child support in original divorce decree set to high/unfair?

Question

Couple divorced in 1988, they had two children. Judge set child support payments for the father at 97.00 a week. Social security record indicate that the father made anywhere from 5,000-16,000 a year for the period that they were divorced. (Couple in this senerio now remarried in 1993). State states that the father owes 24,000.00 in back child support for those years. Is this fair based on father's earnings for those years?

Answer 1

Wow. That's not nearly enough for supporting two kids. How is one supposed to support two children with that amount? Amazing that the courts would set it so low!

Answer 2

You really should visit IRS.GOV and download or order a free PUB 17 and check over the flow charts to determine who can file how and do what. Divorce papers and etc don't have any sway in the determination; the IRS has set down the rules that must be followed when and if claiming children and so on; using the flow charts in the PUB 17 will tell you what you can and cannot do. Divorce decrees have too wide a variety of offerings cropping up so the IRS goes with their rules only for tax purposes.

Answer 3

The court ruling isn't necessarily based on what SS records show. The father had every opportunity to make more money (possibly under the table). When two people procreate, they are responsible for the support of those children until the age of 18, not except in cases of divorce. Who do you think covered those expenses when the dad was technically a deadbeat?

Answer 4

He can talk to an attorney about it. I don’t know what state this is in, but the amount could very well be within the guidelines. Even if it’s not, I imagine there is a very good chance that the attorney will tell him that there's a timeframe to dispute something such as this and he’s missed the time to do that (since this was over a decade ago). I certainly could be wrong though.

Answer 5

no, i don't think that's too high or unfair. It's expensive to raise a child, let alone two. If he can't hold a decent job, the children shouldn't suffer and the mother shouldn't be left completely responsible. He should have paid at least something every month. He helped make the children, he needs to be responsible for his actions.

Answer 6

My husband pays 578.00 a month for 1 kid. Want to talk about what isn't fair. We are barely getting by. No one really cares whats fair that's why things are like they are. My daughters father only has to pay 250.00 a month and owes about 24,000.00 and nothing happens to him. He hasn't payed any for at least 6 months. Go figure.

Answer 7

No, but it's happened all the time, and judges and cse agents really don't care. Aside from the fact that empathy is a human emotion and as such is beyond them, they have an unforgivable debt and they are going to use that against the ncp for all that they can't.

Answer 8

This is the reason why couples should try to do the right thing by each other and work it out.Its hard enough raising kids together but when you split up it makes it more difficult for both parents.Nobody wins especially the kid.

Answer 9

LMAO!!! $97.00 a week doesnt even cover the food per week (plus school lunches) for two kids. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!! not even back then.

OH thats funny....(thanks for the laugh).

lets look for him on a deadbeat online site, see if his pic is up yet... ('cause thats where it'd be if that were my ex).

Answer 10

That's what happins when the government gets involved.
Were the payments made monthly?