If the non-custodial mother was responsible for full child support before remarrying, that responsibility will continue until the court says otherwise. The court will consider the financial condition of both the non-custodial mother and of the custodial father in deciding whether to continue to require full child support.
Yes. They are still the child's parent and responsible for supporting their child.
Only through a Rebuttable Presumption argument. see link
No - the new spouse isn't responsible for other men's children.
Maryland does not have that specific provision, but all child support is rebuttable.
You can try, but the mother's new spouse isn't responsible for your child.
No, He has a moral obligation to support his child financially and emotionally. Unless his income has decreased support should remain the same.
In the United States, a widow's benefits from Social Security can be affected if she remarries. If she remarries before the age of 60, she generally loses the widow's benefits. However, if she remarries after turning 60, she can continue to receive those benefits. It's important for individuals to consult with the Social Security Administration for specific guidance related to their situation.
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.
No, a widow of a World War 2 veteran would typically not be eligible for survivor benefits if she remarries before the age of 57. If she remarries after that age, she may qualify for benefits. It is advisable to consult with the Social Security Administration for specific details regarding eligibility.
The surviving spouse has legal rights regardless of whether he/she remarries after the death of his/her spouse.
As a means of punishing him for moving on with his life? Alimony would have been ordered at the initial divorce, not later.
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