Well, in California, I know for a fact that even if the mother doesn't work, they impute her ABILITY to earn at least minimum wage 40 hours a week. They consider that your financial responsibility as far as being able to contribute to the support of your child as well. That amount is factored in when it comes to the formula for determining the support amount.
If you choose not to work, they don't take that as being "unable" to work or hold a job. Staying home with your child isn't reason enough not to work, especially if you feel that there's not enough money for the child to have the things he needs. They won't necessarily take your current husband's income into consideration, but if you live well and above your ex's means, and you personally aren't contributing to the support of the child, they aren't going to make the father pay more.
Fathers do have an obligation to support their children. Mothers have that same obligation. That's why they impute income to you whether you work or not because they figure you COULD earn that amount.
I also know that once you ask for a review in California, you aren't allowed to take it back if the amount is lowered. I found that out the hard way when I was on disability as a single mom after badly breaking my leg. I ended up with $70/MONTH. And, I went 8 months without even getting that because they determined that I had been over paid. I was only getting $186 a month as it was. My income was cut in half and I also lost $116 in child support after asking for a review on the advice of the child support agency.
They did me no favors.
Look, in my opinion, you should leave things as they are. You get $160 a month which seems like a pittance, but it could be less.
And, you get that money without having the hassle of your son's father in his life.
I would leave it alone.
If you go digging, he could ask for more time and custody and if it's awarded, the amount of money will go down and the amount of time you have to deal with him will go up exponentially.
He leaves you alone. You get $40 a week. You're married. I hope that you don't need the support because your husband isn't able to provide well for all three of you.
I've been a single mom and I've always worked. Thank God I didn't have to rely on child support. If I did, I'd have been sunk a long time ago.
I may be in the minority. I didn't read the other posts. I just really think that even if you get $10 more a week, it might not be worth what you have to go through to get it. I wish I'd never followed the advice of the child support division. My child support got cut more than in half. My son is 16. You think $70 even buys him socks and underwear let alone food and other clothes and shoes? It's fallen on me and it's just the way it is. My son will be 18 in two years and I will never deal with the child support office again. They forward my piddly checks to me and that's about it.
If $40 a week isn't cutting it, in the court's eyes, you could surely find a way to contribute at least that much for your child as well. Your son is 7, not an infant. If he needs more, you are also obligated to provide. Your husband isn't the bio parent and he is not legally obligated to provide for your son.
You and your ex husband are.
No offense, that's just my experience with the courts in California. My ex actually has much more money than me, but he is in Real Estate and they felt sorry for him because of the housing market and he hadn't sold a home in X amount of months. I was considered the one with steady income, temporary disability. I got hosed.
It happens.
Now when my son is super expensive, I get basically nothing.
I have always worked and found a way.
Just my opinion.