NJ has started a new job, full time. Basically, she's doubled her current income. She will need to move and I gave prior permission in our Decree, provided she adheres to State statutes regarding relocation. Of course, first thing she does is buy a brand new car and start looking for a place to live. It's come to light (my 23 year old son spilled it) that NOW she realizes that "oh shyte, I didn't really do the math on my living expenses and things will be tight." Naturally, I'm sure she can't fathom maybe working a second job to help support herself. She's the classic definition of an entitled narcissist.
I was Pro Se and we worked out everything in mediation when we were divorcing. She and her attorney proposed that when my kids started college, child support would cease, even though the child was not 21. She said "I don't think either of us should pay each other if the child is self-sufficient and not living at home." I thought that was a really fair concession. Thus, it was written as so and 3 months after the divorce, one of the kids dropped from support.
So, I reached out and said we need to modify the custody arrangement and support, which will now result in more overnights for me (may not make sense, but our original custody plan was goofy) and of course, higher income for her and the same for me, meaning CS will decrease fairly significantly.
I'm sure you can guess what her response was? Yes, she said that she didn't think CS needed to change and that she really "made a mistake" with the college concession and now is pondering trying to modify things to ADD that child back into the mix. My son said she is freaking out and cannot afford an attorney. Of course, a scared animal is a dangerous one.
Is that even a possibility? THEY proposed the arrangement and now that she cannot make it, she wants to change it? I would think the judge would see right through that and wonder how someone could make MORE money and then want MORE CS because she cannot manage her finances, especially considering it was her provision in the first place.
I have no experience with this but to me the deal is the deal. Just because she is on the earn and consume treadmill, doesn't entitle her to ask you for a raise or to back out of what was previously agreed upon. If ANYONE had a case to appeal an agreed D it would be YOU because u had no lawyer present and SHE did.... Move forward and get CS reduced. Can't rescue her from her bad math. Do offer to take the kids however when she has to start the second job
I would look into your state law. If the law says that CS goes until the kid is older, then I believe that its a real possibility that she would get it, because the CS isn't for the parent, its for the kid.
I would think that the older kid would have to be living with her in order for her to collect.
If I were you, I'd look into the statutes and do some math. If your CS would take a big drop because of her new income, then I'd file. If it could go either way, (up or down) then I would hesitate and think real hard before filing.
I'm in MO and yes, CS can be paid until 21 or 18, if the child doesn't attend a post-secondary education institution. And honestly, I was completely prepared to pay it, but NJ was the one that said she didn't think it was right that I pay CS on a child who does not live at home, save for a few weeks in the summer. We all agreed to it and the Judge was perfectly fine with it.
Plus, they also wrote in the Decree that we pay NO college-related expenses to either the ex-spouse or the child. Essentially, after the demise of our business and subsequent financial collapse, we agreed that college was voluntary for the children, as unfortunately, we couldn't afford to pay it. Scholarships and grants and loans. Now that she's moving, college-child will now be living an additional hour further from her than now. Our Decree specifically says the child has to be living out of the home the majority of the time while attending college for her to not be eligible for support on that child.
@defaultuser..........I did the math. Drops pretty dang significantly. I don't want to appear that I'm trying to be greedy about this, but I'm of the opinion that both parents need to contribute to the support of their children. I just cannot fathom a parent earning MORE money and then wanting MORE CS because they are irresponsible with their finances! Well I guess I can........that's what NJs do.
THIS IS AN ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT. CORDELL & CORDELL, ST. LOUIS, MO. Attorney services are provided by licensed attorneys in every state where Cordell & Cordell offices are located. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.
Joseph Cordell, Principal Partner, licensed in MO and IL only. Michelle Ferreri licensed in PA and NJ only. Offices in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, PA. Kimberly Lewellen licensed in CA only. Dorothy Walsh Ripka licensed in OH, IL, MO, KY and TX only. Jerrad Ahrens licensed in NE and IA only. Lauren Adkins, Florida Resident Partner. Tampa, FL.