Messages

>off of CS only for several years.  It was her only source of
>income and if I had that kind of money coming in, I wouldn't
>have worked either!

For tax purposes, it is not income to the CP.  

>In my husbands divorce decree he allowed her to claim all
>five of the children for income tax purposes (that is the only
>way she would sign).  He is responsible for 67% of the support
>of the children and that is the only income she has (she works
>here and there but mostly doesn't work at all).  We end up
>having to claim the money paid for child support but yet she
>doesn't have to claim it as income.  We now have the kids
>anywhere from 10-12 days a month during the school year and
>every other week in the summer.  We are planning on going
>before the judge sometime before the 2007 taxes and seeing if
>he will modify the divorce decree to allow us to claim
>possibly 2 children one year and then 3 the next.  Does anyone
>know the best way to go about this?  We are keeping receipts
>already.  Also, is it unheard of that this happens?  Any
>advice would be appreciated.

It's not unheard of for one parent to get all exemptions.  I got the exemptions for both of my kids through emancipation.  

Child support is not income to the CP as that is for the support of the children.  

It depends on what the agreement says.  The wording on mine is that I get both through emancipation.  And my ex signed it, I also had him initial each and every page of the agreement so that he couldn't pull any stunts (he had already reneged on one agreement) and try to change it.  If the wording is similar on the father's, then he may be out of luck.  

What he can do is keep track of his parenting time and file for a child support modification based on that.  He could also go to court and try to get the exemptions, but that may not be successful.  

>If BM closed her case with DCSE a couple of months back, then
>there doesn't seem to be a court order for you to pay child
>support?  
>
>Am I misunderstanding?
>

There's a court order.  The bm just stopped it from getting garnished from the ncp's wages.  He has to pay her directly.

>....when things don't happen when THEY want them to, right?
>
>A few years back, DH got behind on CS a couple months, BM got
>her knickers in a twist and had the CS order filed with CSRU
>to have it garnished from DH.  Prior to that, the order was
>with the county court and DH paid them.  No problem, now we
>didn't have to remember to send a check twice a month.
>

I can certainly understand why she got upset that your dh wasn't paying his child support.  That is money for the children.  And if the mother is on a tight budget, the missed payments can be a big deal.  

That's one of the things that I like about automatic wage garnishment, the parent paying doesn't get to play around and forget to pay.  And the parent receiving doesn't get to play around and claim not to have received it.  Protects all parties involved (including the children) that way.

>The more correct question would be, who are you, or who do
>you claim to be.
>
>Vested enterest.? Hate to disapoint you but there is no vested
>enterest in any of this, it holds no personal rights, nor does
>it hold personal enforcable rights.
>The correct statement was SELF Enterest.
>
>I see neither of you chose to go back and read the other
>parties post, and its questons it raised. However you somehow
>felt compelled to intervene and proscribe youre own thoughts.


In other words, you either don't want to answer the question or don't know the answer.  

All you had to do was say so.  

>being that you are without 1st hand knowledge to my case you
>are without merit or fact to speak of it.
> I dont think I have ever seen anywhere but here, 2 people,
>"jade""Misty" so bent on disinforming the public,
>circumnavigating the facts, and outright distrorting the
>facts,as you TWO.
>
>I have to prove nothing, especialy to TWO entities that have a
>self proscribed enterest in the outcome of other peoples
>affairs.
>
>The people, "public" have there own right to read what is
>presented, and then to draw there own conclusion upon the
>facts, and choose how to proceed there from.
>
>You speak of case's and alleged law, but yet forget to mention
>every time the states and the agencies get caught with there
>hands outside there statutorial authoritzed authority, the 1st
>thing they do is claim 11th immunity, to save themselves from
>prosecution.
>
>Hmmm..golly geezzzzz

I do know that you didn't win the first time.  And that you keep losing.  

It seems that the one without merit or fact is you.   Your self interest is interfering in your judgement.  

The only misinformation and distortion of facts are coming from you.  

>Well ime glad we settled that you have nothing to support
>youre claims, nor do you deny youre self enterst in everyones
>elses affiars.

The only thing that is settled is that you haven't proven your case.

And that you are letting your own self interest guide your intepretation of laws that you THINK pertain to your situation.

>Yes, she did.  We have had 4 motions just over support in
>less than a year.  The judge finally said something to her the
>last time, mostly because she had filed a motion to set
>support, and told the judge that it had never been set, when
>it had been set and we had been to court 2 other times over it
>where they backed up the original order.  
>
>It's kind of complicated, even though it shouldn't be.  We
>agreed on a set amount in our divorce decree based on the fact
>that I was taking on all of the debts we had accrued in the
>marriage (I didn't have a lawyer and didn't realize this was a
>bad idea - trying to be the "nice guy", you know)  So as soon
>as the divorce was final she started filing trying to get the
>amount that she would get if the state calculated it.  So far,
>she has been unsuccessful.  
>
>Now she's gotten a job to try and create a change in
>circumstance so she can ask to have it modified - even though
>she probably wouldn't get any more because they would have to
>include her income.  Her aim is to get around our original
>order.  Once she's done that she'll quit her job (she's never
>held one for more than 3 months) and have it recalculated
>based on one income.  That's what she's working on, even
>though it will never work.  The problem is that I have to keep
>going to court over it, and it's costing me a lot of time and
>money.  

I wouldn't be too sure about her not getting anymore because she is working.  That depends on how your state computes child support.  

My ex would actually pay less child support if I weren't working.  The reason for this is that it is a shared  computation.  The higher the combined income, the higher the child support.  

>I wouldn't worry about it.  She's getting the money.  She's
>just pissed off because she's not getting it when SHE wants
>it.  The key word here is "threatening".  She's just trying to
>get you to do what she wants.  Call her bluff.
>
>Not sure where you live but the weather could have played a
>role in the last 2 months payments taking a couple of extra
>days.  I doubt very seriously the court would give you much of
>a hassel over it.
>
>Worse comes to worse and she does take you to court, just
>explain to the judge that you don't get paid until the 1st of
>the month and you mail the check the first of every month.
>Bring in your receipts showing when it was sent and when it
>was delivered.  Maybe even request that the due date be
>changed from the 1st of the month to the 5th or something like
>that.
>
>I wouldn't give her the money early either.  Or, if you do,
>I'd date the check for the 1st of the month.  Don't think the
>bank can cash it before the date on the check.  I'm not a bank
>teller so don't know that for sure.

Yes, the bank can and will cash a check before the date.  Had that happen to me once.

>That doesn't make any sense at all.  It sounds like he was
>supposed to be making the payments to "them" (whoever the
>"they" is in your anecdote) and made them to you instead -
>which is different than my case.  How could DCSE order me to
>pay her directly, and then not give me credit for what I pay
>her?  Something must be missing from your story.  Thanks for
>your advice though.  I will definitely be opening my own case
>with DCSE.  
>
>
They is the probation department.  And this was arrears from before the court order, where it wasn't ordered garnished from his wages but paid directly to me.  The court order, technically, should have started with his next paycheck.

Nothing missing from my story.  Just telling you what I had to do to clear the "non-existent" arrears in my ex's case.