Messages

>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>Exactly. That's why it's counter-productive to take the
>>position that the entire system is out to 'get' the fathers
>>and needs to be thrown out.
>>
>>The system isn't perfect, but these 'the entire system is
>>stacked against the father' arguments don't do any good.
>>Better to work within the system to change it.
>
>
>you realy should read title 42 U.S.C  654-669, with the
>damming part being in section "666" and the supporting regs in
>title 45 CFR's
>Then  when you realy want to see what is realy happening, I
>will be more than gladly to email you the Great Private law
>"Cooperative Agreements" that every state is bound by, and
>every court, every judge including Texas most prized special
>associate judges.


Unfortunately, there's not a single court system in teh country that agrees with your interpretation.

>If you make people think they have no shot at fighting, many
>will not fight.
>
>DH put it off until he just couldn't stand it anymore. SD
>suffered for his misconception that he couldn't change things.
>He went to court twice and won hands down and had all of BM's
>bullsh** contempt changes against DH completely dropped.
>


Exactly. That's why it's counter-productive to take the position that the entire system is out to 'get' the fathers and needs to be thrown out.

The system isn't perfect, but these 'the entire system is stacked against the father' arguments don't do any good. Better to work within the system to change it.

> DON'T UNDERESTIMATE HOW BAD THE SYSTEM CAN BE.
>
>
>Don't make the mistake of thinking the "justice system" is
>about "justice."
>
>Don't make the mistake of thinking that if the truth is on
>your side, you'll be OK. The truth may be out there, but it
>rarely matters in family court.
>


Don't make the mistake of thinking that your unsubstantiated accusations have any bearing on reality.

>"Taken Into Custody" by Stephen Baskerville
>Why the "deadbeat dad" is not only a myth but a hoax - the
>creation of government officials who plunder parents whose
>children the government itself has taken away.

IMHO, this extreme is just as bad as the extreme he's fighting against. Calling people who don't support your position ignorant makes it even worse.

There ARE deadbeat dads. No amount of denial will make that fact go away. There are also deadbeat moms. There are parents who want to support their kids and can't. There are parents who DO support their kids and don't get credit for it.

There are all sorts of problems with the system, but it DOES work much of the time. Seems to me that it would be more productive to acknowledge that fact and focus on trying to make it work better than taking an extreme position arguing for the entire system to be abolished.

Oh, and the CSE system as absolutely nothing to do with the Bill of Rights.

I don't know the legal answer, but my own thinking is that it would be - if a medical professional says it is. An alternative interpretation would be that if the insurance pays for it, it's medically necessary and if they don't, it's not - but that's pretty iffy since insurance is such a mess.

I most certainly would not prepay though - even if she hadn't messed up in the past.

ROTFLMAO.

EVERYONE who posts here gives out information and comments on people they know nothing about.

And I'm terribly sorry to point it out to you, but why does money interfere with visiting the kids? Is there some rule that if the father pays his debt that he is somehow unable to see the kids?

You have managed to come up with some really strange rationalizations on why someone shouldn't support his kids.

>The more money you make, the more CSE you get to pay.  In
>example, if my fiance works an hour of OT, his ex gets 28.9%
>of that money, for CS and alimony...and of course, it gets
>taxed at a higher rate. Keep in mind, this man owes NO
>arrears. If he did, more money would not mean paying off the
>arrears quicker...not a chance. More money would equal more
>base CS and arrears would be paid off at about 20% of the
>total child support order.

Of course. The more money you make, the more CSE takes. No one ever said otherwise.

But CSE does not get to keep ALL the increase in pay. Basically, if you earn $1,000 more, they can't take more than about half of it - so half of your earnings go to support your kid(s) and you keep half.

>
> If a child lived and was supported on $500 a month, why would
>they need the extra money the poor guy made in OT?  

Maybe because $500 per month might supply the basics, but there are things that you can't afford on $500 per month but you might be able to afford on $600 per month?

>
>Where did you get the idea that the more you make, the better
>off the kids would be?  Seems absurd.

The concept is simple. The more money there is to support the kids, the better off they are (everything else being equal). If they don't need it for current needs, then the money could be invested for college.

What seems absurd is your inability to understand that kids need to be supported - and if it's possible to support them at above the minimum level, that can be beneficial to them.

> Second job would raise his cs... and be pointless.

Depends on your view.

CS can only take a certain percentage of your income. If you make more income, you take more home - and your arrears get paid off sooner.

If you're interested in actually supporting your children, the more income you have, the better you're able to do that. If you're interested in getting out of supporting your kids, then you're right - you don't want to make more than minimum wage.

I doubt if you're right. If they thought he was making $30 per hour ($60 K per year), they'd be garnishing a LOT more than $500 per month.

As for ordering a minor to pay support, It sounds to me like the father was no longer in school.

If he was in high school, I'm guessing that he might not be required to pay support, or they would impute support based on less than full time work. If he were NOT in school, they'd assume he's capable of earning minimum wage (which was $5.25 per hour or $210 per week back then). $242 sounds like about the right percentage for a minimum wage, full time job.

And, of course, there's absolutely no question that he should have been paying support after he turned 18.