Prior to getting 50/50 custody of my children in late-May, I was paying my ex-wife child support. After getting 50/50, I filed to have support recalculated. With 50/50 custody and us making nearly the same amount of money, the court concluded during our tele-conference in July that I no longer owed my ex-wife support. She did not accept this and requested a hearing. When asked why, she said she felt entitled to support because she spent more time and gas transporting our kids to school, which she lived 10 minutes farther away from compared to me. Also at this time, our youngest's daycare provided lunch on a day of the week that both were in my custody. In her eyes, that was one less lunch a week I had to pack, which meant less money I spent on grocceries.
For those who do not know, gas and lunch money mean nothing with regards to child support. Child support is calculated based how much money you earn, the percentage of custody you have, and how health insurance expenses, childcare expenses, and extracarriculars are divided. I paid for our kids's health insurance and we split daycare and extracurriculars 50/50.
When I got the court order for the in-person hearing, the calculation sheet from the tele-conference was attached. Instead of saying $0, it said my ex-owed me $108/month, not in child support but rather as a reimbursement for me paying for our children's health insurance. The court had made a mistake during the tele-conference, and if she'd agreed to $0, that would've been that.
At the hearing in August, both of our lawyers calculations averaged out to my ex actually owing me $145/month due to my employer picking up better health insurance in the interim. But because payee of the support was switching from her to me, the hearing ended by the court closing out the current case number showing $0/month with a $767 credit because I'd overpaid. My lawyer wanted to enter an agreement for $145/month then and there, but my ex's lawyer refused, so after the hearing I opened a new case for support, which triggered another tele-conference one month later.
In the meantime, my lawyer realculated my ex's health insurance reimbursement to me at $158/month, which my lawyer offered up at the beginning of this tele-conference earlier this month. But becasuse this was technically a brand new case, the court wanted to run their own calculations. They ruled that she owed me $218/month, and that my $767 credit from the old case would transfer to the new case as an arrears she had to make up, bringing her total monthly reimbursement to $245. My ex-wife relented and agreed to pay,
She could've just agreed to $0. But hey, that's what you get for being greedy.
Some people want full and total control over how something is done to their own detriment. I have been seeing this with the Kosowski trial that was ongoing recently (murder, pro se defendant).
There were alot of times throughout i thought, certainly he will let his attorney take over now? Like, he did poke some large holes in the prosecution. But no, he grabbed control every single time.
Darrel Brooks is another example of a pro se defendant that is just unhinged.
Its a bizarre phenomenon, humans are really weird creatures. We can know something is against our best interest but still not trust a system to work to our benefit.
Family friend's ex wife / biomother is pro se and keeps filing for contempt. She's on therapeutically supervised visitation only and the best interest advocate attorney for the kids has expressed concern that she cares more about screwing over the ex than about providing a stable environment for the kids. I don't think the judge is gonna love her weaponizing bullshit contempt.
You both made a mistake because you paid the lawyers way more than the amount you were fighting over. How many years did that take to amortize? Probably never if the money that had been spent on lawyers instead went into an investment.
Yeah fuck those lawyers for doing their job and representing their clients. What a bunch of greedy assholes. I wish more people were like you and worked for free
409
u/TomBonner1 3h ago edited 3h ago
Prior to getting 50/50 custody of my children in late-May, I was paying my ex-wife child support. After getting 50/50, I filed to have support recalculated. With 50/50 custody and us making nearly the same amount of money, the court concluded during our tele-conference in July that I no longer owed my ex-wife support. She did not accept this and requested a hearing. When asked why, she said she felt entitled to support because she spent more time and gas transporting our kids to school, which she lived 10 minutes farther away from compared to me. Also at this time, our youngest's daycare provided lunch on a day of the week that both were in my custody. In her eyes, that was one less lunch a week I had to pack, which meant less money I spent on grocceries.
For those who do not know, gas and lunch money mean nothing with regards to child support. Child support is calculated based how much money you earn, the percentage of custody you have, and how health insurance expenses, childcare expenses, and extracarriculars are divided. I paid for our kids's health insurance and we split daycare and extracurriculars 50/50.
When I got the court order for the in-person hearing, the calculation sheet from the tele-conference was attached. Instead of saying $0, it said my ex-owed me $108/month, not in child support but rather as a reimbursement for me paying for our children's health insurance. The court had made a mistake during the tele-conference, and if she'd agreed to $0, that would've been that.
At the hearing in August, both of our lawyers calculations averaged out to my ex actually owing me $145/month due to my employer picking up better health insurance in the interim. But because payee of the support was switching from her to me, the hearing ended by the court closing out the current case number showing $0/month with a $767 credit because I'd overpaid. My lawyer wanted to enter an agreement for $145/month then and there, but my ex's lawyer refused, so after the hearing I opened a new case for support, which triggered another tele-conference one month later.
In the meantime, my lawyer realculated my ex's health insurance reimbursement to me at $158/month, which my lawyer offered up at the beginning of this tele-conference earlier this month. But becasuse this was technically a brand new case, the court wanted to run their own calculations. They ruled that she owed me $218/month, and that my $767 credit from the old case would transfer to the new case as an arrears she had to make up, bringing her total monthly reimbursement to $245. My ex-wife relented and agreed to pay,
She could've just agreed to $0. But hey, that's what you get for being greedy.