Messages

No one ever denied that the states receive a bonus for collecting the money. That's a long way from proving that it's all about the money and that only the state benefits.

There are millions of kids who probably wouldn't eat if the state wasn't collecting their support. To me, that's more important than a few fathers who want to whine about having money removed from their paycheck after they decide not to support their kids.

>Wrong.
> "She's being reimbursed for past expenses that she incurred
>and were not reimbursed in a timely manner."
>What do you consider a timely manner? When the other parent
>does NOT work, thereby NOT following the system of both
>parents supporting the child/children, then how can she be
>reimbursed for that?

If you don't have a job due to no fault of your own, child support can be stopped in every state I know.


>When you miss even one payment in CA, you are in arrears.

So? Arrears means you've missed a payment. By definition, if you've missed a payment, you're in arrears.

You seem to think that child support is a game, not a solid, legal obligation.

>Eventually, the order will include the arrears. Most I've seen
>it take is about 6 months. That is a timely manner of making
>up missed payments. SO, you advocate for going back 10 plus
>years or more, after an order is finished and reimbursing?
>That is just so wrong.

Why would it go 10 years? If he was out of work for a year, he had 9 years to pay back the amount that he missed. Whether you like it or not, that amount includes interest. If he paid what he owed, they couldn't collect more later. Instead, he paid the original amount but not interest.

Try telling your bank that you want the title of your loan returned to you because you paid the original loan amount, but not the interest.

>But it is what it is.
>I would like to see your statistics of this system working
>then.

You're the one asserting that the system stinks and does not benefit children. You've got the burden of proof.

>
>And for many, like you've been told, it's not matter of not
>wanting to pay, it's a matter of not being able to pay.
>Hogwash on that, "go file then" thing. Reducing child support
>is not an easy thing.

It's not that hard if you lose your job and can't find another one in most states.

>
>I guess you also support that measure of taking ones licenses
>to get one to pay?
>oy
>

Yes, I do support taking any reasonable action to get one to pay. Taking their license should be a last resort. But if the court works out a reasonable payment plan and the person has a decent job but still refuses to pay, they should be penalized up to and including jail time and loss of driving privileges. Supporting one's children is, IMHO, the top priority.

Child support is not about the parents. The CP is not being rewarded for anything. She's being reimbursed for past expenses that she incurred and were not reimbursed in a timely manner.

50/50 custody only works if both parents are willing to make it work. Even then, 'no support exchanged' is not in the child's best interests. What happens when one parent makes $500 K and the other makes $20 K? The child would then live half of their life near poverty.

And your final statement is purely an assertion - which no one has yet provided any evidence for. The state collects money MOST OF WHICH IS THEN PROVIDED TO THE CP TO SUPPORT THE CHILDREN. The federal government reimburses some of the state's cost of collecting. How is that not beneficial to the children?

>forget about the children--on both sides.

Since when? Do you think that inflammatory comments makes your argument magically become true?

How about some facts and statistics?

>
>I'm wondering why you're defending this obviously flawed
>system?

'Obviously flawed'? Nonsense. The system is not perfect, but it works reasonably well most of the time. But feel free to:
a. Prove that the system fails most of the time
and
b. Provide a better system.

Until you can do those things, you're blowing smoke.

>In CA, both parents are responsible for supporting the
>children. But it's way too easy to cheat the system and I'll
>say, on both sides.

It's possible to cheat ANY system. The fact that the system is occasionally beaten doesn't mean the system should be discarded. How about some evidence rather than just whining?

>I've sat in on many many hearings and let me tell you, child
>support is rarely about the children.

Evidence?

>
>What is your experience?

A parent paying a great deal of child support as well as an active reader on the subject. That doesn't make me an expert, but it entitles me to my opinion. My observation is that the system works most of the time, but I'm open to evidence otherwise.

So feel free to provide evidence other than just whining about the 'terrible system'.

>...'doesn't want to' and 'can't'.  I would venture to say
>that many NCP's on this site who are fighting in court about
>CS are doing so because their financial circumstances have
>changed and they cannot meet the obligation the court
>originally ordered for them.
>

I have no problem at all with that. If circumstances change, then support needs to be reconsidered.

I'm objecting to various people who are arguing against state ordered child support in general and those who seem to be able to afford to support their children, but don't want to pay anything more than subsistence amounts - just because they don't like their ex handling the money.

>>>Just do anything and say anything to make sure she has
>>money
>>>for the casinos!
>>
>>It's really rather pathetic that every time you lose an
>>argument you accuse me of being someone I'm not.
>>
>>How about sticking to the arguments instead of the silly
>>ad-hominem attacks?
>
>I have not posted in a very long time. I have been reading
>some of your post and it is clear to me as an "outsider" what
>you are all about. By chance did you have the "name" Sunshine
>on another divorce type forum? I hope like hell this board has
>not taken on the side or the stand of that other site.

No, I don't.

And what is it that I'm 'all about'?

I simply expect that:
1. Parents should support their children
2. People who advocate ignoring the system can cause great harm to others
3. The system is not perfect, but it works well most of the time IF you work with it rather than fight it
4. Child custody is a serious matter and I don't believe in DIY solutions.

If you don't like any of those positions, I really don't care. I do care when people attack me for bogus reasons like accusing me of being someone else (as you are doing) rather than discussing the facts involved.

>Just do anything and say anything to make sure she has money
>for the casinos!

It's really rather pathetic that every time you lose an argument you accuse me of being someone I'm not.

How about sticking to the arguments instead of the silly ad-hominem attacks?

>While this order was from CA, neither party live in CA
>anymore. In fact, the kids during the time of this audit,
>lived in Oregon. So, rightly so, the cost of living goes down
>and therefore, child support should automatically go down?  I

Not automatically, but when circumstances change you are free to request a change.

But I'm not sure that support SHOULD drop. Child support is recognition that children are the responsiblity of both parents and that the children should receive a reasonable amount of support. If they move to an area that's cheaper, it simply allows them to live better - and I don't think that's inherently wrong.

Just as I don't think that support should be raised just because the CP chooses to shop at Nieman Marcus rather than Walmart. It's just not relevant to what the support level should be.

>know I've seen this arguement before on here but lets look at
>a couple of facts in my husbands case.
>BM collected welfare from 1988-1995.
>SHe also got child support, worked for cash, had others
>supporting her.
>She also had free child care.

So? Is that supposed to relieve DH of the responsibility of supporting his kids?

>
>DH had to pay back each and every penny of that. ON top of
>child support.
>
>SHE gets free legal although she's made mistakes with all that
>many times.

I think you're leaving something out. It's not the NCP's responsibility to do that. What's the rest of the story?

>
>These agencies are suppose to be opperating under the
>representation of the "children".
>
>My husbands children are grown and not even in the country.
>I see no fairness nor equity in this situation at all...

If he owes money from when they were minors, he owes money. The fact that they've since grown up doesn't change that.

>
>Now that this new order has happened, taking money from DH to
>give to BM--again--dh won't be able to do things for his kids.

Presumably, BM wasn't able to do things in the past because she didn't receive the support she should have been receiving. As I understand your situation, they're simply trying to make up for him paying less than he was supposed to in the past. It's the same as any other debt.

>He'll be referring them to their mother when they want help
>with weddings, flights, etc....things he could be doing
>directly for them and not supporting the leach that is their
>mother.

He's free to do abandon his grown children if he wishes. No one ever said otherwise.

>Sadly, the other father also has had to endure financial havoc
>by this woman.

Which is not what support is about. It's about the kids - who you seem to have forgotten.

>"And $500 IS subsistence level in CA when you figure the real
>cost of supporting a kid - housing, medical, child care, food,
>clothing, activities, etc."
>
>No it's not.  I chose to live in a new house that I pay a
>premium for..I chose to buy a new car, I chose to put braces
>on his teeth, and I chose to pay for a private tutor.  Those
>are choices that some intact families cannot afford.  But I
>just happen to make enough money to afford those things..Oh
>yes, and your budget you mentioned for vacations? Mine is
>twice that.  But I don't count that child support needs.  (My
>wife in law certainly does...).

That's nice. None of it addresses the issue, though. $500 per month raises someone above the poverty level and not much more.

>
>"That's one view. My view is that if the kid is used to a
>certain lifestyle, why force them to live on subsistence level
>simply because one parent doesn't want to pay more?"
>
>Um, how much more of 50% percent of his income can the other
>parent pay and still be able to live in anything other than a
>tent?  Oh, I get it.  The parent with the kids should have no
>less than the lifestyle they were used to..and the parent
>without should live in a tent so that lifestyle can be
>maintained.

Wrong. I don't believe anyone is ever obligated to pay more than 50% of their income in support - no matter what the circumstances.

But even that is a moot point. If you have kids, it's your responsibility to support them. If you had kids and were raising them at a reasonable middle-class level, divorce should not be an excuse to plunge them into near poverty living if you can afford to support them reasonably well.

>Anything more than $500 a month is a necessity to the
>parents...not the kids.
>
>Intact families might provide because they want to...divorced
>parents, namely the ones that make the most money, provide it
>because the courts say they have to...it's a huge difference.
>

That's one view. My view is that if the kid is used to a certain lifestyle, why force them to live on subsistence level simply because one parent doesn't want to pay more?

And $500 IS subsistence level in CA when you figure the real cost of supporting a kid - housing, medical, child care, food, clothing, activities, etc.