S.P.A.R.C.

Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center
crazy gamesriddles and jokesfunny picturesdeath psychic!mad triviafunny & odd!pregnancy testshape testwin custodyrecipes

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - FLMom

Pages: 1 23 4 ... 19
11
Child Support Issues / RE: Pissing matches
« on: Nov 09, 2007, 09:38:11 AM »
Ref, I agree with you. I'm an old timer here too. This place never made me feel that I didn't belong here as a mother. I've seen the "pissing matches" too, and they sting.

However, Misto's post has a point, and it's a great one.

I'd like to add one thing more. This place lost someone great with the whole Socrateaser fiasco. I still wonder on a regular basis what the real story was behind why he left. Anyhoo, when Soc was in place and we had someone "boo hoo-ing", we'd send em over to Soc. He'd rattle their cage because he was the voice of reason and logic. If anyone dared question him, dozens of posters would follow up of the reasons why that person should listen to Soc and follow his advice to the letter. (I did, and I have 50/50 today because of him.)

Soc was our leader in a way, and we all had a great deal of respect for him. Now, there's no one to point to as the end all and be all as advice. And as with any forum, when someone hears something they don't want to hear, it becomes bitter and ugly. It's not always the message that we seek to argue with, but the messenger. If the person sending the message is not held in 100% pure regard and respect, there's always going to be a division of "sides".

Until we see ourselves as of the same "side", that of parents that have been through the fights of their lives and have the battle scars to prove it, and also find some way of having respect even though we may disagree, this board will continue to be as it is now. We have the choice to take these "newbies" under our wings and do what SPARC intended, or we can keep snarking at each other and ignore the common goal.

We don't always have to agree on everything. That's a given. I'll respect an opinion if I don't always agree with it. What I don't respect or have any time for is when it turns into pointed comments into someone's personality. Maybe the threads here have gotten a bit "loose" as far as that goes, and I know the mods don't have time to deal with our foolishness. Heck, let's start a "take it outside" forum that's private. If you want to denigrate someone personally it can be done there. I know that there's been one person a while back that I wanted to grab by the neck a few times. . . . .

How bout back to business and try to find some kind of common respect for each other, even if we have differing opinions?

12
I have no clue how the CS system works there, but my theory in dealing with difficult entities is to go two heads above.

Whether it's the cable company, phone company, customer complaint at a store, etc, after I feel like I'm making no headway with someone, I throw up my hands. You've got more patience dealing with this cookie than I would. Usually when you report something to someone's immediate supervisor it's someone they work with on a regular basis, and you get the eye roll and nudge between the two of them. However, if you move one step higher on whatever ladder you're dealing with, that person is usually not in "cahoots" with the underlings.

Hubby and I are both working for corporate America, and we've both agreed on many occasions that this cuts out a majority of the BS.

Good Luck,
FMom

13
Child Support Issues / RE: Child support agreement (no court)
« on: Nov 21, 2006, 07:33:00 PM »
I don't know where you're at, but in Florida there is a way to do this.

If you and the other parent agree, you could start by filing something like a stipulated agreement. It sounds fancy, but it's just a written out version of what you and the other parent have agreed upon. Both parties sign and have the document notarized, then file it with the family court system.

The second thing in Florida that can be filed along with this is a "Motion to Deviate from Child Support Guidelines". It's just what it says; the state says parent should pay X amount of money, but the parents agree on Z amount. If it's signed and notarized, it keeps the other parent from coming back years later and filing for back support.

14
Child Support Issues / RE: I would LOVE TO!
« on: Nov 04, 2005, 05:00:17 PM »
Sounds good. We can either move over there or talk via e-mail. There's a lot of details that I'm not comfy putting on a forum right now anyway.

Talk to ya soon!! This is such an unusual situation, but we should probably do a synopsis post somewhere in this forum. That way if anyone else goes down this road in the future they can reference our results.

Good Luck to You!
FLMom

15
Child Support Issues / RE: Humm what if child support calc says
« on: Nov 04, 2005, 11:36:50 AM »
Looks like I'm not the only one wondering about this! Ref, are you in FL too?

In doing some calculations I recently figured out that due to overnights and both incomes ex actually should be paying me (the NCP) monthly. If you go over a certain percentage of overnights the formula changes completely.

I packed it all up and went to my lawyer's office. At first he thought I was off my rocker and that he had never heard of such a thing. Then, after I showed him the figures along with the quotes from the FL statutes, he said that "numbers are what they are", whether it's uncommon or not.

Ref, we might actually have a chance (?). I'd love to keep up together on our progress with this. I haven't filed my modification yet but will be doing it soon.

Keep posting please cause it looks like you're a step ahead of me on this. It would help me out tremendously!

Thanks,
FLMom

16
Child Support Issues / RE: Answers...(long, sorry!)
« on: Jan 18, 2005, 11:16:47 PM »
One idea previously mentioned was to go back to court and clarify the insurance coverage. This did WONDERS for us!

In my case ex had allowed his wife to add our kids to her insurance. Because her insurance through her employer covered her and dependants at one set cost, ex got out of paying ANYTHING for insurance coverage for our children. He then announced that because her insurance had specific physicians listed, that he had, without my knowledge, changed their pediatrician and dentist. I went through the roof.

When we went back to modify I opted to take over the insurance coverage myself. If you are in a position to do so I would say that's the best bet.

Another option is to call the step dad's human resources office and ask them if they're aware that they're covering children's insurance where the step is NOT the guardian. They don't like that too much, cause it costs them reams of money when they don't have to.

Also, in the case of my insurance provider, if both a parent and a step parent have the same children listed as under their coverage the company will use the birthdate that's earliest in the year as who is the main provider, and the other as secondary. If you can afford insurance, get the same company as the step dad does. You can call his employers human resource department and find out what company takes care of their employees. A lot of prospective employees do this, so it's not out of the norm. If it turns out that your birthday is before his in the year, you could be their main and he's could be the secondary. Even if you're secondary you'll still get the explanation of benefits that you aren't getting now.

Yeah, it's convoluted, but when you're tired of living under the thumb of a person that is not playing by the rules and his wife, you draw a line. I now carry all of our children's insurance and ex is responsible for 50% of costs not covered. They're back with their regular physicians, also.
Plus, some states take this into account in factoring CS, so it may be more cost effective for you to take charge of the insurance!

Good Luck,
FLMom

PS-No, I'm not a lawyer, but I've BTDT.

17
Child Support Issues / RE: Why isn't BM paying child support?
« on: Dec 27, 2004, 06:00:32 PM »
Oh ack. I know I'm gonna step in it now, but here goes. . . .

Since the time that your SS moved in with you, it's been comfortable. You and DH got what you wanted, ex got what she wanted, SS got what he wanted.

Until da money ran out.

Now all of the sudden you want someone who you KNOW has a history of not living up to her obligations suddenly start doling out the bucks?
I'm gonna be devil's advocate here, cause honestly, with a teenager I've lived part of this. . .

If you take this to FOTC you know what they're going to say? You asked for this, now you've got it. Deal with it. When you take on the responsibility (and boy did you fully take it on when you started a precident of no CS) it's a done deal. They'll ask your husband why HE'S not working, and suggest he should do what he has to to live up to HIS responsibility.

Unless there is a "substantial change in circumstances" they won't change diddly. And "temporarily" losing a job (which is how they'll call it) is not means for that change.

Now, you asked what you should watch out for? In all honesty, your SS. You said you KNOW he wants to live with you and you KNOW he doesn't want you to try to get CS out of his mom, right? Kids will pick the easiest route, and it may be that he doesn't want any waves made right now because he's playing both sides of the fence. Yep, you heard me right. Your dear SS can say "I wanna stay here" and "I don't want anything from her" to your face, but in actuality it could be something different.

1) Whew. Both sides are happy now cause I've told both that I want to live with them.
2) If Mom has to give dad CS, she won't be able to slip me extras under the table.
3) If they all get together in one room their gonna figure this out so let's put this off as long as possible.

No, I don't know your SS. Yes, this is within the realm of possibility. Teenagers from time to time have been known to be sneaky---believe it or not! :-)

Good Luck,
FLMom

PS- No, I'm not a pain in the tush. I'm a realist.

18
Child Support Issues / RE: Payment no longer through the court...
« on: Dec 18, 2004, 12:09:08 PM »
Thank you SO MUCH for writing what your situation is right now. It's probably saved me a bundle of $$$ in the coming years.

In court my ex's atty insisted on garnishment instead of direct payment (BTW, I'm the one that pays support). I thought it was kind of stupid seeing as the total amount per year is only $2700. I work adjusted hours due to keeping more flexible, so even though I'm not the CP I can do the driving and be the one staying home with the kids if one of them are sick. State will only take out 40% of my pay, and with me already covering medical the amount taken out for support up to the 40% is a piddly amount. Thought ex was a dork for wanting to have to wait til tax time every year to get what will probably be the other half of that $2700.

Turns out he did me a huge favor! After reading this there's no way he can pull any of the stuff he has in times past, like saying I owed thousands in arrears (I had the receipts and this time I got lucky and he didn't get jack).

I've been paying by money order with a signed paper included. This has only been going on for a few months, but it makes me want that final order of deduction done TOMORROW.

Thank you for opening my eyes!

FLMom

19
Child Support Issues / RE: What does
« on: Nov 13, 2004, 10:20:08 AM »
I believe things like insurance and student loan items are covered in the state worksheets allowable deductions. "In kind" is a little different.

Here's my example: Ex and I had no concrete judgement worked out for CS, but I was the one who bought coats, shoes, school clothes, special needs items for school activities, geez, I could go on and on.
When ex claimed that I had paid no CS, I agreed that no, I hadn't "paid" him anything BUT I had made "in kind" payments to the children. I had a file for medical, for school activities, for special occasion, for toiletries, for clothes, and a misc. file.

Although ex didn't like not recieving the $$ directly it did prove that I had "paid" CS. Now he receives it directly.

If there's an order in place I don't think you can just decide to make in kind payments. I wish it could be that way, though, because once the CP (in my case and I know not all CP's are like this) got the $$ directly all I hear is "I need new shoes" and "I need XXX for school" and "I need $$ for my class project" and now I don't have it to give to them. Note--it's not that I don't WANT to--I DON'T have it. Ex does, but he's already spent the $$ on useless junk for his collections. That's why I wish the NCP could at least do some payments "in kind", with the provision that they keep the receipts and prove what they've done.

Sorry for the rant. I just hurt this week trying to explain to my kids why I can't do stuff for them, and it just irks me to high heaven to HAVE to say "maybe you could ask your dad?".

20
Child Support Issues / RE: What does
« on: Nov 11, 2004, 09:19:07 PM »
It means the money amount that you spent on a NECESSARY item for your child that went directly to your child and did not go to the ex.

Clothes, shoes, haircuts, etc can be considered "in kind" Meals out and travel expenses cannot.

Lucky you that it counts for something in your state!


Pages: 1 23 4 ... 19
Copyright © SPARC - A Parenting Advocacy Group
Use of this website does not constitute a client/attorney relationship and this site does not provide legal advice.
If you need legal assistance for divorce, child custody, or child support issues, seek advice from a divorce lawyer.