Messages

"What do you think child support realy is?, and do you know what it is realy meant for.??"

Child support is money that exchanges hands between parents from the obligor to the obligee. No state's guidelines specifically say what the money should or shouldn't be spent on. How much, if any that is spent on the child is purely at the discretion of the obligee. Of course, that does not relieve the obligee or the obligor of their obligation to provide adequate safety and health while in their care. If a parent were not to do so they could be found abusive, just as any other married parent.


"how do you think they have managed to circumnavigate the authority of the courts allowing AGENCY's to lein, levy and take property against youre constitutional secured rights.?"

It's not clear who you mean by "they". Could you be more specific about what property and which constitutional rights you are talking about?

Based on what you are saying either party would be able to file for a modification of the existing CS order.

From:
http://www.glennsacks.com/nysp/

New York's Shared Parenting Bill has reached a critical point and we want to help give the bill a strong push forward.

New York is a battleground state for shared parenting and fatherhood. Family law has been in the spotlight there, as the New York Matrimonial Commission has held hearings on family law across the state. The Commission recently recommended no-fault divorce for New York.

A330, the New York Shared Parenting Bill, is sponsored by the Coalition of Fathers and Families New York, the New York affiliate of the American Coalition for Fathers & Children.

What the Bill Would Do

Today joint custody is rare in New York and sole custody for mothers is the norm. A330 would "require the court to award custody to both parents in the absence of allegations that shared parenting would be detrimental to the child." It would place the burden of proof that shared parenting would be detrimental where it should be--on the parent requesting sole custody.

The bill also establishes an order of preference for custody, the top preference being joint custody. If the court decides against joint custody, it must state its reasons.

How to Take Action

The bill is slated to be heard by the New York State Assembly's Children & Families Committee within a few weeks. Nearly three dozen New York State Assemblypersons have signed on to the bill as sponsors or co-sponsors, giving the bill momentum. This momentum will be lost if the bill dies in committee. That's why I want all of you to write to the committee members with your support for this bill.

According to FAFNY, letters and calls from anywhere in the country help because they give the bill attention and show the broad national support for shared parenting.

Like California, New York is a battleground state for family law because what happens there has a great impact on the family law of other states. A victory on A330 would reverberate across the country, aiding in ways large or small every child of divorce.

Hearing from so many of you over the past several years, it would be hard to put into words the amount of pain and misery caused by our current family law system and its sole custody, win/lose orientation. Now is your chance to help change the system.

Go to the following web page to find further instructions and links to communicate with the committee members:

http://www.glennsacks.com/nysp/

Dear Legislators:

Children's needs should supersede any designation which is assigned to a parent. As such, children need to be provided for 365 days per year, nothing less. By only providing for the needs of children on days that they are at custodial parent homes, New Hampshire's child support guidelines have left kids in the lurch on days that they are to be with their non-custodial parent. These child support monies should be apportioned to meet the needs of the child. Inexplicably, the current apportionment of New Hampshire's child support does not provide even a dime for needs as basic as food, shelter, clothing, and transportation when they are with their non-custodial parent. How the Legislature could have overlooked such basic needs of children is nothing short of a tragedy.

Including custodial parent income in the calculation of child support, in addition to non-custodial parent income, which has always been considered, will put hundreds of millions, if not billions of additional dollars on the table, which had not previously been considered for the benefit of New Hampshire's children. If it was already assumed, the custodial parent was spending that money for the benefit of their child, then they should have no problem with a calculation that proves such responsibility.

Not only is HB 1580 fair and just, it will provide for the needs of children where the state of New Hampshire's child support currently leaves them to do without. That depravation of children must not continue. I urge New Hampshire's senators to join their colleagues in the House and pass this legislation that will better provide for children.

Sincerely,

POC


If you want to send the same or a similar letter, here are the email addresses to send to:

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]


Here is a link to the bill - http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legisla ... b1580.html

>I agree w/ you one hundred percent again,but like I said
>unless they know how to fight it correctly, and be able to
>rebute the answer that CSED, CSSD,etc has as required by
>federal law to rebut any presumption or claim of wrong doing
>there in for a fight that the average person wont win. Slander
>is what it is,theres no doubt to that, but ive seen a lot of
>claims and never a win against these guys, at least in the
>courts.

A separarate slander suit, with the exw and CSE named as plaintiffs does not require any knowledge of how CSE runs its agency. I'ts a fairly simple prcoess:

1) You are claiming that I owe XXX amount of dollars.
2) I have provided sufficient evidence (same standard as for any other creditor or collection agency) that said amount has been paid in full. Please see exhibits A, B, C, etc...
3) Since you have been provided said evidence, you have continued to slander my credit.
4) Ample time and opportunity has been made for you to retract such accusations, but you have failed to do so.
5) Plaintiff has incurred damages from the willful acts of the defendents' slander.
6) Plaintiff requests compensation from the defendents to make plaintiff whole again.
7) In light of the defendents' refusal to act in good faith, even after they were made aware of their negligence, the defendant requests punitive damages to serve as additional incentive to act appropriately in the future.
8) Plaintiff requests that all attorneys fees and court costs be paid by the defendants.

In a nuthshell, CSE and the exw know what they are doing is wrong. The obligor has done everything right. Quit slandering his credit, and since you failed to do so when you knew that you should have, now it's going to cost you more than if you had done what you were supposed to do.

I stand by my understanding of the law that no person or entity has the right or authority to slander your credit. Slander is when you publicy defame or discredit someone or entity in a way which is not true. In this case, his credit is being slandered. Most likely there are damages associated with that slander.

Did you ask Soc?

I am of the belief that no person or entity has the right or authority to slander your credit. Proof of payment has been produced. You are not raising the issue of if the debt is just and appropriate. Therefore, the question of willingness to accept the debt is moot. You are simply saying, "You are adversely and wrongly slandering my credit - QUIT!"

Again, ask Soc. There has got to be a way to deal with this issue from the false credit reporting angle. And, yes, judgements adversely affect your credit.

You might want to consider treating the Maryland CSE as a creditor who is falsely reporting payments. In effect, the CSE is no different than a collection company. In fact, it is a collection company. If a collection company was trying to collect on a bill, say for your cell phone, that you provided evidence of payment, they would be required to respond within a certain time frame - I believe 30 days. I don't know what all the time frames are, but after a certain point if the creditor does not desist from making unsubstantiated allegations about your credit, they can be held for slander of your credit. In your case, I would send certified letters to both your ex and CSE that you have provided evidence of payment and are treating their response and/or lack thereof as slander of your credit.

You might want to ask Soc if this approach has any merit. I have never heard of it before, but I know it works for people trying to obtain mortgages, and I also know that child support keeps a lot of people from getting a mortgage or refinancing. If you happen to be trying to either you may be sustaining damages.

I agree, in many instances there is a middle ground. But, when it comes to matters of principle, one should not be so quick to negotiate. You will never EVER hear me say that a parent should not help provide for the needs of their child. I'm not about mincing words either. BOTH parents should share the financial responsibility of their child, regardless of which parent the child happens to be with at any given time. If the child never resides with the NCP, then there is no need to provide for such time. That is fairly simple. I think all can agree to that. Since it is a moot issue, there is no need to bring it up.

Now, if the apportionment of CS monies does not account for time to be spent with the NCP, then it is kind of hard to say that the NCP doesn't want to spend time with the child. That would be like saying a parent who cannot afford to take their kid to Disney World does not want their kid to go to Disney World. In the case of CS, it is worse; it is like vilifying a parent for not taking their kid to Disney, while forcing them to pay for someone else's child to go to Disney. That is because, not only is the NCP not receiving any financial assistance from the CP, the CS order forces him to send money that could be used for the child's benefit at his home to the CP.

I'm happy to try to find some middle ground with you. If the NCP voluntarily or via court order does not see his child, then the CP should not spend any money to provide for the child at the NCP's residence. However, if the child spends 5 days per year at the NCP home, then the CP should pay her proportionate share of income towards the child's needs at the NCP home. Likewise, in such circumstances, the NCP should shoulder his proportionate share of the child's needs the other 360 days too. If the amount of time is 100 days, then she should share 100 days worth of expenses at the NCP home, he 265 days, and so on and so forth to where money is seamlessly apportioned between the parents to provide for the needs of their child(ren) across the time sharing and parental income distributions that are reality in today's society. Why should children be forced to settle for anything less than such? Isn't both parents sharing the expenses of their child 365 days per year what is best for children?