Welcome to SPARC Forums. Please login or sign up.

May 26, 2024, 02:53:20 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Responses--since my thread was locked.

Started by speciallady, Nov 02, 2007, 02:34:22 AM

Previous topic - Next topic


I premi di sostegno di bambino sono ingiusti e forniscono l'assegno alimentare nascosto, il sole.

Kindergeldpreise sind unfair und liefern versteckte Alimente, Sonnenschein.

Las concesiones de la ayuda de niño son injustas y proporcionan los alimentos ocultados, sol.


طفلة دعم مكافآت ظالمة ويزوّد يخفى نفقة, إشراق.


>Sunshine, Sunshine, Sunshiny day!!

Feel free to add something of substance to the conversation if you wish. So far, all I see are personal attacks from people who refuse to back up their position.


If you ever care to provide a real argument and back it up, feel free.

Translating a bogus, unsubstantiated argument into multiple languages doesn't make it real.


Why are YOU here?  What brought you here, Mist?  I know what brought me here, and it IS the unfairness of the court system where the NCP is concerned, both  for the ridiculous support awards and the basic over-involvement and interference in my ability to parent my child.

Tell ya what, Mist...let's post a poll to see how many that post to this board feel the court systems are working and that child support orders, on a whole are fair and just to all.

There is an argument for you...cuz I am willing to bet, let's say a great bottle of wine, that more than 90% on this board that are NCP's are going to agree that the court system IS NOT working in either case.

Hence, the reason they showed up here in the first place.

And I can tell you that if a custodial parent would have posted the absolute bull shit you have posted about the entitlement of ex's to maintain a lifestyle for the sake of the children, they would have been ripped a new asshole.


I'm here to help people who might need advice and to get advice on some of the issues I've faced.

I do not personally believe that "the system stinks and all NCPs are going to get harmed by it" is very helpful advice to anyone. The system is what it is - and I'm willing to offer advice to work with the system.

As for your 90% of NCPs saying that the court system is not working, you're dreaming. But feel free to provide evidence to support that claim. Your making a statement that the system fails 90% of the time is NOT evidence.


Reality will hit you one day.


>Reality will hit you one day.

Not really. You see, unlike you, I LIVE in reality. It's not something alien to me.

Kitty C.

......because there's one I know positively that does not allow CS to stop, even if you're unemployed.  Iowa.  Yep, lil' ol' Ioway.  DH has been unemployed twice while paying support and not only could he not get it stopped, he couldn't even get it reduced!  So of course, this caused a large arrears to accumulate.  When DH did find another job, he had to borrow the money to get the arrears paid off, since BM was making such a stink about it and threatening serious legal action.

I wouldn't be surprised if that weren't also the case in many other states.  The problem REALLY is, if you're unemployed, how in the hell can you pay for an atty. to even file for a downward mod. or get it temporarily suspended?  I know if no unemployed parents who could do that.  And even if you can, it's a crap shoot at best.  DH's opinion is 'I can be spending my money and time better by getting another job.'

And you 'could' say that she would be justified, as that money was for SS's benefit.  But we also found that she deposited most of that money for a long time, since she had already gotten remarried and her new DH apparently supported her well.  We certainly couldn't afford buying SS a VCR, Playstation, and a TV for his room when he was FIVE (like they did), and it wasn't even his birthday or Xmas.  They were just setting SS up for when they wanted some place to get him out of the way.

But she's now been through a 2nd divorce, splits physical custody exactly 50/50 (her and ex work opposite days at the same factory) with the child they had together, and gets very little CS because their incomes are pretty equal.  SS is now 13 and has told BM that if she ever went back to court for more CS, he'd run away to us and disown her.
Handle every stressful situation like a dog........if you can't play with it or eat it, pee on it and walk away.......


OK, 'stopped' was too strong a word.

In Iowa and most states, a change in employment status is grounds for a change in support. In the case of unemployment, they base the child support on either your unemployment compensation check or potential salary (typically minimum wage in many cases), but it's still reduced to the appropriate level based on your new employment situation.


Getting CS reduced for whatever reason is a not a sure thing in the courts.

I think that you're making a statement that's too much of a "THIS is the way the courts react or decide or behave" as a guarantee and that's the part that's wrong.