior to the commencement of the following school year. It also states that mom is only residential as long as she lives in the district she just moved to a few months ago.

[ForeverDad]

Three months may sound like a lot of time but in my area it takes 1-2 months just to get to the first court hearing.  Add in a couple continuances, mediation or settlement attempts and whatnot and it can take much longer than 3 months to resolve.

The residence requirement may be what will save you endless legal maneuvers.

[Swiggle]

I agree 3 months will fly by in the blink of an eye when dealing with a BPD who likes to stall. The private school that SD is in only goes to 8th grade, which for her is next year. Our goal is to bring this up at the very beginning of the 2015 school year since we know it is going to be a struggle with mom.

We will take into consideration what SD wants but the school that mom keeps fililng her head with, is well, not that great of a school. Not to mention that tuition is as much as some colleges. That will be the next big battle, at least we have a year until we have to deal with it.

UBPDex moved in with her BF a few months ago. She still has a ton of stuff in the house that her and DH lived in and has yet to put it on the market. To help our cause it would be fantastic if it didn't work out with her BF and she moved back to the house. Sometimes I wonder if that is why she keeps the other home, almost as if she sees it as a way out or fallback plan but I digress.


I have no idea what will happen with college. Neith myself or my DH have agreements that touch on college and tuition cost.

[david]

Good to start early.

Get info on school rankings in your district and the one you believe ex will want. Remember, it is the best interest of the child if you can't agree. Find everything that you can to support your point.

[livednlearned]

My court doesn't like to make changes unless something substantial happens. Meaning, if the order says "mom and dad agree to xyz," even if you no longer agree, court will look at the document and say, "yes you do." Motion dismissed. In my court, the clock also seems to get a reset every time a new order is entered. So if the last order said nothing about wanting to change the school situation, then you would have to argue that the substantial change happen since the last time you were in court, even if the order was about something completely different. Does that make sense? For example, when my ex wanted to argue a point from motion #27, and we were on motion #32, my lawyer objected and the judge ruled in my favor. N/BPDx could only discuss what had happened since the last order was entered, no matter what the topic was. It's a weird legal logic that doesn't make room for common sense, but those rules made the goalposts very clear, even when they were being moved.

A substantial change might be a parent losing a job, a big change in salary, or a child struggling in the current school, or something else that directly affects the child's well-being.

[scraps66]

If I get this correctly you guys are paying $300 a month, but don't have to because you are now at 50/50 and both make about the same income?  If that's the case, I don't see why CS shouldn't be amended to reflect the change in custody which directly influences CS. 

I am in PA, and my courthouse could care less what the change in circumstances are, my ex has been given every benefit conceivable so I wouldn't at all be bashful about making the change.  Heck, I think you can even file the paperwork yourself, BUT, the BP side has to agree and provided income statements to complete the transaction.  So that may be the sticking point.