Go Back  British Expats > Living & Moving Abroad > USA > Marriage Based Visas
Reload this Page >

?'s about divorce and Financial responsibility

?'s about divorce and Financial responsibility

Old Aug 17th 2004, 3:07 am
  #16  
Scott and Nanette
 
ScottHenshaw's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 759
ScottHenshaw is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: ?'s about divorce and Financial responsibility

Rete,

I agree that it is not the correct answer for him, as it would be much easier for him to simply protect himself from the legal responsibilities associated with an ex-wife and child. It would be easier for him to hide behind the natural given responsibilities associated with fatherhood and pretend that it never happened. Much easier to forget about the woman whom he once professed to love and not acknowledge the fact that somewhere out there he has abandoned a child.

The question I would hope that someone would ask is, “What is the correct answer for the family�. That is what they are now, a family. Two married people with a child on the way. The OP did not give enough information for any reader to discern why she moved out and why she wants a divorce. Perhaps the situation is not that simple. Perhaps, she was forced out or maybe could not bear a particular situation. Maybe it was a misunderstanding that could be solved with the help of a priest, a rabbi, a family friend or counselor. Perhaps there is a way to reconcile and save the marriage? Is it the wrong answer to suggest that they seek some help for the sake of their family?

Scott
ScottHenshaw is offline  
Old Aug 17th 2004, 10:23 am
  #17  
Concierge
 
Rete's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 46,358
Rete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: ?'s about divorce and Financial responsibility

Originally Posted by ScottHenshaw
Rete,

I Is it the wrong answer to suggest that they seek some help for the sake of their family?

Scott

Absolutely, a perfect answer.

Rete
Rete is offline  
Old Aug 17th 2004, 9:32 pm
  #18  
Bob
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: ?'s about divorce and Financial responsibility

Hey guys, It's me. Sorry for the delay. I know I didn't supply all the gory
details, as I'm not keen on airing my relationship's dirty laundry. I'd like
to leave it at: I doubt our relationship is going to work out. I'm pretty
sure we're headed for divorce, and what I was getting at in the OP is if
anyone knows how I can protect myself from the financial liability of here
'choosing' not to return to work, and instead relying on public assistance
for an indefinite period of time.
I've no intentions of trying to duck out being a part of my child's life or
to evade paying child support/alimony. What I'm worried about is her
collecting child support/alimony, choosing not to go back to work, signing
up for welfare, ANFC, Medi-Cal, Food Stamps, (insert means-tested public
assistance benefit here), and the Gov't coming after me to reimburse them
for all these benefits my ex-wife may or may not try to receive.
I don't have a problem with my responsibilities as an parent/ex-spouse as
far as supporting either of them goes, I just don't want to be taken
advantage of. I spoke with an attorney for a little while and he was unsure
of putting language in the final divorce decree about limiting my
responsibility/liability to the Gov't. so I though I'd ask here. I've been
told by a few attorney's that I can expect to pay 50% of my net income
between alimony and CS. That's fine(well, not fine, but I can live with it),
it leaves me with enough to pay the bills here, but, if I have my net income
reduced by 50%, 'and' the Gov't says"BTW, your ex-wife is receiving
$1000/month in public assistance and we're going to require
repayment/sue/garnish your wages/etc. Then I'll really be screwed, as in
paying out 65-80% of my monthly net and not having enough money to survive
on.
Protection from the above scenario is what I'm inquiring about, as I don't
know if there is any.
I make $2600/mo net. Paying out $1300/mo. in CS/alimony will be rough
enough, but I can live on $1300. Should the Gov't. come looking for
additional money for repayment of public assistance that she's
(hypothetically)collecting, I'll be rowing a sinking boat, possibly for the
next 8-9 years, before the bilge pump can catch up.
Any ideas?
Thanks in advance.
 
Old Aug 17th 2004, 10:50 pm
  #19  
Account Closed
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 38,865
ian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond reputeian-mstm has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: ?'s about divorce and Financial responsibility

Originally Posted by Bob
Protection from the above scenario is what I'm inquiring about, as I don't know if there is any.
I'm pretty sure the government is not bound by any 3rd party agreements. If your wife becomes a public charge, *you* are responsible for reimbursing the government. There are only 4 ways out of your responsibility - she becomes a US citizen, she dies, she leaves the country, or she gets 40 quarters of qualified work.


I'll be rowing a sinking boat, possibly for the next 8-9 years, before the bilge pump can catch up.
You keep talking about 8-9 years. What will happen in 8-9 years that makes you think your responsibility will end?

Ian
ian-mstm is offline  
Old Aug 17th 2004, 11:19 pm
  #20  
Concierge
 
Rete's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 46,358
Rete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: ?'s about divorce and Financial responsibility

First off, you are on the hook and all the language in your divorce settlement is meaningless as I do believe the US Government will go by the I-864 before it goes by your settlement agreement.

Secondly, there are few judges which will give a wife and mother 50% of your income for alimony and child support. Actually few courts in NYS, at the very least, grant alimony to women these days and if they do it is for a limited time period only.

Thirdly, if she were getting 50% of your income, she is "earning" too much to qualify for welfare. Your child is qualified for medical care, food stamps, and welfare as a US citizen and the government cannot come after you for reimbursement of monies given to a USC as long as you are paying court ordered child support. Some states, such as NYS, will go after a deadbeat parent for funds expended. I don't know about other states.

Rete
Rete is offline  
Old Aug 17th 2004, 11:38 pm
  #21  
Bob
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: ?'s about divorce and Financial responsibility

    > I'm pretty sure the government is not bound by any 3rd party agreements.
>If your wife becomes a public charge, *you* are responsible for
>reimbursing the government. There are only 4 ways out of your
>responsibility - she becomes a US citizen, she dies, she leaves the
    > country, or she gets 40 quarters of qualified work.

>You keep talking about 8-9 years. What will happen in 8-9 years that
    > makes you think your responsibility will end?


Ian,
The people on the phone @ NSC told me that it was 40 quarters of work OR 10
years which ever came first, but after re-reading the form, it seems she
misinformed me, Just 40 1/4's of work, and not 10 years.
I guess I can hope that my wife returns to S.A. for at least 12 mos. or
dies, but that's not what I want, I just want to protect myself from her
trying to take advantage of the system, but it seems there is no way to do
so.
Forever up the creek without a paddle,
Robert
 
Old Aug 18th 2004, 12:03 am
  #22  
Concierge
 
Rete's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 46,358
Rete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond reputeRete has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: ?'s about divorce and Financial responsibility

Originally Posted by Bob
    > I'm pretty sure the government is not bound by any 3rd party agreements.
>If your wife becomes a public charge, *you* are responsible for
>reimbursing the government. There are only 4 ways out of your
>responsibility - she becomes a US citizen, she dies, she leaves the
    > country, or she gets 40 quarters of qualified work.

>You keep talking about 8-9 years. What will happen in 8-9 years that
    > makes you think your responsibility will end?


Ian,
The people on the phone @ NSC told me that it was 40 quarters of work OR 10
years which ever came first, but after re-reading the form, it seems she
misinformed me, Just 40 1/4's of work, and not 10 years.
I guess I can hope that my wife returns to S.A. for at least 12 mos. or
dies, but that's not what I want, I just want to protect myself from her
trying to take advantage of the system, but it seems there is no way to do
so.
Forever up the creek without a paddle,
Robert
They got the 10 years wrong. She could be here for 50 years and never become a US citizen and never earn 40 quarters of qualified SS work and you are still on the hook for means tested reimbursement.

I guess you didn't read the points I laid out earlier on what will terminate the I-864.

Rete
Rete is offline  
Old Aug 18th 2004, 8:21 am
  #23  
Bob
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: ?'s about divorce and Financial responsibility

"Rete" <member167@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected] m...

    > First off, you are on the hook and all the language in your divorce
    > settlement is meaningless as I do believe the US Government will go by
    > the I-864 before it goes by your settlement agreement.
    > Secondly, there are few judges which will give a wife and mother 50% of
    > your income for alimony and child support. Actually few courts in NYS,
    > at the very least, grant alimony to women these days and if they do it
    > is for a limited time period only.
    > Thirdly, if she were getting 50% of your income, she is "earning" too
    > much to qualify for welfare. Your child is qualified for medical
    > care, food stamps, and welfare as a US citizen and the government
    > cannot come after you for reimbursement of monies given to a USC as
    > long as you are paying court ordered child support. Some states, such
    > as NYS, will go after a deadbeat parent for funds expended. I don't
    > know about other states.
    > Rete
Thanks for a little clarification Rete. Here in CA, Alimony is typically
awarded for 1/2 the duration of the marriage, which for me should be less
than 1 year(married less than 2). I've talked to a few divorce attorneys
here and they all have one thing in common, 50% of my income for the
duration of the alimony, after that the mandatory C.S. guidelines will
determine my CS payments. Bleak outlook, but I'll continue rowing.
Thanks all for your insight,
Robert
 
Old Aug 18th 2004, 1:29 pm
  #24  
BE Forum Addict
 
Dekka's Angel's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,350
Dekka's Angel is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: ?'s about divorce and Financial responsibility

Originally Posted by Bob
"Rete" <member167@british_expats.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected] m...

Thanks for a little clarification Rete. Here in CA, Alimony is typically
awarded for 1/2 the duration of the marriage, which for me should be less
than 1 year(married less than 2). I've talked to a few divorce attorneys
here and they all have one thing in common, 50% of my income for the
duration of the alimony, after that the mandatory C.S. guidelines will
determine my CS payments. Bleak outlook, but I'll continue rowing.
Thanks all for your insight,
Robert
These figures about spousal support are incorrect.

It is not 50% of your net income. It is 50% of the parties' total "disposable income". To get the calculation short of running a computer program (which is what is normally used), an attorney would need to know your exact before-tax income and ask you a number of questions about deductions which are allowable in the formula. However, the calculation of "disposable income" takes into account your child support obligation. It is calculated, and then deducted before calculation of "net disposable income" is done for you.

Then there is an equalization of nets between the spouses. So if she has $0 net disposable income and you have $1800 (after child support, which always comes first) then she gets 1/2 of that.

You are correct, however, that in a short term marriage spousal support is generally for 1/2 the duration of the marriage. You are incorrect, however, about that being mandatory - it isn't. There are defenses, not that easy since judges have become too reliant on the Dissomasters, but certainly "sit on tochis and not look for work" is indeed a defense to spousal support (never to child support).

You are also correct that child support is based on mandatory guidelines. However, it's not "after" she gets her spousal support - its' before. The right to child support trumps any right to spousal support, since spousal support isn't generally a "right" but a discretionary award for a limited purpose of allowing a spouse to become self-supporting.
Dekka's Angel is offline  
Old Aug 19th 2004, 12:44 am
  #25  
Andrew DeFaria
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: ?'s about divorce and Financial responsibility

Dekka's Angel wrote:

    > These figures about spousal support are incorrect.
    > It is not 50% of your net income. It is 50% of the parties' total
    > "disposable income". To get the calculation short of running a
    > computer program (which is what is normally used), an attorney would
    > need to know your exact before-tax income and ask you a number of
    > questions about deductions which are allowable in the formula.
    > However, the calculation of "disposable income" takes into account
    > your child support obligation. It is calculated, and then deducted
    > before calculation of "net disposable income" is done for you.

If she makes 0 and he makes it all, and has few, if any, deductions then
it boils down to 50% of net.

    > Then there is an equalization of nets between the spouses. So if she
    > has $0 net disposable income and you have $1800 (after child support,
    > which always comes first) then she gets 1/2 of that.
    > You are correct, however, that in a short term marriage spousal
    > support is generally for 1/2 the duration of the marriage. You are
    > incorrect, however, about that being mandatory - it isn't. There are
    > defenses, not that easy since judges have become too reliant on the
    > Dissomasters, but certainly "sit on tochis and not look for work" is
    > indeed a defense to spousal support (never to child support).

That's not what I was told. Child support aside, refusing to work is not
an excuse. I was told that the court will consider your potential
earnings (maybe this is a California issue - I know you're a family
lawyer Dekka but I thought you were in Florida). This is to stop people
from saying "She'll get nothing because I'll become a janitor") However
the court conveniently ignores the potential earnings of person who the
spousal support is being considered... :-(

    > You are also correct that child support is based on mandatory
    > guidelines. However, it's not "after" she gets her spousal support -
    > its' before. The right to child support trumps any right to spousal
    > support, since spousal support isn't generally a "right" but a
    > discretionary award for a limited purpose of allowing a spouse to become
    > self-supporting.

Which is often and consistently abused by spouses! In a 10 year marriage
do you think it requires 5 years of spousal support for the spouse to
become self-supporting?!? Bull!

--
There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore looking
like an idiot.
 
Old Aug 19th 2004, 2:20 pm
  #26  
BE Forum Addict
 
Dekka's Angel's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,350
Dekka's Angel is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: ?'s about divorce and Financial responsibility

Andrew:

You have misread me. Here's what I said.

[quote]There are defenses, not that easy since judges have become too reliant on the Dissomasters, but certainly "sit on tochis and not look for work" is indeed a defense to spousal support (never to child support).

In other words, we're agreeing about spousal support - you can't sit on your behind for no good reason and collect spousal support indefinitely based on having no income.

But child support is quite different and I have heard of only 1 case where a Dissomaster spit out a child support number and the award was reversed on grounds of the custodial parent's refusal to work (and that was a case involving millionaires). Public policy creates a much firmer obligation on the part of the Court to ensure that the children are taken care of regardless of which parent "bears the burden". Sometimes, there are salient reasons why a judge might conclude that a parent at home not working is in the best interests of the chlidren, whereas the policy of spousal support is as a "bridge" to allow spouses to become self-supporting (long term marriages excluded). So there is no hard and fast rule requiring that a custodial parent work. Instead, it is the totality of the circumstances that determines whether the malingering rules kick in for child support cases. It is therefore mmuch much harder to successfully argue "lazy doesn't want to work" in a child support context. Child support and spousal support are fundamentally different animals and how rules operate in one context have nothing to do with how they operate in another.

We also agree that sometimes the system is abused. But in my experience, I've seen enough abuse on both sides to be sick of it generally.

P.S. Yes I am in California. Not Florida.
--
Dekka's Angel is offline  
Old Aug 19th 2004, 2:53 pm
  #27  
Andrew DeFaria
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: ?'s about divorce and Financial responsibility

Dekka's Angel wrote:

    > Andrew:
    > You have misread me. Here's what I said.
    > [quote]There are defenses, not that easy since judges have become too
    > reliant on the Dissomasters, but certainly "sit on tochis and not look
    > for work" is indeed a defense to spousal support (never to child support).
    > In other words, we're agreeing about spousal support - you can't sit
    > on your behind for no good reason and collect spousal support
    > indefinitely based on having no income. :)

You're right. I misread you. Sorry.

    > Sometimes, there are salient reasons why a judge might conclude that a
    > parent at home not working is in the best interests of the chlidren,
    > whereas the policy of spousal support is as a "bridge" to allow
    > spouses to become
    > self-supporting (long term marriages excluded).

When you exclude long term marriages it shows that the argument of
spousal aide to help them become self-supporting is bull.

    > So there is no hard and fast rule requiring that a custodial parent work.

There should be IMHO. Every adult member of society should be
self-supporting (baring extreme medical conditions such as various
handicaps and diseases.). Nobody (adult that is) should be compelled to
live their life for the sake of another - that should always be a
voluntary condition that a person enters into and can leave of their own
choosing. Otherwise you don't really own your own life and you are not
free rather enslaved.

    > Instead, it is the totality of the circumstances that determines
    > whether the malingering rules kick in for child support cases. It is
    > therefore mmuch much harder to successfully argue "lazy doesn't want
    > to work" in a child
    > support context.

Perhaps for you. I don't see any reason (barring extreme medical
conditions mentioned above) for somebody to not be "on their feet" after
say 2 or 3 years. 5 years of spousal support, for example, does not make
any sense with the statement of "spousal support to help them be
self-supporting".

    > We also agree that sometimes the system is abused. But in my
    > experience, I've seen enough abuse on both sides to be sick of it
    > generally. :(

We don't really agree with the degree. IOW I'd say more than sometimes
and venture into the realm of often.

    > P.S. Yes I am in California. Not Florida.

Sorry, misplaced you.
--
If a cow laughed, would milk come out her nose?
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.