Anonymous wrote:IMO the age of the children should be considered.

There was another post on DCUM where people argued that a 21 year old "child" in college should absolutely continue to get full child support, a car, car insurance and all expenses paid - and should NOT have to work for any of that, it should be provided.

Meanwhile, there were 2 very young minor children who were only getting a fraction of what 21 year old was.

It is irrelevant what happened in the marriage. What matters is young, minor children.

They should be financially cared for BEFORE the checkbook continues to be drained for a 21 year old.

That wasn't about child support with the 21 year old. Except in a few states or by agreement, child support stops at 18. All kids should be caculated in the child support calculations. Sometimes a 2 year old can cost more than an 16 year old but it depends on lifestyle choices.

IMO the age of the children should be considered.

There was another post on DCUM where people argued that a 21 year old "child" in college should absolutely continue to get full child support, a car, car insurance and all expenses paid - and should NOT have to work for any of that, it should be provided.

Meanwhile, there were 2 very young minor children who were only getting a fraction of what 21 year old was.

It is irrelevant what happened in the marriage. What matters is young, minor children.

They should be financially cared for BEFORE the checkbook continues to be drained for a 21 year old.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have a total of 4 children; 1 with previous spouse and 3 with current spouse. Will Maryland courts take into account expenses of other children when it comes to child support obligation for the oldest?

You think your ex should also be red for the 3 kids you had with someone else! You are ridiculous.

All kids deserve to be treated equally. If one child takes up 25-40% of the income in child support, that's unreasonable.

Her ex is not responsible for any child but his and the support he gives for his child should only be used for his child! OP should have thought about her finances before breeding like a rabbit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have a total of 4 children; 1 with previous spouse and 3 with current spouse. Will Maryland courts take into account expenses of other children when it comes to child support obligation for the oldest?

You think your ex should also be red for the 3 kids you had with someone else! You are ridiculous.

All kids deserve to be treated equally. If one child takes up 25-40% of the income in child support, that's unreasonable.

Anonymous wrote:Have a total of 4 children; 1 with previous spouse and 3 with current spouse. Will Maryland courts take into account expenses of other children when it comes to child support obligation for the oldest?

You think your ex should also be red for the 3 kids you had with someone else! You are ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You want to support your first child LESS because you chose to have THREE more children?

Isn’t this literally what any parent who has more than one child is choosing to do? Imagine you are a happily married couple. You earn a decent income. If you have one child, you may be able to put a lot into their college savings account and throw lavish birthday parties. If you have a couple more children, you may not be able to afford the same lifestyle x4. Your comment seems to think that the firstborn should still receive the full college savings and lavish birthday parties while the second, third born receive much less, because it would be wrong to support a child LESS just because you chose to have MORE children.

In your “happily married couple” example the first child still has the benefit of an intact family. They live with that family. They have siblings that are “equal” to them.

But when there is a first child SEPARATE from the other children, none of that is true. The first child has a broken home, while the other three children have an intact one. The first child has to split time between houses and misses out on the day-to-day connection and activity. The half siblings get to live there full time and have a better position in the home.

It’s not even close to being the same thing as a first child gaining three additional siblings in an intact home.

Anonymous wrote:You want to support your first child LESS because you chose to have THREE more children?

Isn’t this literally what any parent who has more than one child is choosing to do? Imagine you are a happily married couple. You earn a decent income. If you have one child, you may be able to put a lot into their college savings account and throw lavish birthday parties. If you have a couple more children, you may not be able to afford the same lifestyle x4. Your comment seems to think that the firstborn should still receive the full college savings and lavish birthday parties while the second, third born receive much less, because it would be wrong to support a child LESS just because you chose to have MORE children.

Anonymous wrote:You want to support your first child LESS because you chose to have THREE more children?

You support all four equally.

I posted at 10:37 and OP's question is not an unreasonable one as several states do, in fact, grant a reduction in gross income used to calculate CS if there are other children in the house to whom a parent owes a duty of support (i.e. biological or adopted children but not step children). In VA, for example, you are granted a reduction in your gross income for the amount of the basic guidelines support item for that child so if your GMI was $5.5K you would receive a $790 deduction such that your CS is calculated off of $4.71K gross monthly income.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You want to support your first child LESS because you chose to have THREE more children?

No, I think she wants her ex to pay more for kid #1 because she has three more kids to pay for.

If the ex had more kids, should OP pay more because the ex has higher expenses now?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You want to support your first child LESS because you chose to have THREE more children?

No, I think she wants her ex to pay more for kid #1 because she has three more kids to pay for.

either scenario is super selfish

Anonymous wrote:You want to support your first child LESS because you chose to have THREE more children?

No, I think she wants her ex to pay more for kid #1 because she has three more kids to pay for.

You want to support your first child LESS because you chose to have THREE more children?

Your answer, as always, lies in the statute.
Section 12-202(a)(2)(iii)(2) provides for support of other children as a deviation factor; however, Section 12-202(a)(2)(iv) is clear that the presumptive amount awarded under the guidelines cannot be rebutted solely based upon the existence of other children.

One thing that is interesting is that child support paid is deducted from gross income which is what a lot of states do so it is actually more favorable from a guidelines prospective to pay child support than have another child living with you. The other thing to keep in mind is if that other child is on your health insurance and you provide health insurance for the children on the support order you will get a reduction in the credit due to the other child being on the health insurance.

Have a total of 4 children; 1 with previous spouse and 3 with current spouse. Will Maryland courts take into account expenses of other children when it comes to child support obligation for the oldest?