S.P.A.R.C.

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

Author Topic: want all answers possible  (Read 13199 times)

cinb85

  • Private Reserve
  • SuperHero
  • ***
  • Posts: 2016
  • Karma: 2
    • View Profile
    • http://www.msn.com/
I think that's the case with alot of CP's.
« Reply #10 on: Mar 14, 2006, 11:28:55 AM »
Yes, both parents should contribute financially to the support of the child.
My ex has worked VERY little over the 14 years that our daughter has been on this earth.  Even when he does work, he doesn't pay the CS until they start to garnish his wages, then he ends up quitting his job (or getting fired for not showing up).

I've worked the same job for over 25 years and have worked VERY hard to get promoted to where I make a decent amount now (but it wasn't easy while raising our daughter totally by myself).  I just wish that my ex would get a job and pay "something" each week.  Our daughter deserves his support!


POC

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 190
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: want all answers possible
« Reply #11 on: Mar 14, 2006, 12:53:04 PM »
"What do you think child support realy is?, and do you know what it is realy meant for.??"

Child support is money that exchanges hands between parents from the obligor to the obligee. No state's guidelines specifically say what the money should or shouldn't be spent on. How much, if any that is spent on the child is purely at the discretion of the obligee. Of course, that does not relieve the obligee or the obligor of their obligation to provide adequate safety and health while in their care. If a parent were not to do so they could be found abusive, just as any other married parent.


"how do you think they have managed to circumnavigate the authority of the courts allowing AGENCY's to lein, levy and take property against youre constitutional secured rights.?"

It's not clear who you mean by "they". Could you be more specific about what property and which constitutional rights you are talking about?


ocean

  • Private Reserve
  • SuperHero
  • ***
  • Posts: 5051
  • Karma: 172
    • View Profile
RE: #1 Child?
« Reply #12 on: Mar 14, 2006, 05:34:13 PM »
If I want more children, then I have to decide if I can afford it. If the NCP can continue to support his first children then go ahead. (same with me). Just because the NCP decides to have a second family does not mean our child should have to get less financial support. The point is that once a support order is put into place, the NCP should not be involved in what the NCP does after and not have to worry if they go off and have 3 more children. When you married your DH, you knew of his obligation for his first two and decided you could have more. (not sure if he is NCP but if he is...his first children should not have their support reduced because you are having a child). It is not about loving the child it is about paying the bills. Why should child number one get less because NCP is having more children? Your next child will have both parents in the house supporting him/her.  

POC

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 190
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: #1 Child?
« Reply #13 on: Mar 14, 2006, 07:33:12 PM »
Subsequent children should not be born to a lesser god than their elder siblings.

wendl

  • Sr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1470
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: In DH's case, the BM considered CS, *her* support...
« Reply #14 on: Mar 14, 2006, 08:08:49 PM »
Gee sounds like someone I know.

Or the CP has more kids with different dads so the CP can get more and more FREE money.  I think the CP parent should have to pay taxes on the CS.  JMO and I am a CP mother.

My ex has 5 kids by 5 woman and doesn't support them.

My dh's case is different but I won't get into that as the LOVELY person and her friends used to stalk me here and hell they probably still do.


**These are my opinions, they are not legal advice**


leon clugston

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 155
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: want all answers possible
« Reply #15 on: Mar 14, 2006, 08:35:35 PM »
Child support and the monies trading hands, either through voluntary or involuntary exchange was created by congress through the passage of the 1935 social security act. This act was a creation by congress to abrogate the rights of the citizens of the United States of America and to denaturalize us from are inherent rights protected under the constitution thereof and to change as status as citizens of the United States of America to citizens of the United States. The Social Security Act was a privledge(gratuity) created by goverment, it holds no protections under the constitution, from which the United States Supreme court has upheld, time and time again. This wasn't the first time that congress created a right against the states or the people, after the civil war they passed the widows and orphans act, that was a promise to the people.

They are, Agencys created by congress or Legislature, whom are beleived to hold excutive power, but have transformed themselves into though of Judicial power, however there can be no creation of there for when there is no office, withou an office, oath of affice, oath of affirmation or official bond, there is no authority under the constitution, hence forth Agency's, created outside the constitution.

The child support was not set forth with the intent to exchange hands from the obligor to the obligee, the original intent was solely for reimbursements to the state and the feds for its expenditures. However over time the federal regulations(for which all agencys must abide by) were changed to include monentary transactions of more magnitude for the generation of revenues for the state. This is affirmed under the state plan and cooperative agreements between CSSD and the courts under (IV other terms and condition) section G. All designed to increase the number of person applying for CSSD services et.seq.
Property includes all, that is in sole posession of an citizen, this includes money, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that money is property. What it boils down is congress has created a bill of attainder, mandates we all have a social security number, puts us outside the constitution, then applies the number to evreything, bank accounts, tax payer, driver license, passport, fishing and hunting licenses, then legislates it so if you dont have one you cant do anything, and if you are a true citizen of the United States of America,dont have a social security number and are caught do any of they above you are criminally fined.Bills of Attainder are prohibited by the constitution, but if youre outside of it there is no application to it, nor any defense under the constitution. we have agencys, not officers as under the constitution that criminally take are posessions away everyday not just in child support but in every day aspects of are lives. Unlimited resources to law, books and archives is how we acquire this information, and is how people learn what they have not been told is realy happening, its there, its real, and it is happening but without these resources most will never no or beleive.I always refer to the federal doctrine, the Constitution of the United states of America and the several states as founded under the origination of the constitution, as my reference to constitutional rights for reason, but not one I will refer to here at this moment. All references that I make are provable and are fact, nor do I post or say facts that i cannot prove, through authenticity of legal documents, public law, code of fedral regulations  or court cases.

cinb85

  • Private Reserve
  • SuperHero
  • ***
  • Posts: 2016
  • Karma: 2
    • View Profile
    • http://www.msn.com/
And vice versa!
« Reply #16 on: Mar 15, 2006, 06:53:46 AM »
nm

ilovemysd

  • New Arrival
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: #1 Child?
« Reply #17 on: Mar 15, 2006, 07:53:00 AM »
>If I want more children, then I have to decide if I can
>afford it. If the NCP can continue to support his first
>children then go ahead. (same with me). Just because the NCP
>decides to have a second family does not mean our child should
>have to get less financial support. The point is that once a
>support order is put into place, the NCP should not be
>involved in what the NCP does after and not have to worry if
>they go off and have 3 more children. When you married your
>DH, you knew of his obligation for his first two and decided
>you could have more. (not sure if he is NCP but if he is...his
>first children should not have their support reduced because
>you are having a child). It is not about loving the child it
>is about paying the bills. Why should child number one get
>less because NCP is having more children? Your next child will
>have both parents in the house supporting him/her.  


Why should child number one get less because NCP is having more children?  When anyone decides to have additional children, it is implicitly understood that both children will receive less because there are two (or three, or seven).  In one minute, you make $40,000 to split between 3 people, and in the next, you have $40,000 to split between 4 people.  It is simple mathematics.  In an intact family situation, the parents make the decisions how to lower their costs together.  In a broken situation, the NCP is left out in the cold.  A court tells him that he has to pay for the child's college, even if that means the 2nd child gets nothing.  In an intact situation, the NCP would be able to say - I will provide 5 grand to each child at hs graduation to use as they will, or whatever the family sees as affordable.  Not so in a broken situation.  The court and the CP can demand their paycheck without allowing the NCP to parent in an appropriate way.  Intact family says, if you don't keep a B average and have a part-time job to put away money, we will not pay for college... and this parenting encourages the student to keep up on their studies and learn to be a responsible, time-managing adult.  That's non-existent in a broken home, because dad is the wallet, not the disciplinarian.  As someone else pointed out, in many CS support situations, the CP will have their support increased because now they have multiple children for whom to provide.  That makes sense to you?  NCP has to pay more for his child because you have to support another child?

I'll be sure to let my soon to be born child know that he should have nothing because his sister (who I love with all my heart) needs to have everything.

cinb85

  • Private Reserve
  • SuperHero
  • ***
  • Posts: 2016
  • Karma: 2
    • View Profile
    • http://www.msn.com/
I'm confused!
« Reply #18 on: Mar 15, 2006, 08:13:04 AM »
You said:

"As someone else pointed out, in many CS support situations, the CP will have their support increased because now they have multiple children for whom to provide. That makes sense to you? NCP has to pay more for his child because you have to support another child?"

Huh?

If I (I am a CP) have another child, I can't get more CS from my ex.  That's not possible. And...it should'nt be possible.  That makes no more sense than it does for CS for the first child to be lowered because the NCP decides to have more children.  When I couldn't afford to support our DD because my ex wasn't helping out by paying the CS, I got two part-time jobs (on top of my full-time job) to support our daughter.  My point is that you do whatever you have to do to support ALL of your children.  There are MANY intact families out there where at least one parent works two jobs (sometimes 3, like myself).  You do what you have to do to support your children!

I don't believe that child #1 should get any more ($$ or physical/emotional support) from the NCP than child #7.  But...when a father keeps fathering children by several different women and doesn't support ANY of them, it pisses me off when he gets a reduction in CS.  The NCP needs to support all of their children (just as the CP does).

My ex has fathered 7 children.  Our DD only has a relationship with one of his other children (we have tried to develop a relationship with all of the children, but have been unsuccessful).  We adore that child and I have given that child more attention, love, and material things than my ex (her own father) has.  Unfortunately in our case, there are 7 children who are totally neglected by their father (both financially and emotionally)!  It's a very sad situation!


POC

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 190
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: want all answers possible
« Reply #19 on: Mar 15, 2006, 09:00:59 AM »

>The child support was not set forth with the intent to
>exchange hands from the obligor to the obligee, the original
>intent was solely for reimbursements to the state and the feds
>for its expenditures.

I fully understand how welfare plays into it. Nevertheless, the state acts as the intermediary of the passage of money from obligor to obligee. By making the obligor pay, the government pays out less in welfare. The governement only keeps arrearage of CS, which it had already paid out as welfare. When that happens, yes, it is a reimbursement. Yes, that was the intent. What has grown out of that is something far different. Very little CS that is collected has anythign to do with welfare situations. Support that is not paid in welfare situations still goes largely uncollected for the same reason that it was not paid before - those obligors earn hardly any money. Raising guideline levels in those situations does nothing to reduce welfare that is doled out. Yet, that is exactly what has occurred.


 

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.