SPARC Forums

Main Forums => Child Support Issues => Topic started by: leon clugston on Mar 11, 2006, 10:07:57 PM

Title: want all answers possible
Post by: leon clugston on Mar 11, 2006, 10:07:57 PM
this is a simple question to test if people realy do have a clue to what is going on and how it happened.This question is not meant to insult or to mislead, it is meant to gather knowledge of what people think is true to better my postings in hopes of helping people. What do you think child support realy is?, and do you know what it is realy meant for.??and how do you think they have managed to circumnavigate the authority of the courts allowing AGENCY's to lein, levy and take property against youre constitutional secured rights.? Just want thoughts and beliefs, or facts if you think you can answer.
Title: RE: want all answers possible
Post by: ocean on Mar 12, 2006, 03:34:53 PM
Child support is suppose to help the household that the child lives in so that when one parent leaves the household is able to function as much as possible.
It is suppose to help with all household expenses...mortgage/food/clothing and whatever else a child uses throughout the day. In my state, daycare and healthcare are seperate and added on. I agree with this also as the percentage of child support would not cover childcare and it is an expense  changes from year to year. Healthcare here is whichever parent has it through there job for the cheapest price wins ..LOL Then the co-pays are at a percentage of the salaries of the parents.

In my state it is only based on NCP's income which I think is wrong. I think it should be BOTH parents and not just a percentage of one. I have heard that some states give a reduction to parents that have more kids afterwards with a second family. I do not think that is fair to child #1. The parent knew their obligation to child #1 and then should decide if they could have more children. Child #1 should not lose money because parent has a second family. I think if you can support your first child/ren and then can afford to have more go right ahead!

Recently, I saw a state that has a sliding scale according to the child's age. That was very interesting to me. We do not have that here yet...

There are many deadbeat mothers and fathers out there and there has to be an agency in charge. As far as I know, in my state, the state runs this service. I think it is fair to take tax money, bank accounts, and liens because it is the parent's responsibility to take care of your child. The children are the ones that are hurt while the dead-beat parent is not paying. A child is entitled to be supported by both parents.

This is just what I have seen...
Title: Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
Post by: cinb85 on Mar 13, 2006, 02:15:48 PM
Finally someone who understands how I feel about states giving a reduction to parents that have more kids afterwards with a second family.  My ex KEEPS fathering more and more children (now keep in mind, he doesn't support ANY of these children), yet when we go to court, he keeps getting reductions for ALL of these children even though he doesn't support them.  Our daughter is the #1 child.  I don't want ANY of his children to suffer and be neglected, but I don't think that it's fair that our daughter has to suffer everytime he fathers another child!

In our state, they do grant a reduction if the NCP spends at least 50% of their time with the children.  I DO agree with that and it SHOULD encourage the NCP to spend as much time with the children as possible.  Unfortunately, it didn't work where my ex is concerned.  He's just a TRUE deadbeat!

Our state also decided the CS by looking at BOTH incomes (NCPs and CPs).  Now, normally I would agree with this, but since my ex chooses to not work and live off women, I really don't think that it's fair.  Since I have a decent job (I've worked at the same job for over 25 years), I have to pay a much larger portion.  I also have to have medical insurance on our daughter which raises my portion quite a bit (the money is taken out of my paycheck).  I also have to pay the first $250 of unreimbursable medical, then he only has to pay 27 percent of the rest (which he doesn't).

All of these laws would work if you were talking about TWO parents who want to do what's best for the children, but unfortunately there are too many mothers and fathers out there who don't want to do what's right where their children are concerned.

Title: RE: Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
Post by: reagantrooper on Mar 14, 2006, 07:57:59 AM
Child support in its present form is nothing more than a wealth redistrbution program. Its a money making sceam for the states and the people who recieve the FREE money each and every month without ever having to ACCOUNT for one red penny of how said monies are spent.

Furthermore it is a system of  involentary servitude to those who the money is stolen from.

What else would you call a system that takes earned monies from one adult and gives it to another adult without any accountability WHATSO EVER? Even the Goverment makes people who are the payees for a minor childs social security, acount for said monies on a yearly basis.

What else would you call a system that takes earned monies from an adult and the entity that is taking said monies gets a reward for taking this money?

What else would you call a system that FORCES an adult to work at a certain level of pay? The argument that the system does not make one work at a certain level of pay, rather just pay at a certain level is a bogus one. IE: If 2 two Parents are together raising a Child and Dad changes jobs for a lower paying job but a job that he like more the Family will adjust. It does not work this way if the two Parents are apart. Yet another example of how CS is involentary servitude.

The idea of  "Our daughter is the #1 child. I don't want ANY of his children to suffer and be neglected, but I don't think that it's fair that our daughter has to suffer everytime he fathers another child!" just blows my mind! What! Dad cant have any more Kids? If the two parents where still together would not the Family adjust to having more people. If a CP has more kids would't they have to adjust the way they spend thier funds? I for one dont think that having more siblings should be looked at as suffering.

If the system of child support was truly about providing finacial support for children and children alone, then there would be a system of check and balences in place so the Adults who get the checks would be held accountable for said monies and would face consequences for not spending the money to support the Children.  
Title: RE: Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
Post by: ilovemysd on Mar 14, 2006, 08:17:54 AM
Now though, you have a problem where you are intentionally punishing good dads for the sins of the deadbeats, and that's not fair or just either.
Title: #1 Child?
Post by: davisjames on Mar 14, 2006, 10:36:10 AM
How ridiculous is that.  What if you decide you want more children?  Are you going to be upset when the FOC raises the CS you receive because your income is adjusted for your second family?  CERTAINLY NOT!!  My husband is a bio-father of 2 and one on the way, step-father to 1 whose dad is MIA (for lack of better way to put it) and treats all of his children the same.  How would you feel if your dad treated your older sister better than you and spent more money on her?  They are all his biological children! What's the difference.  Sounds to me like you should stay out his business.
 
Title: You totally took my comments the wrong way!
Post by: cinb85 on Mar 14, 2006, 11:00:41 AM
Of course, Dad can have more kids (as long as he's willing to support them)!!!!

My ex has fathered 7 children.  He takes care of NONE of them!!!!

As far as accountability.  If I WERE to get the court-ordered CS, I would GLADLY show an accounting each month to my ex and the courts!

I understand the the system is unfair to MANY fathers (those fathers who truly want what's best for all of their children, but my ex is unfortunately not one of those fathers!  
Title: How am I punishing good dads for the sins of deadbeats.
Post by: cinb85 on Mar 14, 2006, 11:04:00 AM
It wouldn't bother me as much that my ex gets a reduction of CS for our daughter if he were TRULY taking care of his children, but he doesn't.  He has 7 children and he doesn't take care of any of them!

I KNOW that there are many good dads out there who end up getting screwed by the CPs who are money-hungry!  I have seem it first hand!
I'm just saying that it's not fair that my ex gets our daughter's CS lowered everytime that he fathers another child (especially since he isn't taking care of those other children).  
Title: In DH's case, the BM considered CS, *her* support...
Post by: Sherry1 on Mar 14, 2006, 11:14:59 AM
Both parents should contribute financially to the support of the child.  BM didn't work for over 10 years and the kids walked around in rags and didn't have anything.  BM considered CS her income.

Title: I think that's the case with alot of CP's.
Post by: cinb85 on Mar 14, 2006, 11:26:04 AM
Yes, both parents should contribute financially to the support of the child.
My ex has worked VERY little over the 14 years that our daughter has been on this earth.  Even when he does work, he doesn't pay the CS until they start to garnish his wages, then he ends up quitting his job (or getting fired for not showing up).

I've worked the same job for over 25 years and have worked VERY hard to get promoted to where I make a decent amount now (but it wasn't easy while raising our daughter totally by myself).  I just wish that my ex would get a job and pay "something" each week.  Our daughter deserves his support!
Title: I think that's the case with alot of CP's.
Post by: cinb85 on Mar 14, 2006, 11:28:55 AM
Yes, both parents should contribute financially to the support of the child.
My ex has worked VERY little over the 14 years that our daughter has been on this earth.  Even when he does work, he doesn't pay the CS until they start to garnish his wages, then he ends up quitting his job (or getting fired for not showing up).

I've worked the same job for over 25 years and have worked VERY hard to get promoted to where I make a decent amount now (but it wasn't easy while raising our daughter totally by myself).  I just wish that my ex would get a job and pay "something" each week.  Our daughter deserves his support!
Title: RE: want all answers possible
Post by: POC on Mar 14, 2006, 12:53:04 PM
"What do you think child support realy is?, and do you know what it is realy meant for.??"

Child support is money that exchanges hands between parents from the obligor to the obligee. No state's guidelines specifically say what the money should or shouldn't be spent on. How much, if any that is spent on the child is purely at the discretion of the obligee. Of course, that does not relieve the obligee or the obligor of their obligation to provide adequate safety and health while in their care. If a parent were not to do so they could be found abusive, just as any other married parent.


"how do you think they have managed to circumnavigate the authority of the courts allowing AGENCY's to lein, levy and take property against youre constitutional secured rights.?"

It's not clear who you mean by "they". Could you be more specific about what property and which constitutional rights you are talking about?

Title: RE: #1 Child?
Post by: ocean on Mar 14, 2006, 05:34:13 PM
If I want more children, then I have to decide if I can afford it. If the NCP can continue to support his first children then go ahead. (same with me). Just because the NCP decides to have a second family does not mean our child should have to get less financial support. The point is that once a support order is put into place, the NCP should not be involved in what the NCP does after and not have to worry if they go off and have 3 more children. When you married your DH, you knew of his obligation for his first two and decided you could have more. (not sure if he is NCP but if he is...his first children should not have their support reduced because you are having a child). It is not about loving the child it is about paying the bills. Why should child number one get less because NCP is having more children? Your next child will have both parents in the house supporting him/her.  
Title: RE: #1 Child?
Post by: POC on Mar 14, 2006, 07:33:12 PM
Subsequent children should not be born to a lesser god than their elder siblings.
Title: RE: In DH's case, the BM considered CS, *her* support...
Post by: wendl on Mar 14, 2006, 08:08:49 PM
Gee sounds like someone I know.

Or the CP has more kids with different dads so the CP can get more and more FREE money.  I think the CP parent should have to pay taxes on the CS.  JMO and I am a CP mother.

My ex has 5 kids by 5 woman and doesn't support them.

My dh's case is different but I won't get into that as the LOVELY person and her friends used to stalk me here and hell they probably still do.


**These are my opinions, they are not legal advice**
Title: RE: want all answers possible
Post by: leon clugston on Mar 14, 2006, 08:35:35 PM
Child support and the monies trading hands, either through voluntary or involuntary exchange was created by congress through the passage of the 1935 social security act. This act was a creation by congress to abrogate the rights of the citizens of the United States of America and to denaturalize us from are inherent rights protected under the constitution thereof and to change as status as citizens of the United States of America to citizens of the United States. The Social Security Act was a privledge(gratuity) created by goverment, it holds no protections under the constitution, from which the United States Supreme court has upheld, time and time again. This wasn't the first time that congress created a right against the states or the people, after the civil war they passed the widows and orphans act, that was a promise to the people.

They are, Agencys created by congress or Legislature, whom are beleived to hold excutive power, but have transformed themselves into though of Judicial power, however there can be no creation of there for when there is no office, withou an office, oath of affice, oath of affirmation or official bond, there is no authority under the constitution, hence forth Agency's, created outside the constitution.

The child support was not set forth with the intent to exchange hands from the obligor to the obligee, the original intent was solely for reimbursements to the state and the feds for its expenditures. However over time the federal regulations(for which all agencys must abide by) were changed to include monentary transactions of more magnitude for the generation of revenues for the state. This is affirmed under the state plan and cooperative agreements between CSSD and the courts under (IV other terms and condition) section G. All designed to increase the number of person applying for CSSD services et.seq.
Property includes all, that is in sole posession of an citizen, this includes money, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that money is property. What it boils down is congress has created a bill of attainder, mandates we all have a social security number, puts us outside the constitution, then applies the number to evreything, bank accounts, tax payer, driver license, passport, fishing and hunting licenses, then legislates it so if you dont have one you cant do anything, and if you are a true citizen of the United States of America,dont have a social security number and are caught do any of they above you are criminally fined.Bills of Attainder are prohibited by the constitution, but if youre outside of it there is no application to it, nor any defense under the constitution. we have agencys, not officers as under the constitution that criminally take are posessions away everyday not just in child support but in every day aspects of are lives. Unlimited resources to law, books and archives is how we acquire this information, and is how people learn what they have not been told is realy happening, its there, its real, and it is happening but without these resources most will never no or beleive.I always refer to the federal doctrine, the Constitution of the United states of America and the several states as founded under the origination of the constitution, as my reference to constitutional rights for reason, but not one I will refer to here at this moment. All references that I make are provable and are fact, nor do I post or say facts that i cannot prove, through authenticity of legal documents, public law, code of fedral regulations  or court cases.
Title: And vice versa!
Post by: cinb85 on Mar 15, 2006, 06:53:46 AM
nm
Title: RE: #1 Child?
Post by: ilovemysd on Mar 15, 2006, 07:53:00 AM
>If I want more children, then I have to decide if I can
>afford it. If the NCP can continue to support his first
>children then go ahead. (same with me). Just because the NCP
>decides to have a second family does not mean our child should
>have to get less financial support. The point is that once a
>support order is put into place, the NCP should not be
>involved in what the NCP does after and not have to worry if
>they go off and have 3 more children. When you married your
>DH, you knew of his obligation for his first two and decided
>you could have more. (not sure if he is NCP but if he is...his
>first children should not have their support reduced because
>you are having a child). It is not about loving the child it
>is about paying the bills. Why should child number one get
>less because NCP is having more children? Your next child will
>have both parents in the house supporting him/her.  


Why should child number one get less because NCP is having more children?  When anyone decides to have additional children, it is implicitly understood that both children will receive less because there are two (or three, or seven).  In one minute, you make $40,000 to split between 3 people, and in the next, you have $40,000 to split between 4 people.  It is simple mathematics.  In an intact family situation, the parents make the decisions how to lower their costs together.  In a broken situation, the NCP is left out in the cold.  A court tells him that he has to pay for the child's college, even if that means the 2nd child gets nothing.  In an intact situation, the NCP would be able to say - I will provide 5 grand to each child at hs graduation to use as they will, or whatever the family sees as affordable.  Not so in a broken situation.  The court and the CP can demand their paycheck without allowing the NCP to parent in an appropriate way.  Intact family says, if you don't keep a B average and have a part-time job to put away money, we will not pay for college... and this parenting encourages the student to keep up on their studies and learn to be a responsible, time-managing adult.  That's non-existent in a broken home, because dad is the wallet, not the disciplinarian.  As someone else pointed out, in many CS support situations, the CP will have their support increased because now they have multiple children for whom to provide.  That makes sense to you?  NCP has to pay more for his child because you have to support another child?

I'll be sure to let my soon to be born child know that he should have nothing because his sister (who I love with all my heart) needs to have everything.
Title: I'm confused!
Post by: cinb85 on Mar 15, 2006, 08:13:04 AM
You said:

"As someone else pointed out, in many CS support situations, the CP will have their support increased because now they have multiple children for whom to provide. That makes sense to you? NCP has to pay more for his child because you have to support another child?"

Huh?

If I (I am a CP) have another child, I can't get more CS from my ex.  That's not possible. And...it should'nt be possible.  That makes no more sense than it does for CS for the first child to be lowered because the NCP decides to have more children.  When I couldn't afford to support our DD because my ex wasn't helping out by paying the CS, I got two part-time jobs (on top of my full-time job) to support our daughter.  My point is that you do whatever you have to do to support ALL of your children.  There are MANY intact families out there where at least one parent works two jobs (sometimes 3, like myself).  You do what you have to do to support your children!

I don't believe that child #1 should get any more ($$ or physical/emotional support) from the NCP than child #7.  But...when a father keeps fathering children by several different women and doesn't support ANY of them, it pisses me off when he gets a reduction in CS.  The NCP needs to support all of their children (just as the CP does).

My ex has fathered 7 children.  Our DD only has a relationship with one of his other children (we have tried to develop a relationship with all of the children, but have been unsuccessful).  We adore that child and I have given that child more attention, love, and material things than my ex (her own father) has.  Unfortunately in our case, there are 7 children who are totally neglected by their father (both financially and emotionally)!  It's a very sad situation!

Title: RE: want all answers possible
Post by: POC on Mar 15, 2006, 09:00:59 AM

>The child support was not set forth with the intent to
>exchange hands from the obligor to the obligee, the original
>intent was solely for reimbursements to the state and the feds
>for its expenditures.

I fully understand how welfare plays into it. Nevertheless, the state acts as the intermediary of the passage of money from obligor to obligee. By making the obligor pay, the government pays out less in welfare. The governement only keeps arrearage of CS, which it had already paid out as welfare. When that happens, yes, it is a reimbursement. Yes, that was the intent. What has grown out of that is something far different. Very little CS that is collected has anythign to do with welfare situations. Support that is not paid in welfare situations still goes largely uncollected for the same reason that it was not paid before - those obligors earn hardly any money. Raising guideline levels in those situations does nothing to reduce welfare that is doled out. Yet, that is exactly what has occurred.

Title: RE: And vice versa!
Post by: POC on Mar 15, 2006, 09:15:07 AM
Exactly!

When siblings are born, the elder sibling takes a hit economically. That is just the common sensical realization about it. Not only does the additional sibling probably prevent the parents from being able to work as much, it creates additional household expense, thus reducing discretionary income. It means that the parents likely won't be able to spend as much on housing, transportation, food, entertainment, and just about everything else. Nearly everyone's standard of living goes down with the addition of more children. But, that is not to say that the quality of life does not go up.

Fortunately, some of those expenses can be shared, and that is why it does not costs as much for additional children as it does for the first. But, regardless of how many children there are the first child should not receive a larger share than their subsequent siblings (and yes, vice versa, I thought that went without saying). As the 5th of 6 kids I can tell you how distraught I would have been if my parents had to decided to apportion their money for us children as the chidl support guidelines do.

Title: No.
Post by: cinb85 on Mar 15, 2006, 09:25:40 AM
The parent should do everything that they can to make sure that BOTH children get what they need.  

I also don't agree about the additional sibling preventing the parents from being able to work as much.  I am a single mother and for 5 years I worked THREE jobs!!!  If I can do it, then anyone can do it!!!

I never said that the first child should receive a larger share than the other siblings.  I just hate it when my ex gets our Daughter's CS lowered to his fathering more children that he DOESN'T support!

Bottom line is that ALL children should be supported by BOTH parents.  Obviously my ex doesn't agree!

Good luck to all of you!
Title: RE: No.
Post by: POC on Mar 15, 2006, 09:54:29 AM
>The parent should do everything that they can to make sure
>that BOTH children get what they need.  
>
>I also don't agree about the additional sibling preventing the
>parents from being able to work as much.  I am a single mother
>and for 5 years I worked THREE jobs!!!  If I can do it, then
>anyone can do it!!!

While it would have been nice, and life would have been more comfortable for me if my parents had worked more and earned more money, I don't think both of them should have worked three jobs in order to do so. The government had no authority to interfere with their parental decisions as long as they kept us healthy and safe.

>
>I never said that the first child should receive a larger
>share than the other siblings.  I just hate it when my ex gets
>our Daughter's CS lowered to his fathering more children that
>he DOESN'T support!

My most elder sibling probably hated doing with less money every time she got another brother or sister. If your ex in fact does not support the subsequent children, then the trier of fact has authority to account for that absence of payment.

>
>Bottom line is that ALL children should be supported by BOTH
>parents.  Obviously my ex doesn't agree!

To that I totally agree. And, regardless of whether the needs of the child occur at the CP or NCP home, BOTH parents should AT LEAST share the expense of needs as basic food, shelter, clothing, and transportation. Obviously, my ex doesn't agree!

>Good luck to all of you!

Back at you!
Title: I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on a few of these things
Post by: cinb85 on Mar 15, 2006, 10:23:07 AM
Bottom line is that we both agree that both parents should support the children!

If my ex was part of our DD's life and spent time with her, the lack of CS wouldn't bother me quite as much.  But this is a man who has ignored our DD for 14 years and only pays CS when he is arrested.  
I also wish that my ex would help our DD develop a relationship with her siblings, but he just doesn't seem to care.  All he cares about is getting high and partying with women while his children suffer because he doesn't help out!

Thanks for not posting nasty responses.  We both have a right to our opinions and seems to me that even though we don't agree on everything, we do agree that the children are what's important.

Again, good luck to you!
Title: RE: I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on a few of these things
Post by: POC on Mar 15, 2006, 10:41:33 AM
You hadn't mentioned anything about your ex being a drugee until now. Obviously, I believe that qualifies as being unfit to parent a child, regardless of gender. Everything I said applies to fit parents. If a trier of fact determines that a parent is unfit, then the child's contact should be limited as is appropriate for the level of unfitness.

As for posting nasty responses, that's just not my style. Others have to post a string of them to me before I respond, because when I do I want plenty of their own rope. I won't give them the satisfaction of using my own.

I'm curious as to what things I've said that you don't agree with. Yes, it's about the children.
Title: RE: want all answers possible
Post by: leon clugston on Mar 15, 2006, 11:36:09 AM
you missed the part in there for the intent, The intent was for the agency to generate more revenue, its is not just money owed to the state that they get kckibacks for, they get it for revenue collected wholely, not just money owed in dirrect to the state, also when an obligee receives monies from an obligor,( you should look up the deffinitions of these words) then that person recieving is still nothing more than a third party beneficuary. Anytime the goverment creates a program we the reciever are nothing more than third party beneficiuary's.What most people dont know about is the contractual,cooperative agreements between the judges and the state agency, and that the judges has to rule in favor of the agency, there are thousands of cases if presented in front of a federal court correctly that would instantly be turned if the people knew half of what is going on.
The intent of the system isquestionable,how we arrived to get it is treasonous, but what it has become is even more disturbing.
Title: Yes, he's a druggie!
Post by: cinb85 on Mar 15, 2006, 12:23:48 PM
Because he admitted to his heroin usage a couple of years ago, he has court-ordered supervised visits.  But...he has NEVER exercised his visitation.

I disagree with you about the additional sibling preventing the
parents from being able to work as much. As I said, I am a single mother and for 5 years I worked THREE jobs!!! If I can do it, then
anyone can do it!!!  I DID whatever I had to do to support our daughter while he rarely worked even one job.

I still don't think that the first child's CS should be lowered because another child is born, simply because the NCP fathered another child.  Now....if the father supports that second child and does everything he can (like most fathers) do for the first child, then I would agree to a small reduction in child support.  We all make decisions that we have to deal with.  If I make a decision to have another child, then it is my responsibility to provide for that child.  If my ex decides to father more children, then it is HIS responsibility to support those children.  

But, don't get me wrong, I don't want to see ANY of his children suffer.
If our daughter was a part of her siblings lives, we would do whatever we can to help those children out (as we have done for her one sibling that she does have a relationship with).

I guess it's my bad luck that my ex turned out to be an unfit parent.
But I refuse to let our daughter suffer for it!  I do eveything that I can for her!

Unfortunately the CS office in my area is so fed up with him, that they've just given up!  They tell me that I can't get blood from a stone!

One good thing that came out of all of this is that I've become a very strong woman and I hope that my daughter becomes a strong woman as well so she doesn't have to put up with people like my ex!

Title: RE: Yes, he's a druggie!
Post by: POC on Mar 15, 2006, 03:01:11 PM

>I disagree with you about the additional sibling preventing
>the
>parents from being able to work as much. As I said, I am a
>single mother and for 5 years I worked THREE jobs!!! If I can
>do it, then
>anyone can do it!!!  I DID whatever I had to do to support our
>daughter while he rarely worked even one job.

I didn't say it prevented a parent from working three jobs. I said neither me or any of my siblings would have been better off had my parents done so. As a consequence of them not doing it, we all suffered financially.

>
>I still don't think that the first child's CS should be
>lowered because another child is born, simply because the NCP
>fathered another child.

As described above, that is what typically happens in intact families.

 If I make a decision to have another child, then it is
>my responsibility to provide for that child.  

If you decide to have another child, the per child cost goes down in your home. That does not reduce the amount of CS for your child, but it should. It's cheaper per child to feed multiple children than it is one. I don't like to use examples where the parent is a dirt bag, like you have described. Personally, I'm all for punitive CS guidelines. But, in order to have punitive guidelines you should at least have to determine fault. So, if your ex wasn't a deerlict, I would say an additional child by you should justifiably reduce the amount of support to you for his kid. After all, the new father and yourself would realize a savings on the subsequent child, due to cost savings associated with the first.

If my ex decides
>to father more children, then it is HIS responsibility to
>support those children.  

And the mother of that child too. Also, cost savings for that subsequent child should be considered when determining how much of the child support monies should be apportioned to the NCP home.


>If our daughter was a part of her siblings lives, we would do
>whatever we can to help those children out (as we have done
>for her one sibling that she does have a relationship with).

I'm sorry he's a deerlict. I wish all children could be meaningful parts of their siblings lives. When ever possible, the government should allow that to happen. Obviously, unfit parents throw a monkey wrench into the government's ability to let that happen. There's just not much I can add to that.

>I guess it's my bad luck that my ex turned out to be an unfit
>parent.

It has nothing to do with luck. The fact of the matter is that no parent can force teh other to be a good parent.

>Unfortunately the CS office in my area is so fed up with him,
>that they've just given up!  They tell me that I can't get
>blood from a stone!

Yet they will take away the driver's license of others who are trying to eek out a living.
>
>One good thing that came out of all of this...

I hope you find many other good things too.
Title: RE: want all answers possible
Post by: POC on Mar 15, 2006, 03:12:23 PM
Again, I fully understand that the various states receive welfare grants, tied in part as a percentage of how much they collect in child support. I also know that they receive 90 cents back on the dollar for money that they spend on computers and software systems to track and collect CS.

I understand the defintions for obligor and obligee at nauseum.

Here's one for you - Why not collect CS from both the CP and NCP? That way some states would be entitled to tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of additional dollars in welfare money. At least it would be more equitable.
Title: RE: want all answers possible
Post by: leon clugston on Mar 15, 2006, 07:13:58 PM
the money they receive back is of greater than just computers and software,and it is not just the state, it concieves of the courts, vtal statistics, office of children services, division of motor vehicles, which include man hours attibuted as well for refund. The various states are all the states, period, if they recieve in funding under title IV-d IV-b or IV-a they have the cooperative agreements. An obligor is a fiction in law, its a creation of a debt, but how does one justify the defineing of a child as a legal debt. Youre application of creating a non- and custodial paying does kinda happen as is, two things to it, Alaska doesn't care who the custodian is, the one who makes more money is the one who pays, child or not in care, the other part, why in the hell should the administrative state get any dam money at all for peoples children. This is the wonders of attaining the social security number,the goverment created benefit that makes all citizens denaturalized of there inherent standing, and turns them into third party beneficuarys without any saying.
But thats just my knowledgable opinion.There is no equity when administrative states take monies from citizens by force and without any legal cause or standing.
Title: RE: In DH's case, the BM considered CS, *her* support...
Post by: POC on Mar 16, 2006, 05:28:10 AM
Although the practical nature of current child support systems is that it isn't, child support should be thought of as the child's money. It should cover the child's reasonable needs, nothing more, nothing less. Simplistically, if the child spends 32 days per year at the NCP home, then 32/365 of the total amount of CS for the year should be apportioned to the NCP home. The remaining 333/365 of that amount should be apportioned to the CP home. If the child spends 120 days at the NCP home, then 120/365 should be apportioned to the NCP home, and 245/365 to the CP home, and so on and so forth for any given time sharing arrangement.

If the child were to go on a 3 week summer camp, parents wouldn't just pay for two of the weeks, because that is where the child will primarily be. They wouldn't come up a coniving scheme to give some type of "credit" for that remaining week either. They would set a total budget for what is reasonable, and pay each summer camp provider for the costs at their particular camp.  So, why would you only provide money to primary homes when the child is there a total of 8 months out of the year, what about the other 4 months?

Answer: Because child support is not for children. More importance has been given to parental designations than for children's needs.
Title: RE: want all answers possible
Post by: reagantrooper on Mar 16, 2006, 07:35:49 AM
I think a good deal of the problems with todays Child support industry could be resolved if we would simply switch from a income based formula to a true expence based formula.

This would provide accountabilty for what is now just FREE monies for the CP to do whatever the hell they want with. I think it would be much easier than folks think.

I mean its not rocket science to "see" where my hard earned money goes. IE: Some $350 is TAKEN from each and EVERY paycheck I get. This money is sent to my X and her household. Her household consist of her, her BF, my Daughter and her 2 "other" kids. So my Daughter makes up %20 of that house hold (3 months+-/year or so she is at my house so she is %20 of that household for only about 9 months a year). My Xs household income from the 2 adults is $1400/mo when you add the $700/mo from me their HHs total income is $2100/mo. So the money that is taken from me and given to her makes up %33 of their total household income.

So my Daughter makes up only %20 of that HH for only 9 months out of the year yet I am providing %33 of that HHs income 12 months out of the year!

So its obvious to see that I am not only finacialy supporting my Daughter %100 I am supporting my X, her BF and her other kids.

Futhermore I get to pay the taxes on the money that is taken from me and given to her. I only get the tax deduction every other year for my Girl. Hell based on these numbers I should not only get the deduction for my Girl every year I should also get the deductions for her 2 kids.

Based on the above numbers tell me how I am wrong?
Title: Sorry!
Post by: cinb85 on Mar 16, 2006, 08:56:52 AM
I misunderstood what you meant about the parents not working three jobs.  I didn't like working three jobs.  It took time away from my daughter and I (luckily my best friend lived next door, so she took care of her while I worked and my daughter was very comfortable with her and her son).  But, I couldn't afford the rent without working extra jobs.  Luckily, due to my hard work and lots of schooling, I've gotten several promotions and things are looking up!

My ex has nothing that they can put a lien on and he has no driver's license.  He has lived off other women since we broke up 14 years ago.
So....there's not much they can do to him except for arrest him every once in awhile.  And he knows that!

The last time that I was at court for an enforcement hearing, there were several of us out in the waiting room.  We all got talking and all of our stories were completely different.  There was a guy there who was paying faithfully every week. Unfortunately it wasn't the total amount because he didn't make enough to pay the total amount.  But it was a decent amount that he was paying every week.  He told me that the police are constantly arresting him for failure to pay CS.  He said that his ex was calling him constantly and calling him a bad father.  My ex never pays CS until he hears that there's a warrant out for his arrest, then he "might" pay $10 or $25 and the CS office will revoke the warrant.  He knows that they will do this, so he knows how to play the game.

There's was a woman there who's ex wanted the support lowered to $25/week for two children.  She was working, but due to the high cost of daycare, money was tight for her.  She was actually crying in the waiting room because she didn't know how she was going to pay her rent for that month.  I felt so bad for her, because I knew exactly what she was going through.  When my ex left, he left with all of the bill money. I was frantic!  Didn't know how I was going to pay my bills.  Luckily I was able to find some help, but it wasn't easy.

Then there was a guy who wanted custody of his daughter because his ex was very unstable (did drugs and drinks).  His ex just gave birth to another baby and was living with an abusive man (the father of the baby).  Of course, his ex wouldn't give him custody, so he was there to fight for his daughter.  

It was a very interesting day.  We could all understand each other's situations and could sympathize.  We even joked that we should do a talk show like this where we could talk about our situations so the world (and the courts) could see all sides of the stories and how they affect the children.

You're right.  Many good things came out of this.  I have a beautiful daughter who is the love of my life!  She's a good girl, very loving and has a bright future ahead of her!

Good luck to you and thanks for your opinions.
Title: RE: want all answers possible
Post by: Stirling on Mar 16, 2006, 09:06:25 AM
CS is merely a redistribution of wealth from one parent to the other.

This is true since the parent receiving the CS is under no legal requirements to either spend the CS on the child, or account for how it is actually spent.  In addition, the CS becomes the sole property of the person receiving it, and can do with it as they wish.  The children don't even have a legal claim to the CS.
Title: I understand what you are saying.
Post by: cinb85 on Mar 16, 2006, 09:13:26 AM
I am a CP, and if I were to receive CS, I would have NO problem accounting for it each week.

In theory making the CP accountable for the CS is a good idea, but it will never work.  Those CPs who DON'T spend the CS on the children are people with no common decency and with no morals.  These kind of people are very good at getting away with things and will have NO problem making something up to show accountability.

If my ex were to ask me today to account for the little CS that he has paid so far this year, I would do it in a hearbeat, because I KNOW that the CS has been spent totally on our daughter!

Title: RE: want all answers possible
Post by: Stirling on Mar 16, 2006, 09:36:44 AM
"Why not collect CS from both the CP and NCP?"

This is an idea that I have had for a few years.  I would love to see a CS escrow type account set up where both parents pay into and both parents can withdraw from.  It would certainly support the ideal that both parents support their children.  There would probably need to be regulations which provide what child related expenses can be paid from the escrow account, and how the amount to be paid from the account is calculated.
Title: RE: want all answers possible
Post by: alh on Mar 16, 2006, 01:10:33 PM
Wow, what a statement.  So, I am just curious how much you think is appropriate for an NCP to pay?  My husband was just ordered to pay 468$ a month for 2 kids, he made 15,000$ last year.

Maintaining the status of the household pre seperation is an outrageous idea for the government to impinge .  Divorce or a kid's parents splitting is going to cause big changes financially and emotionally.  That statement says money is more important to raising children than love and I have to say I disagree.  The high amounts of child support these NCP's are being forced to pay hinder them from providing the necessities for life, let alone providing a home for themselves to spend with their children and maintain a pre seperation situation.  

Beyond stripping these men and women of their dignity and shredding any will for them to move forward in life these people are stripped of any parental say so.  Their children come to know them as banks and/or totally miss the fact that their NCP is the one who really pays for their needs.  As a parent I should be able to say- No, you can't play that 3d sport or buy another new outfit because I don't have the money this week.  What does that teach kids? To be BRATS! Kids learn at an early age how all this works I've watched my sisters grow up in this situation and I am watching it happen in my step children.  Kids have to be taught that they can't have everything they want.  Even if you could do and buy everything your child wants would you?  That will teach them nothing.  I want our kids to learn the value of hardwork, dedication, and patience and appreciation for the blessings they do have.

What is child support supposed to pay for-the ex's new found singledom? It should not be considered for rent or utilities...both parents have to provide their own living arrangements, they would have to do so even if kids weren't involved.  A house has to be heated and the difference of the amount of electricity is neglible-if you allow your kids to watch that much TV to make your bill go up that is your own ignorance.  That said the NCP should help with clothing, groceries, medical expenses, lunch money, school supplies/fees, some child care-these are the necessities.  Leisure and extracurriculars should not be factored into this amount-the NCP should be able to use discretion and share in the joy of TREATING their own child.  Fun activities and that were rewards for helping out at home, doing well in school, and just to spend time and share with a parent-not requirements.  

I don't think my husband should have to work overtime just to pay his kids' mom more money.  With all that I listed I can not come up with where it takes 468$ a month to raise to kids.  MY mom raised 4 of us and I guarantee it did not take her an extra amount that large each month to properly provide for us 4.  We had everything we needed and some extras too.  A parent CP or NCP should not have to work two jobs so their kid can be in 4 different activites.   Why do the ncp's lose any discretion to spending their money on their kids?  

And the NCP is supposed to be sharing support-so exactly what is CP paying-stuff they'd have to pay for anyways.  So the government thinks it takes how much to raise a child?  It sounds to me a child from a divorced situation is making out financially like a bandit.
REMEMBER THIS IS NOT ALIMONY!

And you claim a NCP's other kids should not be factored into the picture?  Because in a sense it sounds like you think the NCP should be punished.  How many people consider whether or not to have kids based on money? If that was the case most of us would never have them-especially if they really cost 600$ a month!!  A man or woman deserves to move on after a divorce.  Do you really think that YOU should have that much control over your ex's life?

Do I think there aren't dead beat dad's out there? I know there are my father is one of them.  BUT-I think many dad's are forced to disappear b/c they can't pay their child support.

The sad part is these children being used as ammunition.  They are talked about like they are huge burdens.

"A child is entitled to be supported by both parents" To be a supportive parent you have to be able to support yourself and be on stable ground.  Why is such an excessive financial burden placed on one parent.

I have seen both sides of this and how it turns out. It is not in the best interest of the kids for things to be this unfair.
Title: RE: I understand what you are saying.
Post by: leon clugston on Mar 16, 2006, 04:38:17 PM
What people dont understand, is after you divorce assuming you were married there is no contractual obligation to either, (the term contract, is derived from the marriage license, a gratuity created by the state giving you benefits) the child support end is a goverment created gratuity, hencforth makeing all obligees third party beneficiuarys, and makeing the obligor(a debtor) created by law, or more correctly legislated. The common law of the United States of America, abolished in most sense, had the solution that parents were responsible for the welfare and upbringing of there child,it was held as the standard of life not open to interpretation, however under it the states could not create the obligation for it already existed, therefor barring them from there collections to create more revenue for the administrative state. The social Security number and the marriage license is what put the citizens into a different class of standing, creating the stance as a third party beneficiuary.
The creation of welfare has attributed nothing to the better for the people, all it did was create more revenue for which the states could lay claim to, and lay the foundation for total socialism in the form of goverment creation, outside the protections of the constitution. The idea of a better society, with fairness is thoughtfull at best, but when confronted w/ entities w/ a pecurinary enterest in every aspect of it, states dependnat upon monies from collections for more revenue, and laws open to interpretation from different peoples, dependant upon there standing in receival there is no equalization or contribution to better the standings of the children, nor can there be. The creation of the welfare stands as nothing more than a BILL OF ATTAINDER, you either except it , or you are legislatively punished, and if you do except it you are bound to within the determinations set forth in it, or you are legislatively punished.
The gratest propaganda ever created was it was for the better of society, especialy children.
Title: child support-first child
Post by: blueskies on Mar 17, 2006, 09:04:15 AM
Here is the way I think it is looked at with the first kids' support coming first:

Someone put it to me this way one time, and it made sense.

If you bought a car and were paying the lender a certain amount per month for the car, then you went and bought a second car, do you think the lender for the first car is going to allow you to reduce the monthly payment for it so you can afford to also make payments for the second car? If you are acquiring the second car, it is assumed that you can afford both of them.

The same with having children...if you are having another one, it should be assumed that you can afford both the ones you already have (without reducing support to them) plus the subsequent ones.
Title: RE: #1 Child?
Post by: oklahoma on Mar 17, 2006, 01:11:30 PM
As has been previously stated, when parents decide to have more children or switch to a lower paying job, an intact family adjusts to it.  But in the case of divorce, the whole family cannot adjust to it.  You may think NCP cannot afford another child, but perhaps he/she thinks it is possible with a little adjustment and is willing to make that adjustment for the rewards of parenthood.  But the way the system is set up, the state is trying to tell NCPs they cannot have another child, cannot make the adjustments that another family would have the choice to make.

Then there are more dramatic instances--my husband was injured on the job, temporarily paralyzed, not allowed to work for 8 months, and then only with limitations.  When this happened, he went to school.  But CS said that he had no reasons to go to school and imputed his previous income to calculate CS.  Our family has struggled with a seriously reduced income, while CP got the same old check every month.  Funny how her attorneys fees last time she took us to court almost exactly matched the amount we paid to CS in a year.  And you can bet that when my husband is an attorney, CP and CSD will be right in line to adjust CS amount--no arguments about changing the first children's standard of living there.
Title: RE: How am I punishing good dads for the sins of deadbeats.
Post by: blueskies on Mar 17, 2006, 05:05:28 PM
>It wouldn't bother me as much that my ex gets a reduction of
>CS for our daughter if he were TRULY taking care of his
>children, but he doesn't.  He has 7 children and he doesn't
>take care of any of them!
>
>I KNOW that there are many good dads out there who end up
>getting screwed by the CPs who are money-hungry!  I have seem
>it first hand!
>I'm just saying that it's not fair that my ex gets our
>daughter's CS lowered everytime that he fathers another child
>(especially since he isn't taking care of those other
>children).  
Here is the way I think it is looked at with the first kids' support coming first:

Someone put it to me this way one time, and it made sense.

If you bought a car and were paying the lender a certain amount per month for the car, then you went and bought a second car, do you think the lender for the first car is going to allow you to reduce the monthly payment for it so you can afford to also make payments for the second car? If you are acquiring the second car, it is assumed that you can afford both of them.

The same with having children...if you are having another one, it should be assumed that you can afford both the ones you already have (without reducing support to them) plus the subsequent ones.

 
Title: My answers:....
Post by: Genie on Mar 18, 2006, 06:43:25 PM
I don't really care about all of the legals stuff that is posted about it being unconstitutional etc and why the states want it collected etc etc.

And this is coming from someone who has helped write the check when married to XH and someone who should be receiving a check (and never has!!):

CS is the help support the children.  Plain and simple. Children are expensive. It takes 2 to make the child and it should take 2 to support the child and make sure the child has what is need: decent roof over head in safe neighborhood with good to very good schools, clothes and shoes and coats etc, food on the table to eat 3 times a day.

I'm not talking about how it is actually used. We all know some use it for things that aren't meant to.  I mean providing the children's needs so they can have a good life with what is needed.  

As stated, I don't receive it and am fortunate to be able to give my girls what they need without it. If I did receive it, I would put it in an account for them to buy what they need with it and to help for extras I can't give them now. Anything left over when turns 18 could go towards what they need for college or car whatever.

What I don't understand it why the legality etc has to be discussed. Why is it so wrong to support your children? Many wouldn't give a dime if not "forced" to. Heck, many don't even when "forced" to. I do believe many pay way too much money in CS. I don't think 2 children need $500-1000 each month. Shoot, I am only to get $290 and some of that is his portion of the insurance I provide. I think that is somewhat fair of an amount for CS for 2 children without the insurance included.

I think all this talk of agencies and government etc etc only is to circumnavigate the fact that each parent should support their children. How do you think that would happen if CS is not ordered? Do you think most would willing fork over 1/2 of what is spent a month if not? Some months could be cheap but those spring and fall clothes months could be quite expensive!!!
Title: Totally agree here!!!
Post by: Genie on Mar 18, 2006, 06:57:20 PM
B/c I am one of those in the same boat as you.  And my XH doesn't support his kids either.  And I can totally justify the CS he is supposed to pay and more each month.  Formula, baby food, diapers, food for OD, clothes, school, home. It all adds up.  His small amount that is for CS a month ($290 is CS +102 for insurance. Not much actually for CS for 2 kids a month) doens't even cover 1/2 of those costs a month.

Also, in any family, you shouldn't have more unless you can afford more.  My sister would love another child but can't afford to have 3.  Plain and simple. Support the ones you have before you have more that you can't support!!!!

All the mumbo jumbo government crap only is those who don't want to support their children justifying why they shouldn't have too!!!!

Why is it so bad to help give your children what they need? Or do you just not like being told that you have to do it?
Title: That is fine and dandy......
Post by: Genie on Mar 18, 2006, 07:49:26 PM
but what that have to do with the need for BOTH parents to support their children?

How do you think it should be done?  If I were your ex wife, would you really pay 1/2 everytime I handed you a receipt?  You would just love the bill for this week with 2 sick kids in the house.  I spent a small fortune on diapers, pedialyte (the generic version) and food for the brat diet to try to prevent them from exploding through their diaper everytime I gave them something to eat and drink.  Or when I hand you the bill for clothes for spring and summer b/c OD needs a whole new wardrobe b/c she wont fit in 1/8 of her clothes from last year and baby needs 1/2 a wardrobe b/c most of what I had saved from OD isn't the right size. Even scrimping on under $15 items addes up really fast for both kids.

What would happen is that the NCP would decide if he/she thought the children needed this and decide they don't so he/she would say NO and say I'm not paying for something I don't think he needs - 5 outfits is enough, do laundry more often. Then are you going to contribute to my higher water bill? And what about food? How would it be decided what was for the kids and what was for me?

It doesn't matter how you slice and dice it up, it isn't going to work anyway you try to do it.  So hey, in me and cinb's case, I guess we don't have to worry b/c no CS means no conflict about it right?
Title: RE: want all answers possible
Post by: Genie on Mar 18, 2006, 08:04:46 PM
How would you get the money? would you have to spend it first then get reimbursed? For families that don't have much, that could be desaterous. And who would buy what? both could go out buy clothes to ge the money then return them to keep the money for themselves.

And who would oversee this? I mean both can't have free reign on the acocunt.  My XH would be thrilled b/c it would then become his drinking money if he could get it anytime he wanted. I don't think there is enough people that could be hired to keep track of the accounts and what it is spent on.

Good idea in theory but how would you make it work. And what if one parent doesn't contribute to the account but uses it for the chidren's "needs" when at that person's house? Then in my case, I would be supporting mine and X's household. Might as well have stayed married to him then.
Title: RE: My answers:....
Post by: leon clugston on Mar 18, 2006, 11:21:52 PM
I find it disturbing that you dont care about the constitutionality of the program or any other part, however that is a right on everyones part to not agree, and a very good right, just remember the right to agree or disagree w/ anyone or anything is only preserved under the constitution.

My own personal standing is from the standpoint of a CUSTODIAL parent forced to pay another who wished not to work and the judge openly said, (HE shall pay because he is a productive member of sociaety) not in the best interest of the child I would have to say, against the federal law and the state plan and cooperative agreements that the judges and the courts and the DOL, and CSSD have all agreed to abide by.

There is no wrong in supporting youre chidren my other posts have specificaly said that, the wrong comes from individuals w/ a pecuinary enterest in the case, for which they get incentives and bonuses for increasing the amounts regaurdless if they are in equity or not.Under the common law it was well established that parents were to nuture and support there children, and when of age and time children were to nuture and support there parents. Now we have AGENCYs telling what we can and cannot do, when they have no authority, there not judicial, they hold judicial authority, and there power is very limited executive power, there are fact finders nothing more. We have courts makeing LAWS, there's no power, laws are preserved to the executive side of the branch only, courts are judicial, the constitution is clear courts are to rule on the law only, not make law.

There is no circumnavigating going on, not by the citizens at least.
There is no right to child support, its not created under the rights, it is a legilsative created gratuity, the issue I presented was not about support but the means acquired by the goverment to enforce it, and that is the insult upon all, custodial non custodial and the children.When we as people get over the wants and desires for others to always take care of us then we as a whole can see what realy has happened.
Title: Ok I understand what you are saying...
Post by: Genie on Mar 19, 2006, 12:41:08 PM
however, how do you think this should all be handled?  Once parents get divorced how should it be decided that the children are taken care of?

I know the joint is the ideal but in many cases (mine and cinb's for 2) that is not possible.  So then what do you do?  Is it fair for children to live in poverty b/c one parent decides he/she doesn't have any responsiblity and the other parent must struggle to do it all?  It is not the child's fault the parents got divorced!!!! In an ideal world everyone would stay married and never divorce but unfortunately that is not today's world.

So it may not be in the constitution, but alot of laws etc are not in the constitution either.  We can't let our children fall through the cracks b/c they aren't protected in the constitution. When it was written, divorce was a horrible thing and hardly happened.  

Title: RE: Ok I understand what you are saying...
Post by: leon clugston on Mar 19, 2006, 01:27:04 PM
Divorce is the unfortunate result of a sociey that has forgotten its values. There is no doubt situations where there is no other alternative but divorce, however today it is used by many, not all, but as a resolve to there own unhappiness. Children should never be in poverty, but what we have created is for most a twisted system that very few realy understand what the overall objective is, and how in its creation set us out side of are staus and beleifs that had founded this country.There is always ways to make the system better, but to lgislate all into it and to deprive so many including children from there fundamental rights for purposes to generate revenue in so many minds, including mine, creats a distrusts and hate that will always be in conflict w/ the system, and cannot no ever be in harmony. The goverment cannot nor ever was permitted to contract w/ the courts or issue contracts against the citizens, and this is what has happened, it is an insult upon the people and the constitution for which the great country was founded on, and relies on if it is truely to seperate itself from socialism and communism of other counties, for which have always contended we are against. There is no simple solution, but to create simple solutions something has to give and rights created the people I dont beleive should be one of them. The common law was straight and simple, due to beucracy and administrative BS it has pretty much been abolished, here in Alaska the legislature openly admmits it has, if there is no common law, and only civil law(Roman law) then is there realy any constitution or rights?
But this is only my opinion/ with others but still a minority.
Title: RE: #1 Child?
Post by: wysiwyg on Mar 19, 2006, 05:53:30 PM
I have not read all these posts but I want to add my three cents.

#1.  I am a child of divorce where my fahter got custody of me, my mother was never ordered nor paid any cs to my fahter.

#2. I have three kids by my first husband.  When we divorced the court did not order ANY cs to me for these children, I asked him simply to send what he could when he could and I would never ask for money from him.  Consequently, he let the house I left in our name he let it go back to the bank and never saw the kids again.  The last phone call from him was that he did not give a F*** about the kids.  That was 11 years ago.  My current husband adopted all three kids.

#3.  I always wondered how cs worked as in the case of an intact home that loses a parent to death, does not get any cs to continue to support the child in the means he is accustomed to.  Like the parent who's husband was injured they had to adjust to the different means of living to accomodate the lesser income.  Using this scenerio and the above I have long felt that we as humans have to do waht we have to do and not to extort money from the other parent which  usually leaves the NCP or Non residential parent living in squander and doing without many means to supoprt his / her child.  Thats robbing Peter to pay Paul.  

#4.  Under a court order how can the prosecutor seize and freeze funds from our retirement?  The situation was this; hubby lsot job, filed for CS mod, heard in court, court took THREE AND ONE HALF YEARS to render an order, severly putting us behind in cs support.  Once the order was filed with the court, specifying a weekly amount and a weekly amount towards the arrearage - the cs was paid on time every week for 5 years, then lo and behold the prosecuotr comes along adn seizes our funds becase as they said "we can do what we want" - the bottom line was that during this time my job was only 9 months out of the year I was currently off work, hubby making little we were adjusting to the new income, and told the prosecuotor that this was going to force us out of out apartment with a child as we could not pay rent, and that we had followed the courts orders for 5 years and when did the prosecutors order take precidence over a judges court order, their response was that "we don't care"  - a call to the state agency stated to me that the child of the first marraige was their businees and they did not care about the children of the second marriage, that only the first child had "rights".  I wish to heaven I had gotten that on tape!

#5.  Lastly - I have a real problem with the courts imputing money that "COULD" be made.  How can a court base an order on the unknown?  I always thought that court had to have FACTS to find an order, our court orders usually say "FINDINGS OF FACT".......I am sure if we all coud find that golden job where we can be secure with benefits and retirement and a comfortable lifestyle, I am sure we would be doing so. But to pay child suport based  on a 60,000/year job when you make 20,000 bacasue of a sucky economy and bacause as in our case we CHOSE to stay in teh vicinity to see the child and be involved in his life, takes 50% of hubby's income a week.  

Now I ask - is any of this fair?  Life brings us many challenges, we adapt, we go on.  As my Army Sgt daughter says, suck it up and move on.  Sometimes thatis all I can do.  There is little left to fight with, no money and little energy.
Title: RE: want all answers possible
Post by: POC on Mar 19, 2006, 08:20:34 PM
>How would you get the money?

Each parents pays the state, just as NCP's do now. The state would send the check to the other parent.


>For families that don't have much, that
>could be desaterous.

Currently, many families with NCP's don't have much money, but are still forced to pay.

>And who would buy what?

Parents would spend money at their discretion, just as they do now. One issue at a time.

>And who would oversee this? I mean both can't have free reign
>on the acocunt.

Each would maintain their own accounts - see above.

>Good idea in theory but how would you make it work.

It is unbelievably simple. You collect checks from both parents, so that each parent shares financial responsibility for their child, while not at their home as well as when they are under their direct care.

>And what if one parent doesn't contribute to the account but uses it
>for the chidren's "needs" when at that person's house?

If a parent doesn't contribute their share, then they get dealt with just as they do now. Again, not trying to reinvent teh wheel.
Title: Ok...
Post by: Genie on Mar 19, 2006, 08:31:16 PM
you still didn't answer the question as to how to make it work without order of CS for both parents to support their children.  

You can debate the law and what is constitutional or not and what the gov't should tell the courts or not but it doesn't resolve the issue at hand.

If you don't think the current system is right, what do you think would be better?
Title: RE: Ok...
Post by: leon clugston on Mar 19, 2006, 10:13:34 PM
The answer lies within the people themselves, not goverment entities.
I did answer there is no quick or easy solution, however to legislate a solution creates only more problems, and to make it beneficial to entities to seperate families more, to split custody between the two unequal resolves nothing.
The people were and are, if we still have a common law bound to support there own to the best of there abilities w/ out enterference from third parties and entities w/ pecuinary enterests. I never said the answer was simple, but it lies elswhere than what we have now.
The issue at hand, is a result of they before mentioned facts that put us where we are at now, that in it self should make every one worry to think we have been denaturalized for the goverment to acheive it. I for obvious reasons cannot put everything in here, for soon it shall be tried in the proper court, under the proper venue, but the importance is to try to broaden the thoughts and minds of the people to see what has realy happened, what you are told and what is legislated is not even half of wht realy happens, and these are what kills the importance or the thought of how beneficual the program realy is.
But like i've said this is only the opinion of a minority of the people.
Title: RE: My answers:....
Post by: POC on Mar 20, 2006, 07:52:07 AM
I'm not sure if I've ever heard that CS should not be ordered, unless people were talking about situations where time sharing is 50/50 and incomes are equal. Bottom line - children have needs (at minimum food, shelter, clothing, and transportation), regardless of which parent they happen to be with at any given time. Generally, the argument is that CP's don't want to share any $$$ responsibility for their child when they are at the NCP home. You are right, if there is no order to do so, then parents won't do it. Unfortunately, CP's have been allowed to get away with that.

If children are provided for at both homes rather than just one, then that is more support, not less. That may result in less money being exchanged between parents. Unfortunately, too many people think less money changing hands means less support is being provided. That is why the legalities are constantly discussed.
Title: Minor quibble with your #3
Post by: gidgetgirl on Mar 20, 2006, 12:19:34 PM
Social Security provides funds to minor children whose parent is deceased or deemed disabled.  I know I would have far more $$$ if XH were to die or be deemed disabled by SSA than is received in child support.
Title: RE: Minor quibble with your #3
Post by: leon clugston on Mar 20, 2006, 03:56:27 PM
hate to dissapoint you but you should read the regulations under 42, 45 CFR's and chapter 7 Social Security, and then go read some cases through Westlaw, you will find out to often that is not the case, ( read the supreme court of the united states cases)and in many case the moneis that is transferable from one person to another in death is not much at all, if it is even allowed. Military is an exception, only because they voluntarily sign up for service, but that has a whole different list of complications.
Title: I'm referencing survivor's benefits...
Post by: gidgetgirl on Mar 20, 2006, 04:58:38 PM
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10084.html

http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/fed_prog/socsecbf/socsecbf.html
(Excerpt)"The average monthly payment for a family consisting of a widow(er) with two children is $1,696 per month. Social Security payments increase based on the annual cost-of-living index-- something few private insurance plans offer. "
"Today, Social Security pays monthly survivors benefits to about 7 million Americans, almost 2 million of whom are children. "

"Under Social Security, workers are considered disabled if they cannot do work they did before and we decide that they cannot adjust to other work because of their medical condition(s). The disability must be expected to last for at least 12 months or to result in death. Once benefits begin, they continue for as long as the worker is disabled and can't work. The disabled worker and his or her eligible family members receive checks each month. "

Granted, getting diability benefits from SSA can be a challenge, but I just wanted to point out that these benefits DO exist, which the original poster seemed to not be aware of.
Title: RE: I'm referencing survivor's benefits...
Post by: wysiwyg on Mar 20, 2006, 05:50:13 PM
no I am aware of it - and fully aware that this is one reason that our generation will not see an SS - becasue it was originally devised as old age survivor benefits.  It was "modified" over the years to include things that I personally do not agree with, as a child who loses a parent is not old in age.  

I did not ask my ex to provide ANY support for the three kids, the judge did not order a dime for any of the three kids, and I supported them with finacial adjustments for a long time until I remarried and my husband adopted them.  We survived without SS, without CS without the help of any agency whatsoever, I worked three jobs to support my children.

Proud Military mom of 1 Sgt Army Daugher, I Navy son, 1 Stepson, and 1 ambitious AF daughter.
Title: RE: My answers:....
Post by: oklahoma on Mar 21, 2006, 04:34:26 PM
"Many wouldn't give a dime if not "forced" to. Heck, many don't even when "forced" to."

I have issue with these statements.  First of all, statistics show that the majority of NCP's who do not pay CS simply cannot afford the over-high amounts ordered by the courts.  Also, I think the majority of NCPs would pay child support without being forced.  There are always going to be parents who don't care; they are in the minority, but the system is set up to guard against that minority and in return the majority are hurt by it.  My husband, when he had his own very successful business, was always current on CS, and often paid for extras for his daughters (bought the clothes, bedroom furniture, etc. etc.)  He willingly did it without the state telling him to pay more because he made more.  And I believe he is the norm.  I do think NCP's would willing "fork over" 1/2 the expenses if they had a say in what the expenses were.  And when the NCP can't afford to shop at the Gap, those expenses do not include clothes from the Gap.

If it's all just about taking care of the kids, as you state, why not let the kids stay with the parent who makes the most money, forget the "redistribution of wealth" altogether?  (Now we KNOW that idea won't go far!!  And really it shouldn't.)

The argument over the constitutionality of CS, and the involvement of government agencies is quite valid, because those agencies have created an atmosphere that severely restricts one parent from making choices in regards to their child's well-being--parents who would love to be on the other side, with the children in their home, whether or not they receive a check from the ex.
Title: I wasn't talking about the good fathers here...
Post by: Genie on Mar 21, 2006, 09:47:15 PM
I'm talking about the ones who don't care about the well being of their children.  And there are more out there than the minority.  They don't come to boards like this b/c they know the good NCPs will ream them a new one.

There are alot of NCPs who don't pay their CS.  Mine in particular. But I am lucky enough to make good enough money that it doesn't matter.  Someday I may go after him but right now I don't give it another thought.  I know many have to pay large amounts that aren't fair. I stated that.  However, I feel that my X's amount is fair.  It won't break him like the large amounts have broke others.  

The ones I am talking about in my statements are the ones who refuse to work so they don't have to pay or get cash jobs to avoid paying or garnishment or quit their job whenever the garnishment comes.  And because of this many CPs struggle to support their children when the small amount (and it usually is small b/c the NCP doesn't make much an hr b/c the NCP doesn't keep jobs long enough to make decent money) they are supposed to get would help out alot.

And not all NCPs who don't pay and avoid are men. Many are also women and they fall in the same boat as those I am talking about here.

I have been on both sides of the fence. When I was married to X I helped pay that CS for the SKs and didn't have a problem with it. I wrote the check most of the time. And I felt his CS was fair. It wasn't a huge amount, it was $80 a week. And I helped pay 1/2 the day care and feed them when at my house every other weekend. Too bad X didn't feel he needed to continue doing that. And b/c of it he owes his first X over $10K and still avoids paying her. And he owes me too.  It isn't worth going after him b/c he doesn't care. He will spend his time in jail only to get out and do it again. He has done it before.

Nothing I say here is towards any of those who are good parents and who struggle to pay and be with their children. I never pointed to anyone here in my statements.
Title: RE: I'm referencing survivor's benefits...
Post by: leon clugston on Mar 22, 2006, 12:35:42 AM
Ime aware of a lot more, than that, and spend a great deal of time reading the social security and the regulations, however, at this particular time I will not disclose all knowledge for personal reasons.
Created rights are not vested rights, therefor the right is mere interpretation holding no validity.
Title: RE: I'm referencing survivor's benefits...
Post by: leon clugston on Mar 22, 2006, 12:41:42 AM
Social security distibutes a wang of grants way beyond health and social service, how the services that it does grant to these other entities and still hold as a social service program is astounding but it does. I urge anyone, who understands meanings to read title 45 CFR's and chapter 7 of the Social Scecurity act, it consits of hundreds of seperate titles and regs, including disturbursements and allotments of monies to different agencies and programs. Then you will see how the program is failing.Social Security realy started from the widows and orphans act after the civil war, it just wasn't named, but every aspect and contention drawn forth from it is the creation of the system we have today.