Non-Custodial Parent means?

[leon]

I will try to per youre respectfull post to clean up things.
And I duefully respect youre opinion.

[leon]

who was makeing baseless accusation?
you were.
i did read youre opinion on the 50/50 split.
however such was then backed up, with that it was of youre opinion I wasn't supporting my child.
and furthered it was of question if such order of custody existed?
Why avert towards a agreement of unfairness, then turn torwards an opinion of ones custody, without merit.?

To prove a case, you have to establish fact, Done, However when dealing with certain entities, and Hundreds of thousands of dollare at stake" the state stands to lose for not following the written law, and for fileing frauduelnt leins when no valid order with an Obligor Existed, then there is a wall for which goes up.

In such certain case, the courts have simpily just refused to answer on the merits, its nothing new, it happens a lot.
When the state refuses to compell on public record the Alleged Law,
Admits on public record" 3pa-03-1454" there is no law for such an application, but still wants an Obligor/NCP, Absent parent,,,then who is wrong?
Order states clearly, both Parents have Equal Physical custody, and Equal Legal Custody....
Judge admits there is no law to compell me,
Ag admits there is no law to compell me
Agency still contends, I am a NCP "even though it is clearly established in record I am a Custodial Parent"

So who is wrong?
Me for following the Written Publicly known law\
or them?

Either way, I will post Facts, and from now on i will cite the cases, codes and what not,,,,and people can make there own intelligable decisions from such

[Jade]

>who was makeing baseless accusation?
>you were.
>i did read youre opinion on the 50/50 split.
>however such was then backed up, with that it was of youre
>opinion I wasn't supporting my child.

That leap probably hurt you.

>and furthered it was of question if such order of custody
>existed?
>Why avert towards a agreement of unfairness, then turn
>torwards an opinion of ones custody, without merit.?
>
>To prove a case, you have to establish fact, Done,

No, you haven't done this.  


However
>when dealing with certain entities, and Hundreds of thousands
>of dollare at stake" the state stands to lose for not
>following the written law, and for fileing frauduelnt leins
>when no valid order with an Obligor Existed, then there is a
>wall for which goes up.
>


Yes, that wall is called the LAW.

>In such certain case, the courts have simpily just refused to
>answer on the merits, its nothing new, it happens a lot.
>When the state refuses to compell on public record the Alleged
>Law,
>Admits on public record" 3pa-03-1454" there is no law for such
>an application, but still wants an Obligor/NCP, Absent
>parent,,,then who is wrong?
>Order states clearly, both Parents have Equal Physical
>custody, and Equal Legal Custody....
>Judge admits there is no law to compell me,
>Ag admits there is no law to compell me
>Agency still contends, I am a NCP "even though it is clearly
>established in record I am a Custodial Parent"
>
>So who is wrong?
>Me for following the Written Publicly known law\
>or them?
>
>Either way, I will post Facts, and from now on i will cite the
>cases, codes and what not,,,,and people can make there own
>intelligable decisions from such

The problem is that you don't post facts.  You post your opinion and pass it off as a fact.

A perfect example of this is when you stated that by federal law, they can only withhold 50% of one's income in child support.  

Which is only partially correct.  It is 50% for married individuals (with an additional 5% if there are arrears) and 60% for unmarried individuals (with an additional 5% if there are arrears).  You can get a copy of that law at your local child support office.  

The parents are LEGALLY obligated to support their minor child(ren).  The government (both federal and state) have an interest in enforcing this.  Because if they don't, the government will be the one supporting the child(ren).  Which would force taxpayers who aren't the parents to support someone else's child(ren).  

I am sorry that you have a problem comprehending the FACT that parents are LEGALLY obligated to support their child(ren).  But that doesn't change the LAW.  

[leon]

I never disagreed that the parents are legaly. moraly repsonsible, obligated
that was youre imput somewhere that I said they weren't
I explained in detail, the case at hand,
No one denys the facts, the courts dont and neither does the state

Nor do they deny the cooperative agreements, they cannot, when there signatures are attached, nor do they deny that they are bound by the federal codes, and implementing CFR's.

And what law, do you refer to, it was established "at the case at hand" there was no law, per the judge, the AG, and the Agency, to make me a obligor" 50/50 custody split"

Facts---

Most welfare decisions by federal courts have a financial*681 impact on the States. Under the existing federal-state cooperative system, a state desiring to participate, submits a 'state plan' to HEW for approval; once HEW approves the plan the State is locked into the cooperative scheme until it withdraws, FN3 all as described in **1365 King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 316, 88 S.Ct. 2128, 21 32, 20 L.Ed.2d 1118

Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397, 90 S.Ct. 1207, 25 L.Ed.2d 442, held that under this state-federal cooperative program a State could not reduce its standard of need in conflict with the federal standard.
In its contacts with the Social Security Act's assistance programs in recent years, the Court has frequently described the Act as a 'scheme of cooperative federalism.' See, e.g., King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 316, 88 S.Ct. 2128, 2133, 20 L.Ed.2d 1118 (1968); Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U.S. 535, 542, 92 S.Ct. 1724, 1729, 32 L.Ed.2d 285 (1972).

The construction of a compact sanctioned by Congress under the compact clause of the Constitution presents a federal question. U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, § 10, cl. 3.

The Compact Clause of the Constitution provides that "No state shall, without the Consent of Congress[,] ••• enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State••••" U.S. Const., Art. I, § 10, cl. 3. "By vesting in Congress the power to grant or withhold consent, or to condition consent on the States' compliance with specified conditions

Code of Federal Regulations Currentness
Title 45. Public Welfare
Subtitle B. Regulations Relating to Public Welfare
  Chapter III. Office of Child Support Enforcement (Child Support Enforcement Program), Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services (Refs & Annos)
  Part 303. Standards for Program Operations (Refs & Annos)
§  303.107 Requirements for cooperative arrangements.
The State must ensure that all cooperative arrangements:
(a) Contain a clear description of the specific duties, functions and responsibilities of each party;
b) Specify clear and definite standards of performance which meet Federal requirements;
(c) Specify that the parties will comply with title IV-D of the Act, implementing Federal regulations and any other applicable Federal regulations and requirements.
AUTHORITY:  42 U.S.C. 651 through 658, 660, 663, 664, 666,  667, 1302, 1396a(a)(25), 1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p) and 1396(k).
United States Code Annotated Currentness
Title 42. The Public Health and Welfare
 Chapter 7. Social Security (Refs & Annos)
  Subchapter IV. Grants to States for Aid and Services to Needy Families with Children and for Child-Welfare Services (Refs & Annos)
  Part D. Child Support and Establishment of Paternity (Refs & Annos)

 §  666. Requirement of statutorily prescribed procedures to improve effectiveness of child support enforcement
(a) Types of procedures required
In order to satisfy section 654(20)(A) of this title, each State must have in effect laws requiring the use of the following procedures, consistent with this section and with regulations of the Secretary, to increase the effectiveness of the program which the State administers under this part:

4) Liens

Procedures under which--
(A) liens arise by operation of law against real and personal property for amounts of overdue support owed by a ""noncustodial parent ""who resides or owns property in the State;  and
(B) the State accords full faith and credit to liens described in subparagraph  (A) arising in another State, when the State agency, party, or other entity seeking to enforce such a lien complies with the ""procedural rules"" relating to recording or serving liens that arise within the State, except that such rules may not require judicial notice or hearing prior to the enforcement of such a lien.

Anything Else you might want to add.?

[mistoffolees]

>Anything Else you might want to add.?


Sure. How about:

1. In spite of repeated requests, you STILL haven't stated what you think the system should be. From the above, it appears that you think that if 3 states are involved that each of them should collect support and not give credit to the other states. JUST WHAT IS YOUR POSITION?

2. You still haven't backed up your accusations that Jade and I were attacking you simply because you're male.

3. You still need to take some spelling and grammar lessons to make your posts comprehensible.

[leon]

1. it appears that you think that if 3 states are involved that each of them should collect support and not give credit to the other states. JUST WHAT IS YOUR POSITION?----Where in the Heck did you come up with that one


2. You still haven't backed up your accusations that Jade and I were attacking you simply because you're male.-----ok lets see,,,hmm Leon doesn't support his children after it was well etsbalished that I do,,,and Leon probably doesn't even have his children,,,,Dont know what you call it,,nor did you deny them

3. to be in a forum, and youre more worried about spelling and grammer, than fact,,

You are who you are, its fine, however if you choose to continiously attack me, but then exspect the same in youre posts, for one, what happens, or is law in youre state realy has no application in any other state, but personaly I dont see attacking one anothers posts as doing the public anygood, but hey, its youre game.

[mistoffolees]

I see you don't have a rational response to any of my questions.

Figures.



HINT:
1. Your position is unclear. I asked you to clarify. You are unable to do so.

2.  Saying that you may not support your children has nothing to do with your allegation that we were male-bashing.

3.  I'm concerned about facts, too (see above). But one of those facts is that your spelling and grammar is so atrocious that it's impossible to figure out exacly what you're saying. When your spelling and grammar is so bad that it interferes with the message, then you have a problem.

[FatherTime]

I have run into the same issue.  It's not what you think.  It is not cut and dried.  I think that it depends on your gender.  


(WA) State law states (lol) that there is a magical determination of the "custodian" by some law enforcement entity that can ascertain the custodian without evidence of the parenting time of the children.  

see: http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsearch/ViewRoot.asp?Action=Html&Item=35&X=304020159&p=1

         "In the absence of such a designation, the parent with whom the child is scheduled to reside the majority of the time shall be deemed to be the custodian of the child for the purposes of such federal and state statutes."

There are no forms which request the parenting time involved for the above scenario.  No schedule to determine which parent should be deemed the custodian of the child.  Correcting this could help prevent parental kidnapping...but.... I'm just confused.  I don't know what I'm reading.  

So... the question is:  Is the Department of Child Support Enforcement illegally determining the custody of a child?

[leon]

in some cases, YES, they are illegaly Administratively determining custody. Agencies are purely investigatorial, they hold no executive or judicial powers, nor do they have that majic Quasi judicial power they drempt up.
The inherent rights of the People, mother/fathers, married/divorced are secured rights, untill they consent to enter into a court to have a created fictatious right, a "GRANTED" right, why in the heck would anyone want a Granted right, over a absolute right,thats another story.
 in more cases than not, the state establishes an Obligor, non-custodial parent, absent parent, and contrary to final determinations of custody, that person still retains that status, even though in many cases, they no longer fall under the deffinitions or qualifications of such said status.

[mistoffolees]

>in some cases, YES, they are illegaly Administratively
>determining custody.

Your opinion.

Until the courts settle this issue, it is incorrect to state that what they are doing is illegal.