I saw a link on this board that was for a book that describes how to beat the child support system. I have looked all over and I can not find it. Can someone help me with a link.
>I saw a link on this board that was for a book that describes
>how to beat the child support system.
I'd be surprised if you saw a link for that here, unless it was someone alerting others to a scam.
>I have looked all over
>and I can not find it. Can someone help me with a link.
In a word, "nope". We're not here to help anyone avoid paying child support or "beat the system". First of all, because it really can't be done, no matter what they say.
Use your head for a moment- if there was really a book you could buy for $24.95 or whatever that would actually show you how to get out of paying child support, don't you think everyone would have heard about it?? It would be famous and well-known. The fact is that there is no book that can actually show you how to do this (but there are plenty that will make that claim)
Secondly, we DO NOT help people to evade paying their child support. We just don't, and that's that. If you want that kind of help, you're in the wrong place.
I didn't ask for your ignorant "MR KNOW IT ALL" opinion, I asked if anyone knew were the link was on this site.
>I didn't ask for your ignorant "MR KNOW IT ALL" opinion, I
>asked if anyone knew were the link was on this site.
>
You asked for a link associated with this site concerning beating child support. To my knowledge, no such link exists, nor would I endorse it.
As was already said,, SPARC does not advocate what you are seeking,, go elsewhere to find it,, and ahh chump,, have fun wasting your money.
Who cares what you endorse? What are you trying to censor the board?
And as for what SPARC advocates, who made you the official spokeswoman? Go get a life loser. And just to agravate your small mind, if I do find the link on this site, I will mention it on this thread. Try to censor that you feminazi!
Check the user name,, nitwit.
Yeah,, how bout that? Exterior plumbing. Now, why dont you prove your IQ is larger than your shriveled up gonads and drop the rhetoric.
You want to beat child support? Go commit suicide,, dumbass.
>Check the user name,, nitwit.
>
>Yeah,, how bout that? Exterior plumbing.
Lol, I don't think "lee" is the brightest bulb on the tree. :)
>I didn't ask for your ignorant "MR KNOW IT ALL" opinion, I
>asked if anyone knew were the link was on this site.
I'm very sorry you have problems with your comprehension. Maybe you'd be able to concentrate better if you stopped acting like such an idiot and paid attention.
LOL Brent,,, ya think?
You know,, if this little poison pill put half as much energy into being a decent parent as he seems to in avoiding cs and posting venomous posts,, he win dad of the year.
>What are you trying to censor the board?
No, he's trying to talk sense to you, but I'm afraid that's not a job any of us could successfully manage.
>And as for what SPARC advocates, who made you the official
>spokeswoman?
Peanutsdad is a well respected participant who's been here for a long time. Unlike you, he's intelligent and knows what he's talking about.
>Go get a life loser.
If that's the most insightful thing you have to say, it's no wonder that you're a big enough sucker to believe that a book will magically make your child support disappear. Have fun easting your money, then come back here and tell us so we can all have a good laugh about it.
>And just to agravate your
>small mind, if I do find the link on this site, I will mention
>it on this thread.
The link has probably been scrubbed, since it's not what we're all abount here. If it's still here and I find it, I'll personally remove it.
>Try to censor that you feminazi!
Lol, you're so cute. I'd bet even money that you're a troll.
I think this is why fathers are losing the war, when someone wants to fight back, you jump all over that person with negatives about how they can't do it. My intention is not to stop paying support, but to make the amount less then my take home pay. Before 9/11 I was a airline pilot making close to 150k a yr. Now I have a crappy job that pays 40k a yr. My support payments are 47,652 a yr. I went through all the court bull to get it lowered to no avail, basicaly they said that I had the potential to make 150 a yr and would base it on that, I AM SCREWED! AND CAN NOT TAKE IT ANYMORE! I wonder what your crushed cowardly "I gave up long ago" attitudes will say about this. The way I look at it is, at the worst I will lose $20 on a useless book, and at the most gain my freedom, well worth the risk.
I did find the link for the book (REMOVED BY MOD) I will purchase this and report back my findings.
THANKS FOR ALL YOUR BROTHERLY LOVE
Lee
PS. I also posted in the child support section, in case you want to censor that also.
"I wonder what your crushed cowardly "I gave up long ago" attitudes will say about this."
Actually, Peanutsdad has custody of his daughter, after paying cs for a time when the BM had custody. Now she doesn't pay him cs.
And my DH paid CS before physical custody was awarded to him in Jan. GUESS WHAT! BM does not pay CS.
Coming to this site, double barrels pointed isn't going to make you any friends buddy.
RELAX.
>I think this is why fathers are losing the war, when someone
>wants to fight back, you jump all over that person with
>negatives about how they can't do it.
Oh yeah, THAT must be the reason. Thanks for enlightening us with your (cough) wisdom.
>My intention is not to
>stop paying support, but to make the amount less then my take
>home pay.
There are already methods in place to do this. But you're too clever to use existing methods, aren't you?
>Before 9/11 I was a airline pilot making close to
>150k a yr. Now I have a crappy job that pays 40k a yr.
Stop whining you piece of crap- there are lots of people who live quite well on $40K a year. You're not special, okay?
>I did find the link for the book (REMOVED BY MOD) I will
>purchase this and report back my findings.
Sorry, had to do that. Nothing personal.
>THANKS FOR ALL YOUR BROTHERLY LOVE
THANKS FOR SHUTTING UP.
>PS. I also posted in the child support section, in case you
>want to censor that also.
Yes, I did "censor" it there. We don't support scamming, and that book is a scam. I hope you enjoy wasting your money.
>Coming to this site, double barrels pointed isn't going to
>make you any friends buddy.
With his attitude, it's not that hard to see why he's divorced, eh? I'll bet he was a real joy to live with.
>I think this is why fathers are losing the war, when someone
>wants to fight back, you jump all over that person with
>negatives about how they can't do it. My intention is not to
>stop paying support, but to make the amount less then my take
>home pay. Before 9/11 I was a airline pilot making close to
>150k a yr. Now I have a crappy job that pays 40k a yr. My
>support payments are 47,652 a yr. I went through all the court
>bull to get it lowered to no avail, basicaly they said that I
>had the potential to make 150 a yr and would base it on that,
>I AM SCREWED! AND CAN NOT TAKE IT ANYMORE! I wonder what your
>crushed cowardly "I gave up long ago" attitudes will say about
>this. The way I look at it is, at the worst I will lose $20 on
>a useless book, and at the most gain my freedom, well worth
>the risk.
>I did find the link for the book (REMOVED BY MOD) I will
>purchase this and report back my findings.
>
>THANKS FOR ALL YOUR BROTHERLY LOVE
>Lee
>
>PS. I also posted in the child support section, in case you
>want to censor that also.
Ya know lee,,,,I'm betting that your attitude and lack of anger control played a hellova role in court.
I'm also betting that the court was shown you COULD have a job commiserate with that you used to have. My own ex who thought child support was a great idea as long as I was the one paying,,,,pulled exactly what you are. She quit her job and has refused to work since. So,, perhaps you two LOSERS should get together.
Good luck to you.
I found this to be a quite interesting case :P
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
CAROLYN FRYAR BURNETT
Plaintiff
v.
WARREN H. WHEELER
Defendant
No. COA98-868
(Filed 18 May 1999)
1. Child Support, Custody, and Visitation--child support--calculation of income-- business losses
The trial court on remand in a child support action correctly computed defendant's income under the Child Support Guidelines by considering defendant's business loss but not balancing that loss against his income. The court's findings are reasonable and satisfy the requirements of the mandate on remand, particularly in light of a finding that defendant was trained as an airline pilot but was not looking for work with freight carrier airlines even though such work was available. The "Potential Income" section of the Guidelines permits a court to consider potential income when a defendant is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed.
2. Child Support, Custody, and Visitation--child support--amount ordered not paid while appeal pending--contempt
The trial court properly found that defendant was in willful contempt where defendant appealed a modified order and continued payments at the old amount. Defendant would have been entitled to a setoff for the overpayment if the order had been reversed; his calculated and deliberate decision to pay the lower amount was at his peril.
3. Child Support, Custody, and Visitation--child support--attorney fees
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorneys fees to plaintiff's counsel in a child support action where defendant had substantial assets in the form of his retirement and investment accounts, his home, aircraft, a boat, and a business, while plaintiff's income was $41,000 per year, with modest bank accounts totaling approximately $2,000.
Appeal by defendant from orders entered 9 April 1998 by Judge Thomas G. Foster, Jr. in Guilford County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 April 1999.
Hatfield & Hatfield, by Kathryn K. Hatfield, for plaintiff- appellee.
Thigpen, Blue, Stephens & Fellers, by T. Byron Smith, for defendant-appellant.
EDMUNDS, Judge.
Plaintiff is the mother of a minor child fathered by defendant. In 1987, plaintiff filed this action against defendant for support of their minor child. In 1990, the trial court ordered defendant to pay $950 per month in support. By 1995, defendant had retired early from his work as a pilot for USAir and opened his own business (WRA, Inc.), which reduced his annual income. Later that year, defendant moved for a reduction in support, and in October 1995, the trial court reduced his child support payment to $525 per month. At the same time, the trial court ordered a hearing to determine arrearage owed by defendant. On 12 June 1996, that amount was set at $6,935. The June order also continued the matter for a review of child support consistent with North Carolina's Child Support Guidelines. In October 1996, the trial court found defendant had either earnings or an earning capacity of $77,000 per year and that WRA, Inc., a Sub-Chapter S company, showed a $52,000 loss, which passed through to defendant's personal tax return. Based on its findings, the trial court ordered defendant to pay child support in the amount of $900 per month. Defendant appealed that decision to this Court while continuing to pay only $525 per month. On appeal, this Court held that "the trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering all of defendant's available sources of income in arriving at his gross income." Burnett v. Wheeler, 128 N.C. App. 174, 177, 493 S.E.2d 804, 806 (1997). We also stated,
We are unable to determine if the trial court concluded that even with a $52,000 loss the defendant's income was $77,000, or if the trial court chose not to find the loss credible at all and therefore did not factor it into its computation.
. . . Because we are unable to determine what the trial court decided relative to the evidence of loss submitted by defendant, we remand for more specific findings indicating the trial court's treatment of the $52,000 loss and its computation of defendant's gross income.
Id. at 176, 493 S.E.2d at 806. On remand, the trial court entered an order finding that it did consider defendant's $52,000 business loss when calculating defendant's income and in setting child support. The trial court again set defendant's support obligation at $900 per month.
Within two weeks of this Court's order remanding the case, plaintiff moved for attorney's fees and requested the trial court to find defendant in contempt for failing to pay $900 per month in support. After the trial court entered its findings on remand, it ruled on plaintiff's motions, awarding attorney's feesto plaintiff and holding defendant in civil contempt for failing to make his full monthly child support payments. From these orders, defendant appeals.
[1]Defendant first argues the trial court incorrectly computed his gross income under the Child Support Guidelines, contending the trial court erred when it considered WRA, Inc.'s business loss but failed to balance that loss against defendant's income. We disagree. This Court earlier concluded that the trial court properly considered all of defendant's available resources in determining his gross income. That decision is the law of the case for this appeal. See Sloan v. Miller Building Corp., 128 N.C. App. 37, 41, 493 S.E.2d 460, 463 (1997) (citing Transportation, Inc. v. Strick Corp., 286 N.C. 235, 210 S.E.2d 181 (1974)). We remanded solely for clarification of whether the trial court had considered defendant's $52,000 loss in its determination that defendant's annual earnings or earning capacity was $77,000. On remand, the trial court made the following finding of fact:
[T]he presiding Judge having reviewed his notes from the trial in this matter finds that he did take the $52,000 loss from WRA, Inc. into account when he found that Defendant's income from all sources was at least $77,000. Defendant has owned this business for twenty years and it has often shown a loss. Further, Defendant's credibility on the subject of this businessis minimal. When making this finding the presiding Judge considered the Defendant's retirement accounts totaling $722,384, stocks valued at $60,000, land, a house, and a boat purchased in 1994 for $74,000.
This Court is deferential to determinations of child support by district court judges, who see the parties and hear the evidence first-hand. See Taylor v. Taylor, 128 N.C. App. 180, 182, 493 S.E.2d 819, 820 (1997) (citing Moore v. Moore, 35 N.C. App. 748, 751, 242 S.E.2d 642, 644 (1978)). An exercise of discretion by a trial judge in calculating the support guidelines will be reversed only if it is "'manifestly unsupported by reason.'" Kennedy v. Kennedy, 107 N.C. App. 695, 700, 421 S.E.2d 795, 798 (1992) (quoting White v. White, 312 N.C. 770, 777, 324 S.E.2d 829, 833 (1985)). Although Judge Foster declined the opportunity dangled before him by this Court to find that evidence of defendant's loss lacked all credibility, he found the credibility "minimal." The above-quoted findings are reasonable and satisfy the requirements of our mandate on remand. They are particularly compelling when considered with the trial judge's finding in his order of 25 October 1996, that defendant, trained as an airline pilot, was not looking for work with freight carrier airlines even though such work was available. The trial court properly considered these facts under the "Potential Income" section of the Child Support Guidelines. That sectionpermits a court to consider potential income when a defendant is "voluntarily unemployed or underemployed." Child Support Guidelines, 1999 Ann. R. N.C. 33; see Osborne v. Osborne, 129 N.C. App. 34, 497 S.E.2d 113 (1998). This assignment of error is overruled.
[2]Defendant next argues the trial court erred when it found him in contempt. We disagree. Defendant was ordered on 24 October 1995 to make monthly child support payments of $525. This order was modified on 25 October 1996 to require monthly support payments of $900. Defendant appealed the modified order on 11 November 1996 and continued to make payments of $525. On 16 December 1997, this Court remanded the case for further findings on the modified order. On 31 December 1997, plaintiff moved to have the trial court hold defendant in contempt for accrued arrearage under the modified order. On 8 April 1998, the trial court made findings of fact as required by remand, again ordered that defendant pay child support of $900 per month, and found defendant in civil contempt for violation of its earlier order. "One who wilfully violates an order does so at his peril." Joyner v. Joyner, 256 N.C. 588, 591, 124 S.E.2d 724, 727 (1962). "If the order from which an appeal is taken is upheld by the appellate court, wilful failure to comply with the order during pendency of the appeal is punishable by contempt onremand." Quick v. Quick, 305 N.C. 446, 461, 290 S.E.2d 653, 663 (1982) (citations omitted). Although Joyner and Quick were decided prior to the enactment of the current version of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-13.4(f)(9) (Cum. Supp. 1998) (granting the trial court continuing jurisdiction to hear contempt proceedings even while an appeal is pending), the quoted holdings remain valid. Having never lost jurisdiction over this issue, the district court could hold a contempt hearing at any time.
The trial court found defendant's violation of its order willful. We agree.
Although the statutes governing civil contempt do not expressly require willful conduct, see N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 5A-21 to 5A-25 (1986), case law has interpreted the statutes to require an element of willfulness. In the context of a failure to comply with a court order, the evidence must show that the person was guilty of "knowledge and stubborn resistence [sic]" in order to support a finding of willful disobedience.
Sharpe v. Nobles, 127 N.C. App. 705, 709, 493 S.E.2d 288, 290-91 (1997) (citations omitted). Defendant had full notice of the order requiring him to pay $900 per month. Had he paid that amount, he would have been entitled to a setoff for the overpayment if the order had been reversed. See Boyles v. Boyles, 70 N.C. App. 415, 419, 319 S.E.2d 923, 927 (1984). Instead, he made a calculated and deliberate decision to pay thelower amount. He did so at his peril. The trial court properly found that defendant was in willful contempt.
[3]Finally, defendant contends the trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees to plaintiff's counsel. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-13.6 (1995) grants the court discretion to award fees to an interested party who acts in good faith but has insufficient means to defray the expense of the suit. The record in this case indicates defendant had substantial assets in the form of his retirement and investment accounts, his home, an aircraft, a boat, and a business. In contrast, plaintiff's income was $41,000 per year, with modest bank accounts totaling approximately $2,000. The court did not abuse its discretion in ordering attorney's fees.
The order of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Chief Judge EAGLES and Judge JOHN concur.
:P
Jilly, you are a Sherlock Homes. How you were able figure this out? I would love to know your secret. All I can see you had to go on was a userid of lee1 and some sketchy info in a post.
Please, please, please tell me your technique.
LOL, I wonder,, did she find HIS case? Or a case similar?
Don't know............but sure makes you wonder, don't it????
WAY too many similarities to think otherwise, don't you think???
No thats not me. If you read my post you will see why. I never said I left my job. In case you were to busy watching Rosie, here's what happened. Back a few years ago some people decided to fly some airplanes into the twin towers in NY NY. Maybe you heard the phrase 911, this is what it alludes. After this attack the airline industry suffered finacialy and is still strugeling to survive. Add this to the fact that I am a 54 yr old female with diabeties, anyhow I have about as much chance as getting a pilot position as you do. Yes I am a female and I did indentify myself as male before with the hopes I would get information on the nataniol fathers rights association child support book. My current support is more than I make, how can I ever hope to get enough money to fight my ex husband with no money?
lee
I have been here for years and I am not going to slam you...however when you want help why don't you just be honest and say the facts .. IF there is a book it won't help you but there are guidelines to CS and I know the people here would have been happy to help you look into it regardless of your gender..
should you get out of CS absolutely not I dont care if you are male or female you have an obligation to your kids.. should you pay your entire pay towards it NO ...
try being honest state the facts and ask for insight as to lowering CS to an amount that is fair..we are a family here most of us anyways ..we are very protective over what we believe...
we are not ANY of us people who gave up on anything quite frankly some of us have won and hang around to help others, some of us are fighting a lifelong battle, but regardless we do not endorse any form of cheating the system to keep from paying child support...
AGAIN if you had been honest and stated who you are and what the problem is and asked if anyone might have any insight to help you out in YOUR situation then you might have gotten some help here.
>Yes I am a
>female and I did indentify myself as male before with the
>hopes I would get information on the nataniol fathers rights
>association child support book.
Great, the first words out of your mouth here were lies. Way to build some trust. Nice sexist attitude you got there, too.
>My current support is more
>than I make, how can I ever hope to get enough money to fight
>my ex husband with no money?
The same way that millions upon millions of divorced fathers in this country do. You don't! You slide into poverty and become destitute. Welcome to "Equality Land".
You want to be treated equally but you're not prepared to suffer the reality of it actually happening. That's not all that uncommon- I see it often. God forbid that you might have to take the same lumps as men do, equality or not, right? That equality stuff is great until you get to the icky part.
Personally I'm all for equal rights as long as they include equal responsibilities. I'm generalizing, but it seems that many women are in denial of the fact that the whole "equality" thing has very sharp edges. I guess when you're used to being the one wielding the blade you may tend to be ignorant of what the the pointy end is like.
No offense, but I hate being lied to and deliberately deceived. If you'd come here and been straight with me I'd have bent over backwards to help you. Now I don't feel so charitable. If you're polite, I'll do what I can to help. If you slam me with that "MR KNOW IT ALL" crap again, forget it.
Thank you skye,,
THAT is probably the huge difference in this site from some others. No one here advocates cheating the system, walking away from responsibilities, denying our children ANYTHING,, DESPITE the frequent times we see members raked over the coals. We keep fighting. We fight within the framework that exists,, biased as it is.
Skye is right,, some of us have won,, we dont HAVE to keep coming here for a daily dose of reality,, but we do. Parents that have won,, keep coming back, and sharing that experience with others. In part, to let them know,, it is NOT hopeless, it CAN be done, it DOES happen, and it's happening more frequently. The difference lee,, is not one parent here that has won for their child/ren advocate using underhanded methods, cheating the system, lying, fraud,,,, need me to go on?
If you are truly stripped of your pilots license, then you should have absolutely no difficulty in getting a cs reduction. Personally, I'd like to see the documents associated with your case. If you are right,, then members here could probably help. BUT, if you are blowing smoke,, yer screwed.
Yes, I can see now that the term "MR KNOW IT ALL" would be a misnomer when applied to your mentality.
So long help.
.....the truth hurts, doesn't it?
>Yes, I can see now that the term "MR KNOW IT ALL"
>would be a misnomer when applied to your mentality.
Yes, actually it would be "MR KNOWS IT ALL". ;)
Anyway, when you stop having your hissy fit, you let us know. If you want assistance, this is a good place to get it, but there's a limit to how much people here will put up with before they start to ignore you.
It was actually pure accident that I found this case, but when I read it I thought of lee1's post. I was doing some research on NC Child Support Guidelines on The Rosen Law Firm website and they have a section for cases. This case was on their website. So, I can't take ALL the credit! LOL
As for the reason why lee1 is no longer a pilot, I fully realize that the airlines have been having a very hard time since 9/11. However, I doubt very serioulsy that 9/11 had anything to do with it. If she had that attitude when she was a pilot then she has no business dealing with the public. Also, I don't see how being a diabetic would have any effect on keeping your pilot's license. Lots of people have diabetes but that doesn't prevent them from obtaining and keeping jobs. Some of which may involve the safety of others.
Lastly, I admit to assuming that lee1 was male. The "fact" that she just now states her gender is very interesting. Did she think she'd get a better response if we all assumed she was male? Sounds to me like someone from a pro-woman/mother forum came in here to stir up trouble. And she dang sure found it! LOL
You come here with a chip on your shoulder, you lie, and you give us the impression that you're trying to scam to get 'out' of the financial responsibility of your child, and you expect us to be charitable to you??? Forget it! I've been on this site almost since inception and I agree with all the other posters here, especially PD and Brent. You get NOWHERE on this site by acting like that.
Now, if you had told us from the get-go that you are female, that you lost your job and that you're ordered to pay more in support than what you earn and are looking on how to get your support MODIFIED so that you CAN afford it, THEN we would have bent over backwards to help you in any way we could.
But you come here on the attack and slam everyone who responds to you?? HEY!! Guess what???? Your clue phone has been ringing ever since Brent's first response! When you gonna pick it up?????
Of course, who knows if what we're hearing now is legit? I suppose it doesn't really matter in an abstract sense, but (like virtually everyone here) we have no way of knowing if anyone is being truthful when they relate their situation (and to what extent, as well).
For me, I generally take every story/situation at face value for the most part. If it turns out that someone is BS'ing, I just chalk it up to "training" or a "practice run", and wait for a real one to come along. :) The actual truth of their story doesn't matter to me in the sense that I'd give them the same advice regardless of whether their story was true or not.
So people that come here and lie about their situation or gender get the same response as the ones who don't, and that throws 'em- they're expecting that their (claimed) gender will make a difference in the help or advice that they get. When it doesn't they usually get upset. lol
Because most people here are realistic, experienced, and praSLURPic, they focus on the nuts and bolts of the problem or situation. If there are kids involved, their welfare is usually considered first, instead of what's good for mom or dad. I'd say 99.9% of the time it doesn't matter whether you portray yourself in here as male or female, the responses you'll get will probably be the same.
Lee1 came here as a 'man' and got told there was no magic solution to suddenly stopping child support, and that 'he' should file for a reduction.
If Lee1 had come in to the forum as a 'woman' instead, she would have gotten the exact same advice. I guess that's the point I'm trying to make in my usual long-winded way. ;)
My mama always said, Once a liar always a liar.
The economy has been bad for everyone. Hard to find a job to make ends meet. How many here pay too much in support and fight to get it reduced. How many go into court facing so many lies, their toes curl.
This person needs a reality check. She's not happy, she is getting a taste of what we have to deal with.
Now the shoe is on the other foot.
'If Lee1 had come in to the forum as a 'woman' instead, she would have gotten the exact same advice.'
EXACTLY, Brent. But people who try to bite the hand that feeds them usually get bit back. And you're right again about the deception. We have NO way of knowing which 'story' is the truth, or even if any of it is, for that matter. So there's no reason for us to trust anything else...........
LOL, and whats REALLY funny,, if they lyin about their situation,, the advise wont help a bit anyhoo. THATS why I could care less. If a poster is truthful,, they help they recieve IS helpful,, but misrepresenting the facts of a case,, kills anything we could tell em.
I could be wrong, but last I knew, insulin taking diabetics cannot not hold a pilots license. Seems if he/she has ever been in an airplane, he/she must have been shortchanged some oxygen. LOL
OK...I know nothing about what is required to obtain and maintain a pilot's license. I'm a paralegal not a pilot! LOL
Also, she only said that she's a diabetic...didn't state that she's insulin dependent. Not all diabetics have to give themselves injections.
Also, I find it interesting that she misspelled diabetes (diabeties). You think an intelligent person (such as someone possessing a pilot's license) with a chronic disease might just be aware of how that disease is spelled. Intelligent person...maybe I made a wrong assumption?
As I happen to be a pilot and not a paralegal :) I can at least help with this one....
Airline pilots must have a Class I medical. One of the requirements is:
§ 67.113 General medical condition.
(a) No established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus that requires insulin or any other hypoglycemic drug for control.
And that means ANY drug used to control it, not just the injectable kind.........
You go back to court and show you lost your job and show a detailed job search. Get the best job you can and show your income and modify CS. It can be done....
I don't support parents that financially walk away from their children, pay the proper CS as per your guidelines.
Alrighty then!! Thanks for the info! :-)
I saw an ad on a Usenet newsgroup one time for a book like you're describing with a tale of a guy who went homeless and went to jail but then figured out how to beat the system, blah, blah, blah, 24.95 or whatever. Looked like a scam to me.
I know there was a story in the St. Louis Post awhile back about a guy who was disabled and living off SSD, and had hepatitis and about 3 other diseases (including manic depression, and maybe diabetes if I remember right, and some other stuff) and was preparing to be sentenced to a jail term for non-support if that gives you any idea of what you are facing.
I can personally tell you I've never been divorced, and my wife has never been given custody by any court and I have been forced to pay child support arrears at times as if I was a deadbeat dad- even while supporting my wife and kids financially- because my wife filed for public assistance and I wasn't notified. IOW, there are even loopholes to get dads considered to have joint custody, during a marriage, and WHILE paying support.
For some reason most of the public has got this idea in their head that support is a lot easier to get out of than it is. There isn't any loophole that I know of to get out of it. Even if you vanish and work for cash, you could easily go to jail after a routine traffic stop. My understanding is that unemployment, disability, prison, or just about anything you can think of aren't considered any type of excuse for nonpayment, and the most you can ever hope for is a reduction for very special circumstances, which strangely enough will cost you money to get in the first place.