The original poster (OP) details a situation involving his ex-wife regarding child support payments. For years, the OP has been paying his ex-wife $200 per month for child support, despite sharing 50/50 custody and paying for the children’s insurance. The OP admits he kept the arrangement because paying the small amount was easier than dealing with the conflict, viewing it as a price for her silence regarding finances.
When the ex-wife began complaining about rising costs last year, the OP anticipated she would seek a review of the support order after learning about his new job. She initiated the review process, leading them to the child support office. The outcome was that, based on their current incomes and the 50/50 custody arrangement where the OP covers insurance, the calculated support obligation became zero dollars per month.
For “tricking” my ex wife into reducing child support
As family law expert and author, Kelly R. Arnold, states, “Co-parenting success often hinges on transparent communication and adherence to the terms of a custody agreement, rather than using the system for personal advantage.”
This situation illustrates a dynamic where financial matters are used as a tool for control or leverage within a post-divorce relationship. The OP admits to paying the $200 not based on legal necessity, but as a ‘piece to pay for her to shut up,’ indicating a pattern of conflict avoidance by conceding financially, even when the custody split suggested otherwise. The ex-wife, by initiating the review upon hearing about the OP’s new job, demonstrated an expectation of continued financial support, likely due to her own financial needs or a belief that the existing arrangement reflected an imbalance in income or responsibility.
The OP’s action of ‘tricking’ her into initiating the review was a successful, albeit calculated, exercise in enforcing the terms dictated by the 50/50 custody split. However, basing financial settlements on passive-aggressive maneuvers rather than direct, honest negotiation can erode any foundation for functional co-parenting. Moving forward, both parties should focus on clear communication regarding shared expenses and income changes, ideally adhering strictly to court guidelines to prevent such strategic gamesmanship from recurring.
HERE’S HOW REDDIT BLEW UP AFTER HEARING THIS – PEOPLE COULDN’T BELIEVE IT.
The OP is currently feeling triumphant and satisfied, having successfully manipulated the legal review process to eliminate his $200 monthly payment. This outcome is achieved by strategically waiting for his ex-wife to initiate the review, which forces an objective look at their shared financial situation and custody split, benefiting the OP significantly.
The central conflict lies between the OP’s calculated maneuver to gain financial relief and the ex-wife’s expectation that the existing support arrangement should continue or increase based on her perception of his earnings. Is the OP justified in taking advantage of the system to cease payments when the legal calculation supports his position, or was his approach manipulative?
