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]

A few dozen?  LMAO...

You failed math!

[mistoffolees]

>A few dozen?  LMAO...
>
>You failed math!
>
>

Why don't you tell me what percentage of the US divorce population is posting here.

Hint: it's a tiny, tiny fraction.

[jilly]

>>"-Of the 11% of obligations that are in arrears, 15% are
>>erroneous (the parent doesn't owe anything)."
>>
>>If I understand the original post correctly, this is exactly
>>the problem.  The State is trying to collect money that has
>>already been paid and the payor is having a heck of a time
>>convincing them he doesn't owe the money.
>
>
>So in 1% of the cases, there's an error. And those errors were
>readily identified by the surveyors. There's nothing in the
>report that says that 'the payor is having a heck of a time
>convincing them....'.
>
>I agree that this is a problem and should be addressed. I
>don't agree that an error rate of 1% constitutes a system
>that's broken beyond repair.

I didn't say there was anyting in the report that says that the payor is having a heck of a time convincing them.

I was talking about my understanding of the ORIGINAL POST that started all this.

[olanna]

Gee, I am so enlightened now.  I forgot how happy and satisfied all divorced people are.  It totally escaped me with how many atty's are going hungry because everyone is so satisfied with the court system they don't need them anymore!  Oh man...I have been corrected.  

Yea, Mist, we are all just as happy as shit.  Negate everything anyone says differently because obviously we just don't know how great we all have it.

Oh yes, I guess those packed court rooms with divorcing couples show the system is working beyond our wildest imaginations!

Hey Waylon, you might as well throw the lock on the gate here and shut it down...we decided Mist is right...everyone is happy and it's working for all of us.  Can't imagine why this board ever started in the first place.

[mistoffolees]

I see you're still confused with the concept that SOME people are unhappy but that doesn't prove that the entire system is broken.

If you figure that one out, get back to me.

[SPARC Admin]

I think we've flogged this subject pretty thoroughly and everyone knows where everyone stands. :)

How about agreeing to disagree, taking a break from this for a while, and maybe unpinning this topic?

I know everyone here has strong feelings on this subject, but I don't see anyone changing their position anytime soon and the discussion is starting to get a wee bit acrimonious. :)

Maybe everyone should take a deep breath, relax for a bit, and then maybe come back for another go at it in a day or two. Just a suggestion.

[ohu812]

I have been on both sides. I was the NCP and paid every dime of support on time, carried medical insurance, and paid for most everything for our BD (even though courts didnt order it). The BM had her on medicaid anyway and was using meth. When I finally got custody there was no food in the house(but BM was on food stamps), no utlities on for 6 months, living in a condemed house, and BM and boyfriend tested positive for meth. Now I have custody and she is well taken care of but BM doesnt have to pay as much as I did (because she was always on welfare). The laws arent fair but they are consistent. The one thing I would like to change is if a parent is paying support and the CP gets neglect substantiated then they should owe the NCP all the money back. My BD went without food but I paid her BM weekly (support) to cover food.

[Giggles]

CP's should have to account for the spending of the CS!!!  Before everyone gets in a tizzy...I'm a CP!!  I have no qualms what so ever about saying when and how I spend the CS I receive....it's not that difficult since I don't get that much....and 100% of what I get goes to my child!!  My DS's before and after school costs are $350 a month, I get $275 in CS...enough said!

[mistoffolees]

The only problem is that this creates a lot more work with little benefit.

In most cases, the amount being provided for CS is only a small fraction of what it really costs to raise a child. Let's take your case. You're getting $275 / mo in CS. You pay:
$350 child care
Housing
Food
Clothing
Insurance
Unreimbursed medical
Transportation
Vacation
Gifts
And countless other things.

Since it's incredibly obvious that you're paying far more than you're receiving, what benefit is there to requiring documentation?

I have seen only a very tiny number of cases where the CS comes anywhere near what it costs to raise a child, so there's no benefit to requiring documentation of the costs.

Sure, there is a very small number of people who don't spend anything on the kids and it might be remotely possible that they receive more in CS than their housing, food, clothing, insurance, etc costs. But if they're that dishonest, it's not that hard to get fake receipts, anyway. And I can't believe it happens any significant amount of time, anyway.

[Ref]

is that the support money from the NCP should equal 100% of the cost to raise a child. This, at least in Florida, is completely untrue. It is based on % of income. DH is to pay 75% of the support and BM is to provide the remaining 25%. Because BM is selfish and a total loser, she thought the 75% that DH was sending should not only be 100% of SD's costs and she didn't have to finacially contribute, but it should also pay her most of her costs. How do I know? I am an auditor and she provided her finanacial affidavit for a court case that showed not only did DH cover 100% of SD's costs but over 50% of BM's.

In my eyes, by her refusing to work and living off the money that DH sent for PART of SD's care, she was stealing from her own child.

Many CP's are also under this misconception only to complain when the child isn't getting 100% of the support from the NCP. It is rediculous to put all of that on the NCP. You get $275 in CS. That may be perfectly reasonable if you are to contribute a greater percentage of the support based on your income.

I just wanted to mention this because it seems to illude so many people, especially CPs.

Best wishes,
Ref