125% ,medcaid ,child support

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

Regarding the Child Support payments, technically that money is not the parent's income it is children's. You are allowed to include income from household members but they must be of legal age and if the children are still receiving Child Support (see the children receive it not the custodial parent) then they are probably minors which means they can't legally agree to allow their income to be included.

Of course this is my opinion based on being a parent who has received Child Support from my ex-wife for the last 12 years. I'm always amused by people who don't understand who's income that Child Support is.

The court didn't order my ex-wife to pay me, they ordered her to pay her fair share of raising our children.

[az110965 252]

Regarding the Child Support payments, technically that money is not the parent's income it is children's. You are allowed to include income from household members but they must be of legal age and if the children are still receiving Child Support (see the children receive it not the custodial parent) then they are probably minors which means they can't legally agree to allow their income to be included.

Of course this is my opinion based on being a parent who has received Child Support from my ex-wife for the last 12 years. I'm always amused by people who don't understand who's income that Child Support is.

The court didn't order my ex-wife to pay me, they ordered her to pay her fair share of raising our children.

"The court didn't order my ex-wife to pay me, they ordered her to pay her fair share of raising our children."

Absolutely correct - so if the money is to be used to support the child, why on earth can it be counted towards the PETITIONER'S income? This money is definitely intended to support the child(ren) and it will undoubtably be used to also support the fiance when he arrives until AOS and EAD is received. Also - if the beneficiary goes on at some point to receive means tested benefits and the petitioner is pursued to repay the US Government, where do you think the money will come from to repay that?

Sorry, I just disagree with the concept that the petitioner can use that money as income to qualify for another person to join the household, especially since she is already struggling and is using Medicaid for the children. Expenses for the household will increase exponentially once the fiance arrives and if the petitioner can't make it NOW without Medicaid then what will the situation be once an adult arrives who theoritically can't work for about 6 months?

[sachinky 465]

Aniket, let me be upfront and tell you right now that if you are going through the NWD embassy there is going to be hell to pay.

[az110965 252]

Aniket, let me be upfront and tell you right now that if you are going through the NWD embassy there is going to be hell to pay.

What exactly does that mean? Will the Consulate NOT accept the child supoort as income?

[xebec 195]

I honestly don't understand the indignation expressed over the issue of child support. It seems quite simple:

1) The job of the immigration authorities, in this regard, is simply to determine if the beneficiary and/or their children are likely to seek means tested benefits.

2) They consider the petitioner's income and assets for this purpose, and their ability to support the entire household.

3) The children, under age 21, of the petitioner are counted as part of the household,and both parents of the petitioner's children are responsible for support of these children.

Obviously, if these children are counted by USCIS as part of the petitioner's household, then their financial support should naturally be counted as well- it demonstrates that the petitioner is capable of supporting the members of the household adequately, according to the standards required by the USCIS.

[sachinky 465]

What exactly does that mean? Will the Consulate NOT accept the child supoort as income?

I have no idea about child support being counted as income or not but from everything that this OP has posted, his case will throw up at least four to six red flags in NWD.

[az110965 252]

"2) They consider the petitioner's income and assets for this purpose, and their ability to support the entire household."

I'm not angry about the situation at all, but as you said - they counsider the petitioner's income and assets. Child supoort is NOT income, and her income is not sufficient to support the household when you add a fourth member (the OP states the petitioner's income is approximately $24,000).

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

Obviously, if these children are counted by USCIS as part of the petitioner's household, then their financial support should naturally be counted as well- it demonstrates that the petitioner is capable of supporting the members of the household adequately, according to the standards required by the USCIS.

I think that's where the real problem lies... Maybe the better solution would be for USICS to make an allowance or adjustment if there are children receiving Child Support. Maybe it should be something like using the number of dependents you are able to count on your taxes as quite often when a parent is paying child support they will get to share the tax deduction either by alternating years, counting one or more of the kids every year etc.

I would agree if the other parent is the primary source of support for the child then maybe it would be fair to not count them as a household member on the AOS but only if they Petitioner isn't also taking tax benefits for that child.

For what it's worth, I've never listed the Child Support I receive as "My Income" regardless. Not when going for a mortgage, car loan or eiter of the I-864s that I've had to provide in this process.

Edited October 30, 2011 by Bob 4 Anna

[az110965 252]

"For what it's worth, I've never listed the Child Support I receive as "My Income" regardless. Not when going for a mortgage, car loan or eiter of the I-864s that I've had to provide in this process."

And that SHOULD be how it is. Use the child support to take care of the child - NOT to boost your household income in order to qualify to petition an immigrant fiance. What if the petitioner's ex loses his job and can not pay child supoort for a year? The income that the petitioner is so dependent upon would vanish and instead of having a household size of 3, now it is 4... This in a household already receiving Medicaid for the children.

[pushbrk 12,883]

I think that's where the real problem lies... Maybe the better solution would be for USICS to make an allowance or adjustment if there are children receiving Child Support. Maybe it should be something like using the number of dependents you are able to count on your taxes as quite often when a parent is paying child support they will get to share the tax deduction either by alternating years, counting one or more of the kids every year etc.

I would agree if the other parent is the primary source of support for the child then maybe it would be fair to not count them as a household member on the AOS but only if they Petitioner isn't also taking tax benefits for that child.

For what it's worth, I've never listed the Child Support I receive as "My Income" regardless. Not when going for a mortgage, car loan or eiter of the I-864s that I've had to provide in this process.

Discussions about how we think things SHOULD BE are not appropriate for these upper forums. The OP is looking for accurate information in response to pertinent questions.

If the child support is court ordered, and there is evidence it is actually received, it is added as "other income" in the I-864. Just put "Court Ordered Child Support" as employer number two and document both sources of income.

These children are 6 and 9. If they were 17, I would be looking for a joint sponsor. Income from any allowable source is CONSIDERED by the Consular Officer, as the officer deems appropriate. Failure to meet minimum requirements assures a negative decision. Successfully meeting MINIMUM requirements does NOT assure a positive decision. It's a judgment call that includes consideration of the totality of circumstances.

[xebec 195]

"2) They consider the petitioner's income and assets for this purpose, and their ability to support the entire household."

I'm not angry about the situation at all, but as you said - they counsider the petitioner's income and assets. Child supoort is NOT income, and her income is not sufficient to support the household when you add a fourth member (the OP states the petitioner's income is approximately $24,000).

Luckily, IRS, or other alphabet soup bureaucracies' definitions aren't always the final answer...

The point was really that the USCIS' role in this is to determine whether or not the petitioner can financially provide for the members of the household, given the monetary and real assets available. Child support is intended to provide for the needs of the children...housing, food, clothing, educational expenses, medical care, etc. Why would it be justified to ignore the fact that a portion of these needs are provided for, in the case of the petitioner's children?

[az110965 252]

"Discussions about how we think things SHOULD BE are not appropriate for these upper forums. The OP is looking for accurate information in response to pertinent questions."

OP received their answer some 35 or so responses ago and unless our viewpoints regarding this are a violation somehow of the TOS then I don't know why it would be innapropriate to state how we feel (both pro and con).

The discussions have stayed on an even keel with no name calling or disparaging comments made - as it should be.

[pushbrk 12,883]

"Discussions about how we think things SHOULD BE are not appropriate for these upper forums. The OP is looking for accurate information in response to pertinent questions."

OP received their answer some 35 or so responses ago and unless our viewpoints regarding this are a violation somehow of the TOS then I don't know why it would be innapropriate to state how we feel (both pro and con).

The discussions have stayed on an even keel with no name calling or disparaging comments made - as it should be.

Given that moderators often post warnings to STOP giving judgmental comments in the upper visa forums, you can take it to the bank that those judgmental comments and discussions are considered inappropriate for these forums. PM a moderator if you disagree. They'll set you straight in short order.

[Penguin_ie 5,993]

****** As the OP has received her answer some time back, and the discussion is now theoretical/ not regarding the OP's specific case, this topic will remain closed. If you wish to discuss the (de)merits of child support being used as income etc, feel free to make a new topic in the P/R or OT forum as appropriate. ******

Edited October 30, 2011 by Penguin_ie