custodial- noncustodial -means?

[leon clugston]

after looking for multiple answers in the regulations and statuatory law of the United States, it had dawned upon us that what was missing. There is no deffinitions for a custodial,- noncustodial parent, in any of the Code of federal regulations, nor any under the United States code(statuatory law) except one place and it was under title 26USC & 152,(United States tax code) and yet its description is still of question.

The importance of this is, Agencies have to have a statuatory law to go by, and then there has to be a regulation saying what they can do, but if there is no deffinition of the sort, then the regulation can not apply to a law that is not deffined.

Now maybe some states have a deffinition, but is it a clear deffinition, that actually sets apart the differnce between the two. There is lots of case laws, but where is the deffinitive answer to what there saying, there has to be a source to confirm there deffinition to be valid.

This draws a big problem in for people who have shared custody, equally and joint legal, there cannot be difference between the two if they share these attributes and survive under a claim of discrimination, for two people equal, one cannot for monetary reasons be called a obligor, it has no standing in law, and holds no water under the federal side either.
These are all important things, for judges are supposed to be in fact arbitrators of the LAW(united states constitution), not interpreting it or makeing law as they go, for there own or someones elses pecuinary enterest.

[leon clugston]

As usual maybe i have complicated things to much, to simplify what ime saying, does youre state under its statutes or family codes have a explicit deffinition of what a custodial and non custodial parent is, and does rhime and or reason w/ what the intent of congress was in makeing child support laws, i.e is the custodian the actual custodian, meaning does the child actually reside w/ this adult for 50+% of the time, or is the deffinition so broad as the obligor might actualy be the custodian just for monetary reasons, meaning the custodain is paying the non-custodian because the custodian makes more money, the latter does not compute or reason w/ congresses inent under the child support laws, however due to pecuinary enterests and corrupt sytems within the states this happens a lot. The important factor w/ this latter deffinition is that theres no regulations to base it on, nor is there statuatory law to give the enforcement divisions authority to collect from a custodian.

This means more than just custodian, because there is no statutory deffinition, this means its a court deffintion(custodian-non custodian) descretionary enterpretation, which brings us to the fact that judges are no longer being arbitrators of the law, but are exerciseing executive power and are makeing laws that have no face and without authority.

[wendl]

I know some courts use it as to desiver (sp) whom the child(ren) live the majority of the time with.


**These are my opinions, they are not legal advice**