Conference quokka::non_custodial_parents

    You heard right.
    
    If you're using the Massachusetts Sadists-r-us Oppression Probate
    System, it could be even worse.  There, 33.0% is more like a starting
    point.  It goes up.
    
    However, on the plus side, YOU may have a say in the assessment of the
    support.  Work it with your lawyer.  Under the Mass system, YOU as the
    custodial parent can RECOMMEND a lesser amount.  "The Formula", can be 
    superceded on the RECOMMENDATION of the custodial parent, AND the 
    APPROVAL of the judge.
    
    Remember that the judge is the final authority no matter what you and
    your estranged partner work out - about anything related to the divorce.
    If, in the judge's mind, the children will not suffer financially, you 
    stand a good chance to make it whatever you want.  The judge may want 
    to speak with you in chambers just to make sure you are not under 
    duress, etc.
    
    It's all negotiable.
    
    That was my experience.  Others may be different.
    
    (FWIW, the ex took me for the 33.0%, plus.  Just wasn't my decade  ;-))
    
    Good luck.
    
    Bill

    Get a court order for a councler. And get his butt in to talk. If that
    doesnt work. Lifes a beach, and you do what you have to do to survive.
    

    The negative side to this picture:
    
    It's much worse then the 33% in many cases.  The court will most likely
    provide mom with 33% plus 10% of that amount for each child after the
    age of 10.  He will not be left with 66% of his pay, he pays all the
    taxes on both his and your 33%, in Mass that means he is left with
    about 30% of his total pay if he is lucky.  Your 33% is based on his
    gross pay, not after tax value.  The court will also most likely see
    fit to give you the house until the children are emancipated or hit 18
    to 23 depending upon whether college is involved, in addition he will
    be hit with medical coverage for all of you, plus all uninsured medical
    costs, plus he will be ordered to have a $100,000.00 min. life insurance
    policy on himself in your name.  If you are smart and really go for
    blood, they will probably also make him pay all dental bills for the
    kids and maybe even you.   This is if you don't work, or don't see fit
    to work full time.  If you work, your mileage may vary and you may not
    come out as well.  Suffice it to say that in addition to major gender
    bias in the courts, they see no reason for the father to have any life
    after he has divorced, it becomes the last official act of his life
    until the kiddies reach majority.  You of course are not required to
    account for anything you do, or any money you spend, and if you are of
    a mind to really hurt the guy......go for it, the court truly lets you
    control his existence until the kids are full grown.  The only thing
    you have to be careful of doing is denying visitation, if he documents
    this type of thing he might be able to get a judge to get angry at you
    after a few years, (that is if he can afford to take you back to
    court).......not very likely based on the figures.   
    
    This approach seems to work even if you split the custody of the kids
    between you.  You can still get the house, most of his disposable
    income and full benifits, the court is only concerned about the
    possiblity of the mother going on welfare, there only mission is to make
    sure that he pays you enough to prevent you collecting welfare from
    Massachusetts.
    
    What a court system, what a state!
    
    Any arrangement you make will be better then anything the court will
    hand down.  Don't let a judge decide your future for you, do it
    yourself and save, keep the lawyers out of it.
    
    Good luck with counseling!

    
    re .0

    Be careful about playing games with divorce.  Don't do anything that
    you are not willing to follow through with.  Event starting
    divorce proceedings can cause angry feelings that may never be mended.
    If there is any other way, to that first.

    There was a woman here at work that tried to play this game and it
    blew up in her face big time.  She "just wanted to get his attention".
    She got his attention all right and he ended up holding her hostage
    for about four hours.

    I don't want to discourage you from doing what you have to do, but
    there can be a _big_ unseen downside to all of this.  Be careful.
    As Stonewall Jackson told the cadets at VMI just before the start of
    the Civil War, "If you pull the sword, throw away the scabbard".

    fred();

    RE:  .4
    
    	I stand corrected.  In .2 I stated agreement with the 33% NET.  That,
    	as pointed out in .4, is in error.  Indeed, it is GROSS.
    
    	.4 has laid it out eloquently.  Nice job.
    
    As for cohabitation in the Peoples Republic of Mass, it can be an issue 
    if both divorcing parties are not engaged in the activity.  If only the 
    custodial parent is cohabitating, the non-custodial parent can raise some 
    dust, but don't expect too much; especially if the custodial parent is 
    female (this is not a sexist statement, but fact - check it out).
    
    As for going down this road, ditto on the previous note about being
    sure you are willing to back up your actions.  I like the sword out
    of the scabard image.  Keep in mind also that if you draw yours, the
    other party automatically draws theirs in perceived self defense.
    It's all downhill from there.
    
    Best wishes.
    
    Bill
    
    

	  This is from the author of .0:

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

	  The state is New Hamshire, and I am not out to get all I can.  I
     work full time and make almost as much as he does.  That is why it
     seems unfair to me that he should have to give up that much.  All I
     care about is keeping the family together.  And that means keeping Dad
     on the scene.  But if Dad doesn't clean up his act, then I want to
     keep my children with me.  I would hope that he choses to live in the
     same town, and even the same school district, so that they can see as
     much of him as they all want.  I truly believe they would be better
     with me because the nurturing I provide is based in encouragement, the
     nurturing he provides is based in critisism.  I don't want to control
     his life. I don't want to cut into his standard of living any more
     than cutting back to one income per household.

	  But I'm getting off my original question.

	  In NH, if I understood the lawyer correctly, it does not matter
     if I ask for less than the recommended child support.  That the court
     would automaticly take the info from our finalcial statemensts, plug
     into a formula, and poof, that is what child support will be.  I think
     that 33% is too much, and I don't want to put that burden on him.  But
     the lawyer made it sound like I would have no choice.

	  My personal experience is that when both parties agree on a
     settlement, the court will generally allow it.  I have heard of many
     cases (mine among them) where the parties have agreed to a less-than-
     guideline amount of child support and the court has accepted the
     arragement.  My understanding is that if the non-custodial parent
     wants to pay less than guideline, the court will laugh; but if the
     custodial parent wants to receive less than guideline, the court will
     generally approve.

	  I am glad that you are not trying to get the father out of the
     children's lives.  That is perhaps the most important thing of parent-
     ing after divorce: letting both parents have contact and parental
     interactions with the children.

				      Brian

    
    The court considers the "child support" to be the _child's_ right and
    will often disregard agreements on the basis that a parent does not
    have the right to negotiate away the child's right.  There was a 
    celebrated case not long ago where a woman asked a male friend to 
    father her child.  She signed all kinds of papers agreeing to not
    hold him financially or otherwise responsible for the child.  A
    couple years later, she hauled him into court for child support.
    She was awarded $100,000 back child support on the basis that
    she did not have a right to negotiate away the child support.

    You might want to make the gesture, though,  then the court looks
    like the bad guy if the judge overrides the agreement.
    
    fred();

    RE:  Author of .0
    
    	Get another lawyer - s/he is full of cr*p!  Divorce lawyers are one
        of the MAJOR root causes of all the turmoil in divorces.  The 
        majority are incompetent, untrained, inexperienced, and consider
        the whole thing an assemblyline, stereotype thing:  "Let's see this
    	one fits block B, now what is the profile. Oh yeah, let's see, how
        much $ can I milk this one for?"  (Actually this last sentence is
    	their first concern)  
    
    	Even in New Hampshire, I have to agree with previous notes that
     	judges will take into serious consideration amicable agreements
        calling for less than the "Formula" stipulations if solicited by
    	the custodial parent.  That is, until the reformers mentioned in
    	note 300.0 get their way, which they will.
    
    Good luck, and my compliments on your humane efforts to keep things
    together.
    
    Bill
    
    	

Your lawyer should be able to give you specific details on what the
guidelines are in NH.  If I was picking a lawyer, I would want one
that would do things like give you a copy of the guidelines.  Things
may be different in NH, but Note 197.1 describes in detail Mass
guidelines.   In Mass, the basic order might be 33%, but if you both
earn income, it would be reduced.   As I read the formula described in
197.1 if the basic order is 33% then:

	noncustodial	custodial	weekly	% of gross
	gross(takehome)	gross(takehome)	order
	500(229.05)	500(460.95)	115.95	23.19
	600(283.67)	600(544.33)	130.33	21.72
	800(390.97)	800(713.03)	161.03	20.13
	1000(497.19)	1000(882.81)	192.81	19.28
	1200(602.95)	1200(1053.05)	225.05	18.75
	1400(708.47)	1400(1223.53)	257.53	18.40
	1600(813.84)	1600(1394.16)	290.16	18.13
	1800(919.13)	1800(1564.87)	322.87	17.94
	2000(1024.35)	2000(1735.65)	355.65	17.78

For this table:
					 custodial gross
    support = 33% * custodial gross *			/
					(custodial+noncustodial-15k/yr)
In this table noncustodial takehome = salary - childsupport - taxes(=salary*.31)
and custodial takehome = salary + childsupport - taxes(=salary*.31).
I would like to assume that NH adjusts support for custodial parent income.

I think it's interesting to look at the ratios of takehome.   On the
one hand it seems unfair that noncustodial must live on perhaps 1/2 of
their gross, while custodial gets almost 100% of their gross.   But on the
other hand the custodial expenses will be nearly what the entire family
(mom/dad/kids) expenses were before, and new family(custodial and children)
income will be reduced by about 1/3.   A separation will mean hardships for
all parties (unless when you lived together you had lots of money left over).

In Mass the noncustodial usually gets hit with part of uninsured medical,
and apparently there is a new ruling that if the noncustodial pays
for dependent medical insurance, only 1/2 of that is deducted from the
order.

Note 301.4 said the order was increased 10% for each child over age 10.
Note 197.1 seems to say there is ONLY one 10% increase if any or all are
over 6 or a 15% increase if any or all are over 12.  My lawyer sayes there
is only a single hit, and that was what we settled on (my ex argued with
her lawyer for hours because she NEEDED more.)

.0          Again, if you assume that I stay in the marital home, that only
.0   leaves him 66% of his money to set up a new place that is big enough
.0   to have the kids overnight, and/or for days at a time.

To the basenoter: are you sure he will continue to have the kids overnight
or for days at a time ?

    Don't assume the father gets 66% of his income, that is simply 
    not the case, the court takes out the 33% plus or minus of the fathers
    gross pay, but before the DOR grabs the 33%, the state and Feds have
    already grabbed their 33% +/- taxes from his pay.  In anyones book, this 
    does not leave the father with 66% of his pay, it leaves him with less 
    then 33% to live on.  It isn't possible in this state unless you live in 
    your car or live with friends.
    
    In my case, the judge abided by our agreement,  I originally told my 
    lawyer I didn't want any support.  He insisted that I include a token 
    amount.  He said that in a 15 year marriage with an 8 yr old child, the 
    judge would not allow "no support".  I then requested $40. per week. That 
    was what the judge agreed to.  The judge asked me if I understood the 
    agreement, I told him yes.  That was all there was to it, the whole divorce
    took 5 minutes after waiting for a year because of the Mass No Fault 
    divorce extended waiting period.  I think the time element has been cut 
    down since 10 years ago.  The court never looked at the fathers income 
    or mine as best I can remember, they just took what we had agreed to.  
    My Ex and I made about the same amount of money at that time. There 
    was no insurance of any kind involved in the agreement.
    
    The facts I extolled in .4 are certainly true in those cases when the
    wife does not work and the settlement is left up to the judge at the
    mothers request, even if the mother works part time, she will net the
    same results.  Even if the father and mother have split custody, the
    above facts hold true if the mother works little or not at all.  This is 
    what clearly indicates the court is less concerned with the childs best
    interests then whether or not mom ends up on the welfare rolls.
    
    The degree of hostility that springs from one of these Massachusetts
    divorce settlements is hard to describe, it certainly doesn't
    leave any room for cooperation between parents, or even for peaceful
    relations between the parents, it makes for years of bitter, awful
    fighting, and often results in the father having to "take Off" because
    he simply can't live on what is left of his pay.  it also results in a
    loss of contact between the father and the child or children because of
    the extreme anger/grief involved in continuing the relationship.  
    
    For me it was simple, I wanted my son to still have a father, and that 
    is the way I set it up.  I have no regrets over the loss of support 
    income, its been a very peaceful 10 years, and my ex and I are still
    able to communicate.  I also didn't mind asking him to pay half of
    the graduation ring and pictures and other small and sundry expenses 
    over the years that really belonged to both of us.   
    
    FWIW Here are the numbers for Child Support Guidelines in Mass. 
    This is the same form any judge uses and it's all pretty much
    cut and dried. (Depends on who's doing the cutting - plug your
    numbers in below.......
    
    Child Support Formulas
    
    A.	Gross Weekly Income	Number of Kids
    				1		2		3
    	$0 - 200 	Discretion of court BUT not less than $50 /month
    
    	201- 500		25% (+2%)	28% (+2%)	31% (+2%)
    
	501- max		27%  (+2%)	30% (+2%)	33% (+2%)
    
                        The 2% is at the discretion of the judge
    			BTW: Judges usually round UP.
    
    B. Age Differential
    
    	The above are to be increased to reflect the costs of raising
    	older children.
    
    	Age of oldest child			Percentage Increase
    		0 - 6				Basic Order Applies
    		7 - 12				Basic Order + 10% of BO
    	       13 - 18				Basic Order + 15% of BO
    
    These guidelines apply (absent a prior agreement acceptable to both
    parties) in cases where the combined gross income of both parties
    does not exceed $100,000 and where the income of the non-custodial
    parent does not exceed $75,000.
    
    1. Basic Order  (BO)
    	a) Non-custodial gross weekly income        __________
    
    	b) % of gross per # of kids from above         _______%
    
    	c) Basic Order (BO) (a)x(b)                           A.________
    
    2. Adjustment for Age of Children
    	a) Age of oldest child                      __________
    
    	b) % increase for age from B above               _____%
    
    	c) Age add on (2b)x(A)                      __________
    
    	d) Adjusted order (A) + 2c                            B._________
    
    3. Custodial Parent Income Adjustment
    	a) Custodial parent gross income            __________
    
    	b) Less $ 15,000			    - 15,000
    
    	c) Less annual day care cost                -_________
    
    	d) Custodial adjusted income                 _________
    
    	e) Non-custodial annual gross income 1ax52   _________
    
    	f) Total available gross (d + e)             _________
    
    	g) Line 3d ____________  Line 3f__________
    
    	h) 3d divided by 3f ________ per cent
    
    	i) Adjustment for custodial income
    	   Line (3h %) x (B)                                  C.________
    
    4. Calculation of FINAL ORDER
    	a) Adjusted order (Line Big B above)    _______
    
    	b) Less adjustment for income (Big C) - _______
    
    	c) Less weekly cost of family group
    	   health insurance                   - _______
    
    	WEEKLY SUPPORT ORDER (B)-(C)-4c                   $$$$$$_________
    

          My STBE is getting 40% of my gross! Unfortunately a job change
    ie: 3rd to 1st lowered my gross by a whole lot. The courts frown on
    renegotiating temporary orders unless there's an emergency. Luckily in
    my case they opted to lower it by $25/wk with the probability it would
    drop to guidelines when we've finished in the courts. 
          Last wednesday was I had hoped my last day in Court. My STBE and
    I had made some pre-agreements beforehand and our lawyers took it from 
    there. After 4 hours at the courthouse we were completely deadlocked.
    I'd agreed to continue paying a little over guidelines ($30/wk). In
    exchange she was to sign a waiver of alimoney and was offered a 60/40
    split on the house. This was mostly to pay her 1/2 of my pension and
    401k!! Well after dabbling and arguing they went before the judge. He
    refused to let my wifes lawyers proposal fly. His feeling was that $300+
    a week was too much CS. So we've been told to look into refinancing the
    house in order to lower her monthly expenses!! The kicker is that with
    CS and her job she's netting around $497/wk the mortgage is only
    $880/month now. So now I'm faced with the prospect of being ordered by
    the courts to co-sign a refinance of our mortgage while she uses the 
    refinance to buy me out. I'll then in 8-13 years when my oldest decides
    what he'll do with his life be faced with the definite probability of
    paying alimoney so she'll be able to pay the mortgage. FWIW She works 
    part time and refuses to even come close to working a full time job.
    She does have a blood disorder of which I've received copies of recent
    attempts to remedy it. Although it says that her condition didn't
    respond well to treatment it doesn't say anywhere that she can't work
    FT. She's a nurses aide (2nd shift) at present but eductaionwise 
    she's a HS Calculus instructor and has an electronics background. So she 
    could conceivably work a day job with more sitdown time. We'll be back
    in court the 28th of March and as this roller coaster ride continues I
    have nothing but utter disdain for the system and for lawyers. I'm the 
    victim yet she's the one who'll receive the royal treatment.
    
    
        Bob 
    

    That is, buy the definition of our courts, being under employed.
    Meaning your not making the full potential of what you can make. Be
    careful. I have seen one guy, in NH, had his pool business sold from
    under him to pay for her attorney. And the child support and maintence
    was based upon having his pool business. He now makes $5.00 in a junk
    yard, and has the opposing camps attorney after his butt because he
    could be making more. He, when business was fine, would pull down
    $60-80K. Depending upon whose pool was going where sort of stuff. But
    the back hoe, the trucks, and all the stuff went to action. And there
    is no way to restart it with the money he making or trying to pay in
    his legal obligations.
    
    

My SO is paying above guidelines in NH for child support for one,
1/2 of the college bill for the 2nd and medical/dental for both.
He refinanced the house in his ex's name, and often springs for extras
for the kids (bought his daughter a car for college, bought his son
a computer, electric guitar, etc.).  For this, he gets virtually no
time with his children and no respect from his ex.  And legally, there's
isn't much he can do.  Incidently, it wound up being a bitter divorce 
because she started out by having him thrown out of the house, intending to 
use the divorce as a "wake up call" to "get his attention".  

It did all right.  He's with me now.  Keep that in mind.

Mary-Michael

 Dear Annonymous,

 Have you considered Joint Physical Custody as an option? If not then
 maybe you might consider it. I speak from experience that Joint Parenting
 works and is in the best interest of both parents and children. There are
 plenty of books on the subject and all types of 50/50 parenting scenarios.
 The key is both parents get to play a shared role in raising their children
 and it also gives each parent time for themselves. Also it will keep you
 from having to apply the RSA guidelines on child support since in NH there
 are no guidelines for child support for 50/50 physical custody. This leaves
 the door open for you and your husband to negotiate a reasonable amount that
 the court will most likely accept. If you'd like more info on the subject
 feel free to contact me offline or ask in this note.

 Neil.....

    Can't help but jump in here and congratulate the annonymous writer 
    for her wonderfull attitude toward the father child relationship!!!
    If only more custodial moms felt that way.  maybe the next generation 
    of women will have that enlightened attitude like yours.
    I went through a divorce in NH and former wife and I agreed to slightly
    less CS payments than the state guidlines call for.  The Judge honored 
    our agreement and I've been paying for seven yrs so far. 
                          Good luck!
                                              Bill

    Folks,
    
         I am curious about the laws of Massachusetts on children supports.
    If I re-marry, will my second wife's gross income be included with mine
    and raise the children supports even more? My ex's has been trying to
    persuade me to get married again as I have been steady with my
    girlfriend for 3.5 yrs now. I have asked her for your intention, but
    refused to answer my question. 
    
    Dave
    
    

    The answer, legally, is no. But in actual practice, the judges usually
    tap the hell out of both of you. Best is to write a motion to shoot the
    ex.:) And never sell your story to the tabloids.:)