Wait - why is Parent 2 giving Parent 1 any money for child support if Parent 2 has the kid??

If the custody arrangement isn't working, Parent 2 should really go back to court and get full custody.

Anonymous wrote:This sounds more like an alimony fight than a child support fight. Parent 1 is basically asking to be supported, and it has nothing to do with kid expenses.

In some states (like VA, where we live), the child support is not tied to custody. My ex takes our daughter 2 nights a week - if he were to take her 3 nights a week, our child support would not change because the bulk of the child support covers things like preschool, activities and health insurance, not the small amount of food she eats at each parent's house.

Not to digress but I don't think this is true. The Virginia child support calculator clearly has a "number of days per year" line item that affects the child support formula.

This sounds more like an alimony fight than a child support fight. Parent 1 is basically asking to be supported, and it has nothing to do with kid expenses.

In some states (like VA, where we live), the child support is not tied to custody. My ex takes our daughter 2 nights a week - if he were to take her 3 nights a week, our child support would not change because the bulk of the child support covers things like preschool, activities and health insurance, not the small amount of food she eats at each parent's house.

OP,

Parent 2 could try and help Parent 1 through this if the goal is resumed overnights and employment. Child support guidelines are a baseline. Legally, Parent 2 probably could not get more and could well get less. People say a lot of things and don't follow through.

so the answer is probably not. They have a custody agreement that spells out how many nights the child spends with each parents. The child support formula is based on that custody. However- if one parent is actually not taking the child on their nights, then you can introduce evidence about this, and the actual time will be considered. I would suggest that Parent 2 keep good notes on how often Parent 1 actually keeps the child.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey, wait a minute. Where did you get that Parent #2 is unreliable???

To answer the PPs, the child is with Parent #2 full time. Parent #2 is a very reliable, very good parent.

The child sees Parent #1 five or six hours a week, through supervised visits. But Parent #1 is trying to get more child support even though the child doesn't sleep there or really even live there anymore.

You said parent #2 is unreliable in your post. The whole thing is very confusingly written.

NP here- actually the post said the money is unpredictable, not that Parent #2 is unreliable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey, wait a minute. Where did you get that Parent #2 is unreliable???

To answer the PPs, the child is with Parent #2 full time. Parent #2 is a very reliable, very good parent.

The child sees Parent #1 five or six hours a week, through supervised visits. But Parent #1 is trying to get more child support even though the child doesn't sleep there or really even live there anymore.

You said parent #2 is unreliable in your post. The whole thing is very confusingly written.

Actually the word "unreliable" was never used in the entire post.

OP again. I think PPs misunderstood my using the word "unpredictable."

I said, "Parent 2 makes very good money but it is unpredictable,"

Meaning that the MONEY is unpredictable. The salary is commission based, so some years it might be $200,000 and some years it might be $800,000. So because the MONEY is unpredictable, child support is calculated at the end of the year and Parent #2 cuts a check to Parent #1 to cover whatever additional child support is owed on top of what was paid on a monthly basis throughout the year.

Sorry that wasn't clearer. Parent #2 is very predictable, reliable, and a great parent. (I am related to Parent #2 so I'm sure I'm biased, but there's no arguing that Parent #2 is a great parent).

Anonymous wrote:Hey, wait a minute. Where did you get that Parent #2 is unreliable???

To answer the PPs, the child is with Parent #2 full time. Parent #2 is a very reliable, very good parent.

The child sees Parent #1 five or six hours a week, through supervised visits. But Parent #1 is trying to get more child support even though the child doesn't sleep there or really even live there anymore.

You said parent #2 is unreliable in your post. The whole thing is very confusingly written.

Hey, wait a minute. Where did you get that Parent #2 is unreliable???

To answer the PPs, the child is with Parent #2 full time. Parent #2 is a very reliable, very good parent.

The child sees Parent #1 five or six hours a week, through supervised visits. But Parent #1 is trying to get more child support even though the child doesn't sleep there or really even live there anymore.

Poor kid.

One parent is an addict of some sort and the other is unreliable but can write checks. Shit, what chance does that kid have?

People really suck sometimes.

Grow up and take care of your child.

Who does have the child?

They can ask for anything and it depends on the judge/court. Technically, yes, you could end up paying child support. I have heard it done but its pretty rare.

Here is the situation.

Parent 1 has been a mess for months. A stint in rehab, hasn't had an overnight with the child since December, and all visits have been 2-3 hour supervised visits (supervisor is the child's grandparent but not HER parent - her former in-law, if that makes sense). Parent 1 has been fired and has no monthly income.

Parent 2 makes very good money but it is unpredictable, so Parent 2 has typically paid for everything throughout the year (child care, etc) and then "settled up" at the end of the year, cutting Parent 1 a check based on actual income and expenses.

Parent 1 says that they are going to "go after" Parent 2 for more money.

I don't really understand how Parent 1 could get any child support at all if the child isn't living with Parent 1 and only seems them for supervised visits. Is that right or am I missing something?