I don't want to keep an arguement going but do want to respond. I contacted Waylon and he said he did not lock this but one of the moderators did?
I was in the process of looking up child support stats but felt that is something that one can do on their own. There are many articles, reports, etc... on how the system is failing in California. The system is NOT based on the needs of the child/children but rather a complex formula based on income. Of course, income has to play a part as that is what this is all about. But seriously though, look at those in jobs of means, like actors....40K a month for a child? come on now...
Be that as it may, I know personally of folks just trying to do their best. Move on with their lives, provide for not one family but two. Let's not even add that in..another family. I know of one man that was hit with a large amount of support, insurance, etc....and had to sleep in his car. Any increase in his income resulted in an increase in support. Not right.
Personally, I know of two men who have custody in California. The first did not want to file for child support. He was urged to do so for the childs sake and the childs future. He brought this to the CSE agency and was told, "well, she doesn't make very much so you'll get very little". He decided against it as his focus was not to financially cripple the NCP but to make sure money was never an issue for the NCP to see her child. I don't know of many women that would do that.
The second, support filed for, not paid for a while. Hearing scheduled and delayed and delayed and delayed...finally get to court. Woman NCP basically cries in court and gets arrears reduced.
Try doing that as a man....**
My husbands situation was not fair at all. He paid, was paid off in current and arrears and now the CP (is she still considered that when the kids are 19?) gets a winfall. I stated before he got behind; he also got tagged with backdated support payments for a whole year. Unemployment happens. I don't think this particular woman has worked a total of 1 year full time. Why should she be rewarded for her sloth?
My solution, (you asked Mist...)...
50/50 split custody with NO support exchanged. It can work.
Mist, you stated you pay a lot in support. I hope you're always healthy, always working and never ever have to go through this. You miss one payment, just one, and you'll be in the same boat.
On a side note, my husband and his children have never been closer. THey call from Iraq all the time. It's a shame and a blessing this only happened since they left their mothers.
I don't care how much you defend the child support system---when a state is rewarded with federal money for collecting, it is never about the children.
** not intentionally slamming women here just using personal examples.**
Child support is not about the parents. The CP is not being rewarded for anything. She's being reimbursed for past expenses that she incurred and were not reimbursed in a timely manner.
50/50 custody only works if both parents are willing to make it work. Even then, 'no support exchanged' is not in the child's best interests. What happens when one parent makes $500 K and the other makes $20 K? The child would then live half of their life near poverty.
And your final statement is purely an assertion - which no one has yet provided any evidence for. The state collects money MOST OF WHICH IS THEN PROVIDED TO THE CP TO SUPPORT THE CHILDREN. The federal government reimburses some of the state's cost of collecting. How is that not beneficial to the children?
Wrong.
"She's being reimbursed for past expenses that she incurred and were not reimbursed in a timely manner."
What do you consider a timely manner? When the other parent does NOT work, thereby NOT following the system of both parents supporting the child/children, then how can she be reimbursed for that?
When you miss even one payment in CA, you are in arrears. Eventually, the order will include the arrears. Most I've seen it take is about 6 months. That is a timely manner of making up missed payments. SO, you advocate for going back 10 plus years or more, after an order is finished and reimbursing? That is just so wrong.
But it is what it is.
I would like to see your statistics of this system working then.
And for many, like you've been told, it's not matter of not wanting to pay, it's a matter of not being able to pay. Hogwash on that, "go file then" thing. Reducing child support is not an easy thing.
I guess you also support that measure of taking ones licenses to get one to pay?
oy
>Wrong.
> "She's being reimbursed for past expenses that she incurred
>and were not reimbursed in a timely manner."
>What do you consider a timely manner? When the other parent
>does NOT work, thereby NOT following the system of both
>parents supporting the child/children, then how can she be
>reimbursed for that?
If you don't have a job due to no fault of your own, child support can be stopped in every state I know.
>When you miss even one payment in CA, you are in arrears.
So? Arrears means you've missed a payment. By definition, if you've missed a payment, you're in arrears.
You seem to think that child support is a game, not a solid, legal obligation.
>Eventually, the order will include the arrears. Most I've seen
>it take is about 6 months. That is a timely manner of making
>up missed payments. SO, you advocate for going back 10 plus
>years or more, after an order is finished and reimbursing?
>That is just so wrong.
Why would it go 10 years? If he was out of work for a year, he had 9 years to pay back the amount that he missed. Whether you like it or not, that amount includes interest. If he paid what he owed, they couldn't collect more later. Instead, he paid the original amount but not interest.
Try telling your bank that you want the title of your loan returned to you because you paid the original loan amount, but not the interest.
>But it is what it is.
>I would like to see your statistics of this system working
>then.
You're the one asserting that the system stinks and does not benefit children. You've got the burden of proof.
>
>And for many, like you've been told, it's not matter of not
>wanting to pay, it's a matter of not being able to pay.
>Hogwash on that, "go file then" thing. Reducing child support
>is not an easy thing.
It's not that hard if you lose your job and can't find another one in most states.
>
>I guess you also support that measure of taking ones licenses
>to get one to pay?
>oy
>
Yes, I do support taking any reasonable action to get one to pay. Taking their license should be a last resort. But if the court works out a reasonable payment plan and the person has a decent job but still refuses to pay, they should be penalized up to and including jail time and loss of driving privileges. Supporting one's children is, IMHO, the top priority.
>
>Yes, I do support taking any reasonable action to get one to
>pay. Taking their license should be a last resort. But if the
>court works out a reasonable payment plan and the person has a
>decent job but still refuses to pay, they should be penalized
>up to and including jail time and loss of driving privileges.
>Supporting one's children is, IMHO, the top priority.
I think the term IMHO gets used quite a bit when it should not. You seem to be very vocal and forceful about your opinion. That is not necessarily a bad thing. But humble...I'm thinking no.
What? You state:
>>And your final statement is purely an assertion - which no one has yet provided any evidence for. The state collects money MOST OF WHICH IS THEN PROVIDED TO THE CP TO SUPPORT THE CHILDREN. The federal government reimburses some of the state's cost of collecting. How is that not beneficial to the children?<<
First of all are you forgetting about the millions in performance bonuses per year, per state that is shelled out by the feds for child support collection? Are you forgetting about the millions that are shelled out in incentive bonuses of which the states can decide to spend it anyway they chose? I guess so because if you did, you would realize the following rings true.
IT ALL COMES BACK TO THE MONEY.
How you might ask? Let me explain. If you even care. I really don't now what's up with you lately.......
It all started with AFDC. This program was set up to reward young girls for having out of wedlock children. This is how things got set into motion. Why do they need a father for their kids when the state is providing for them for free??? They don't, because if they marry they lose the freebies!!!! However, the states NEED the child support order to obtain all that federal money!!! But sadly most poor mothers procreate with just as poor fathers so most of the AFDC money is uncollectable....ahh, RATS! Backfire!! Then the Feds stepped in to help the states by providing the bonus money for collections! Whopppiee. How do we get a bigger piece of that pie??? The states then had to look at more middle class families, because with them they can collect! Collect = Federal $$$. Perfect!!! The states then became pimps for the Federal government dollar & made (mostly) middle class men the whores.
This is how they keep it working!!!
The states actually BENEFIT by keeping (usually the father's) as just a visitor in their child's life. This way there will be a child support order. The more child support orders, the more collections, the more Federal money. This is also why many states are now making garnishment mandatory. If there is a garnishment order then it automatically counts as COLLECTION. If all this wasn't the case then they would adapt new laws that give EQUAL physical custody to both parents with NO child support changing hands. Think of how the welfare rolls would drop, how people would actually THINK before they bed down with a partner & how to avoid unplanned pregnancy. Children will no longer be pawns in a game that carry great cash rewards. But the states don't care about families. The states care about money.
Basically our tax money goes towards the destruction of American Families which spirals down toward to the saddening statics of fatherless families (of which we are all aware). Which increase the crime rate, which generates the need for more institutions, which means more taxes. Which increases the need for social services...and so on. We date our heritage back to the founders of this Great Country. They must be rolling over in their graves seeing how fast the rights of American's are being slowly degraded awat. Last year Mr. KAT & I paid $26,000 in Federal taxes alone, we call it feeding the *family* .... I wonder how much they made off our hard work this year? I bet they got more of an increase then we did.
KAT
No one ever denied that the states receive a bonus for collecting the money. That's a long way from proving that it's all about the money and that only the state benefits.
There are millions of kids who probably wouldn't eat if the state wasn't collecting their support. To me, that's more important than a few fathers who want to whine about having money removed from their paycheck after they decide not to support their kids.
its always those darn deadbeat dads isn't it.Yep, should hang all men who are not married in town square now shoudln't we. Those non compliant individuals would learn then to never question an employee of the state. Tell you what, I will spend the next week, putting together excerpts from the Texas and Alaska agreements, and put them on here, in fact I will even include transmittal numbers and the corresponding CFR's with them, then we can discuss what is realy what.
No one ever said that the system was perfect. But I'm still waiting for your evidence that the system fails most of the time.
I'm also waiting for your proposal on what to do about it.
I'm also waiting for you to explain in plain English exactly what you're arguing.
Until then, you haven't added anything to the conversation.
Sunshine, Sunshine, Sunshiny day!!
Unreal!
I premi di sostegno di bambino sono ingiusti e forniscono l'assegno alimentare nascosto, il sole.
Kindergeldpreise sind unfair und liefern versteckte Alimente, Sonnenschein.
Las concesiones de la ayuda de niño son injustas y proporcionan los alimentos ocultados, sol.
撫養費獎是不合理的并且提供暗藏的撫養費，陽光。
طفلة دعم مكافآت ظالمة ويزوّد يخفى نفقة, إشراق.
>Sunshine, Sunshine, Sunshiny day!!
>Unreal!
Feel free to add something of substance to the conversation if you wish. So far, all I see are personal attacks from people who refuse to back up their position.
If you ever care to provide a real argument and back it up, feel free.
Translating a bogus, unsubstantiated argument into multiple languages doesn't make it real.
Why are YOU here? What brought you here, Mist? I know what brought me here, and it IS the unfairness of the court system where the NCP is concerned, both for the ridiculous support awards and the basic over-involvement and interference in my ability to parent my child.
Tell ya what, Mist...let's post a poll to see how many that post to this board feel the court systems are working and that child support orders, on a whole are fair and just to all.
There is an argument for you...cuz I am willing to bet, let's say a great bottle of wine, that more than 90% on this board that are NCP's are going to agree that the court system IS NOT working in either case.
Hence, the reason they showed up here in the first place.
And I can tell you that if a custodial parent would have posted the absolute bull shit you have posted about the entitlement of ex's to maintain a lifestyle for the sake of the children, they would have been ripped a new asshole.
I'm here to help people who might need advice and to get advice on some of the issues I've faced.
I do not personally believe that "the system stinks and all NCPs are going to get harmed by it" is very helpful advice to anyone. The system is what it is - and I'm willing to offer advice to work with the system.
As for your 90% of NCPs saying that the court system is not working, you're dreaming. But feel free to provide evidence to support that claim. Your making a statement that the system fails 90% of the time is NOT evidence.
Reality will hit you one day.
>Reality will hit you one day.
Not really. You see, unlike you, I LIVE in reality. It's not something alien to me.
......because there's one I know positively that does not allow CS to stop, even if you're unemployed. Iowa. Yep, lil' ol' Ioway. DH has been unemployed twice while paying support and not only could he not get it stopped, he couldn't even get it reduced! So of course, this caused a large arrears to accumulate. When DH did find another job, he had to borrow the money to get the arrears paid off, since BM was making such a stink about it and threatening serious legal action.
I wouldn't be surprised if that weren't also the case in many other states. The problem REALLY is, if you're unemployed, how in the hell can you pay for an atty. to even file for a downward mod. or get it temporarily suspended? I know if no unemployed parents who could do that. And even if you can, it's a crap shoot at best. DH's opinion is 'I can be spending my money and time better by getting another job.'
And you 'could' say that she would be justified, as that money was for SS's benefit. But we also found that she deposited most of that money for a long time, since she had already gotten remarried and her new DH apparently supported her well. We certainly couldn't afford buying SS a VCR, Playstation, and a TV for his room when he was FIVE (like they did), and it wasn't even his birthday or Xmas. They were just setting SS up for when they wanted some place to get him out of the way.
But she's now been through a 2nd divorce, splits physical custody exactly 50/50 (her and ex work opposite days at the same factory) with the child they had together, and gets very little CS because their incomes are pretty equal. SS is now 13 and has told BM that if she ever went back to court for more CS, he'd run away to us and disown her.
OK, 'stopped' was too strong a word.
In Iowa and most states, a change in employment status is grounds for a change in support. In the case of unemployment, they base the child support on either your unemployment compensation check or potential salary (typically minimum wage in many cases), but it's still reduced to the appropriate level based on your new employment situation.
Getting CS reduced for whatever reason is a not a sure thing in the courts.
I think that you're making a statement that's too much of a "THIS is the way the courts react or decide or behave" as a guarantee and that's the part that's wrong.