SPARC Forums

There has been a lot of discussion on this board about the current system not working.  Please feel free to post your response and elaborate on any issues that you are having with the current court system regarding child support, child visitation, etc.

So you think that posting your blatantly biased test in two different locations is going to make it any more valid?

Considering that you seem to think that making the same unfounded claims louder and louder somehow lends validity, I'm not surprised.

as a EQUAL CP, 50% legal and Physical "YES Misty one week on, one week off,, I find the current sytem is bent over money period.
OOOPS, so much for equal protection of the alleged law, which the court even admitted didn't allow them to do it" ie...make a support amount"

Now as a former NCP, it was even better, we can take youre money, youre "Drivers" license, lein youre property, raid youre accounts, and change the amount of support at any time, and we can do it as employees of the state, for which you can only argue with us, and must exhaust all possible remedies before you can challenge us in a pretend court of law, "Which is made up of more employees who are bound by the Cooperative agreements, and must submit to the resolutions set forth in the cooperative agreements"Contracts"

I'm still waiting for:

1. Your explanation in simple language what your position is.

2. Your recommendation of what you think the system SHOULD be.

3. Your evidence that the system is all about money.

4. Your evidence that the system fails to work more often than it works.

Until you can provide those things, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

>I'm still waiting for:
>
>1. Your explanation in simple language what your position is.
>
>2. Your recommendation of what you think the system SHOULD
>be.
>
>3. Your evidence that the system is all about money.
>
>4. Your evidence that the system fails to work more often than
>it works.
>
>Until you can provide those things, how do you expect anyone
>to take you seriously?


Misty you and I have went rounds, and all that has been resolved is unless you personaly can benefit from whatever anyone proves, you denounce it as being fact, that being said, I told you by the end of the week i will show this group excerpts from said law, Federal, that is mandated upon the states and the judges, that transforms it all to non disclosed public law, for which binds the judges to perform in favor of the state for money, which in turn obliques there indpendant decision, turning it into a  Administerial decision, not of law but of contract, for which you personly will denounce, but there it is, and yes its in public record, the codes, the CFR's, and under youre state child support plan.

>Misty you and I have went rounds, and all that has been
>resolved is

that you continue to make wild accusations, refuse to provide evidence to back up your assertions, refuse to state your position in clear English, and refuse to provide a suggestion of an alternatives.

Yes, we've established that much.

In Alabama, parents can agree to 50/50 time, but ONE parent has to be the primary parent and will receive CS.

And yes, they can agree to no CS -- but that has to be an agreement and then the judge can over rule.

I was on the receiving end of CS (about $500 per month for 2 girls), and he was underpaying.

I realized that it became a form of "family support" even for me because as the girls approached the age of emancipation, I had to shrink my budget by that amount.  When they left, my expenses to support them did not shrink by $500 -- actually, it should have gone down by more than that considering I'm supposed to be supporting them with my money too -- so really $1000 is the right figure.

Didn't happen -- which means that some of that $500 was like "spousal support" that dad didn't get credit for.

And if dad or I took the subject to court -- he would have had to pay more, not less, because he increased his standard of living by a lot over the years, where as I stayed steady.....(my choice because I know money doesn't buy happiness.....and he thought it did).  

When the pendulum swung the other way this summer, I agreed to "less support" in favor of dad paying for transportation expenses.

The net result to dad is (IMHO) about a $100 a month savings -- if he plans and buys the airline tickets early, and even more if he combines a weekend with a week, and even more if he doesn't buy a ticket at all.

Why did I agree?

Because my focus was on our child and getting him out of that environment.

What dad pays in CS covers the monthly gas to take our son to Atlanta to the airport and our son's allowance.  So the net support from dad is zero.

Since I match that from my money, I can say "Nope, my 50% doesn't cover what I need to spend on our son."  But our son is happy.

I can say that I've been on my own in this house for a year before the change last summer.

SO -- its easier for me to compare before and after expenses of everything -- before son arrived and now that he's here.

If dad were to pay me full CS, I'd have change left over.  Then spend some on clothes, and I'd still have change left over.  Then spend some on activities, and there's change.....

That lends me to believe the CS tables are not correct.

is the agency itself as the "go-between" or monitor of the money that is exchanged.

It was a good thing I didn't have to contact DAD#1 to pay CS on time.  He showed his true colors when MD emancipated and when he had an opportunity to NOT send me money, he didn't.

It is a good thing I don't have to contact DAD#2 about getting CS straight -- he thinks he over paid, I've been underpaid....BUT it's getting straightened out.  (The state has the money, and some of it is being sent to me to get it caught up, and there maybe some left over that is considered "pre-paid", they won't give me figures to know for sure....no problem).

So that part of the system, I'm grateful for.

I think that one can logiclly say a NCP should support a child based on thier income and ability to pay. However I have seen extreem cases where NCP had to live in a car to make support payments because they were so high although rare, it does happen. I have also read cases where the other children of a NCP went without necessities because support was too high and the judge would not change it. To be fair I have also heard of cases and know people who's ex got away with the disappearing act and worked off the books jobs just to get out of supporting thier children. I actually heard one woman tell me she was owed $30,000 in back support and couldn't find the dad.

 In my boyfriends case they did not take off for the other child he has, they counted 100% of his over time for the past year which he doesn't get now, and they took off for the ex's other child  and didn't even count the tips she makes as a waitress, plus the allowed her to deduct daycare expences that she uses not for work purposes but so she can go out parting. Fair not hardly. Yes we have been trying to bring it to court but the wait is 6 months so we are stuck with it now. This was all done very on the sly the GAL sent it to the child support agency who rushed it through and asked no questions. When called they responed that the GAL never told them about the other child or any child related expences, they only handed the agency his W-2 form. Kinda sneaky and nasty huh?

The true nature of child support has nothing to do with ensuring that children are financially supported, and everything to do with "the money".  

If the true nature and purpose of child support was to ensure the support of the children, then the child support laws would require the receiver of child support to spend the child support on the children's direct needs.  The laws would also require the receiver of child support to account for how the child support is spent.  The current laws and system require nether.  In fact the current laws and system are structured so that the child support received becomes that person's sole property and can be spent on anything they choose to spend it on.  They are not required to spend one cent on their children.  In fact the children don't even have a legal right or claim to the money.  Again the true nature of child support has nothing to do with ensuring that the children are financially supported.  In truth what we call child support is merely a redistribution of wealth form one parent to the other.  As a result the current child support laws and system is flawed at its very core, and doesn't work.

Also, in most states the child support guidelines are not even based on current economic principles or data directly related to what it actually costs to support a child in a divorced family.  In fact, the typical child support guidelines is based solely on income and completely ignores expenses.  Accordingly, the child support awards have no relationship to the actual economic costs of financially supporting a child.  As a result, the underlying child support awards are also flawed and do nothing to ensure the financial support of the child.  Again, it is merely about the money and transferring wealth.  

I also find it interesting that whenever the topic of accountability of how child support is spent comes up, that typically the people who receive minor amounts of child have no problem with accountability.  However, the vast majority of people who receive large amounts of child support would never agree to accounting for how it is spent.  One of my core beliefs is that people with nothing to hide, will hide nothing.  So I wonder, what are these people trying to hide by not agreeing to a system of accountability?  Could it be that the truth would come out that the child support received isn't being used on the child's direct financial needs?  Or that the child support awards are excessive?

Personally I would like the current laws and system scrapped and a new systems adopted.  I would love to see a new system premised on both parents financially supporting their children.  I would like to see an escrow type account set up where both parents would pay into it, and both parents can withdraw from it to pay for the direct expenses of the child.  There would be detailed regulations/guidelines which would clearly list the expenses that qualify, and expenses that don't qualify for reimbursement out of the account.  I personally think that this would be a much better system

In your case, which I feel might be rather isolated.  I've heard so many stories where they sit on the money owed, or continue to take too much money for an already reduced CS order.

My own brother took out a loan to get his cars unbooted, even though he didn't owe a dime extra, because of screw up on the books.  Interestingly enough, it took them nearly 3 weeks to get off their asses and unboot his cars, so in the meantime, neither him or his wife had anything to drive. His biohag moved to another state, in the meantime, so he had no way to get to see his kids unless he put a rental car on his credit card.

Did they send him a refund for overpayment??? Oh no.  They told him they would credit his account on the other end!  Now, you tell me how well that worked...

And I have some stories of my very own...affecting me as a CP and an NCP...but they don't matter as much as those that are in the mire right now.

I have NO PROBLEM with accountability...because...yup..you guessed it...I'm a CP that gets a pittance.  I had documented proof that the NCP had arrears, I had documented proof that the NCP was making far more than he "stated" and since this was an Interstate case and his GF works in the Public Service department I got skrewed...actually...My Child got skrewed!  NCP got a MAJOR break for transportation costs because he fought for all this visitation (he moved btw)....now he only takes DS 1 time per YEAR when he's supposed to have him 1 time a MONTH.  The arrears magically dissapeared and the CS hasn't changed since it was established 9 years ago!!  Things that make you say hummm??

Thankfully, I have taught my children to be fiscally aware and I am able to tell them "Sorry guys, I just can't afford it at this time!"  I have always believed that the system based on "maintaining the current lifestyle" is totally BOGUS!!!  It can't be done in a divorce situation!  To take 1 level of income (that typically barely provides for one household) now has to be split to provide for 2 households....someone's level of lifestyle is gonna be effected.  

You are spot on with your statements and findings....

Thanks for 30 lines of unsubstantiated opinions.

As soon as you have evidence to establish that argument, feel free to present it.

Why is it that I'm missing the 100 million kids dying in the streets if the system never works?

My proof is in every child support statute and guidlines out there.  How about providing proof of your unsubstantiated opinions.  

How about providing some state statutes or child support guidelines which ensure that the receiver of child support will spend it on the direct expenses of financially support the child.  Also, please provide child support guidelines which have a direct relationship to the actual direct expenses of financially supporting a child.

You asked for evidence to support my position so I submit to you Connecticut statute section 46b-84 which imposes an obligation to pay child support, but contains no requirement that the child support paid be spent on providing for the child's direct expenses.  In addition, the Connecticut statute does not require an accounting of how child support is spent.  Furthermore, the Connecticut child support guidelines uses an income shares model to calculate the child support obligation which completely ignores the actual direct costs of supporting a child.  This means that there is absolutley no relationship between the child support obligation and the actual costs of supporting a child.  The child support guidelines do nothing to ensure that the child will be supported.  An analysis of every other state's laws and guidelines will most likely have the same results.  This is irrefutable proof to support my position that the current child support laws and system does not ensure that the children will be financially supported.  

So far you have not provided any evidence or intelligent argument to refute my positions.  Simply repeating your baseless opinion will do nothing to validate it.  Also, ignoring my positions and hoping they go away will do nothing to support your own baseless opinion.  Unless you can come up with child support laws and guidelines to invalidate my positions, it is checkmate, you lose.

>Thanks for 30 lines of unsubstantiated opinions.
>
>As soon as you have evidence to establish that argument, feel
>free to present it.
>
 

You do not have to substantiate an opinion.  It is what someone thinks.  They own it.  It is never  right or wrong.  You can disagree with it all you want, but they certainly are entitled to it.  They own it.  

None of which supports the allegation that the system is badly broken.

All you've proven is that it's POSSIBLE for a CP to receive money and not spend it on the kids. That has never been in dispute.

What has been in dispute is the allegation that you and others keep making that this is a common occurrence.

YOU are the one arguing that the current system is broken beyond repair - you have the burden to support that claim. The status quo already exists.

OK. So your point is that all the "the system is horribly broken and serves no useful purpose" opinions are completely unsubstantiated by fact.

That's exactly what I've been saying.

Results are in for the poll..

Of the 12 people that responded, 9 of them agreed the system doesn't work...so that was 75%.

Of the 12 people that responded, 2 of them felt the system worked well.  
So what's that...about 17%.

And one person felt it worked most of the time, so that was about 8%.

I am sure if more posters would have voted the 90% would have been easily reached. 75% of the existing isn't too far either.

So as you can see, most people on these boards find the current system DOES NOT work for them.

>OK. So your point is that all the "the system is horribly
>broken and serves no useful purpose" opinions are completely
>unsubstantiated by fact.
>
>That's exactly what I've been saying.


  I am saying opinions don't have to be substantiated by anything.  
Example, "I think George Bush is an idiot" does not have to be backed up by anything.  It is what I think.  You can spout until your blue in the face about facts how he is not, but I think otherwise.  Now, you can try to change my opinion by adding your opinion and what you think are relevant facts, but you can't change what I think because I own it,  it is my opinion.

You realy act like an immature child,
if you cannot even read the facts posted, how do you even read cases? or do you just take what the laywer/ state tells you for granted. In either case, youre boring, kinda like an entity without a title.

The ONLY way you will ever find that out, Mist, is if you interview every single CP and NCP in the nation.  And that is certainly impossible.  I have been on this site almost since inception, and the views expressed by Stirling are the common thread that can be found throughout the entire CS forum.  Now, there's 4000+ people signed up on this site, and that doesn't mean all of them have ever voiced their opinion on this subject.  But after reading this particular forum for the past 9+ years, I can honestly say that this theme covers at least 80% of the posts in that time.  Now, if you want to go back and examine every single post on this forum back to inception just to prove or disprove the point, you have way too much time on your hands.  But if I've been reading this same theme over and over again for the past 9+ years, I tend to believe that the system is terribly flawed!

I'm an immature child because I ask you to back up your arguments with facts?

I'm still waiting for you to:
1. Provide evidence that the system fails to do its job in a significant number of cases.
2. Provide a recommendation of what you consider to be a better system.
3. Provide in clear English a statement of your position.

You post a lot, but you never seem to get around to doing any of those things.

Meanwhile:
Here, let me show you how it's done:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/07/assessing-CS-debt/execsum.htm

Just a few facts from this study:
-89% of child support obligations are being paid on time in CA.

-Of the 11% of obligations that are in arrears, 15% are erroneous (the parent doesn't owe anything). 11% of the 11% account for more than half of the arrears - which means that a very small number (1.2% of the total child support obligations) parents owe more than $30 K in arrears.

-57% of obligors owed less than $5 K in arrears.

-Only 22% of the obligors (2.4% of the entire population) had low or no income - but the study was unable to verify that all of them truly had low income since it had no mechanism to look for unreported income.

Yes, the system has problems. But the stuff you're complaining about is NOT that common. More importantly, if you stop worrying about yourself and think about the kids for a change, you'd see that 89% of the time, the system is doing what it's supposed to.

What you're forgetting is that people who post here are far more unlikely than the average to have problems.

Why can't you interview a large, representative population? In fact, it's been done:

Here, let me show you how it's done:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/07/assessing-CS-debt/execsum.htm

Just a few facts from this study:
-89% of child support obligations are being paid on time in CA.

-Of the 11% of obligations that are in arrears, 15% are erroneous (the parent doesn't owe anything). 11% of the 11% account for more than half of the arrears - which means that a very small number (1.2% of the total child support obligations) parents owe more than $30 K in arrears.

-57% of obligors owed less than $5 K in arrears.

-Only 22% of the obligors (2.4% of the entire population) had low or no income - but the study was unable to verify that all of them truly had low income since it had no mechanism to look for unreported income.

Yes, the system has problems. But the stuff you're complaining about is NOT that common. More importantly, if you stop worrying about yourself and think about the kids for a change, you'd see that 89% of the time, the system is doing what it's supposed to.

Oh, and I'd be interested in your explanation of how child support payments are going to improve if there are no penalties like loss of driving privileges, court appearances, 'hounding' by CSE, etc for not paying your child support. Even a moment's thought would say that the only thing this could do is reduce the number of children being supported.


The fact that a lot of people who come to a board seeking help for problems with child support and custody happen to have problems with child support and custody is not valid evidence that the system is broken. The above evidence says that it works most of the time - which is all I've said.

AND, I notice that no one has proposed a better system, either.

Sure. You're entitled to an opinion no matter how wrong it is.

The way you resolve that is with facts. So far, I'm the only one who has provided any facts that are representative of the population as a whole and the evidence is that the system works as designed at least 89% of the time.

Whining that it's horribly broken and evil and unfair is a valid opinion, but the facts just don't support it.

>Results are in for the poll..
>
>Of the 12 people that responded, 9 of them agreed the system
>doesn't work...so that was 75%.
>
>Of the 12 people that responded, 2 of them felt the system
>worked well.  
>So what's that...about 17%.
>
>And one person felt it worked most of the time, so that was
>about 8%.
>
>I am sure if more posters would have voted the 90% would have
>been easily reached. 75% of the existing isn't too far
>either.

Take a course in statistics before you embarrass yourself further.

>
>So as you can see, most people on these boards find the
>current system DOES NOT work for them.
>

Well, gee. People who come to a board looking for help with custody and support problems see problems in the system. Do you really think that is representative of the population as a whole?

Furthermore, your poll was biased in its wording.

Even more importantly, every single person who posted that it doesn't work has proven that their mind is closed or they're blinded by their own opinion. Several others and I have posted that the system worked in our case - so a vote for 'the system never works' simply ignores the facts in front of people.

And, then, there's the fact that even in your biased poll of a biased population it didn't hit the 90% you claimed.

When you actually do the study correctly, the system is working properly at least 89% of the time - not 10% as you claim. See my other posts on the subject.

Of course the CS system works great just as designed!!

The STATE takes the money I work hard to earn directly out of my biweekly pay check and deposits said money into a STATE held bank account (%25 of my hard earned money). At this point MY hard earned money is out of my hands, not at my disposal but at the STATES.
 
At this point the STATE will recieve a certain amount of FEDERAL money for taking my hard earned money and depositing it into a STATE held bank account. Of note, I also pay (though my FEDERAL taxes) the FEDERAL monies that the STATE will recieve. At this point, the STATE is earning dollars from MY money .


At this point said monies will sit in said STATE held bank account for 2-5 days all the while earning interest for the STATE. I do not recieve any credit whatsoever for the interest funds that MY money is earning for the STATE. At this point, the STATE is earning FREE dollars from MY money.

At this point the STATE will cut a check against MY hard earned money and send it to another ADULT to spend in whatever way said ADULT chooses. Said ADULT does not have to account for any amount of said funds. The ADULT can support my child with said funds or the ADULT can spend the funds on bon-bons, cars, pets, porn, dope, other kids that are not MINE, can stash it away, ETC ETC ETC!! At this point the ADULT has been given free money.

Now this is the jurney that MY hard earned money takes though the "child support" system into another ADULTS hands.

I earn my money, I pay taxes on my money, my money is taken by the state, the state earns thier money off of my money, my money is given to another adult to spend how she pleases.

So sure the system works just dandy as designed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Take note the CHILD is only metioned once in this jurney.

 I never offered any opinions on the subject.  I don't know if the system is broke or it's not.  Funny thing about using figures, though.  Figures can lie, and liars can figure.  You can take any set of figures and manipulate them to support your argument.  Until you poll every person  you will never truly know what the actual percentage is of people that think the system is broken.    
And for some, the system is broken.  It is unfair to them.

>Take a course in statistics before you embarrass yourself further

I'm not the poster you were refuring to but I have myself taken several courses in statistics. The first thing you learn is 99% of stats are usually made up. Meaning it depends on who did the study and what they wanted the outcome to be. If your getting your info from HSS which you are they are the ones running the program so the stats are going to be in thier favor due to the questions they want to raise. Yes it may in fact be true that monies are being collected at an 89% rate what that doesn't tell you is it fair. It just simply tells you it is collected.

The origional poster did not ask if people PAY child support, the origional poster asked if it was WORKING for you. The majority said no. Your looking at the wrong stats for the topic asked.

To truely evaluate the question here you actually have to look at the child support formula itself. In WV (not sure how it works elsewhere) what they do is take the total income of both parents. The deduct from that $500 for each parent as personal living expences. Then they deduct for children who are not appart of the equasion that the parent is suppose to be supporting (they get that number from a previous equasion done with that other childs parent) They then deduct child care expences, and medical expences that occur every month.
When that part is done they take the leftover income and find what each parent is responcible for baised on 100% so say mom has $500 left and dad has $1000 left that is $1500 that will go to support that child. When that is worked out mom will be responcible for less because she makes less.

Now if there is a mistake in one of the steps say a nother child is left out that parent has a larger amount of money he is responcible for which makes the amount he is paying unfair. He is now legally responcible for more than he should be. Even though he pays it he is paying more than his fair share. This is not reflected in your stats. So according to your stats he is paying so it is working, money is being collected so the system workes, not hardly. His other child is going without a child born before this equasion was in motion and use to a certian lifestyal is now had his standard of living go down to make another childs standard of living go up.

My point in a nutshell is yes NCP are paying. That doesn't mean the system works just that money is being collected at higher rates than before. Is this good, not if the foundation and basic equasion has errors in it. When you take into consideration human error and delibrate false accounts of money by either side (either parent not accounting for income or more income added in than should be) is when the system fails and there is nobody who has done stats on that, to my knowledge at least. There really cannot be because I don't think any parent is going to volenteer they are paying baised on the false info they provided. I don't think someone like by boyfriends ex is going to say hey I didn't provide tips and o/t info so he is paying more than he should.

Like I said before people with nothing to hide will hide nothing.  I think it's pretty clear what you are trying to hide by refusing to submit child support laws and guidelines that ensure that the financial needs of the children will be met.  Heck you haven't even made any type of inteligent attempt to refute anything that I have said.  You can keep talking out your ass if you choose to, but I doubt anyone here is taking you seriously.  

I've wasted enough of my time presenting an inteligent response to your baseless rantings.  So for now I am done until you post something of substance to support your opinions.  

"I'm still waiting for you to:
1. Provide evidence that the system fails to do its job in a significant number of cases.
2. Provide a recommendation of what you consider to be a better system.
3. Provide in clear English a statement of your position."


If he did provide this information to you, you probably would simply ignore it.  I have intelligently responded to you with all of the information that you have requested, and yet you have failed to provided any intelligent argument to refute anything that I have said.  You have also refused to provide any laws or guidelines to support your position.  Your entire position is a baseless joke until you do so.

One point that goes in hand with that Baby is, when a NCP is made an obligor by a court, agency, employee of the state, in many times at a high amount, such person is therefor made to get a higher paying job, or even another job, which in turn is used against said individual to reduce visatation which is directly correlated to ones support, which then is raised again for supposed lack of time with said child.

>"I'm still waiting for you to:
>1. Provide evidence that the system fails to do its job in a
>significant number of cases.
>2. Provide a recommendation of what you consider to be a
>better system.
>3. Provide in clear English a statement of your position."
>
>
>If he did provide this information to you, you probably would
>simply ignore it.  

The fact is that he has never provided it. Anything else is speculation on your part.

Furthermore, I've provided evidence that the system works in the overwhelming majority of cases - which you keep ignoring.

>Like I said before people with nothing to hide will hide
>nothing.  I think it's pretty clear what you are trying to
>hide by refusing to submit child support laws and guidelines
>that ensure that the financial needs of the children will be
>met.  Heck you haven't even made any type of inteligent
>attempt to refute anything that I have said.  You can keep
>talking out your ass if you choose to, but I doubt anyone here
>is taking you seriously.  

And, yet, I'm the only one who has provided any real evidence - a study showing that the system is working in at least 89% of the cases. Where is your non-anecdotal data?

>
>I've wasted enough of my time presenting an inteligent
>response to your baseless rantings.  So for now I am done
>until you post something of substance to support your
>opinions.  


Funny. You have been whining constantly about how broken the system is - without providing evidence (other than a few anecdotal reports that can't be verified) while I'm the one providing statistical evidence - and you accuse me of baseless rantings. Cute.

> I never offered any opinions on the subject.  I don't know
>if the system is broke or it's not.  Funny thing about using
>figures, though.  Figures can lie, and liars can figure.  You

Then feel free to show what's wrong with the data I've presented.

>can take any set of figures and manipulate them to support
>your argument.  Until you poll every person  you will never
>truly know what the actual percentage is of people that think
>the system is broken.    

So your solution is to completely ignore all the facts and fall back on unverifiable rants from people posting anonymously on a complaint board?


>And for some, the system is broken.  It is unfair to them.


No one ever said the system was perfect.

>One point that goes in hand with that Baby is, when a NCP is
>made an obligor by a court, agency, employee of the state, in
>many times at a high amount, such person is therefor made to
>get a higher paying job, or even another job, which in turn is
>used against said individual to reduce visatation which is
>directly correlated to ones support, which then is raised
>again for supposed lack of time with said child.


And I"m STILL waiting for you to provide evidence that this happens with any reasonable frequency.

As it is, I'm the only one who has provided ANY factual evidence.

  Most, if not all,  of the unverifiable rants I have seen thus far are coming from you.  But that's just my opinion.

not true about WV -- my current CS is there and that's not how the sheet works.

The $500 is used at the very end only on the Payor's side to make sure they have the "ability" to pay the CS ordered (Part II, line 11 on my worksheet).  First they take the income and multiply it by 80%.....so the first 20% is reserved for the Payor.  Then subtract the $500....which gives the ability to pay the order figure.  

I pretty much agree with the rest of what you're saying.

And actually, let me share that once in court, EX made sure Judge knew he was supporting two other children.  Judge redid the formula and said "That reduces Child Support by "less than $10"" -- forgot the exact figure, it was $8 something for 2 children.

Yes your right I had to go look at the paper again. The $500 was taken out later in the equasion my mistake.
Problem with the case I'm taking about (my boyfriend order) was that a judge never saw it to reveiw in court. I was done by the support agency with info provided by the GAL the support agency never asked a single question assuming the GAL had her facts strait when she in fact did not she was only aware of the child in question. the GAL never returned any phone calls (and still to this day won't) he has now asked for a reduction due to the fact that vaid mistakes were made in the order due to the misinformation submitted. He actually makes less than he did the year before due to over time issues and they did not add in the other child so 2 mistakes. He is not complaining about having to pay for his child at all just that the ammount is from what I did following that same proceedure is about more than $100 off give/take per month (that doesn't even include the fact she did not report some income of her own or the fact she included non work related child care expences personally, he likes the idea the child spends less time with the woman and more time with a licensed provider for reason we won't dive into here.) We won't be able to get this in front of a Judge for 6 months and by that time due to the current situation we may very well end up with custody of this child and him paying would be a mute point. Like I said previously this was all rushed through with out any questions asked so he was not able to state he had another child. He was not even given the proper forms to fill out till he went and got them himself to make the corrections.

Also yes the majority of the support goes to the first child which I think is a little messed up with in itself. Yes that probably works in cases where a parent has 3 kids with the same woman but in a case where a man has 2 kids with 2 seperate woman the second child gets slighted. In this case he had custody of this child she pulled a nasty and accused him of abuse/neglect as that is being proven untrue she has the child and gets support (as well she should) untill the situation is resolved. In that time we together had a son of our own before the support was in place. I could pull a nasty and file for support of my own because we are not married but that would screw things up some and cause an even bigger paper work mess. I actually have seen woman who know how to play the system have 3 kids with 3 diffent men so they could collect the max amount of support for each child. There is just something nasty about that to me. I understand why they calculate this like that because it was the dad decision to have another child so why should the other child pay, however in cases like this when dad had custody and decided to have another then loses custody of that child and already has another both children should be considered equally.

As I've stated repeatedly. The system isn't perfect - but the evidence is that it works most of the time.

As soon as you have evidence (other than unverifiable anectdotal stories), feel free to provide it.

And, yet, I've provided independently derived data to back up my position and you haven't.

And, no, asking you to back up your claims is not an 'unverifiable rant'.

>>One point that goes in hand with that Baby is, when a NCP
>is
>>made an obligor by a court, agency, employee of the state,
>in
>>many times at a high amount, such person is therefor made to
>>get a higher paying job, or even another job, which in turn
>is
>>used against said individual to reduce visatation which is
>>directly correlated to ones support, which then is raised
>>again for supposed lack of time with said child.
>
>
>And I"m STILL waiting for you to provide evidence that this
>happens with any reasonable frequency.
>
>As it is, I'm the only one who has provided ANY factual
>evidence.


Are you saying that IF a NCP goes out and gets a "high paying job" or "another job" and that person income goes up the support obligation remains the same?

Also as I pointed out you provided factual evidence to a question not asked here. You provided stats to the fact that child support is being paid period not that is is a fair amount or that the "system is working" for well anybody really. Some CP's are probably getting less than they are due and some NCP's are probably paying more than they should. There isn't going to be stats on what is asked here because nobody is going to admit they are screwing over the system in thier favor except the people who are being screwed over. My boyfriend is in your 89% of people the gov is saying the system works for is it really working for him? NO! But because he is paying this excess amount on time and not with holding funds he is counted as such.

Prove it doesn't.

>Prove it doesn't.

I've already provided evidence that the system works most of the time.

So where's your evidence that it doesn't (other than a blatantly biased poll which got 10 votes in a self-selected group of people having problems out of 50 million or so families affected)?

Funny, I don't seem to claiming anything.  No claim...no data needed.  You missed the whole point.  You are in everyone's face about everything.  That is my point.  If you don't like what someone says, you come up with the .."give me facts" crap.  Which is why I offered my explanation of what an opinion is.  The data behind all of this?  I knew you'd ask.  Read your previous messages.  That is my data.  I bet more than a few would agree with me.  If we take a poll and 80% of respondents think that you are on rant after rant, does that make it true?  See what I mean about figures can lie and liars can figure?

>>Prove it doesn't.
>
>I've already provided evidence that the system works most of
>the time.
>
>So where's your evidence that it doesn't (other than a
>blatantly biased poll which got 10 votes in a self-selected
>group of people having problems out of 50 million or so
>families affected)?


Isn't what your evidence was a blantantly biased collection of data based on a group of people who are recieving funds collected by the agency that calculated the stats?? If the actual families were asked "So your receiving child support do you think your getting the correct amount or a fair amount?" Do you seriously believe the same % of people who the system is on paper is "working" for would say yes?? I for one doubt it. Do you think if the people who owed back support were asked "So why do you owe back support?" Some of them at least would say "Because I cannot afford to pay." Yes some would probably say "Cause I'm just not going to pay it" Most want to support thier children but life happens and they just simply can't and the child support agencies simply veiw these same people and lump them in with the "dead beats" and are just as hostile towards them as they would be to somebody who just won't pay for thier own selfish reasons.

>Prove it doesn't.

I've already provided evidence that the system works most of the time.

So where's your evidence that it doesn't (other than a blatantly biased poll which got 10 votes in a self-selected group of people having problems out of 50 million or so families affected)?

Funny, I don't seem to claiming anything.  No claim...no data needed.  You missed the whole point.  You are in everyone's face about everything.  That is my point.  If you don't like what someone says, you come up with the .."give me facts" crap.  Which is why I offered my explanation of what an opinion is.  The data behind all of this?  I knew you'd ask.  Read your previous messages.  That is my data.  I bet more than a few would agree with me.  If we take a poll and 80% of respondents think that you are on rant after rant, does that make it true?  See what I mean about figures can lie and liars can figure?

>>Prove it doesn't.
>
>I've already provided evidence that the system works most of
>the time.
>
>So where's your evidence that it doesn't (other than a
>blatantly biased poll which got 10 votes in a self-selected
>group of people having problems out of 50 million or so
>families affected)?


Isn't what your evidence was a blantantly biased collection of data based on a group of people who are recieving funds collected by the agency that calculated the stats?? If the actual families were asked "So your receiving child support do you think your getting the correct amount or a fair amount?" Do you seriously believe the same % of people who the system is on paper is "working" for would say yes?? I for one doubt it. Do you think if the people who owed back support were asked "So why do you owe back support?" Some of them at least would say "Because I cannot afford to pay." Yes some would probably say "Cause I'm just not going to pay it" Most want to support thier children but life happens and they just simply can't and the child support agencies simply veiw these same people and lump them in with the "dead beats" and are just as hostile towards them as they would be to somebody who just won't pay for thier own selfish reasons.

9 states with data taken from 2003-2004?

ONLY 9 states??
come on now, that is seriously skewed data.
The article was interesting though. But I did notice a lot of "mays" in there, like this "may" be the reason or that "may" be the cause....

Why do you keep saying that we, as in responders to your posts, DON'T think about the kids??? So you're saying caring about your kids only comes down to money???

Perhaps that is why you'll not get any to little support on your side of this issue.

>Funny, I don't seem to claiming anything.  No claim...no data
>needed.  You missed the whole point.  You are in everyone's
>face about everything.  That is my point.  If you don't like
>what someone says, you come up with the .."give me facts"
>crap.  Which is why I offered my explanation of what an
>opinion is.  The data behind all of this?  I knew you'd ask.
>Read your previous messages.  That is my data.  I bet more
>than a few would agree with me.  If we take a poll and 80% of
>respondents think that you are on rant after rant, does that
>make it true?  See what I mean about figures can lie and liars
>can figure?


Nice try, but that has nothing to do with the issue.

People are claiming that the entire system is broken and should be discarded. I provided evidence that the system works most of the time. No one has refuted my evidence or even provided evidence to back their claim that the entire system needs to be discarded.

Just what does that have to do with whether you like what I write or not?

>Isn't what your evidence was a blantantly biased collection of
>data based on a group of people who are recieving funds
>collected by the agency that calculated the stats?? If the

No. The study was done by a third party source paid by the US Dept of Health and Human Services - NOT the state child support agencies.

If you see an error in the report, feel free to provide it. So far, it's the only data on the table.

>actual families were asked "So your receiving child support do
>you think your getting the correct amount or a fair amount?"
>Do you seriously believe the same % of people who the system
>is on paper is "working" for would say yes?? I for one doubt

I don't know. Why don't you find some evidence to tell us one way or the other rather than just making things up?

>it. Do you think if the people who owed back support were
>asked "So why do you owe back support?" Some of them at least
>would say "Because I cannot afford to pay." Yes some would
>probably say "Cause I'm just not going to pay it" Most want to
>support thier children but life happens and they just simply
>can't and the child support agencies simply veiw these same
>people and lump them in with the "dead beats" and are just as
>hostile towards them as they would be to somebody who just
>won't pay for thier own selfish reasons.

Why don't you find some evidence to tell us one way or the other rather than just making things up?

And why don't you read the report that I provided? They specifically addressed this problem in the section where they state that only a very small percentage of people had low or no income. The overwhelming majority of people in arrears have income.

  It has nothing to do with YOUR issue.  I never came here talking about the issue you speak of.  I barely even mentioned it.  You came here with "evidence".  Numbers, all it is is numbers.  Unless you poll everyone in the system and how it affects them, you will never know if it is working or not.  By working, I mean is it just or right, not if people are getting their child support.  You can never offer enough "evidence" that it is "working"...back to the figuring thing again.  

It has everything to do with whether I like what you write or not.  You are.....not so nice to people here.  You offer flawed arguments, stomp your feet up and down and proclaim, "I am right..see, I offered evidence".  Blah blah blah.  I am just exposing some of your weaknesses so that the other folks here get a break.  Nome sane?

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2003/reports/arrears/

pay close attention to the California data and yes, like yours, Mist, it's from 2003.

IF the system you so defend worked, why are there arrears to begin with? Look at those numbers..that is not an 89% success rate like you posted from  your article.

Having taken several stat classes in college, info can be skewed.

>  It has nothing to do with YOUR issue.  I never came here
>talking about the issue you speak of.  I barely even mentioned
>it.  You came here with "evidence".  Numbers, all it is is
>numbers.  Unless you poll everyone in the system and how it
>affects them, you will never know if it is working or not.  By
>working, I mean is it just or right, not if people are getting
>their child support.  You can never offer enough "evidence"
>that it is "working"...back to the figuring thing again.  

Sorry, but numbers are the only way to tell if the system is working - that is unless you want to rely on the feelings of a few people who may not be typical in any way.

I'll rely on careful studies done by reputable organizations, thank you.

>
>It has everything to do with whether I like what you write or
>not.  You are.....not so nice to people here.  You offer
>flawed arguments, stomp your feet up and down and proclaim, "I
>am right..see, I offered evidence".  Blah blah blah.  I am
>just exposing some of your weaknesses so that the other folks
>here get a break.  Nome sane?

I apologize that my wanting to discuss facts rather than emotional biases bothers you. If you think that emotional biases are better, that's your choice, but don't expect me to join you.

If you really read this board, you'll find that I've offered a great deal of advice on quite a few topics to a lot of people. The reason I've taken the tone I have with this issue is that a small number of people are offering advice that I believe is actually going to harm someone. In particular, a couple of people are arguing that the system is invalid and one owes nothing to the system - which is a good way to land someone in jail if they try to follow that advice. So, yes, I am hostile to people who are offering harmful advice to innocent people. I'm sorry if that bothers you.

This one is just to see if you really do have to get the last word in.

>9 states with data taken from 2003-2004?
>
>ONLY 9 states??
>come on now, that is seriously skewed data.

Sorry, but it's a sample. There's a branch of mathematics called 'statistics' which allows you to choose a sample rather than collecting data on every single person. Read up on it.

>The article was interesting though. But I did notice a lot of
>"mays" in there, like this "may" be the reason or that "may"
>be the cause....

Yes, and you'll note that I didn't comment on those issues. I simply commented on the factual part of the study.

>
>Why do you keep saying that we, as in responders to your
>posts, DON'T think about the kids??? So you're saying caring
>about your kids only comes down to money???

I never said any such thing. But many of the posts here indicate that the "I don't think I should have to pay child support" people have forgotten about the kids.

>
>Perhaps that is why you'll not get any to little support on
>your side of this issue.

Yet 'my side' of the issue is the only one which has presented any data. If you choose to ignore the facts to go with your bias, I can't stop you.

>http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2003/reports/arrears/
>
>pay close attention to the California data and yes, like
>yours, Mist, it's from 2003.

What do you want me to pay attention to? There's nothing there that refutes anything I've said. Where is the figure saying that MOST people aren't paying support? For someone who claims to understand statistics, you've cited an article that doesn't support your view at all.

It IS interesting that your own study says that only 20% of households in CA who are in arrears have no income - compared to 11% nationwide in my study. Looks like you're confirming that "I don't have a job" is not a very common situation - which is one of the things I've been saying.

>
>IF the system you so defend worked, why are there arrears to
>begin with? Look at those numbers..that is not an 89% success
>rate like you posted from  your article.

Really? How about specific figures. I didn't see any figures that state a percentage of households that are in arrears, but feel free to point it out.

>
>Having taken several stat classes in college, info can be
>skewed.

Sure. If the reader is gullible enough. If you pay attention to the data and don't read too much into it, you can learn something.

Oh, and btw, the survey that you're touting happens to use my survey as a source - so THEY think it's valid. Thanks for supporting my evidence.

Accurate 4 year old data.....cripes.

>Accurate 4 year old data.....cripes.

That's the latest that's available.

When are you going to provide ANY data to back up your position?

but sorry you missed the boat again.


Your so called study merely proves that child support is paid 89% of the time.  Payment is no indication that the current systems is working correctly or effectively.  Your study does nothing to prove that the child support paid is directly related to the actual costs of supporting a child.  Your study also doesn't prove that the child support paid is actually spent on the support of the child.  

All you have done is prove my point that child support is merely a redistribution of wealth from one parent to the other.  The current system is flawed at it's very core.

A system that truly worked would have checks and balances to ensure the amounts paid bore a direct relationship to actual expenses, and a requirement that the amounts paid are to be spent on the child's direct expenses.  Accountability would also be required.  This assumes that the true intention of the systems is to ensure that the child will be supported rather than to merely line the pockets of one parent.  

"No one has refuted my evidence or even provided evidence to back their claim that the entire system needs to be discarded."

That is a bold faced lie!

I have provided you with state statutes which is more authoritative than your so called study.  These statutes clearly show that the law does nothing to ensure that children will be supported.  The law merely requires a redistribution of wealth.  

All your study shows is that 89% of the time that redistribution of wealth is paid.  Your study does nothing to prove that the system works to ensure that children will be supported.

I have a question for you, what do you think the systems was set up to accomplish?


I have also suggested a better system which you have yet to comment on.  

What's even worse is that most state's child support guidelines are even older than that, and have no direct relationship to the actual expenses of raising a child.  

because you obviously haven't.

You approached this subject a bit ago when I posted my initial thread about support and interest in CA--you, at first, defended the system based on your own experience, (rightly so) and then did your research. You asked for facts and data to back up my claims and I told you to research for yourself. In this internet age, you can google anything to fit your needs (hence my research I posted).

CA would NOT have a BILLION dollar debt for arrears if your system worked.
You've skipped over so many facts from real folks on here. You state the system is flawed and not perfect but that's just a cop-out. AS is your statement, "If you pay attention to the data and don't read too much into it..."
OY--you just back-tracked again.

I'll say this again--while the system you are currently defending is working for you at this time, (if this is true), I sure hope you never ever get sick, see a period of umemployment, etc....because you will be back here seeking advice from the very people you have
 been nasty to-me included. Re-read some of your posts to me. I have yet to return the comments.

>"No one has refuted my evidence or even provided evidence to
>back their claim that the entire system needs to be
>discarded."
>
>That is a bold faced lie!
>
>I have provided you with state statutes which is more
>authoritative than your so called study.  These statutes
>clearly show that the law does nothing to ensure that children
>will be supported.  The law merely requires a redistribution
>of wealth.  

How do state statutes show that the system is not working? How do they show that children are not benefiting? How do they show that anyone pays more than they should?

State statues do nothing of the kind. You haven't provided any evidence that the current system is unfair.

>
>All your study shows is that 89% of the time that
>redistribution of wealth is paid.  Your study does nothing to
>prove that the system works to ensure that children will be
>supported.

My data shows that children are getting the court ordered support at least 89% of the time. Now, where's your evidence to support the allegation that the system fails 90% of the time?

>
>I have a question for you, what do you think the systems was
>set up to accomplish?

It was set up to support children. Just how do you do that without distributing money from the NCP to the CP?

The fact that 89% of the time, the court ordered amount of money IS being distributed properly is evidence that the system is working. That money is available to support kids in the CP home.

Granted, there's no guarantee that the money will be used on kids, but since you're the one claiming that the system is broken, you'd have to show evidence that it's not used to support kids. But I can guarantee one thing - if NO money is transferred from the NCP to the CP, then that absolutely guarantees that the support money won't be used to support the kids.


>
>
>I have also suggested a better system which you have yet to
>comment on.  

Where? The only system I've seen suggested is the idea that there should be no enforcement. Sorry, but that's a stupid idea. If there's no enforcement, the amount of money available to the kids will decline - either a lot or a little. There's absolutely no way it can increase.

>because you obviously haven't.
>

Of course I have - and I already commented on it.

That study doesn't say anything about what's fair. It doesn't say anything about what percentage of CSE orders are being paid.

The only data in the study of any relevance is the claim that 20% of obligors have no income - which is close enough to confirm my study which says that 11% of obligors have no income - and which effectively proves my point that lack of income is not a very common reason for support not being paid.

Right back at ya...I haven't seen one person in here besides you make any sort of statement saying the system works well.

So share your "unverifiable anecdotal stories" for the love of the system all you want...it's your time and your opinion, as for the rest of us.

I did. I polled and you saw the results.  Why do you think this board was formed anyway? Cuz everything is working so well?

NOT.

>I did. I polled and you saw the results.  

You polled a board of people who are specifically here because they are having problems using biased questions - and got less than a dozen responses. Out of tens of millions of divorced couples. Do the math.

>Why do you think
>this board was formed anyway? Cuz everything is working so
>well?

Presumably so the small numbers of people having problems have somewhere to get help.

If that's the best evidence you have that the system doesn't work at all, you're even more confused than I thought.

This board has 4000 members...you do the math. If 4000 people have had trouble with the system, you can bet that number is less than 1% of the total population having troubles with the current system.

I think you are the confused one.  And why did you come here again?  To perpetuate the entitlement mindset?

You are failing.  Why not go to a board that likes to hang NCP's for non maintaining a lifestyle for the sake of the children. I am sure there are plenty of fems out there that would LOVE your POV...

>This board has 4000 members...you do the math. If 4000 people

Only a tiny percentage of whom post regularly.

But let's do it your way - there are 4000 members. Of those, 23 voted that the system doesn't work.

See how silly you look when you refuse to use statistics.

>have had trouble with the system, you can bet that number is
>less than 1% of the total population having troubles with the
>current system.

That may be. So let's say that there are 400,000 people having problems. That's still a pretty small percentage of the tens of millions of divorced people.

The fact is that you're simply making numbers up. I'm the only one who's provided any facts.

>
>I think you are the confused one.  

Because I use carefully researched studies and show how erroneous your 'logic' is?

> And why did you come here
>again?  To perpetuate the entitlement mindset?

Seems to me that you're the one perpetuating a mindset that you can't justify.

But, yes, I do think that kids are entitled to be supported by both parents. I'm terribly sorry that offends you.

>
>You are failing.  Why not go to a board that likes to hang
>NCP's for non maintaining a lifestyle for the sake of the
>children. I am sure there are plenty of fems out there that
>would LOVE your POV...

IOW, you're no longer even pretending to be rational.

"I have also suggested a better system which you have yet to
comment on.

Where? The only system I've seen suggested is the idea that there should be no enforcement."


Read the last paragraph of my original post on this thread.