Menu

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.

Show posts Menu

Messages - NeverGiveUp

#11
Child Support Issues / RE: I had no idea...
Jun 20, 2004, 04:27:58 PM
Typicaly it's 23% for one child.  25% for two . . . .

That's from gross.  So, if you make 50K/Year and you have 2 children,  you'll pay ~12.5K/year.  I make 80K/year so I will pay 20K/year.  Yup, over 1600/month.  Then after taxes, that's about another 1/3 of your gross, you end up with less then 1/2 your pay.  Killer is, I end up buying stuff for my kids, like cloths, when they are with me.

You, either make very little money or are very very lucky.
#12
Child Support Issues / RE: I had no idea...
Jun 20, 2004, 04:10:22 PM
First they came for the Jews, but I didn't care because I'm not Jewish.  Then they came for the Pols, but I didn't care because I'm not Polish.  Then they came for me . . . . .


I'm not trying to compare to the tragedy of the Holocaust.  Just the mind set.  Have you sent your letter to your gov officials??
#13
Seems clear to me.  Wait until you get to court and hear what the judge has to say.  If you can't afford an att then you don't have much choice.

Did you write a letter to your officials telling them that unless they change the laws you're voting for Mickey this November?  It only costs a few cents. If not, then we'll most likely continue to get screwed . . .  
#14
Child Support Issues / RE: I had no idea...
Jun 07, 2004, 02:42:48 PM
You're right, it's not right.  Try not to let that cloud your vision with respect your children.  Because you're right there too, they need both their parents.  The sadest part is there needs to be more women in your shoes, then everyone would be on the same page and the system would change.  Unfortunately, ironicaly you are in the minority.  

Welcome to our world where no one has a voice . . .
#15
Child Support Issues / RE: Dear rini
Jun 05, 2004, 06:50:04 AM
My argument hasn't changed here, nor has it been challenged.  You're children have needs, there father isn't providing for those needs so you have to.  You argue that society should step in and enforce that support.

There was a family that grew up in my neighborhood. The parents spent money foolishly and often overlooked the needs of their children. The kids never had good clothing and were doing poorly in school. Seldom did they have proper supervision and they got picked on by the other kids.

Will you argue that enforcement should be in place for families like that?  It would be in the best interest of the children, right? No, of course we wouldn't argue that.  This would be opening the door to government invading ever household in America.  It would challenge our constitution, it would be dead wrong . . . Welcome to the world of the NCP . . .

My argument stands.  Our civil rights provide equality for ALL Americans.  Our civil rights are being violated and our children are being used to do it. If you're going to invade my privacy and determine whether or not I'm supporting my children properly (because it's in the children's best interest). Then you should be doing the same for every other child in America.

Your ex was a poor provider, a poor role model, a lousy father.  So you divorce him because you decided you and your children will be better off.  Good for you.  You made a decision and you corrected your own problem. He was a dead beet when you were married to him, and NO ONE GOT involved.  Now he's a dead beet after you got rid of him.  Why should we get involved now?
#16
Child Support Issues / RE: Sorry!
Jun 05, 2004, 06:25:44 AM
You didn't start this.  It's been going on for a long time. You just brought it up again.  That's good not bad.  Things like this need to be brought up or nothing will ever change.

I understand that the children are the ones that suffer.  Children are directly affected by the choices their parents make. Parents make bad choices in intact families all of the time.  Children in intact families don't always get everything they need.  Sometimes their parents buy speed boats or sports cars while their children suffer from learning disabilities and aren't getting the help they need.  It's sad, it's also life.  I simply state that that if we, as a society, aren't going to patrol intact families then we have no right patrolling divorced families.

I'm a NCP.  My child suffered from a learning disability.  I had to fight to get testing that was needed.  I now sit back helpless because the testing is complete, the disability has been identified, and no help is being provided. I pay ~$1,000/month. Where does it go?  Who's looking out for my kids now?  How does anyone know what their mom is doing with that much money?  Why doesn't anyone care?

I think it's because the best interest of our children can never be decided by a group of people that don't even know them.  The best interest of our children is, and should be, up to the parents.
#17
Child Support Issues / RE: Dear Peanutsdad
Jun 03, 2004, 03:29:57 AM
I agree.  It's different in every state, in every county, in every court.  Locate a fathers rights group in your area and attend the meetings.  They'll know the court in your area and maybe even the judge.  They also have no motivation to leed you on or feed you falls info.
#18
Child Support Issues / Don't stroke me . .
Jun 02, 2004, 10:24:21 AM
I am not the exception.  In the past few years I've gotten to know many fathers being burned by our system.  They are great dads, ALL of them, and I've yet to meet a one that wouldn't gladly take his children 100% of the time and ask for nothing from their X's.  That's right, we'd exchange money for our children, happily.

How many CP's do you know that are willing to do that?
#19
I've read through these posts and this is what I've seen.

Many people are pointing at the past and blaming "dead beat dads" for the injustice that is CS today.  I hardly think that's fair.  Let's not forget that in the past fathers had it even worse than they do now (hard as it may be to believe).  Basically they were ripped from their children's lives and awarded no parental rights at all.  Many objected through the only means they had available (they stop paying).  That prompted the need for support enforcement, which actually didn't work either.  Fathers became so frustrated with the system that they disappeared, or willingly faced prosecution.  Only then did the courts pull their heads out of their a**'s and recognize that keeping fathers involved was the best way to ensure support was continued.  On that note I argue, stop telling us that 4 days a month is sufficient to being a parent and kids will get the support they need.

Next, we all seem to be missing a fundamental point here.  No one is looking at the intact family to decide how things are going in their home, unless it's so bad that neglect is present.  Nor would we dare. It's a double standard and a clear violation of our civil rights. You don't even have to disagree with CS to see it's true.

Lastly, you can't support something like this half way.  You're either in favor of it or opposed to it.  Let me ask, what would we do to an intact family that couldn't provide for the family?  Would we take the children and place them in foster care until their parent(s) could provide them with food and shelter? Would anyone complain about it when it happened?  I doubt it.  It is after all in the best interest of the child(ren).  So let's extrapolate this.  What if we were to say that the parent with most custodial time was responsible for that share of the support, instead of the other way around?  If a parent was unable to provide for themselves and their children, we simply place the children in the care of the other parent for more time, thereby putting emphasis on the noble idea of obtaining adequate employment to support yourself and your children.  Boy I can hear the screaming now . . . What kind of an asinine notion is that.  Then divorced parents would be like everyone else.

By the way, save any arguments regarding stay at home parenting.  It isn't in place for 80% of the intact families so there's no base for supporting it in divorced families.  Also, let's keep dead beet dads out of this as well.  They are the NOT the norm, give a father the right to have his children and watch how he'll work twice as hard to support them. Just like mom!
#20
CS should not be mandated in any way shape or form.  It states that "we", as parents, are unwilling to provide for our children without giving us the oportunity to do so.  I, for one, am personaly insulted by the very notion.  I detest the concept at face value and I'm sicked by those, even some one this forum, that declare it is justified by our obligation to our children.  I see no one ever looking into my neighbors home to determine what % of his income is being spent on his children, or where it's being spent.  Nor is there any mandate insisting that CS be accounted for by the CP.  For all we know they spend it on themselves.  

So in short, to answer your question.  No, it's not fair.  So write your elected officials and tell them if they don't get it together you'll vote for someone that will.