Does fathers have to pay for child support plus when the child is starting school that fee to?
it really depends on whether or not there was a court order stating to do so or it could depend on an agreement between the parents. often it could be arranged that the father pays child support an then half of agreed things. eg, the starting school fee an school fees stationary, uniforms, medical aid etc. like i said it depends on the court or an agreement between the parents
7 people found this useful
You pay child support every month plus buy school clothes pay for sports and more and your ex thinks you need to pay her child support plus split all expenses with her such as school lunch school fees?
Answer . It depends on the State that you are in because every state has its own autonomy, meaning, they set their own laws in areas not affected by the US Constitution. Child support is to cover all the common living expenses. Unless it is an out of the norm expense, and you have joint noncus…todial custody, you are not obligated to pay any other expenses...by law. Public interest suggest you help the child. Try not to look at it as helping her / him, but rather for the child. That is a good parent. (MORE)
If you stopped paying child support when your child graduated can the child start back to school and have the mother do a modification to restart child support 2 yrs later to pay for the schooling?
You must check with your lawyer and local laws but generally when a child turns of age of majority child support payments stop and if they are not age of majority and not attending school it can be stopped as well. You should really check into this as it sounds as though you may be getting taken for… a ride. If the money is to go to schooling anyway and you want to pay - pay for things directly instead of actually giving it to them as it likely is not going where needed. This is very common. (MORE)
When the parents get divorced, the judge will usually set up an amount based on the father's income, and (depending on the state the father lives in) the parenting plan set forth through the courts based on how much time the mother has the child(ren). So, make sure that you get the most time possibl…e with them, because the more time you have them, the less you will have to pay in child support. (MORE)
Each parent usually pays their own fees for child support. Oneparent can always request that the other parent pays for the feesincurred due to the hearing.
Yes, when either the mother or the state department of revenue files a complaint for child support against him. The court will issue an order that can include back support.
It depends on how much money you make. You might have to pay $50 a month for one child - but if you make good money it could be $150 or more. Most men pay around $80 for one - that's only $20 a week.. Ask again, and tell us how many kids & the state you live in.
degree says 18 my son is now 19 and going to college. Will i ever be done paying unreasonable child support not to mention fathers consutional rights have been repeatedly violated!!!!!!!!!!!
That will happen if the child gets adopted not otherwise. Even if you give up your parental rights you still have to pay.
if us the people change our goverment! nobody cares. i am fighting them now and it dont look good and my daughter is with a junkie! go fig
A father is responsible for creating the child and therefore he is responsible for supporting it. It is difficult to imagine who else should be financially responsible.
Usually in a divorce case the judge decides after taking many things into account and the amount is fixed for the years and to what age he should pay her for.
Him or his parents, even if it involves statutory rape on the part of the mother owed the support. see links
If you are not the child's parent (biological or adoptive), you should not be paying support. . This fully depends on the circumstances. If you were married at the time of the birth, you can. There's current a New York case where an ex-husband pays child support to the mother whose now married to t…he biological father. see links below (MORE)
If he has an income of some sort (other than grants and scholarships). SEE LINKS BELOW
If you are the child's father then you really have little legal support to not support your child. Your child is legally entitled to your financial support.
As long as a child support order exist, yes. But, he should file a motion to modify the order.
I suggest that you contact your State's child support agency. When you get an interview with them, bring all the papers relating to your child support: birth certificates, acknowledgments of paternity, court orders, payment records, etc. Be polite but persistent. Good luck!
Yes, if he has income other than SSI or public assistance, but with SSD, he can motion the court to modify his order down to the amount being paid by Social Security. see links
Yes, custodial payments are for the support and care of a child until they are 18.
If a father is under a child support order that means his paternity has been established. He should request a visitation schedule as well. It should have been made part of the original hearing. He has the right to petition the court for joint custody and visitation rights. He should consult with an …attorney as soon as possible. (MORE)
Depends on circumstances. In New York, a man has to pay hild support to his ex wife whose currently married to the bio dad. see links below
Visit your local family court and ask how to get your claim started. You can request a paternity test to confirm his paternity and then the court can establish a support order. There should be an advocate available at the court who can explain the process for you and help you file the necessary form…s. Once his paternity has been established he cannot avoid his obligation to support his child. Keep in mind that the father can also request a visitation order once his paternity has been established. (MORE)
If you're in the US, in order for the child to be adopted his parental rights had to be terminated. Once that's done, he's no longer responsible for paying future child support. But if he owes back child support, that still has to be paid.
He needs to find a way to do it. The child needs to be fed and clothed whether the father is working or not. It isn't an 'option.'
Get in touch with your State's child support agency. Be patient but persistent. Good luck!
In general (for both fathers and mothers), child support is a percentage of net income. In Illinois, for example, it's 20% of net income for one child, 25% for two, etc. Income is almost anything, including overtime, unemployment benefits and workers compensation, but not welfare payments or SSI. …The amount is based on many different factors, the laws in which the minor child/children reside; the number of children; the income and assets of the non custodial parent, and so forth. A non custodial parent should obtain legal advice when such issues present themselves. Most attorneys offer free or minimal fee consultations to discuss the concerned party's options. (MORE)
Yes, however he should not as he is setting himself up to be defrauded later of substantial amounts of money by an unscrupulous mother. She could later nail him for tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Depending on your state, child support is normally paid to a custodial parent. If there is no custodial parent, other laws may apply. Check your local laws.
Yes, you must still pay child support, even if you're enrolled in school. If your income is reduced, or if you have no income, you may petition the court to reduce the amount you are required to pay; however, keep in mind that until you do, the arrears will continue to accrue at the current rate.
In the US, in general, child support is a percentage of net income. In Illinois, for example, it's 20% of net income for one child, 25% for two, etc. Income is almost anything, including overtime, unemployment benefits and workers compensation, but not welfare payments or SSI.
Incarceration does not automatically relieve one of paying support that's due under any order that was in effect at the time of the obligor's incarceration. In such a case, the incarcerated parent should petition the court to terminated/suspend the obligation. Because support is based on ones income…, incarcerated parents are typically not ordered to pay support. In addition, followed by addressing the issue of incarceration, also address the probability to freeze fees as they will incur. Out of experience, I know someone that incurred fees while she was doing her time and had a rude awakening after seeing the bill. Although, there is the options to adjust as long as supporting documents are available. (MORE)
Usually it deppends on the state that you live in and their laws. In the state that i live in, at the age of 17 the child can move out of the families household and the parents still have to pay for the child's living. that is only if the parents sign a paper so that the child is legally responsible… for themselves. (MORE)
he should, it doesn't mater to me. In NY YES, in fact, they will take back support even if it was from 20 years ago (my neighbor was a bum).
if the child is still at the age to where child support is needed than it doesn't matter if the father is retired.
If there is a court order for him to pay child support, the best thing to do is report his delinquent payments to your local Department of Human Services. They will work to collect the money he owes.
In general, child support ends when: the obligor has legal custody of the child; the child is deceased; the child has been adopted; the child is emancipated (i.e., self-sufficient); the child has attained majority (varies by State but generally age 18-21) - however, support may continue into adultho…od for a severely disabled child; and/or the obligor has no income other than public assistance. (MORE)
Paying child support isn't really a matter of choice. Each parent is required to comply with the court order(s) in the case.
Whatever the court documents give him. Not paying child support does not automatically remove any rights from him.
In general, to terminate child support, you need to show the court that: you have custody of the child; the child is deceased; the child has been adopted; the child is emancipated; the child has attained majority; and/or you have no income other than public assistance; AND, you do not owe any past-d…ue support. (MORE)
The state does not pay child support. However if you require public assistance the state will automatically go after child support, and even if you do not require public assistance you can file for help with the Office of Child Support and often their services are free. The father may not pay volunt…arily but a court action will require him to. (MORE)
Check with a lawyer; if the child is over 18 and is no longer attending, then certainly you have a case.
D.N.A test. INSIST ON IT>PAY FOR IT YOURSELF IF YOU HAVE TO.And if its yours do the right thing
He can't. The only way to not be responsible for your own children is to not have any.
The father is ordered to pay child support to the department in charge of support payment disbursements in their state of residence. If a person assumes legal guardianship of a child, they may apply for modification in how those payments are disbursed if they aren't already collecting them or the or…der states they are to receive them, otherwise, they will continue to go to the person indicated on the original support agreement. (MORE)
If the man signed the birth certificate knowing he was not the father he may be held responsible for providing child support until the child is eighteen in many states. If he did not sign the birth certificate it is unusual that he is paying child support. If he failed to request a DNA test at the… appropriate time, again, he may have to keep paying. He needs to consult with an attorney who specializes in child support issues in his jurisdiction, who can review all the details of the situation and explain his options. If the man signed the birth certificate knowing he was not the father he may be held responsible for providing child support until the child is eighteen in many states. If he did not sign the birth certificate it is unusual that he is paying child support. If he failed to request a DNA test at the appropriate time, again, he may have to keep paying. He needs to consult with an attorney who specializes in child support issues in his jurisdiction, who can review all the details of the situation and explain his options. If the man signed the birth certificate knowing he was not the father he may be held responsible for providing child support until the child is eighteen in many states. If he did not sign the birth certificate it is unusual that he is paying child support. If he failed to request a DNA test at the appropriate time, again, he may have to keep paying. He needs to consult with an attorney who specializes in child support issues in his jurisdiction, who can review all the details of the situation and explain his options. If the man signed the birth certificate knowing he was not the father he may be held responsible for providing child support until the child is eighteen in many states. If he did not sign the birth certificate it is unusual that he is paying child support. If he failed to request a DNA test at the appropriate time, again, he may have to keep paying. He needs to consult with an attorney who specializes in child support issues in his jurisdiction, who can review all the details of the situation and explain his options. (MORE)
Based on what has been written by credible sources, it does not appear that Barack Sr. contributed child support to his young son; but more important, he did not keep in touch, nor even visit, except for one time.
According to most recent United States census data, 68% of fathers with child support responsibilities meet them as compared to 57% of mothers. So actually, the percentage of "deadbeat moms" is higher than "deadbeat dads". However, fewer mothers are non-custodial parents, not that this fact affects …percentages of parents with obligations who meet them. (MORE)
If he has them and refuses to return them you can call the police. If you want him to have legal physical custody the both of you need to go back to court and have the custody order modified and the father's child support order terminated.
If there is a court order for child support they will take it directly out of his wages if he has one and he will be prosecuted for contempt of court. Prison will be waiting unless he start paying.
Short answer is if THE NON-CUSTODIAL parent receives Social Security Disability Insurance ((yes )) RE: AUXILIARY BENEFITS ~~~ BUT ~~~ But if NON-CUSTODIAL parent only get Supplemental Security Income pays benefits based on financial need... Then the Answer is no , NOT AT ALL... Califor…ina Family Code Section 4504 states that it will only off-set the dollar for dollar payment from federal benefits the NON-CUSTODIAL parent receives from their own benefits. If you have custody and the benefits are from YOUR benefits, it will not off-set the non-custodial parent's obligation to pay support. OPINION FRIEDLANDER, Judge.. Todd A. Anderson (Father) appeals the trial court's denial of his request to credit against his child support obligation Social Security benefits Shauna Anderson (Mother) received on behalf of their child, D.A., prior to Father's petition to modify child support. Father presents that ruling as the sole issue on appeal.. We reverse.. The relevant facts are undisputed. Father and Mother were divorced by decree of dissolution in 1995. At the time, they had one child, D.A., who was born in 1994. Father was ordered to pay $25.00 in weekly child support. Father became disabled and in 2001 began receiving $771.00 monthly Social Security disability benefits (SSD). On November 16, 2010, Father filed a "Petition to Modify Support Obligation and Apply Credit." Appellant's Appendix at 22. The matter proceeded to a hearing on February 28, 2011. Later, Father submitted the following Verified Statement of Evidence summarizing the evidence presented at that hearing relevant to this appeal:. The parties have one child, [D.A.], born March 1, 1994. Todd Anderson is disabled with chronic pancreatitis and receives $771.00 per month in Social Security disability insurance benefits. He has been receiving benefits since May 2001. He applied for disability benefits in 2001 and was approved for benefits within three months.. [D.A.] has also been receiving benefits off of Mr. Anderson's disability account. Her benefits started the same time her father's benefits started. She currently receives $68.00 per month off of her father's disability account. From 2001 until the date Mr. Anderson filed his modification petition, she received a total of $9,314.00 in benefits off of her father's account, $240 of which was in a lump sum paid in 2001. She has received the rest of the benefits on a monthly basis from 2001 on.. Id. at 7-8.. At the hearing, Father sought a modification of his support, including, among other things, to have the $9,314.00 in SSD benefits paid to D.A. since 2001 credited against his child support arrearage. The trial court issued the following order relative to that request:. The Court, having taken this matter under advisement, hereby modifies Petitioner's ongoing support obligation as follows: $19.00 per week, effective November 16, 2010.. Pursuant to Child Support Guideline 3.G.5.b, Petitioner's arrearage as of February 28, 2011 is calculated at $12,838.23. This calculation credits Petitioner with the $240 lump sum Social Security disability benefit received by the child.. Id. at 6. Father appeals the determination that he is not entitled to credit the entire amount of disability benefits received by D.A. since 2001 against his support arrearage.. When the issue presented is a pure question of law and there are no disputed facts, we apply a de novo standard of review. Reese v. Reese, 696 N.E.2d 460 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). "`A pure question of law is one that requires neither reference to extrinsic evidence, the drawing of inferences therefrom, nor the consideration of credibility questions.'" Id. at 462 (quoting Indiana Ins. Co. v. Allis, 628 N.E.2d 1251, 1252 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), trans. denied. ) In the instant case, the facts are undisputed and the determination of whether Father is entitled to credit the entire amount of periodic SSD payments received by D.A. against his child support arrearage is a pure question of law. We therefore review the trial court's ruling de novo. See id. . Mother contends this case should be resolved in her favor by our Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Brown, 849 N.E.2d 610 (Ind. 2006). In Brown, a parent sought credit for a lump-sum SSD payment against an accumulated child support arrearage and also sought to credit his monthly SSD benefits against his future support obligation. Our Supreme Court denied that request, holding: "lump-sum payments of retroactive Social Security disability benefits to children cannot be credited against child support arrearages that are accumulated before the noncustodial parent has filed a petition to modify based on the disability." Id. at 615. Also in Brown, the Supreme Court clarified that a disabled parent "with respect to whom Social Security disability benefits are paid to the parent's child is entitled to petition the court for modification of the parent's child support to reflect a credit for the amount of the payments. The credit takes effect as of the date of the petition. " Id. at 614 (emphasis supplied). Thus, according to Brown, SSD payments to a dependent may not be credited against a support arrearage that accumulated before the filing of a modification petition - i.e., they may not be applied retroactively.. Effective January 1, 2010, Indiana Child Support Guideline 3 was amended to specifically address the subject of SSD payments. In relevant part, it affirmed the Supreme Court's determination in Brown that SSD payments to a child may be credited against a noncustodial parent's child support obligation. See Child Supp. G. 3(G)(5)(a)(2)(ii). On the other hand, the amended Guideline 3 effectively overruled Brown's holding that lump-sum SSD payments could not be applied retroactively to arrearages accumulated prior to the filing of a petition for modification. With regard to arrearages and SSD payments, Comment 3(G) provides, in relevant part: "A lump sum payment of retroactive Social Security Disability benefits shall be applied as a credit against an existing child support arrearage if the custodial parent, as representative payee, received a lump sum retroactive payment, without the requirement of a filing of a Petition to Modify Child Support." Child Supp. G. 3(G)(5)(b)(1). The Commentary to Guideline 3 clarifies that "[t]he Guidelines now allow the courts to apply the lump sum SSD benefits toward an existing child support arrearage if the custodial parent, as representative payee, receives a lump sum payment. This credit is appropriate without the requirement of a filing of a Petition to Modify Child Support.". Read in conjunction with Brown and Child Supp. G. 3(G)(5)(b)(4), 1 this commentary clearly indicates that lump-sum SSD payments to a custodial parent on behalf of the child may be applied against a support arrearage that predated the filing of a petition to modify support. It is silent, however, with respect to the issue presented here, i.e., whether periodic SSD payments may be applied against a support arrearage that accumulated before the filing of a petition to modify support. The parties advocate different interpretations of this silence.. Mother contends that a petition to modify support is still required in order to apply an SSD payment against an arrearage because "the Commentary to the Guidelines, when discussing the holding in Brown, do not indicate that the addition of section 5 was intended to change the effect of the holding in Brown. " Appellee's Brief at 7. Indeed, Mother argues that had it so intended, "the Guidelines would have stated that the holding with respect to filing a petition to modify set out in Brown was also superseded." Id. Regardless of whether the relevant section of Commentary to Guideline 3 states it, the fact remains that the text of the Guideline itself overturns Brown in this regard, viz., "[a] lump sum payment of retroactive Social Security Disability benefits shall be applied as a credit against an existing child support arrearage if the custodial parent, as representative payee, received a lump sum retroactive payment, without the requirement of a filing of a Petition to Modify Child Support. " Child Supp. G. 3(G)(5)(b)(1) (emphasis supplied).. Father, on the other hand, contends in effect that the modified Child Supp. G. 3(G)(5) was intended primarily to overrule Brown on the issue of whether lump-sum SSD payments apply retroactively to arrearages accumulated prior to a petition to modify that was based upon SSD payments. Father contends:. Under the rationale given in the new guidelines and under existing case law, there is no reason to treat regular monthly payments any differently than a lump-sum payment that is merely the accumulation of regular monthly payments that the Social Security Administration did not pay earlier because of a delay in finding the person to disabled [sic]. In fact, those regular monthly payments present an even clearer case of "payments that do not technically conform to the original support decree", Commentary to Child Supp. G., but for which a credit must be given.. Appellant's Brief at 11. We find ourselves in agreement with Father.. The Commentary to Guideline 3(G) notes that Brown recognized that the SSD benefits paid to a child were recognized as earnings of the disabled parent, and therefore "[i]t follows ... that the payment received for the benefit of the child should be applied to satisfy the disabled parent's support obligation." The Commentary further notes that the revised Child Support Guidelines change the law regarding the application of SSD benefits with respect to SSD lump-sum payments. Under Brown and Hieston v. State, Indiana Family & Soc. Servs. Admin. Child Support Bureau, 885 N.E.2d 59 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied, such payments were considered mere gratuities and could not be credited against existing arrearages unless the arrearage post-dated a petition to modify based upon the SSD payments. As is the case with respect to the current version of Child Supp. G. 3(G)(5), Brown and Hieston addressed only lump-sum SSD payments and said nothing about periodic SSD payments, at least so far as applying proceeds against an existing arrearage. We are therefore left to speculate as to how the Guidelines would treat periodic SSD payments in this regard. We believe the Commentary to Guideline 3(G)(5) foreshadows that periodic SSD payments would be treated the same as lump-sum SSD payments.. The Commentary provides that SSD payments for the benefit of a dependent child are regarded as income of the disabled parent and shall be credited as payment toward the disabled parent's support obligation. The revision in Guideline 3(G)(5) is based upon the following rationale:. [T]he lump sum payment is merely a method of payment applied to a past support obligation not paid. The distinction is between modification of support which changes the rate of support, e.g. from $100.00 per week to $50.00 per week, as opposed to credit for an indirect payment. Modification of a child support obligation still requires the filing of a petition for modification as set forth in Guideline 4.. The lump sum payment is a method of payment that may not be specifically authorized by express court order but which should be recognized as a payment of support. Indiana case law establishes that credit can be allowed for payments that do not technically conform to the original support decree. For example, where the obligated parent makes payments directly to the custodial parent rather than through the clerk of the court, the Supreme Court has recognized these payments when there was sufficient proof to convince a trier of fact that the required payments were actually made. Proof of the lump sum SSD benefit payment is not difficult because the Social Security award certificate is a record easily admitted into evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule under IRE 803(6) and (8) (reports of a public agency setting forth its regularly recorded activity) and trial courts are rarely burdened with an evidentiary dispute about what was paid, when or to whom, once the Social Security records are shared. By contrast, the informal arrangement disputes between parties to modify and reduce the actual amount of weekly support below that ordered in the divorce decree are actual attempts to retroactively modify the amount of support, which are prohibited. Similar to the nonconforming payment, the lump sum payment shall be applied as a credit to an existing child support arrearage.. Commentary to Child Supp. G. 3(G). For purposes of the foregoing rationale, we can see no meaningful distinction between SSD periodic payments and SSD lump-sum payments paid for the benefit of a dependent child.. In neither case does the petitioner seek a modification of the amount of support to be paid. As the Commentary makes clear, there is a critical distinction between seeking a modification of support and seeking credit for the receipt of SSD benefits. With the former, a party seeks to alter the amount of support that is to be paid. With the latter, the party does not seek an alteration in the amount of the child support obligation, but rather seeks to credit against that obligation payments made for the support of the child that are not in a form explicitly authorized by the original child support order. This distinction was not discussed in Brown, at least with respect to the question of whether SSD payments could be applied to an arrearage that accumulated prior to a petition to seek credit for those SSD payments. In fact, it would appear that the court viewed the distinction as irrelevant on that question, as it cited the prohibition against "`retroactively modify[ing] an obligor's duty to pay a delinquent support payment'", Brown v. Brown, 849 N.E.2d at 614 (quoting Ind. Code Ann. Â§ 31-16-16-6 (West, Westlaw through end of 2011 1st Regular Sess.)), in support of its conclusion that no credit would be given for such payments that predated the petition to modify. The Commentary to Guideline 3(G)(5), however, clearly distinguishes between seeking modification of the amount of a support obligation and seeking credit for an indirect payment of support. In fact, it appears that the Commentary places great importance on this distinction in effectively overturning Brown on the matter of crediting SSD lump-sum payments against an arrearage that accumulated prior to the petition seeking that credit.. As the Commentary notes, the petitioner in cases such as the instant case seeks credit for an indirect payment that "should be recognized as a payment of support." Id. With respect to both lump-sum and periodic SSD payments, the payments are considered income of the disabled parent and not mere "gratuities from the federal government." Brown v. Brown, 849 N.E.2d at 614. Therefore, they should be credited against the disabled parent's support obligation. As such, just as with lump-sum payments, applying periodic payments to an accumulated arrearage "is merely a method of payment applied to a past support obligation not paid." Id. Proof of the periodic SSD benefit payment is presumably no more difficult than is the case with lump-sum payments because "the Social Security award certificate is a record easily admitted into evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule under IRE 803(6) and (8)[.]" Id. Thus, we conclude there is no principled reason to treat periodic SSD benefit payments to a child differently than lump-sum SSD benefit payments, i.e., it "shall be applied as a credit to an existing child support arrearage" without the need to file a petition for modification. Id. . The trial court is reversed insofar as it denied Father's request to apply all of the periodic SSD payments received to date by Mother on D.A.'s behalf against his existing support arrearage. This matter is remanded with instructions to calculate the amount of those payments and to adjust the amount of Father's arrearage accordingly.. Judgment reversed and remanded.. (MORE)