Neither state currently has that provision, as California does, this does not preclude a legislative change in the future to address the number of motions to modify support for fathers being laid off. Massachusetts addressed it by doubling their rates two years ago. An argument for this can be presented to the court under a rebuttable presumption, but that can be a two way street, resulting in a lower and not higher payment. see links
Maryland does not have that specific provision, but all child support is rebuttable.
Only through a Rebuttable Presumption argument. see link
His second marriage is not valid.
No, He has a moral obligation to support his child financially and emotionally. Unless his income has decreased support should remain the same.
Typically courts will not penalize a child by reducing support payments because a parent has had another child because this is not seen as being in the best interest of the child.
The marriage is of no effect and the person may face criminal charges.
No the new spouse is not responsible.
no see links
Philadelphia
No!
Yes.
No. Texas Family Code section 154.069 states that no spousal income may be considered when computing child support. That's either the custodial or noncustodial parent's spouse. Here is a link: http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/FA/content/htm/fa.005.00.000154.00.htm Here is the text: § 154.069. NET RESOURCES OF SPOUSE. (a) The court may not add any portion of the net resources of a spouse to the net resources of an obligor or obligee in order to calculate the amount of child support to be ordered. (b) The court may not subtract the needs of a spouse, or of a dependent of a spouse, from the net resources of the obligor or obligee. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995.