• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

monetary sanctions...

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
OG,

You have been asked and warned on many occasions. When you are going to type something as to make us spit out whatever drink that we have in our mouths, we respectfully ask that you give us warning as to not have to clean up the messes you basically create at our respective computer tables. I will now have to send you to the corner for time out.

Damn. Sorry. Hey guess what -- my fever is back. Can I use that as an excuse? And are you tired of sotiredofit? She should have warned us that her screenname would apply to all of us. ALIMONY IS NOT CHILD SUPPORT. (I knew I should have finished the antibiotics for my respiratory infection.DAMN)
 


CourtClerk

Senior Member
Well, I'm hypoglycemic and my blood sugar is playing rollercoaster games. It's going up and down and up and down. On top of that, I woke up and my left ear was all clogged up. My head is still stuffy thanks to that head cold and like sotiredofit, I am so tired of it all including the OP.

I think we should take all the posts OT... you finish the antibiotics and maybe tomorrow I'll leave work early tomorrow and get some of my own.
 
And you have just shown what you are really after. To have him keep paying and paying and paying. You are using it as alimony. He is not trying to not pay child support.
Strapping boys huh?

Actually, I've shown no such thing. You're assuming, and that is your prerogative. Now, the facts are that yes, he should keep paying until our children are both out of college. That's the law, Ohiogal. Why would I have to explain that to a family law attorney??...Oh, and he IS trying to not pay child support, that's what the order to show cause is about. kwim?


lets see in one of your first posts you stated:


Fourteen and ten. How strapping are they? If very, them maybe you need to take them to the doctor to see about getting them on a diet. Childhood obesity is extremely prevalent and if they eat that much then you are overfeeding them.
As for paying the piper, you also danced. So why don't you have to pay?

The answer to your question doesn't matter. Boys, particularly ones who are growing and active, as my kids are burn a lot of calories. That's not to be confused with obesity. As far as paying the piper? I'm doing exactly that. It's called raising my kids. I'm with them, taking care of them 95% of the time, the ex has them 5% of the time. That's my payment, Ohiogal. Again, it's scary that I would have to explain how family law works to a family law attorney...Please be careful, what you don't want is to be sued for malpractice...

Now back to the topic at hand: monetary sanctions.

I will run that by an attorney and see if it will be appropriate to ask for these, as the ex his assets (i.e. he lied to me about his income) while we were negotiating our marital stipulated agreement. I have documented proof.
 
Last edited:

CJane

Senior Member
Actually, I've shown no such thing. You're assuming, and that is your prerogative. Now, the facts are that yes, he should keep paying until our children are both out of college. That's the law, Ohiogal. Why would I have to explain that to a family law attorney??...Oh, and he IS trying to not pay child support, that's what the order to show cause is about. kwim?

What???? Post the statute for the bolded portion please.
 
What???? Post the statute for the bolded portion please.

The college portion doesn't matter. I believe that the NCP has to pay until the chilren are 22 IF they are still in college-which my boys will be.

But, the point is Ohiogal is asking me why I shouldn't have to pay CS and why the ex should have to when my kids are with me 95% of the time and with him only 5% of the time. That question should not be coming from a family law attorney. Add to that the fact that the ex is capable of making and has made $155k a year in the not so distant past.

THAT is the point.
 
Last edited:
I think the court case below shows that I should not necessarily be imputed a high income just because I have two degrees. As I have stated, I have no experience yet, and have not been able to secure a position in my field. During our ten-year marriage, I was a stay-at-home mom. After the divorce and up to the present, I have only worked part-time and sporadically. See below:


"Husband and wife had been married for thirty years. Wife filed for divorce when she was 54; husband was 56 and was a physician employed full time by UCLA. Husband received additional income from speaking engagements, writings and honoraria. Wife filed an order to show cause (OSC) for spousal support. At issue were husband's consultation fees for treatment of a Saudi Arabian head of state, who husband travelled to see once a year.

Wife was a registered nurse and had an MS and PhD in nursing and child development. She worked as a head nurse and research coordinator at UCLA and had been on the faculty of the UCLA School of Nursing. After her children were born, she focused on raising the family and worked only part-time for the past twenty years. She is currently unemployed.

Wife claims that husband makes $266,000 per year for his house calls to Saudi Arabia. Husband claims that the house calls are sporadic and are now limited to a maximum of $140,000 per year. Further, the patient will soon die, and the visits will cease.

The family trial court found that husband's income approximated $54,000 per month; no income was imputed to wife. The court ordered husband to pay $21,000 in spousal support."
 
Last edited:

Astrolink

Member
"I believe that the NCP has to pay until the chilren are 22 IF they are still in college-which my boys will be."

If you are indeed in CA, neither CS, nor tuition will be paid by the NCP under CA statutes.

"As far as paying the piper? I'm doing exactly that. It's called raising my kids. I'm with them, taking care of them 95% of the time, the ex has them 5% of the time. That's my payment"

I'd be careful how you present yourself in court. From the above, it can be inferred you feel you should be paid for parenting.....which is not what CS is defined as.
 
"I believe that the NCP has to pay until the chilren are 22 IF they are still in college-which my boys will be."

If you are indeed in CA, neither CS, nor tuition will be paid by the NCP under CA statutes.

"As far as paying the piper? I'm doing exactly that. It's called raising my kids. I'm with them, taking care of them 95% of the time, the ex has them 5% of the time. That's my payment"

I'd be careful how you present yourself in court. From the above, it can be inferred you feel you should be paid for parenting.....which is not what CS is defined as.

I guess it does come down to how you present yourself, well to a certain extent. I will be careful, I do NOT want to get on the judge's bad side. However my words come across I do understand that the purpose of child support is to make the living standards of the children as close as possible to what it was before the the divorce. And if that improves the condition of the custodial parent, so be it. I mentioned the "parenting time" because in Cali that's an important component of how child support is calculated. That will be one reason why my ex "should" be paying and I shouldn't.

I can't recall how I heard of the "22 year" thing. Maybe another state?
 
Last edited:

Astrolink

Member
I think you may be confused on the definition of child support. Here it is: Financial support paid by a parent to help support a child or children of whom they do not have custody.

Your statement: " I do understand that the purpose of child support is to make the living standards of the children as close as possible to what it was before the the divorce."

This is closer to the definition of what spousal maintainance is.

You really need an attorney.
 
Yeah, so far I've been kind of stumbing in the dark here, I assume that's the case with most of us who don't have an attorney. I should have educated myself more, I'm just now consulting with attorneys and do really need my own. If I had had one during my divorce, I wouldn't have gotten taken advantage of so much by my sleazy ex.

I may have to see about retaining one. I will if I get screwed on the CS/SS modification.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
I think you may be confused on the definition of child support. Here it is: Financial support paid by a parent to help support a child or children of whom they do not have custody.

Your statement: " I do understand that the purpose of child support is to make the living standards of the children as close as possible to what it was before the the divorce."

This is closer to the definition of what spousal maintainance is.

You really need an attorney.

I disagree with that...I don't think that is even remotely the definition of spousal support.
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
Quit lying.

The college portion doesn't matter. I believe that the NCP has to pay until the chilren are 22 IF they are still in college-which my boys will be.
Wrong.
But, the point is Ohiogal is asking me why I shouldn't have to pay CS and why the ex should have to when my kids are with me 95% of the time and with him only 5% of the time. That question should not be coming from a family law attorney.

Actually he has them more than 5% of the time based on your other post:

Carl, the ex and I were divorced in 2004. He filed an OSC for support modification. He is not asking for a custody modification. He sees the kids overnight every other weekend and 4-6 weeks in the summer and about half the holidays. That comes out to about 5% of the time with the kids, I would say.

Every other weekend is 52 nights a year. Four to six weeks is anywhere from 28 to 42 days. Simple math -- not including holidays -- says he sees them at the minimum based on your own post 80 days. Which equates to almost 22% of the time. That is minimum. So you can't add. And you are wrong about the amount of time but however you want to fudge the numbers or lie is up to you.
Of course then you turn around an add:
Or maybe not. I guess you think I shouldn't get any more payments from him when he sees his kids 2 days total out of a month.
So what is the truth?
Add to that the fact that the ex is capable of making and has made $155k a year in the not so distant past.
And he may have been laid off quite frankly which may be why is long term disability ended if it was private insurance through his company. Lots of mortgage companies have declared bankruptcy and have resorted to mass layoffs.

THAT is the point.

Nope. The point is YOU WANT MONEY. He doesn't have to pay through college. He will not necessarily be imputed to 155k a year. He is working and therefore he is making the best of the situation. You are just peeved because he wants it lowered.


And just to remind everyone what happened from her perspective with her ex:
I got out of my car, went over to his car and tried to talk to him about our oldest son's recent biligerent behavior. The ex and I started cursing each other out. I put my hands in his face and hit the back of his head-very lightly. His new wife started cursing and screaming, so all 3 of us were at that point. He got out of the car, threw a half bottle of water at me and chased me a few feet. I ran. I came back up the walk, the wife was cursing and making faces in the van. I went up to her window and started cursing, making faces and gestures back. She said, "do you want me to get out the car and beat your **S. I said, "yeah, do it". I pulled on her car door handle. It was locked. Then all of a sudden she jumped out and swung at my face and head and continue to hit me. I hit back. After it was clear she was losing, my ex got out, came around the car and pushed me down on the ground (grass) and proceeded to hold me down, twist my face and neck into the ground and smother me. I could not breathe and thought I was going to die. While he was holding me down, his wife hit me on the leg. He finally let me up and they both went back to the car. his parting remark was , "You got your **s beat" and "we'll see if you get your child support money on the first". I got up ran after them and tried to open her door again to get her out. It was locked. The ex contends I kicked and hit the car, I don't remember doing that. I then ran in the house and called the police. They took a police report. I declined to go the the emergency room that night, but went 3 days later.

This is after she showed up two hours late to exchange the children. Classy huh? A real sweet ant.
 
Last edited:

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
I think the court case below shows that I should not necessarily be imputed a high income just because I have two degrees. As I have stated, I have no experience yet, and have not been able to secure a position in my field. During our ten-year marriage, I was a stay-at-home mom. After the divorce and up to the present, I have only worked part-time and sporadically. See below:


"Husband and wife had been married for thirty years. Wife filed for divorce when she was 54; husband was 56 and was a physician employed full time by UCLA. Husband received additional income from speaking engagements, writings and honoraria. Wife filed an order to show cause (OSC) for spousal support. At issue were husband's consultation fees for treatment of a Saudi Arabian head of state, who husband travelled to see once a year.

Wife was a registered nurse and had an MS and PhD in nursing and child development. She worked as a head nurse and research coordinator at UCLA and had been on the faculty of the UCLA School of Nursing. After her children were born, she focused on raising the family and worked only part-time for the past twenty years. She is currently unemployed.

Wife claims that husband makes $266,000 per year for his house calls to Saudi Arabia. Husband claims that the house calls are sporadic and are now limited to a maximum of $140,000 per year. Further, the patient will soon die, and the visits will cease.

The family trial court found that husband's income approximated $54,000 per month; no income was imputed to wife. The court ordered husband to pay $21,000 in spousal support."[/QUOTE]


She only worked part time for the past twenty years and was currently unemployed and she had received her degrees MANY years ago> NOT just recently. Also she was 54 years old at the end of the marriage. AND this was in determining SPOUSAL support. Which again you are confusing the issue and revealing that you are trying to substitute child support for SPOUSAL support.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
Top