Messages

http://www.osbar.org/public/olsbooklets/family/custody.html (http://www.osbar.org/public/olsbooklets/family/custody.html)

it probably is! The offer is 75% of his projected future CS payments/co-pays/etc. if he pays them up front.

I suspect they'll get an agreement drafted and be turned away at the courthouse. I don't think you can satisfy a CS judgment when the children are still minors. Just can't find a statute that says so.

Actually, I looked more closely at the source I quoted, and it is addressing cases that go through the state. NOWHERE can I find whether it applies to cases where the parties deal directly with each other.

My bf has decided to disregard my caution that you should never trust anyone you're divorced from, and pursue this. I'm guessing that they'll go through a bunch of calculations and bargaining, and then find out from the court that it is not allowed.

I finally found the answer on a state site by being less specific with my search:
"PLEASE NOTE: You may only satisfy support that was due in the past. You cannot satisfy future support."

I know he got a bad deal by agreeing to cover half of the kids' school expenses and activities. But he was thinking of the kids. He's one of those NCPs who ends up paying for lessons and sports because otherwise they'd go without.

IThe kids will most likely all end up at community college. None of them are terribly interested in scholarly pursuits. I think what she meant was because she has such a low income, the kids will get good financial aid.

And, yes, I know Oregon Child Attending School law pretty well by now. The youngest of my four kids is almost 20. I just didn't know whether a judgment could be satisfied in advance. Apparently not!

Yes, Socrateaser would definitely have been the one to ask about this. I will look it up.

My bf's ex told him she's tired of haggling over every $20 copay and school expense. She proposed that they figure out roughly what CS and shared expenses will add up to until their youngest turns 18, and have him pay his share up front. She would sign a Satisfaction of Judgment at that point.

She says that she will always have a low enough income that the kids will be able to go to college for free.

My bf is tempted by this offer, and would love to not have to deal with her any more. However, I wondered what she could be up to. A couple things struck me about this scenario:

1) She is studying for a state exam which will allow her to keep her job. I asked him if maybe she is expecting to get a raise if she passes, and thus doesn't want her CS to be recalculated and go down. She seems too eager for this.

2) This is Oregon, where children attending school become parties to the case. I am betting that the judgment cannot be satisfied until the children are no longer attending school.

3) She is a poor money manager. She bought a house with her share of the equity in the marital home, sold it a few years later, and has lived in an apartment since. She frittered away $25,000 equity on vacations, car, etc. Once she goes through this settlement, will she be able to take him back to court for any further support?

4) I advised him to find a free initial consultation with an attorney and find out if this is a) possible and b) advisable.

Anyone have any insights?

http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/reportcards.htm

You as CP are entitled to a copy of ALL communication that goes to your children's home from their schools. This includes emails, if they discuss the child. The link above gives examples of letters to send to the school office. They worked for me. I was getting a copy of the newsletter, and that was all - even though I had asked to be put on the mailing list. However, I understand how hard it sometimes is to get communication from teachers, whether you are CP or NCP. I never saw copies of permission slips, picture orders, etc. while son#3 lived with his dad, but at least I got a copy of his grades. And I work for the school district!

Good luck with the communication issue. Let us know how it goes.

http://www.susanlovemd.com/community/rumors/rumor5-legislation.html

Behind the Internet Rumor: Breast Cancer Hospitalization Bill - Important legislation for all women.

It is true, as it says on the Lifetime website, that in 2003, "Lifetime Television delivered more than 5 million petition signatures to Capitol Hill urging Congress to ban "drive-through" mastectomies - the practice in which women are forced out of the hospital sometimes only hours after breast cancer surgery." And it is true that legislation has been introduced, called the Breast Cancer Protection Act of 2003, that would require insurance companies to cover a 48-hour minimum stay for mastectomy patients and a 24-hour stay for a woman undergoing a lymph node dissection. To date, however, this legislation has never come to a vote. It was sent to the House employer-employee subcommittee in 2003, and has not been acted on since then.

What is not true:
1. There has never been an insurance company that required same day mastectomies. This is an urban myth that spun out of control.
2. Not all women need to stay overnight in the hospital after breast cancer surgery, and it isn't necessarily bad to go home the same day. It depends on the individual woman's situation.
3. This is not a decision that Congress should make. We really don't want Congress involved in medical decision-making. Legislators should not be deciding how long we should stay in the hospital.

Yes, but as long as it was legally recorded (ie both consented). One way that's legal (I think) is when someone rants into the voice mail/answering machine.

Your transcription idea is a good one for when recorded evidence cannot be used.

Here is a site that tells which states are one-party and which are two-party: http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm. I believe you can find recording devices someplace like Radio Shack.

I wouldn't want to risk those threats being empty threats. A good father would never even think such thoughts. Trust your gut feelings on this one.