As an NCP, do you feel that child support orders are just and fair in your case and that no matter what, the CP's lifestyle should be maintained for the sake of the children?

[olanna]

There has been a lot of discussion on this board about the current system not working.  Please feel free to post your response and elaborate on any issues that you are having with the current court system regarding child support, child visitation, etc.

[mistoffolees]

So you think that posting your blatantly biased test in two different locations is going to make it any more valid?

Considering that you seem to think that making the same unfounded claims louder and louder somehow lends validity, I'm not surprised.

[leon clugston]

as a EQUAL CP, 50% legal and Physical "YES Misty one week on, one week off,, I find the current sytem is bent over money period.
OOOPS, so much for equal protection of the alleged law, which the court even admitted didn't allow them to do it" ie...make a support amount"

Now as a former NCP, it was even better, we can take youre money, youre "Drivers" license, lein youre property, raid youre accounts, and change the amount of support at any time, and we can do it as employees of the state, for which you can only argue with us, and must exhaust all possible remedies before you can challenge us in a pretend court of law, "Which is made up of more employees who are bound by the Cooperative agreements, and must submit to the resolutions set forth in the cooperative agreements"Contracts"

[mistoffolees]

I'm still waiting for:

1. Your explanation in simple language what your position is.

2. Your recommendation of what you think the system SHOULD be.

3. Your evidence that the system is all about money.

4. Your evidence that the system fails to work more often than it works.

Until you can provide those things, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

[leon clugston]

>I'm still waiting for:
>
>1. Your explanation in simple language what your position is.
>
>2. Your recommendation of what you think the system SHOULD
>be.
>
>3. Your evidence that the system is all about money.
>
>4. Your evidence that the system fails to work more often than
>it works.
>
>Until you can provide those things, how do you expect anyone
>to take you seriously?


Misty you and I have went rounds, and all that has been resolved is unless you personaly can benefit from whatever anyone proves, you denounce it as being fact, that being said, I told you by the end of the week i will show this group excerpts from said law, Federal, that is mandated upon the states and the judges, that transforms it all to non disclosed public law, for which binds the judges to perform in favor of the state for money, which in turn obliques there indpendant decision, turning it into a  Administerial decision, not of law but of contract, for which you personly will denounce, but there it is, and yes its in public record, the codes, the CFR's, and under youre state child support plan.

[mistoffolees]

>Misty you and I have went rounds, and all that has been
>resolved is

that you continue to make wild accusations, refuse to provide evidence to back up your assertions, refuse to state your position in clear English, and refuse to provide a suggestion of an alternatives.

Yes, we've established that much.

[MixedBag]

In Alabama, parents can agree to 50/50 time, but ONE parent has to be the primary parent and will receive CS.

And yes, they can agree to no CS -- but that has to be an agreement and then the judge can over rule.

I was on the receiving end of CS (about $500 per month for 2 girls), and he was underpaying.

I realized that it became a form of "family support" even for me because as the girls approached the age of emancipation, I had to shrink my budget by that amount.  When they left, my expenses to support them did not shrink by $500 -- actually, it should have gone down by more than that considering I'm supposed to be supporting them with my money too -- so really $1000 is the right figure.

Didn't happen -- which means that some of that $500 was like "spousal support" that dad didn't get credit for.

And if dad or I took the subject to court -- he would have had to pay more, not less, because he increased his standard of living by a lot over the years, where as I stayed steady.....(my choice because I know money doesn't buy happiness.....and he thought it did).  

[MixedBag]

When the pendulum swung the other way this summer, I agreed to "less support" in favor of dad paying for transportation expenses.

The net result to dad is (IMHO) about a $100 a month savings -- if he plans and buys the airline tickets early, and even more if he combines a weekend with a week, and even more if he doesn't buy a ticket at all.

Why did I agree?

Because my focus was on our child and getting him out of that environment.

What dad pays in CS covers the monthly gas to take our son to Atlanta to the airport and our son's allowance.  So the net support from dad is zero.

Since I match that from my money, I can say "Nope, my 50% doesn't cover what I need to spend on our son."  But our son is happy.

I can say that I've been on my own in this house for a year before the change last summer.

SO -- its easier for me to compare before and after expenses of everything -- before son arrived and now that he's here.

If dad were to pay me full CS, I'd have change left over.  Then spend some on clothes, and I'd still have change left over.  Then spend some on activities, and there's change.....

That lends me to believe the CS tables are not correct.

[MixedBag]

is the agency itself as the "go-between" or monitor of the money that is exchanged.

It was a good thing I didn't have to contact DAD#1 to pay CS on time.  He showed his true colors when MD emancipated and when he had an opportunity to NOT send me money, he didn't.

It is a good thing I don't have to contact DAD#2 about getting CS straight -- he thinks he over paid, I've been underpaid....BUT it's getting straightened out.  (The state has the money, and some of it is being sent to me to get it caught up, and there maybe some left over that is considered "pre-paid", they won't give me figures to know for sure....no problem).

So that part of the system, I'm grateful for.

[babyfat]

I think that one can logiclly say a NCP should support a child based on thier income and ability to pay. However I have seen extreem cases where NCP had to live in a car to make support payments because they were so high although rare, it does happen. I have also read cases where the other children of a NCP went without necessities because support was too high and the judge would not change it. To be fair I have also heard of cases and know people who's ex got away with the disappearing act and worked off the books jobs just to get out of supporting thier children. I actually heard one woman tell me she was owed $30,000 in back support and couldn't find the dad.

 In my boyfriends case they did not take off for the other child he has, they counted 100% of his over time for the past year which he doesn't get now, and they took off for the ex's other child  and didn't even count the tips she makes as a waitress, plus the allowed her to deduct daycare expences that she uses not for work purposes but so she can go out parting. Fair not hardly. Yes we have been trying to bring it to court but the wait is 6 months so we are stuck with it now. This was all done very on the sly the GAL sent it to the child support agency who rushed it through and asked no questions. When called they responed that the GAL never told them about the other child or any child related expences, they only handed the agency his W-2 form. Kinda sneaky and nasty huh?