S.P.A.R.C.

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

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - POC

Pages: 12 3 ... 20
1
Florida State Forum / RE: FLMOM
« on: Nov 15, 2005, 07:10:16 PM »
Hey guys, my rep has committed to sponsoring new support and custody legislation next session. Let me know if you are itnerested.

2
Florida State Forum / Change in Custody and Support Laws
« on: May 30, 2005, 05:59:30 PM »
Make sure you write your legislators and encourage them to support the changes in criteria for support and custody for the Future of Florida Families Committee.

3
Florida State Forum / Contact Your FL Legislators & the Governor
« on: Mar 13, 2005, 08:07:46 AM »
Ch. 61.30 of FL's statutes defines a substantive amount of time with the NRP as being 146 overnights or more out of the year. Ask them:

1) Do they believe that FL law should assure that two fit parents be allowed share a substantive/meaningful amount of time with their children, as substantive time is defined by FL statute?

2) Will they support legislation that changes the child support guidelines so that they seamlessly apportion an equitable amount of money between the parents for their children's needs across the time sharing and income distributions that are reality in today's society?

4
Child Support Issues / RE: Insanity of CS calculations
« on: Apr 18, 2006, 01:39:44 PM »
To the extent that children deserve to be kept safe and healthy, the government has valid authority to order child support be paid from one parent to another. Beyond that, the government is over-stepping its authority by imposing a standard of living. Unless it's a matter of safety or well-being/health, the government should not dictate for what or how much parents spend on their children.

5
Child Support Issues / RE: Insanity of CS calculations
« on: Apr 13, 2006, 03:22:54 PM »
CS guidelines should seamlessly apportion an equitable amount of money between the parents for the reasonable needs of children across the time sharing and income distributions that are reality in today's society. If the CP is making $10,000 per month and the NCP $1,400 per month, and the child spends 13% or more time with the NCP, then the CP should pay CS to the NCP. That is because the NCP's share of joint income is roughly 12.3%.

The mathematics to determine what is equitable is very simple.

7
Child Support Issues / FL Child Support Bill
« on: Mar 29, 2006, 06:36:49 AM »
Here is the link to action taken by the Future of Florida's Families Committee yesterday -

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/ ... _28_06.pdf It takes a while to load, so be patient.

There was a lot that went on, but the child support bill starts on page 154 of the document. It passed the committee with amendments 7-0. The Speaker will move it on to other committees. The shared parenting formula starts on line 799. Again, there were amendments, but I don't have that wording to provide to you yet. The amendments were to be favorable. Although not quite there yet, Florida is close to getting it right. I look forward to the opportunity to address other committees as the bill makes its way through the legislature.

POC


8
Child Support Issues / RE: CS going into savings account
« on: Mar 26, 2006, 10:03:35 AM »
It woud be premature to give details here. You've got mail.

9
Child Support Issues / RE: CS going into savings account
« on: Mar 26, 2006, 05:27:21 AM »
>Questions:
>1. Have heard that judges frown on CS being put into a savings
>account (maybe not so much on a 592 plan).  CS is to be used
>for daily expenses, not for events yet to come - no guarantee
>that the children will be around to use the saved money.
>Anyone know case law or have info on this?

A. I don't know of any case law on this. But, answer #3 might make it less important anyway.

>
>2. If can be proven that invitro was partially or fully
>financed by CS, can DH do anything about reimbursement?

A. I'm fairly confident dh will not be re-imbursed, as it no longer became his money anyway. It was intended for the children. Nevertheless, that money was to be spent as the primary parent saw fit. As long as the children were not being abused or neglected you're pushing water up hill.
>
>3.  Also issue with day care.  CP also admitted in writing
>that neither boy has been in day care (or after school care)
>for past 18 months.  CS order has NCP paying $198 of CS
>towards day care.  Order does not address at what age day care
>portion should stop (boys are 12 and 11).  Should NCP just
>stop paying that portion, or file for modification based on
>this alone?  Would be 17% of CS order.
>
>A. If dh just stops paying the day care portion of the CS order he could very well be found in contempt. The order remains what it is until it is modified, so though the children do not attend daycare or a qualifying after school program the payment remains the same. There is a draft of a proposed bill that will revise FL CS guidelines. A shared parenting calculation begins at day 1 for time spent at the non-residential home. It might be prudent for dh to let that legislation take effect October 1st before filing.

Hopefully, by some time next month the new state affiliate of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children (ACFC) will be established. It's name will be the Florida Coaltion for Families and Children (FLCFC). If you are interested in becoming a member, let me know. We anticipate that there will be a few local chapters, placed strategically across the state.

10
Child Support Issues / RE: My answers:....
« on: Mar 20, 2006, 05:52:07 AM »
I'm not sure if I've ever heard that CS should not be ordered, unless people were talking about situations where time sharing is 50/50 and incomes are equal. Bottom line - children have needs (at minimum food, shelter, clothing, and transportation), regardless of which parent they happen to be with at any given time. Generally, the argument is that CP's don't want to share any $$$ responsibility for their child when they are at the NCP home. You are right, if there is no order to do so, then parents won't do it. Unfortunately, CP's have been allowed to get away with that.

If children are provided for at both homes rather than just one, then that is more support, not less. That may result in less money being exchanged between parents. Unfortunately, too many people think less money changing hands means less support is being provided. That is why the legalities are constantly discussed.

Pages: 12 3 ... 20
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.