Drama

My fiance (who I have petitioned to bring to the US) has a child that is
a USC. The mother of the child is living here and working illegally.
The child is a USC by birth when the mother was here illegally. Is it
possible for her to request and win child support from us, once we are
married, even though she is living here illegally?



Is it possible for us to file for custody of the child being that she
has broken many US laws by living here illegally?

Drama

Originally posted by Rete

    > I'm not a lawyer but yes she can take you to court and win child
    > support for a child you fathered and apparently abandoned. I say that
    > because if she has to sue for child support than you ain't already
    > paying it.


    > And yes you can sue for custody but because she is here illegally
    > won't be the point that would you allow you to win it. Her being
    > illegal does not in the eyes of the law make her an unfit mother.


    > Personally, just by you asking that question, I would see you as an
    > unfit parent who is using a child as a pawn in a power game.


    > Rete



Actually, I am the USC asking the question. I will be the step mother,
and I am currently sending the child money every month. I was asking
because I am concerned about the situation. It is difficult enough as
is paying for everything my fiance and I are doing right now to go
through this process. I couldn't imagine what I would do having to
support us as well as $1000 a month child support until he finds a job.
I am okay with the mother having custody, but financially I have to be
able to support my family, too. Thanks for the honest respone, though.

Mrt

drama wrote:
    > My fiance (who I have petitioned to bring to the US) has a child that is
    > a USC. The mother of the child is living here and working illegally.
    > The child is a USC by birth when the mother was here illegally. Is it
    > possible for her to request and win child support from us, once we are
    > married, even though she is living here illegally?
    >
    >
    >
    > Is it possible for us to file for custody of the child being that she
    > has broken many US laws by living here illegally?
    >

Child support is for the SUPPORT OF THE CHILD.
That status of the custodial parent is NOT the issue.

I assume the child is also living in the US.
And, if the father is going to live in the US, why do you want to make
it difficult for the child to live here.

To put it one way... His baggage becomes your baggage.
He should be looking for ways to PAY the child support, not looking for
ways to avoid paying it.

Mrt

drama wrote:

    > Actually, I am the USC asking the question. I will be the step mother,
    > and I am currently sending the child money every month. I was asking
    > because I am concerned about the situation. It is difficult enough as
    > is paying for everything my fiance and I are doing right now to go
    > through this process. I couldn't imagine what I would do having to
    > support us as well as $1000 a month child support until he finds a job.
    > I am okay with the mother having custody, but financially I have to be
    > able to support my family, too. Thanks for the honest respone, though.
    >

If child support needs to be paid, then I see no problem with the father
finding some kind of job, no matter what the wage to find a way to pay
it. Getting married is no excuse for him to avoid paying it.
Additionally, in some states, the child support obligation is based on
FAMILY income, I believe.

Folinskyinla

Originally posted by drama

    > My fiance (who I have petitioned to bring to the US) has a child that
    > is a USC. The mother of the child is living here and working
    > illegally. The child is a USC by birth when the mother was here
    > illegally. Is it possible for her to request and win child support
    > from us, once we are married, even though she is living here
    > illegally?


    > Is it possible for us to file for custody of the child being that she
    > has broken many US laws by living here illegally?



Hi:



That is a question of state law. Talk to a family lawer. Also, child
support is for the CHILD who happens to be a US citizen.

Dekka'S Angel

Originally posted by drama

    > My fiance (who I have petitioned to bring to the US) has a child that
    > is a USC. The mother of the child is living here and working
    > illegally. The child is a USC by birth when the mother was here
    > illegally. Is it possible for her to request and win child support
    > from us, once we are married, even though she is living here
    > illegally?


    > Is it possible for us to file for custody of the child being that she
    > has broken many US laws by living here illegally?



I do not know the law in every state but I would find it highly
improbable that the mother's immigration status has any bearing on the
question of child support. The support is owed to the child, not the
mother, even though she is the conduit through which it is collected and
spent. The mother is completely irrelevant except to the degree that
she factors into the math. I know in California if you try to raise
this issue all you will get is a pissed off judge. On the question of
custody, the outcome might well be the same, although you would have to
consult with a family law attorney in your state to get a definitive
answer. My gut says that the outcome will be the same, because many
states have statutes making immigration status "off limits" as evidence
in a civil proceeding that is unrelated to immigration.



    > It is difficult enough as is paying for everything my fiance
    > and I are doing right now to go through this process.


    > This is the standard excuse. Carried to a rational instead of selfish
    > conclusion, what inability to afford paying child support while also
    > processing his immigration petition says is that perhaps you guys
    > should defer marrying until he can fulfill his clear legal and moral
    > duty to his kids. After all, he knew them before he knew you, and
    > they didn't choose to be here. That was his choice, one he now has an
    > absolute obligation to live up to. The fact that you are more
    > concerned about ways to end his obligation than about the fact that
    > *he* isn't living up to it and is using your money to get by speaks
    > volumes.


    > I do wish parents would get straight once and for all who is entitled
    > to support and stop trying using their relationship baggage as an
    > excuse to starve their kids.


    > /sigh

Lpdiver

A thousand dollars a month child support is quite a lot! sounds like the
mother is being supported also.





Originally posted by drama

Actually, I am the USC asking the question. I will be the step
mother, and I am currently sending the child money every month. I was
asking because I am concerned about the situation. It is difficult
enough as is paying for everything my fiance and I are doing right now
to go through this process. I couldn't imagine what I would do having
to support us as well as $1000 a month child support until he finds a
job. I am okay with the mother having custody, but financially I have
to be able to support my family, too. Thanks for the honest respone,
though.

Dekka'S Angel

Originally posted by lpdiver

    > A thousand dollars a month child support is quite a lot! sounds like
    > the mother is being supported also.



Child support is based on a formula that takes into the disposable
income (this term is defined by statutes in every state, mathematically)
of *both* parents.



If a child gets 1K child support, it is because the math worked out that
way. A child is, statutorily, entitled to the best standard of living
that *both* parents can provide with their disposable income based on
the formula. And statutorially entitled to maintain the standard of
living they enjoyed when the parents were still a couple, if the child
support formula says that it can still be provided. Period.



So if the parents together makes $25,000, the child might get only $250
a month as support because there is only a little disposable income.
But at $250,000, that same child would see maybe $5,000, rather than the
$2,500 that pure ratios would dictate. Because a higher percentage of
the parents' cumulative income is disposable.



The bottom line, however, is that the $1K/month award was made based on
what the non-custodial could afford to pay based on the numbers he and
his ex- put before the Court, plugged into the formula. If his
circumstances have changed he has an easy remedy -- prove to a Court
that he really can't afford it now, and the support order *will* be
reduced. But his or anyone else's personal opinions about what is or is
not "a lot" of child support are irrelevant.



This is as it should be.



As far as the "mother being supported", this is also one of those oldies
but goodies used by resentful support payers, who let their relationship
baggage get in the way of understanding why the system is designed as it
is -- to benefit the child first and foremost.



Of course the custodial parent is being "supported" in a technical
sense. The money received for the child frees up some of that parent's
own money for him or herself. That's as it should be, too. But folks
throw this one around as if somehow the fact that the custodial parent
might get to live in a nicer neighborhood with the kids (they can't live
by themselves), or get an extra movie or dinner out a month or a
vacation (since after all someone has to take the kids) means that the
kid doesn't "need" the money and the support is "too high". Firm
notions of what a child "needs" deprive children of parents who can
afford to provide an excellent life style for them, and deprives
children or poor parents too when folks start whining about what they
can "afford". This is why the system rejects these types of ideas and
sticks to a very hard and fast formula (absent some rare circumstances
which aren't evident in the OP's facts).

Lpdiver

I would not think that the fiancees income is factored into this formula
at all. She is paying the legal fees and the "child" support. I commend
her for doing so. however it seems pretty apparent that high income has
not determined the level of support but compassion. It is a good
thing...probably.





Originally posted by Dekka's Angel

    > Child support is based on a formula that takes into the disposable
    > income (this term is defined by statutes in every state,
    > mathematically) of *both* parents.


    > If a child gets 1K child support, it is because the math worked out
    > that way. A child is, statutorily, entitled to the best standard of
    > living that *both* parents can provide with their disposable income
    > based on the formula. And statutorially entitled to maintain the
    > standard of living they enjoyed when the parents were still a
    > couple, if the child support formula says that it can still be
    > provided. Period.


    > So if the parents together makes $25,000, the child might get only
    > $250 a month as support because there is only a little disposable
    > income. But at $250,000, that same child would see maybe $5,000,
    > rather than the $2,500 that pure ratios would dictate. Because a
    > higher percentage of the parents' cumulative income is disposable.


    > The bottom line, however, is that the $1K/month award was made based
    > on what the non-custodial could afford to pay based on the numbers he
    > and his ex- put before the Court, plugged into the formula. If his
    > circumstances have changed he has an easy remedy -- prove to a Court
    > that he really can't afford it now, and the support order *will* be
    > reduced. But his or anyone else's personal opinions about what is or
    > is not "a lot" of child support are irrelevant.


    > This is as it should be.


    > As far as the "mother being supported", this is also one of those
    > oldies but goodies used by resentful support payers, who let their
    > relationship baggage get in the way of understanding why the system is
    > designed as it is -- to benefit the child first and foremost.


Of course the custodial parent is being "supported" in a technical
sense. The money received for the child frees up some of that parent's
own money for him or herself. That's as it should be, too. But folks
throw this one around as if somehow the fact that the custodial parent
might get to live in a nicer neighborhood with the kids (they can't live
by themselves), or get an extra movie or dinner out a month or a
vacation (since after all someone has to take the kids) means that the
kid doesn't "need" the money and the support is "too high". Firm
notions of what a child "needs" deprive children of parents who can
afford to provide an excellent life style for them, and deprives
children or poor parents too when folks start whining about what they
can "afford". This is why the system rejects these types of ideas and
sticks to a very hard and fast formula (absent some rare circumstances
which aren't evident in the OP's facts).

Dekka'S Angel

Originally posted by lpdiver

    > I would not think that the fiancees income is factored into this
    > formula at all. She is paying the legal fees and the "child" support.
    > I commend her for doing so. however it seems pretty apparent that high
    > income has not determined the level of support but compassion. It is a
    > good thing...probably.



The fiance's income hasn't been factored into any of this, and no court
in the world would do so because she is not his wife yet and therefore
has no legal obligation to contribute. She is voluntarily choosing to
prop up her man by paying his child support obligation for him. No
court ordered her to do so.



That speaks volumes to me, about her and him. Yes I think her
compassion is to be commended -- but it's clear that it is a contextual
compassion, since she's here looking for ways to get out of paying it
while still keeping her man on track to immigrate, a far lesser priority
than him getting a job and supporting his kids. The situation speaks
even louder volumes about him, especially since he has put his fiancee
in this position rather than step up to the plate and do the right thing
on his own. But I'm not the one marrying him -- thank God.



(If she marries him that's a different kettle of fish. Mr. Travel said
it best - his obligations become hers, for better or for worse. And at
that point she needs to check state law because there is some variation.
Most states will consider the complete marital household income,
including hers, in calculating his disposable income (and thus fixing
his child support obligation). Some will count only a portion of her
income, some will exclude hers entirely.



No matter how calculated, however, the number is mathematically
supported and in the best interests of the child.