Welcome to SPARC Forums. Please login or sign up.

Mar 28, 2024, 04:37:23 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Non-Custodial Parent means?

Started by leon, Feb 28, 2007, 08:55:23 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

leon

So, people to cover there enterests, have continously tried to demean me, to no avail. So here is one for you to try.
Non Custodial parent means? there is no Deffinition in the United States Code, nor is there a Deffinition in the Corresponding CFR's"Code of Federal Regulations" title IV-d Agencies, are bound by the United States Code, and corresponding regulations as demanded by the Federal Admistrative Procedures Act. You state Agencies, in enrolling in Title IV'd of the Social Security Act, under the compact Clause are bound by the code and regualtions, which have no meaning(Deffinition) of a NCP.

Now there was a deffinition of an ABSENT parent, which was changed to a NCP in 1996 under Public law 104-193, 1996, Hr 3734.
Which defined an absent parent as one not in the household.
Of course the other favorite word is "Obligor" which is one who is bound by a contract,written or consentual to perform a favor, or obligation to another, a service, generaly of monetary praportion.

So what is a custodial parent, and what is a NCP, one who deosn't reside in the house? who's house?
One who has the children more of the year?
If you have children, there inherent, so is youre rights to youre children, so why ask to be granted?
Granted is permissive, its a request for what you are already entitled to.
Why ask for permission for what is morally, legaly, and inherently mine?
Granted is restrictive, open to change, not absolute.

I asked the federal department of Health and Human  Services,"Administration for Families" because I know for fact no authority exists to do it ...."under what codes and corresponding regulations is there authority to make a legal gaurdian, and physical Custodian an obligor" if two people have shared custody,"Equal time with there child on paper" and both Hold more importantly LEGAL Custody of there child"Neither one above the other" then how can there be an obligor" minding you, I never consented to be an obligor"?
They won't, and cannot answer the question.
And no there is no deffinition on this state side, nor is there any written law or regulations, statuatorily, nor Administratively.

notnew

Usually means the parent who got screwed in my experience.

You are fighting a losing battle in my opinion - even though you have tons of principal to stand on.

The courts are not about what is right. It is about might. And, might makes right in our society.

You have been ordered to pay child support, that makes you the obligor. How can that be if you have equal time I don't understand.

CS and Family Court laws are archiac and ruining children's and parent's lives every day. I don't see them changing anytime soon. I love my child, but the day CS is done and I am really disconnected financially from the mother will be one of the best days of my life.

mistoffolees


>You have been ordered to pay child support, that makes you the
>obligor. How can that be if you have equal time I don't
>understand.

It's quite simple. If you accept that the operating principle is what's best for the child, then it becomes clear.

If one spouse makes $200 K and the other makes $20 K, but they each share equally in the TIME element of parenting, it does not seem unreasonable for the wealthier parent to pay some child support.

Sherry1

*  Nothing but a wallet to the CP, which she makes sure to reiterate to the kids constantly.

*  Never notified of medical emergencies or hospital visits until after the fact when NCP found out accidently

*  Not allowed to make any day to day decisions regarding the kids

*  Weeks on end without returned phone calls from his kids

*  Being told "if you want to see your kids, it needs to be on your nickel, not mine (since she was taking 65% of his disposable income, flying 3 kids across the US was not a cheap experience)

*  Allowing boyfriends to spank and harshly discipline the kids

*  "Forgetting" to send mandatory prescriptions when the skids visited, and unable to fill the prescriptions on our end

*  Bad mouthing the NCP and his spouse constantly to the skids telling them that they are very bad people and losers

*  Telling the skids that your financial struggles and hardships in life are a direct result of what their father did to her, and now the kids

*  Father never listed on school records, live in boyfriends listed as "father"

And it goes on and on and on............

Except now it has come full circle, her youngest son lives with us.

mistoffolees

You'd probably be a lot more successful in obtaining what you want if you didn't walk into court declaring that the judge is a criminal and that he has no right to tell you what to do. The courts have the right to enact and enforce child custody and support obligations. Period.

Just a thought.


BTW, 'non-custodial parent' is a well-understood term. The parent who has the child more nights is the custodial parent. The other is the non-custodial parent. If they have 50:50, neither is non-custodial. Whether you LIKE the definition or not is completely irrelevant.

Sherry1

he begged for us to get him out of her house.  He was 15 at the time.  We filed for custody reversal and got him out.  We never expected CS to end this early.  She kept 16 year old (who subsequently said he made a horrible mistake by not leaving too at the time).  CS stopped.. and guess what?  So has most of any type of communication between DH and BM.  They have had only two conversations since December, and one conversation was for DH to confirm OSS spring break plans.  

It is a wonderful feeling to have the CS stopped and to have that "disconnect".  Your day will come.


leon

and yet knowone disproved me.
You have Equal, one week here one week there,
Legal Custody, even more important, no one stands over the other.
And last but not least, my favorite, the state statutes, and the federal stautes both say support is for the custodial parent from the non custodial parent.
Rule 90.3. alaska's rule of court, made by the court, adjucateing its own rule against the public, as public law, and used by the enforceing agency as law, states, the NCP will pay the CP.
Obligor- one who has consented or signed into an agreement to afford another a benefit, a service, a monetary supplument. I didnt sign no contract nor did I consent.
Without a written true law, there is no judgement, and dont bother saying independant, thats thrown out by the cooperative agreements.

NCP- there is a lot of talk, but I havent seen a true deffinition,.

By the way its in the 9th Circuit right now, with a new one to be filed soon, Habeous

Jade

>So, people to cover there enterests, have continously tried
>to demean me, to no avail. So here is one for you to try.
>Non Custodial parent means? there is no Deffinition in the
>United States Code, nor is there a Deffinition in the
>Corresponding CFR's"Code of Federal Regulations" title IV-d
>Agencies, are bound by the United States Code, and
>corresponding regulations as demanded by the Federal
>Admistrative Procedures Act. You state Agencies, in enrolling
>in Title IV'd of the Social Security Act, under the compact
>Clause are bound by the code and regualtions, which have no
>meaning(Deffinition) of a NCP.
>
>Now there was a deffinition of an ABSENT parent, which was
>changed to a NCP in 1996 under Public law 104-193, 1996, Hr
>3734.
>Which defined an absent parent as one not in the household.
>Of course the other favorite word is "Obligor" which is one
>who is bound by a contract,written or consentual to perform a
>favor, or obligation to another, a service, generaly of
>monetary praportion.
>
>So what is a custodial parent, and what is a NCP, one who
>deosn't reside in the house? who's house?
>One who has the children more of the year?
>If you have children, there inherent, so is youre rights to
>youre children, so why ask to be granted?
>Granted is permissive, its a request for what you are already
>entitled to.
>Why ask for permission for what is morally, legaly, and
>inherently mine?
>Granted is restrictive, open to change, not absolute.
>
>I asked the federal department of Health and Human
>Services,"Administration for Families" because I know for fact
>no authority exists to do it ...."under what codes and
>corresponding regulations is there authority to make a legal
>gaurdian, and physical Custodian an obligor" if two people
>have shared custody,"Equal time with there child on paper" and
>both Hold more importantly LEGAL Custody of there
>child"Neither one above the other" then how can there be an
>obligor" minding you, I never consented to be an obligor"?
>They won't, and cannot answer the question.
>And no there is no deffinition on this state side, nor is
>there any written law or regulations, statuatorily, nor
>Administratively.

The courts have the authority to determine who has custody of the children.  They prefer the parents to decide between themselves, but they do, in fact, have the authority to make the decision.

I don't necessarily agree with child support when it is a true 50/50 shared PHYSICAL custody unless the difference between the incomes is considerable.  

Joint legal doesn't mean that the child even lives with you.  I have joint legal with my ex.  I also have residential custody of my children.  I also have them the majority of the time.  This is what my ex and I decided was best for our children.  

The non-custodial parent (meaning the parent that the child(ren) do not live with) has a financial obligation to support the child that s/he helped bring into the world.  Why should I support someone else's child?  I have my own to support.

Don't want to pay child support, don't have children and/or don't get a divorce.  



Jade

>and yet knowone disproved me.
>You have Equal, one week here one week there,
>Legal Custody, even more important, no one stands over the
>other.
>And last but not least, my favorite, the state statutes, and
>the federal stautes both say support is for the custodial
>parent from the non custodial parent.
>Rule 90.3. alaska's rule of court, made by the court,
>adjucateing its own rule against the public, as public law,
>and used by the enforceing agency as law, states, the NCP will
>pay the CP.
>Obligor- one who has consented or signed into an agreement to
>afford another a benefit, a service, a monetary supplument. I
>didnt sign no contract nor did I consent.
>Without a written true law, there is no judgement, and dont
>bother saying independant, thats thrown out by the cooperative
>agreements.
>
>NCP- there is a lot of talk, but I havent seen a true
>deffinition,.
>
>By the way its in the 9th Circuit right now, with a new one to
>be filed soon, Habeous
>

You haven't proven your case.  So there is nothing to disprove.

leon

Didn't say there was Joint, Joint is different than shared, so why meandor around the facts?

And like suspected of all entities you chose to ignore the more important issue
"Legal Custody) the inherent right of one to determine the enterest of the child, and to see forth the best enterst of the child, and to see the best enterest of the welfare of the child.

Establishment of my case, I have established the facts in law, in Written publicly Known Law.

NCP(allegedly defined in the codes, interpretive) "the parent not with the children"" the parent not in the same houshold as the children" (when)? well youre not with youre children when they visit youre EX, now are they.

"Obligor" one who has verbaly or writtenly excepted an obligation, to perform for another a service or monetary supplument.

Why pay support, because I choose to work?
Is not she equaly obligated? to support and contibute?
or is it just the guy?

Being is you speak of finances, please explain where in the federal child support guidelines, or under the intent of congress, under any of there ACTS, they specify its all dependant of ones income over the other.
Such an publication would show its about money, not the alleged enterest of the child.

The alleged state enterest- sorry the state cannot invoke an alleged enterest over mine, the 14th has consistently been held over the state.

No divorce here, was smart enough not to go down that created right road.
Why have children if all you want is money?