A story to rip your heart out and inform...

[speciallady]

THis is also an update of what I've posted on the second families board but here goes...

My husband was just hit with 8K in arrears (although bm thinks she's getting more...) when the state of California did an audit, at her request, and figured in interest dating back to 1995. Interest taken right off the top of previous payments so now he's back in arrears.

His current and arrears were paid off Sept 21 this year but it didnt matter. Court was Oct 12 and he got socked a good one.
In California, no matter when you pay off, they can go back at any time and figure in interest. My husband talked to 3 lawyers and two are of the paralegals working for them went through the same thing. One person had everything paid off and 6 years later, they came back at her for interest. Yep, a "her".

This man served his country, tried to do the right thing and bam--here we are. Sure he's been umemployed but that happens. BM on the other hand, has never soley supported herself or her children. She has done everything short of accusing sexual abuse (although she has mentioned this before) to keep the kids away from their dad. THey are both 19 now and stationed in Iraq and she still continues---she pretends to be the kids on the net, still.

BM has been on this board too---stalking--she pretended to be me on here several times. In chat. Other boards too.

This is all just so wrong. He married her, she got pregnant while he was in service and she took off. She tried everything she could to keep him away from those kids. He still paid support. He even paid for a child she got pregnant with while  they were still married that was not his. ONce she found out that biodad had money though, she changed all that. This kid even had his last name at one time..nice, eh?

He gets out of service, hard to find work-never files for a reduction. He always let cse know what was going on. She filed for an increase AFTER we got married, thinking she'd get her hands on my money and they backdated to the date of filing--a year later. Interest on that as well.

CA "child" support just never ends. I could see if she solely supported those kids but its either been welfare, some guy, cash payments, family, payments for, how shall we say? "favors"....

We'll get through this---as always. But be forwarned, if you have a CA order, you'll be paying for a long time.

[Kitty C.]

I've only found one way not to pay for a long time..........

DS turned 18 in April, but during the summer of 2002, while he was seeing his dad in CA (we live in IA), his dad died of cancer.  DH's ex asked him once why I didn't go back and ask for more support.  And she couldn't fathom why I asked 'Why?'.  She found out a couple years later when she told DH (while she was going through her 2nd divorce) her atty. said she should take DH back for more support, but she said they were finally getting along better and she didn't want to rock the boat.  SS overheard the conversation and told her he'd never speak to her again if she tried!

And not to perpetuate the recent long thread (if you're reading this, Mist), but if it takes more than $500 a month to raise a child (regardless of geographic area or economic status), then there's money being seriosly wasted somewhere.  Sure, private schools and extra-curricular activities can have really big price tags, but they are NOT 'necessities'.  I told DS quite often that I would provide the basics for him, but if he wanted extras (designer labels), he had to earn the money for it. DS's dad only paid $250 a month until he died (long story), so when DS started receiving survivor benefits, I had no idea what to do with all the extra money!  DS resolved that when I had to send him to a wilderness therapy camp, even tho the SS benenfits will only help with a small fraction of that tuition.  But it was my choice to send him there and it is my responsibility to pay for it.  I'm considering getting a PT job to cover those payments.

[olanna]

Anything more than $500 a month is a necessity to the parents...not the kids.

Intact families might provide because they want to...divorced parents, namely the ones that make the most money, provide it because the courts say they have to...it's a huge difference.

;)

[mistoffolees]

>Anything more than $500 a month is a necessity to the
>parents...not the kids.
>
>Intact families might provide because they want to...divorced
>parents, namely the ones that make the most money, provide it
>because the courts say they have to...it's a huge difference.
>

That's one view. My view is that if the kid is used to a certain lifestyle, why force them to live on subsistence level simply because one parent doesn't want to pay more?

And $500 IS subsistence level in CA when you figure the real cost of supporting a kid - housing, medical, child care, food, clothing, activities, etc.

[speciallady]

While this order was from CA, neither party live in CA anymore. In fact, the kids during the time of this audit, lived in Oregon. So, rightly so, the cost of living goes down and therefore, child support should automatically go down?  I know I've seen this arguement before on here but lets look at a couple of facts in my husbands case.
BM collected welfare from 1988-1995.
SHe also got child support, worked for cash, had others supporting her.
She also had free child care.

DH had to pay back each and every penny of that. ON top of child support.

SHE gets free legal although she's made mistakes with all that many times.

These agencies are suppose to be opperating under the representation of the "children".

My husbands children are grown and not even in the country.
I see no fairness nor equity in this situation at all...

Now that this new order has happened, taking money from DH to give to BM--again--dh won't be able to do things for his kids. He'll be referring them to their mother when they want help with weddings, flights, etc....things he could be doing directly for them and not supporting the leach that is their mother.
Sadly, the other father also has had to endure financial havoc by this woman.

[olanna]

"And $500 IS subsistence level in CA when you figure the real cost of supporting a kid - housing, medical, child care, food, clothing, activities, etc."

No it's not.  I chose to live in a new house that I pay a premium for..I chose to buy a new car, I chose to put braces on his teeth, and I chose to pay for a private tutor.  Those are choices that some intact families cannot afford.  But I just happen to make enough money to afford those things..Oh yes, and your budget you mentioned for vacations? Mine is twice that.  But I don't count that child support needs.  (My wife in law certainly does...).

"That's one view. My view is that if the kid is used to a certain lifestyle, why force them to live on subsistence level simply because one parent doesn't want to pay more?"

Um, how much more of 50% percent of his income can the other parent pay and still be able to live in anything other than a tent?  Oh, I get it.  The parent with the kids should have no less than the lifestyle they were used to..and the parent without should live in a tent so that lifestyle can be maintained.

[mistoffolees]

>"And $500 IS subsistence level in CA when you figure the real
>cost of supporting a kid - housing, medical, child care, food,
>clothing, activities, etc."
>
>No it's not.  I chose to live in a new house that I pay a
>premium for..I chose to buy a new car, I chose to put braces
>on his teeth, and I chose to pay for a private tutor.  Those
>are choices that some intact families cannot afford.  But I
>just happen to make enough money to afford those things..Oh
>yes, and your budget you mentioned for vacations? Mine is
>twice that.  But I don't count that child support needs.  (My
>wife in law certainly does...).

That's nice. None of it addresses the issue, though. $500 per month raises someone above the poverty level and not much more.

>
>"That's one view. My view is that if the kid is used to a
>certain lifestyle, why force them to live on subsistence level
>simply because one parent doesn't want to pay more?"
>
>Um, how much more of 50% percent of his income can the other
>parent pay and still be able to live in anything other than a
>tent?  Oh, I get it.  The parent with the kids should have no
>less than the lifestyle they were used to..and the parent
>without should live in a tent so that lifestyle can be
>maintained.

Wrong. I don't believe anyone is ever obligated to pay more than 50% of their income in support - no matter what the circumstances.

But even that is a moot point. If you have kids, it's your responsibility to support them. If you had kids and were raising them at a reasonable middle-class level, divorce should not be an excuse to plunge them into near poverty living if you can afford to support them reasonably well.

[mistoffolees]

>While this order was from CA, neither party live in CA
>anymore. In fact, the kids during the time of this audit,
>lived in Oregon. So, rightly so, the cost of living goes down
>and therefore, child support should automatically go down?  I

Not automatically, but when circumstances change you are free to request a change.

But I'm not sure that support SHOULD drop. Child support is recognition that children are the responsiblity of both parents and that the children should receive a reasonable amount of support. If they move to an area that's cheaper, it simply allows them to live better - and I don't think that's inherently wrong.

Just as I don't think that support should be raised just because the CP chooses to shop at Nieman Marcus rather than Walmart. It's just not relevant to what the support level should be.

>know I've seen this arguement before on here but lets look at
>a couple of facts in my husbands case.
>BM collected welfare from 1988-1995.
>SHe also got child support, worked for cash, had others
>supporting her.
>She also had free child care.

So? Is that supposed to relieve DH of the responsibility of supporting his kids?

>
>DH had to pay back each and every penny of that. ON top of
>child support.
>
>SHE gets free legal although she's made mistakes with all that
>many times.

I think you're leaving something out. It's not the NCP's responsibility to do that. What's the rest of the story?

>
>These agencies are suppose to be opperating under the
>representation of the "children".
>
>My husbands children are grown and not even in the country.
>I see no fairness nor equity in this situation at all...

If he owes money from when they were minors, he owes money. The fact that they've since grown up doesn't change that.

>
>Now that this new order has happened, taking money from DH to
>give to BM--again--dh won't be able to do things for his kids.

Presumably, BM wasn't able to do things in the past because she didn't receive the support she should have been receiving. As I understand your situation, they're simply trying to make up for him paying less than he was supposed to in the past. It's the same as any other debt.

>He'll be referring them to their mother when they want help
>with weddings, flights, etc....things he could be doing
>directly for them and not supporting the leach that is their
>mother.

He's free to do abandon his grown children if he wishes. No one ever said otherwise.

>Sadly, the other father also has had to endure financial havoc
>by this woman.

Which is not what support is about. It's about the kids - who you seem to have forgotten.

[Ref]

I posted this just to see if someone else can get the last word in a string besides Misto.....


(Sorry about having a little fun at your expense Misto)

Ref

[MixedBag]

made me come read the thread -- when I have other things I should be doing.

hahahaha!!!!