>>>My premise:
>1. A child needs 2 FIT parents to raise them. A FIT mother
>and a FIT father. Both FIT parents are EQUAL in nuturing the
>children.
>2. Both parents "SHOULD" share equally in monetarily
>supporting the children, EXCEPT FOR in cases of divorce in
>which one parent gave up career paths to be a SAH parent for
>the child(ren). That parent is at a disadvantage fiancially
>and can not be expected to be as a high an earner as the other
>post divorce. I propose that after a set amount of time,
>things are considered equal in ability to earn.
1. Both parents were deemed fit in Will's case, yet court allowed children to be moved 3000 miles away and only see him 10 weeks per year.
2. Will paid for her college education so she could fulfill her dream of being a teacher. Quit her job because she was "tired" of working. She has very good earnings potential, but no order from the court to resume her career so that she may share financial resposibilities equally.
>>> Bolivar, I know many NCP's that do not pay. When they do,
>they pay a very small amount, just enough for the enforcement
>proceedings to squeak by. An NCP must be VERY deliquent in
>supporting their child before they will ever go to jail. Not
>only that, but I have read many stories when the CP parent
>chooses to stay home, their income is still imputed.
>>> Personally, when my
DH was the NCP, he paid her $866 a
>month for 2 children and was never late and volunatrily had a
>wage garnishment. For a little over 2 1/2 years he has been
>the CP, firstly, he voluntarily gave her one year CS free, to
>help her get on her feet. Once the CS wasn't rolling in, she
>went into major financial despair and actually had 2 cars
>repo'ed. Since that time, he went to CSE and it took them
>another year to get a hearing. Because of the way the
>agreement was worded, she went into arrears for that year she
>was supposed to be paying. In the last 6 months or so, we've
>seen her quit two jobs, and only make about 2 months full
>payments. And her payment is only $360 a month for the same
>two children.
Hmm...Will pays over $1600.00/mo. for 3 kids, overpaid a few times and didn't get it back, never refused to pay, never paid late yet had his wages garnished without warning. Also pays $400.00/mo. to maintain health insurance for the children, she pays nothing.
>
>>> in our case I will say that your statement that the NCP is
>the only one who is mandated to pay CS is wrong, wrong, wrong.
> I think you should say that the parent who is responsible and
>has the children's best interests at heart is usually the one
>who takes the financial burden, regardless if they are NCP or
>CP.
and is usually the one who loses the children to PB ex and a corrupt court system.
>
>If the NCP is not making payments, the CP can go to the
>government and
>get assistants.
>>> And that's wrong? How would you expect a single CP to get
>a full time job that would cover daycare bills, lawyer bills,
>and everything else if they are very poor to begin with?
How do you expect a NCP to live on only %50 of his take home pay?
>>> False again, a majority of states use the shared income
>model, and not just a straight % of the NCP's salary.
Yes, but the judge can choose not to.
>>> The laws fail on both sides of the equation. I really can
>say I haven't read of any alternative propsed laws that make
>any better sense or cover all the loopholes. Minus, of course
>the presumption of
shared parenting, unless one parent can be
>proven to be unfit.
Once again, neither parent in our case was proven unfit, 10 weeks out of 52 is NOT shared parenting.
