S.P.A.R.C.

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

Poll

As an NCP, do you feel that child support orders are just and fair in your case and that no matter w

I totally agree with the statement that the current system works very well.
2 (11.1%)
I feel it works ok for me in most cases.
1 (5.6%)
The current system does not work for me at all.
15 (83.3%)

Total Members Voted: 88

Author Topic: As an NCP, do you feel that child support orders are just and fair in your case and that no matter what, the CP's lifestyle should be maintained for the sake of the children?  (Read 21042 times)

babyfat

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 70
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Hey misty...
« Reply #30 on: Nov 07, 2007, 08:20:55 AM »
>Take a course in statistics before you embarrass yourself further

I'm not the poster you were refuring to but I have myself taken several courses in statistics. The first thing you learn is 99% of stats are usually made up. Meaning it depends on who did the study and what they wanted the outcome to be. If your getting your info from HSS which you are they are the ones running the program so the stats are going to be in thier favor due to the questions they want to raise. Yes it may in fact be true that monies are being collected at an 89% rate what that doesn't tell you is it fair. It just simply tells you it is collected.

The origional poster did not ask if people PAY child support, the origional poster asked if it was WORKING for you. The majority said no. Your looking at the wrong stats for the topic asked.

To truely evaluate the question here you actually have to look at the child support formula itself. In WV (not sure how it works elsewhere) what they do is take the total income of both parents. The deduct from that $500 for each parent as personal living expences. Then they deduct for children who are not appart of the equasion that the parent is suppose to be supporting (they get that number from a previous equasion done with that other childs parent) They then deduct child care expences, and medical expences that occur every month.
When that part is done they take the leftover income and find what each parent is responcible for baised on 100% so say mom has $500 left and dad has $1000 left that is $1500 that will go to support that child. When that is worked out mom will be responcible for less because she makes less.

Now if there is a mistake in one of the steps say a nother child is left out that parent has a larger amount of money he is responcible for which makes the amount he is paying unfair. He is now legally responcible for more than he should be. Even though he pays it he is paying more than his fair share. This is not reflected in your stats. So according to your stats he is paying so it is working, money is being collected so the system workes, not hardly. His other child is going without a child born before this equasion was in motion and use to a certian lifestyal is now had his standard of living go down to make another childs standard of living go up.

My point in a nutshell is yes NCP are paying. That doesn't mean the system works just that money is being collected at higher rates than before. Is this good, not if the foundation and basic equasion has errors in it. When you take into consideration human error and delibrate false accounts of money by either side (either parent not accounting for income or more income added in than should be) is when the system fails and there is nobody who has done stats on that, to my knowledge at least. There really cannot be because I don't think any parent is going to volenteer they are paying baised on the false info they provided. I don't think someone like by boyfriends ex is going to say hey I didn't provide tips and o/t info so he is paying more than he should.


Stirling

  • Private Reserve
  • SuperHero
  • ***
  • Posts: 2419
  • Karma: 65
    • View Profile
RE: Here is your evidence...
« Reply #31 on: Nov 07, 2007, 08:30:39 AM »
Like I said before people with nothing to hide will hide nothing.  I think it's pretty clear what you are trying to hide by refusing to submit child support laws and guidelines that ensure that the financial needs of the children will be met.  Heck you haven't even made any type of inteligent attempt to refute anything that I have said.  You can keep talking out your ass if you choose to, but I doubt anyone here is taking you seriously.  

I've wasted enough of my time presenting an inteligent response to your baseless rantings.  So for now I am done until you post something of substance to support your opinions.  

Stirling

  • Private Reserve
  • SuperHero
  • ***
  • Posts: 2419
  • Karma: 65
    • View Profile
"I'm still waiting for you to:
1. Provide evidence that the system fails to do its job in a significant number of cases.
2. Provide a recommendation of what you consider to be a better system.
3. Provide in clear English a statement of your position."


If he did provide this information to you, you probably would simply ignore it.  I have intelligently responded to you with all of the information that you have requested, and yet you have failed to provided any intelligent argument to refute anything that I have said.  You have also refused to provide any laws or guidelines to support your position.  Your entire position is a baseless joke until you do so.

leon clugston

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 155
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Hey misty...
« Reply #33 on: Nov 07, 2007, 09:59:04 AM »
One point that goes in hand with that Baby is, when a NCP is made an obligor by a court, agency, employee of the state, in many times at a high amount, such person is therefor made to get a higher paying job, or even another job, which in turn is used against said individual to reduce visatation which is directly correlated to ones support, which then is raised again for supposed lack of time with said child.

mistoffolees

  • Sr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1697
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
>"I'm still waiting for you to:
>1. Provide evidence that the system fails to do its job in a
>significant number of cases.
>2. Provide a recommendation of what you consider to be a
>better system.
>3. Provide in clear English a statement of your position."
>
>
>If he did provide this information to you, you probably would
>simply ignore it.  

The fact is that he has never provided it. Anything else is speculation on your part.

Furthermore, I've provided evidence that the system works in the overwhelming majority of cases - which you keep ignoring.


mistoffolees

  • Sr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1697
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Here is your evidence...
« Reply #35 on: Nov 07, 2007, 10:23:05 AM »
>Like I said before people with nothing to hide will hide
>nothing.  I think it's pretty clear what you are trying to
>hide by refusing to submit child support laws and guidelines
>that ensure that the financial needs of the children will be
>met.  Heck you haven't even made any type of inteligent
>attempt to refute anything that I have said.  You can keep
>talking out your ass if you choose to, but I doubt anyone here
>is taking you seriously.  

And, yet, I'm the only one who has provided any real evidence - a study showing that the system is working in at least 89% of the cases. Where is your non-anecdotal data?

>
>I've wasted enough of my time presenting an inteligent
>response to your baseless rantings.  So for now I am done
>until you post something of substance to support your
>opinions.  


Funny. You have been whining constantly about how broken the system is - without providing evidence (other than a few anecdotal reports that can't be verified) while I'm the one providing statistical evidence - and you accuse me of baseless rantings. Cute.

mistoffolees

  • Sr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1697
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Okay, I'll play....
« Reply #36 on: Nov 07, 2007, 10:24:19 AM »
> I never offered any opinions on the subject.  I don't know
>if the system is broke or it's not.  Funny thing about using
>figures, though.  Figures can lie, and liars can figure.  You

Then feel free to show what's wrong with the data I've presented.

>can take any set of figures and manipulate them to support
>your argument.  Until you poll every person  you will never
>truly know what the actual percentage is of people that think
>the system is broken.    

So your solution is to completely ignore all the facts and fall back on unverifiable rants from people posting anonymously on a complaint board?


>And for some, the system is broken.  It is unfair to them.


No one ever said the system was perfect.

mistoffolees

  • Sr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1697
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Hey misty...
« Reply #37 on: Nov 07, 2007, 10:25:30 AM »
>One point that goes in hand with that Baby is, when a NCP is
>made an obligor by a court, agency, employee of the state, in
>many times at a high amount, such person is therefor made to
>get a higher paying job, or even another job, which in turn is
>used against said individual to reduce visatation which is
>directly correlated to ones support, which then is raised
>again for supposed lack of time with said child.


And I"m STILL waiting for you to provide evidence that this happens with any reasonable frequency.

As it is, I'm the only one who has provided ANY factual evidence.

richiejay

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 108
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Okay, I'll play....
« Reply #38 on: Nov 07, 2007, 10:27:13 AM »
  Most, if not all,  of the unverifiable rants I have seen thus far are coming from you.  But that's just my opinion.

MixedBag

  • Global Moderator
  • SuperHero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3049
  • Karma: 155
  • That's Me...MixedBag
    • View Profile
    • http://www.doilyboutique.com
RE: Hey misty...
« Reply #39 on: Nov 07, 2007, 10:27:15 AM »
not true about WV -- my current CS is there and that's not how the sheet works.

The $500 is used at the very end only on the Payor's side to make sure they have the "ability" to pay the CS ordered (Part II, line 11 on my worksheet).  First they take the income and multiply it by 80%.....so the first 20% is reserved for the Payor.  Then subtract the $500....which gives the ability to pay the order figure.  

I pretty much agree with the rest of what you're saying.

And actually, let me share that once in court, EX made sure Judge knew he was supporting two other children.  Judge redid the formula and said "That reduces Child Support by "less than $10"" -- forgot the exact figure, it was $8 something for 2 children.


 

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.