My husband is dealing with his unemployed ex and the child support system, and I don’t understand how this is even fair.
He has 50% custody and already covers clothes, school, activities, healthcare, and education. Yet he’s being ordered to pay $2,500 a month to a mother who hasn’t worked in her field since November 2023.
She bought a brand-new BMW months before she got laid off. She chooses to live in San Francisco, where her rent is $4,500 a month. We don’t even live like that! Meanwhile, we’re paying for almost everything the child needs, but we still have to hand over this ridiculous amount. It feels more like we’re supporting her lifestyle instead of just supporting the child.
Her industry has been struggling, but instead of finding a new path or adjusting her spending, she just expects more money from us. We can’t afford this—it means cutting into our other kids’ education savings and our retirement.
Child support laws seem outdated, assuming one parent is absent or uninvolved. My husband is fully present, co-parents equally, and already contributes more than he’s required to. But the system treats him like an ATM with no regard for actual costs or financial responsibility on both sides.
Shouldn’t child support be based on actual needs instead of being a financial safety net for a parent who refuses to adjust? Am I missing something?
EDIT: For those saying this isn’t my business or that I should have known what I was getting into, of course I knew he had a child. That’s not the issue. I’m posting because I don’t understand how a simple calculator determines this with no consideration for anything else.
It’s all about maintaining the same lifestyle. The state doesn’t push people to work full-time, or in your case, even part-time. But if your husband needed to reduce his income, it wouldn’t work that way for him. The system isn’t built to be fair.
My ex is a licensed attorney, underemployed, and recently fired. She’s probably hoping the child support office will count her income as zero so she can get more money. It’s so frustrating. She told the judge it took her two years to find the job she just lost. I’m hoping they keep her previous income on record instead of lowering it.
They should be calculating based on her potential income. Your husband will need proof to argue that, so he should definitely have a lawyer. If he’s paying child support, he shouldn’t be paying anything extra unless it’s in the court order. Her expenses don’t matter in the calculation. It’s based on income, not how much she spends.
This is just how messed up California’s system is. My husband pays over $3,000 to an ex who still lives with her parents and has no expenses. Meanwhile, we struggle. The courts didn’t care about our mortgage, utilities, or anything else. She barely works, claims she only makes $1,400 a month, but somehow her bills add up to $5,000? Now she has a new car, hair done, nails done, new clothes—it’s infuriating. Every time she goes back to court, she gets more money. The system is not built for the parents who actually work hard and pay child support.
Was the child support order calculated after she lost her job? Your post sounds more like a rant than a legal question. Posting here won’t change the system. Child support is meant to make sure the child has a similar standard of living in both homes. That’s why it’s based on income, not expenses. Has she actually filed for a modification, or is she just asking your husband directly for more money?
That’s crazy. You’re already covering everything, including healthcare, and it’s still that high? We were told that if my husband paid for his kids’ health insurance, his support would go down. But their mom refused and kept them on state insurance, and the courts allowed it.
Child support is meant to ensure kids have the same financial life in both homes, as if the parents were still together. The formula takes into account income, parenting time, and sometimes living costs.
Your husband could stop paying for extra things outside of child support, and the court wouldn’t penalize him for it.
Also, I get that this affects your household, but legally, you’re not a party to this. You knew he had a child and financial obligations before you got married.
Of course, I knew he had a child. But my income does come into play since I provide health insurance. I disagree that this doesn’t affect me. My husband and I have to figure out how to cut back to cover this extra $2,500. That absolutely involves me.
It definitely involves you! California does take into account if a parent remarries, and support can go up because of it. It’s frustrating that she gets to do nothing while you guys struggle. I’m in the same situation.
Most insurance plans charge the same for ‘holder + family’ whether you have one child or five. So if she already had her own child on the plan, adding her stepchild probably didn’t cost anything extra.