Menu

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.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Stirling

#31
"Why not collect CS from both the CP and NCP?"

This is an idea that I have had for a few years.  I would love to see a CS escrow type account set up where both parents pay into and both parents can withdraw from.  It would certainly support the ideal that both parents support their children.  There would probably need to be regulations which provide what child related expenses can be paid from the escrow account, and how the amount to be paid from the account is calculated.
#32
CS is merely a redistribution of wealth from one parent to the other.

This is true since the parent receiving the CS is under no legal requirements to either spend the CS on the child, or account for how it is actually spent.  In addition, the CS becomes the sole property of the person receiving it, and can do with it as they wish.  The children don't even have a legal claim to the CS.
#33
In an income shares state you would actually have to have an accounting for every penny spent on the child since the income shares model is premised on both parents supporting the children.

For example:  Lets assume the CS ratio is 1/3 for the CP and 2/3 for the NCP.  The guidelines indicate that it should cost $1800 a month to raise the child.  Therefore, the NCP pays 2/3 of this amount which is $1200.  The income shares model also indicates that the CP should pony up $600 of their own money to support thier child.

Accordingly, the CP should provide documentation that $1800 a month is spent on supporting their children.  If less is spent it means that the NCP is supporting their child more than 2/3rds which results in the NCP subsidizing the CP.
#34
I agree that the income shares model of determining CS is probably about the best system currently out there since it is based on the premise that both parents have a financial responsibility to support their children.  

I guess where I disagree is that CS should not be used to pay for things that the NCP has to provide for the children as well.  However I do see your point and on some level I could possibly agree with your position.  

To use your numbers it would cost each parent an addition $300 a month to provide a two bedroom apartment for their children.  I don't think that it would be fair for the NCP to pay his $300 and then be expected to pay $200 of the CP's increased rent based on the income ratio.  Perhaps both rents should be added together and then the income ratio applied.  So out of the combined $600 increased rent the NCP would pay $400 and the CP $200 based on the 1/3 to 2/3 ratio.

To be honest I think all of this is a moot point for me since I have come to realize that the CS guidelines are merely a suggestion of what should be spent in raising a child.  The CP will use their own parenting beliefs to decide what is actually spent in raising a child.  Also,  it maybe called CS but that label really doesn't accurately describe what it actually is.  Given the lack of accountability in the CS laws, all CS really is, is merely a redistribution of wealth from one parent to the other.  This is true since the CS becomes the CP's sole property that is unrestricted in how it is used.  The children don't even have a legal claim to the CS.  
#35
Child Support Issues / RE: I don't agree
Nov 10, 2005, 10:35:06 AM
I agree that CS should be used to pay for a child's portion of utilities.

"A one bedroom apartment is alot cheaper than a two-bedroom apartment where I live."

This is true but I am not certain it should be a factor in what CS should be used for since the NCP also has to incur the added expense to rent a two bedroom apartment for his parenting time with their children.  I would think that the added rent expense should be a wash for both parents and not something that CS should be used for.  I think that it would be unfair to expect the NCP to pay 100% of his increased rent and subsidize the CP in paying their increased rent.  

I also don't think that CS should be used by a CP to help buy real property either.  Same goes for a car since the NCP has to provide a safe and reliable car as well.
#36
that the more CS CSE collects the more they receive in federal matching funds.  They are not likely to give up that free money by forgiving arrears.
#37
Child Support Issues / RE: BM not working?
Oct 11, 2005, 12:49:26 PM
If your state uses both parent's income to calculate CS then you can request that the Court impute income to the BM that fairly represents her earnings potential.  The CS would then be calculated using your husband's actual income and the BM's imputed income.  It should be noted that the BM is not requred to actually get a job, but merely be treated as if she has a job in order to more accurately calculate the CS amount.

I would imagine that her last job would be a good indication of what her true earnings potential is.  You may need to find comparable jobs in your area and what the wages are to support your position in court.  I would think that a Judge would at least impute minimum wages at 40 hours a week.  
#38
Child support and parenting time (I prefer this term over visitation) are two separate issues.  From what you have posted it is my understanding that a motion was filed with the court to only address child support.  If you want to address parenting time you will have to file your own motion in order to get the court to address this issue.  I would suggest that you get your parenting time agreement to be as detailed as possible so that your Ex will mave little ability to manipulate your parenting time.
#39
If you continue to pay her without having a CS order in place all the money that you give her will be considered a gift.  Your Ex is lying to you!  No CS is legally due until there is a valid court order for it.  The DOR has told you directly that you will not get credit for payments made outside of the "system".  Your Ex started this mess, so she is accountable for the natural consequences of her actions which is she will likely not get any child support for a while since first a court order will need to be secured and second the court order will have to be entered into the collection system.  All this will take time.  As far as the court order being applied retroactively goes, this is typically not automatic, but at the discretion of the Judge.  Also, the Judge can only order retroactive support to the date of filing.  I would strongly suggest that you stop paying your Ex directly.  Wait until the court order has been granted and your account is set up in the DOR's system.  Also, I would suggest that you set aside child support money in case the judge does order retroactive support.  that way you will be able to pay off any arrears right away.  
#40
Dear Socrateaser / My personal experience...
Dec 14, 2005, 07:41:29 AM
I was in an auto accident a number of years ago that was the other drivers fault.  My car was totaled and I was injured in the accident.  This occurred in CT which is/was a no fault insurance state.  The other insurance company's compensation offer related to the totaled auto was unacceptable and they refused to negotiate.  So I went through my own insurance company and got a better deal.  

As far as the injuries go (severe whip-lash and a small puncture wound to my back which resulted in a scar), I did contact an attorney at the time and was told to keep track of the medical expenses, keep a journal of how I felt each day.  I was told not to file a law suit right away since the full extent of my injuries my not manifest fully for some time and that I had three years to file a suit related to the accident before the statute expired.  This proved to be good advice since I never completely regained my range of motion related to the whip-lash and the scar I now have was not evident at the time of the accident.  I did have to consult with an orthopedic surgeon to determine the percentage of permanent disability/loss of range of motion that I received as a result of the accident.  I did file a suit for these permanent damages right before the statute expired and recovered a modest settlement from the insurance company.  The attorney took the case on a contingency fee basis where he received 1/3rd of the settlement.