Just to clarify, is there a separate worksheet (re: application) for Multiple Family, or are they just referring to what number of child schedule to use? 
Thanks!

Guru,

The guidelines state:  In the instance of shared residency or divided residency, the Multiple-Family Application is available to either party in defense of a requested child support increase. 

This is our situation:  Mom and Dad have 2 children together and have equal parenting time.  Mom had a child with a third party and the child resides in Mom's home.  Everyone, including Mom's attorney, the DA,  is using the 3 child schedule.  We understand that this is correct and highly precedented.  From your response it wold seem that you understand something different.  Please advise. 

Thanks,
Dad

Not that my opinion matters in the Court's interpretation of the Multiple Family Application related to Child Support Calculations.

But, I believe it may be fair to allow ONLY Biological children of the two parties in consideration to be counted. This would include children produced by relationships with other people. Not Step Children (children acquired by marriage) because they would presumably be provided by another biological parent. Not children adopted after the child/ren being considered in the Child Support Motion were born.

I believe it is important for a parent to be penalized and not benefit from producing children without consideration for their support. Either a mother that has children by multiple fathers outside of marriage OR a man who spreads his seen amongst the world producing multiple children outside of marriage.

Why? I don't have all of the answers.

But, I think that traditionally as people either grow in their careers presumably making more money or marry up to someone who makes more money than their first parenting partner the first child can get left behind with a parent less able or more burdened by the costs of raising a child as a single parent without remarrying to create a two income household.

Those children would get less support as the number of siblings grew from the more prosperous parents loins and they would as a consequence be given less child support to help them get to adulthood. The problem would get worse if the less prosperous parent were also to continue reproducing out of wedlock. There are a percentage of children who do not have both parents exercising parenting time so they are dependent upon their sole parent to provide for all of their needs.

Eventually, as the level of child support for that child diminishes they would end up being dependent upon public assistance, we the taxpayers, to survive until age 18. The point of Child Support is to avoid taxpayers from having to do that. So, if the level of Child Support is not decreased as someone continues to proliferate and they choose not to be involved in the parenting of the children there would presumably be a highly motivating reason to not reproduce.

Additionally, if the level of Child Support is not decreased as someone continues to proliferate and they choose to be involved in the parenting of all the children there would presumably be a highly motivating reason to think and plan. Remember that Child Support is for the child and likely intended from the child slipping into poverty and onto public assistance at any time. Having more children does not negate the responsibility to do that for all of them.

I am not an expert on adoption. So, I have found it difficult to find the right words to express my opinion concisely.

My interpretation of the application of this restricted use of the MFA would be to prevent Child Support for children (adopted or biological) from a first relationship being reduced by a parents choice to continue reproducing or adopting in the next relationship and so on and so on. Because there are parents in the system with multiple children each with a different partner. I do not want to be financially responsible for those children because the parents or parent reduces the Child Support payments each time they procreate with another party and the child/ren ought not pay the price for something they had no control over (being born).

I specify Biological children for two reasons.

1. Adoption is an absolute planned choice and an expensive one. Biological pregnancies may be unplanned.
2. Children by a second marriage may be legally adopted by the second parent if the biological parent has surrendered legal rights.

My position is that if a parent chooses to acquire children by choice while or after Child Support is established for a child or children from one or more previous relationships that the biological children's Child Support should not be reduced. This will ensure that if the parent chooses to add additional financial responsibilities by acquiring through marriage, by adoption or procreating more children the taxpayers need not become financially responsible for the other children. If their Child Support were reduced it may result in them becoming dependent upon some type of public assistance.

Also, CM just stated that the Bradley software had a glitch in it and that the 3 child should not be used (even though she was the one who convinced me that is should be used on October 30) or only used to calculate (r.e. reduce) mom's obligation to the children we have together. 

Email from CM:
The use of a multiple family adjustment generally provides the parent who has the extra responsibility in the home of another child a financial benefit.  Using the Bradley software it does not, I believe that is a glitch as it was not the intent of the multiple family adjustment to increase the financial obligation of the parent with the add'l child.  Atleast that is my understanding from trainings on the csw.  If I am mistaken I am mistaken but all due respect your argument does not convince me that I am. 

She then goes on to remove herself from the discussion and explain that it should be handled by the attorneys.

All I can is AHHHHHH!!!!! 

@Guru, can you please email me Mr. Gleeson's contact info? 

Thanks.  And yes, I am supporting Mom's additional children if I pay more because of the additional children. 

I may be alone on this, but I believe MFA should be used on all children, adopted or biological, no matter which of the two parents are legally obligated to financially care for them.  If the now divorced combined income is a pie, when the pieces are sliced for 6, they will be much larger than when sliced for 9.  Further, with many of the financial considerations of CS, the contribution each child is making toward overhead costs would decrease.  For example, it does not cost more money to heat a house with an additionsl person living there.