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?

[babyfat]

Yes your right I had to go look at the paper again. The $500 was taken out later in the equasion my mistake.
Problem with the case I'm taking about (my boyfriend order) was that a judge never saw it to reveiw in court. I was done by the support agency with info provided by the GAL the support agency never asked a single question assuming the GAL had her facts strait when she in fact did not she was only aware of the child in question. the GAL never returned any phone calls (and still to this day won't) he has now asked for a reduction due to the fact that vaid mistakes were made in the order due to the misinformation submitted. He actually makes less than he did the year before due to over time issues and they did not add in the other child so 2 mistakes. He is not complaining about having to pay for his child at all just that the ammount is from what I did following that same proceedure is about more than $100 off give/take per month (that doesn't even include the fact she did not report some income of her own or the fact she included non work related child care expences personally, he likes the idea the child spends less time with the woman and more time with a licensed provider for reason we won't dive into here.) We won't be able to get this in front of a Judge for 6 months and by that time due to the current situation we may very well end up with custody of this child and him paying would be a mute point. Like I said previously this was all rushed through with out any questions asked so he was not able to state he had another child. He was not even given the proper forms to fill out till he went and got them himself to make the corrections.

Also yes the majority of the support goes to the first child which I think is a little messed up with in itself. Yes that probably works in cases where a parent has 3 kids with the same woman but in a case where a man has 2 kids with 2 seperate woman the second child gets slighted. In this case he had custody of this child she pulled a nasty and accused him of abuse/neglect as that is being proven untrue she has the child and gets support (as well she should) untill the situation is resolved. In that time we together had a son of our own before the support was in place. I could pull a nasty and file for support of my own because we are not married but that would screw things up some and cause an even bigger paper work mess. I actually have seen woman who know how to play the system have 3 kids with 3 diffent men so they could collect the max amount of support for each child. There is just something nasty about that to me. I understand why they calculate this like that because it was the dad decision to have another child so why should the other child pay, however in cases like this when dad had custody and decided to have another then loses custody of that child and already has another both children should be considered equally.

[mistoffolees]

As I've stated repeatedly. The system isn't perfect - but the evidence is that it works most of the time.

As soon as you have evidence (other than unverifiable anectdotal stories), feel free to provide it.

[mistoffolees]

And, yet, I've provided independently derived data to back up my position and you haven't.

And, no, asking you to back up your claims is not an 'unverifiable rant'.

[babyfat]

>>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.


Are you saying that IF a NCP goes out and gets a "high paying job" or "another job" and that person income goes up the support obligation remains the same?

Also as I pointed out you provided factual evidence to a question not asked here. You provided stats to the fact that child support is being paid period not that is is a fair amount or that the "system is working" for well anybody really. Some CP's are probably getting less than they are due and some NCP's are probably paying more than they should. There isn't going to be stats on what is asked here because nobody is going to admit they are screwing over the system in thier favor except the people who are being screwed over. My boyfriend is in your 89% of people the gov is saying the system works for is it really working for him? NO! But because he is paying this excess amount on time and not with holding funds he is counted as such.

[olanna]

Prove it doesn't.

[mistoffolees]

>Prove it doesn't.

I've already provided evidence that the system works most of the time.

So where's your evidence that it doesn't (other than a blatantly biased poll which got 10 votes in a self-selected group of people having problems out of 50 million or so families affected)?

[richiejay]

Funny, I don't seem to claiming anything.  No claim...no data needed.  You missed the whole point.  You are in everyone's face about everything.  That is my point.  If you don't like what someone says, you come up with the .."give me facts" crap.  Which is why I offered my explanation of what an opinion is.  The data behind all of this?  I knew you'd ask.  Read your previous messages.  That is my data.  I bet more than a few would agree with me.  If we take a poll and 80% of respondents think that you are on rant after rant, does that make it true?  See what I mean about figures can lie and liars can figure?

[babyfat]

>>Prove it doesn't.
>
>I've already provided evidence that the system works most of
>the time.
>
>So where's your evidence that it doesn't (other than a
>blatantly biased poll which got 10 votes in a self-selected
>group of people having problems out of 50 million or so
>families affected)?


Isn't what your evidence was a blantantly biased collection of data based on a group of people who are recieving funds collected by the agency that calculated the stats?? If the actual families were asked "So your receiving child support do you think your getting the correct amount or a fair amount?" Do you seriously believe the same % of people who the system is on paper is "working" for would say yes?? I for one doubt it. Do you think if the people who owed back support were asked "So why do you owe back support?" Some of them at least would say "Because I cannot afford to pay." Yes some would probably say "Cause I'm just not going to pay it" Most want to support thier children but life happens and they just simply can't and the child support agencies simply veiw these same people and lump them in with the "dead beats" and are just as hostile towards them as they would be to somebody who just won't pay for thier own selfish reasons.

[mistoffolees]

>Prove it doesn't.

I've already provided evidence that the system works most of the time.

So where's your evidence that it doesn't (other than a blatantly biased poll which got 10 votes in a self-selected group of people having problems out of 50 million or so families affected)?

[richiejay]

Funny, I don't seem to claiming anything.  No claim...no data needed.  You missed the whole point.  You are in everyone's face about everything.  That is my point.  If you don't like what someone says, you come up with the .."give me facts" crap.  Which is why I offered my explanation of what an opinion is.  The data behind all of this?  I knew you'd ask.  Read your previous messages.  That is my data.  I bet more than a few would agree with me.  If we take a poll and 80% of respondents think that you are on rant after rant, does that make it true?  See what I mean about figures can lie and liars can figure?