Fiance ex-wife is off her rocker

Status
Not open for further replies.

katlowe

New Member
This case is in the State of Missouri where all parties live.

This really doesn't involve me but indirectly affects me so I am going to see if anyone has an answer. I have to give some background information in order for this to make sense so bare with me please.

I live with my fiance and he has 2 minor children. His ex-wife requested a review in January of this year which we received paperwork on in March 2009 and it had him assessed at $568.00 per month total for both of the girls.

That is half of his gross income. Keep in mind we live in a poor financial district here in Missouri.

Now that being said she stated to him verbally without witnesses that she wanted the full amount child support had assessed him at which of course didn't take into consideration any overnights and definately wasn't including insurance premiums.

She stated to him that she would take $500.00 a month but couldn't understand how when we lived in Wisconsin that he could pay $600/month on 4 kids and yet when she wants more he can't give it to her....she is a real piece of work.

Now she is demanding it be $600/month and refused to discuss it further. The attorney we have hired has said she will be credited with a 40 hour work week because of her act of bad faith in reducing her hours just prior to filing for this review in order to reduce her income level which the lawyer states is intentional and voluntary underemployment and a deliberate act of bad faith by denying her children the full benefit of her income potential. I whole heartedly agree with this.

I recently was informed she is now working two jobs (one of which would allow her to always have the same days off as her kids through the school) and she refuses to tell my fiance what she makes per hour which is no big deal since it is something she must disclose at the hearing regardless but it would be nice to have the information in advance.

My question now is can we assess her with both incomes for this hearing? My quess is that she is going to state in court that she will be considered a seasonal employee if she gets the job at the school and therefore have no income other than the unemployment she will file for.

She currently receives $337.00/month for the kids which of course will go up we are not arguing that at all. It's the unfair amount that we are arguing and the fact that she intentionally reduced her hours prior to requesting this review which when we received the initial paperwork she denied having done. When we received the financial disclosure forms there was a letter within the paperwork that showed she had lied because it was written and signed by her expressly asking for the review.

I do not believe in gouging your ex's. She has lost HUDD due to a cluttered home per her which for all intents and purposes means fire hazards were present. She receives public assistance and uses the food pantries and food stamps to feed the kids. I have nothing against that if it is used for a suppliment not as a lifestyle. I mean come on public assistance is just that "assistance" it's not meant to be used to be the only way to live! I was raised on it because there was no child support payments for 5 kids for my mom who worked 3 jobs to support us with only a little help from the government and I have not been on it since my daughter was 4 months old and have worked very hard my whole life so I get a little fed up with stuff like this.

I feel like we are being asked to make up the difference in her rent due to her loss of HUDD and on top of that we are paying for her right to have the free ride on the state's dollars on top of the child support. Just ridiculous.

Sorry for the rant I guess I just don't know how to work this out in my head and I don't really know the Missouri Child Support laws well enough to understand how they came up with such a ridiculous amount in support.
 
Last edited:
This really doesn't involve me but indirectly affects me so I am going to see if anyone has an answer. I have to give some background information in order for this to make sense so bare with me please.

I live with my fiance and he has 2 minor children. His ex-wife requested a review in January of this year which we received paperwork on in March 2009 and it had him assessed at $568.00 per month total for both of the girls.

That is half of his gross income. Keep in mind we live in a poor financial district here in Missouri.

Now that being said she stated to him verbally without witnesses that she wanted the full amount child support had assessed him at which of course didn't take into consideration any overnights and definately wasn't including insurance premiums.

She stated to him that she would take $500.00 a month but couldn't understand how when we lived in Wisconsin that he could pay $600/month on 4 kids and yet when she wants more he can't give it to her....she is a real piece of work.

Now she is demanding it be $600/month and refused to discuss it further. The attorney we have hired has said she will be credited with a 40 hour work week because of her act of bad faith in reducing her hours just prior to filing for this review in order to reduce her income level which the lawyer states is intentional and voluntary underemployment and a deliberate act of bad faith by denying her children the full benefit of her income potential. I whole heartedly agree with this.

I recently was informed she is now working two jobs (one of which would allow her to always have the same days off as her kids through the school) and she refuses to tell my fiance what she makes per hour which is no big deal since it is something she must disclose at the hearing regardless but it would be nice to have the information in advance.

My question now is can we assess her with both incomes for this hearing? My quess is that she is going to state in court that she will be considered a seasonal employee if she gets the job at the school and therefore have no income other than the unemployment she will file for.

She currently receives $337.00/month for the kids which of course will go up we are not arguing that at all. It's the unfair amount that we are arguing and the fact that she intentionally reduced her hours prior to requesting this review which when we received the initial paperwork she denied having done. When we received the financial disclosure forms there was a letter within the paperwork that showed she had lied because it was written and signed by her expressly asking for the review.

I do not believe in gouging your ex's. She has lost HUDD due to a cluttered home per her which for all intents and purposes means fire hazards were present. She receives public assistance and uses the food pantries and food stamps to feed the kids. I have nothing against that if it is used for a suppliment not as a lifestyle. I mean come on public assistance is just that "assistance" it's not meant to be used to be the only way to live! I was raised on it because there was no child support payments for 5 kids for my mom who worked 3 jobs to support us with only a little help from the government and I have not been on it since my daughter was 4 months old and have worked very hard my whole life so I get a little fed up with stuff like this.

I feel like we are being asked to make up the difference in her rent due to her loss of HUDD and on top of that we are paying for her right to have the free ride on the state's dollars on top of the child support. Just ridiculous.

Sorry for the rant I guess I just don't know how to work this out in my head and I don't really know the Missouri Child Support laws well enough to understand how they came up with such a ridiculous amount in support.

Where do the children live...WI or MS? Where is the court order out of? Why isn't you bf on here posting for himself?
 
Is this a spammer?

Where do the children live...WI or MS? Where is the court order out of? Why isn't you bf on here posting for himself?

If so I have seen this one on several other posts and from what I understood you got rid of this one.
 
I think it is because there is a need to put in the state information with regard to jurisdiction - the need to answer based upon state laws. Shortly we are going to have a method where putting in state is required. It makes a very large difference.
 
I had it within the information

I think it is because there is a need to put in the state information with regard to jurisdiction - the need to answer based upon state laws. Shortly we are going to have a method where putting in state is required. It makes a very large difference.

I have changed it so that is the first piece of information you see.

I did have the required field where it asked for the state prior to posting this question but it doesn't carry forward as of yet. I assumed it would show somewhere because it had been required to post my message. Sorry.
 
If so I have seen this one on several other posts and from what I understood you got rid of this one.

Are you asking if I am a spammer?? Why would you think that?:confused: I asked the questions I did in order to clarify your rather confusing post.
 
Ooops sorry

Yes, sorry I guess it is your signature line. Saw it in many posts previously but not with your user name and assumed you were a spammer too. My apologies.
 
Specifics/Narrowing It Down

Okay our case is Missouri where all parties live.

My fiances ex-wife filed for a review and wants what is currently $337 in support for two kids to go to $568-$600 (ridiculous).

She reduced her hours prior to filing for this review to make it look like she was at a lesser income level than she could potentially be at.

My question basically is can she be held to the same standards that my fiance is in that she has in bad faith intentionally underemployed herself in order to appear to be at a lesser income level and therefore could child support be stayed at the current level or at a maximum of $400 for the next 3years when she would be eligible to request another review?

She had lost HUDD just prior to requesting this review as well due to a "cluttered home" on top of the reduction in hours.

Please note we understand child support will go up regardless (we are not arguing that) but we believe the unfair amount should be examined and she should be held accountable for her actions of bad faith in order to obtain more child support and welfare benefits.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.
 
Okay our case is Missouri where all parties live.

My fiances ex-wife filed for a review and wants what is currently $337 in support for two kids to go to $568-$600 (ridiculous).

She reduced her hours prior to filing for this review to make it look like she was at a lesser income level than she could potentially be at.

My question basically is can she be held to the same standards that my fiance is in that she has in bad faith intentionally underemployed herself in order to appear to be at a lesser income level and therefore could child support be stayed at the current level or at a maximum of $400 for the next 3years when she would be eligible to request another review?

She had lost HUDD just prior to requesting this review as well due to a "cluttered home" on top of the reduction in hours.

Please note we understand child support will go up regardless (we are not arguing that) but we believe the unfair amount should be examined and she should be held accountable for her actions of bad faith in order to obtain more child support and welfare benefits.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

A spammer used my sig line in his/her/it's post. I would appreciate it if you would remove your comment from my "reputation".
 
I will have to ask a moderator to do that sorry it won't let me take it off myself. You have my permission to have it removed by one of the moderators if you need it off immediately. Sorry for the mistaken identity and assumption that you were a spammer due to the sig line you use.
 
I will have to ask a moderator to do that sorry it won't let me take it off myself. You have my permission to have it removed by one of the moderators if you need it off immediately. Sorry for the mistaken identity and assumption that you were a spammer due to the sig line you use.

Okay. Perhaps next time you will be more careful before you make comments that you can't take back...:no:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top