Can arrears exist prior to a child support order existing?

[stepmom&mom]

You say that the door swings both ways in the courtroom, yet you don't seem to think that it goes both ways whenever it comes to supporting a child. I guess you don't think that the CP should be responsible for any portion of the childs expenses. I guess you think that should strictly be the burden of the NCP. I think it is irresponsible and completely unethical of mom to not provide for the basic needs of the child and for my dh to be the only one providing financial assistance to his daughter. You think that the NCP SHOULD do extra and pay way above what is ordered, but what about the CP? What is the CP's responsibility?

 

[moburkes]

Come on. The CP is putting the roof over her child's head. She's feeding her. Yes, she should clothe her correctly. If dad is SSSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOO hot over that, then he should take mom back to court. There is only so much that a court can do. Your husband chose to procreate with this woman so he has to deal with her lack of sense and/or stupidity until child is AT LEAST 18. Isn't that common sense?

 

[ceara19]

I didn't say that child support should include the cost of health insurance. I said he provided health insurance. I said that child support should cover the cost of clothes. She had to have new clothes. She was coming over to our house wearing shoes with holes in them, and clothes that were size 24 months and she was almost 6 years old! Her mom sure had enough money to by digital cameras, ipods and plenty of nice clothes for herself. I didn't say she should buy new designer clothes, but there is no excuse for her having clothes that don't fit or have holes in them when he pays child support.

Here's the thing, YOU don't get to decide what the child support should be used for. DAD doesn't get to decide either. You keep saying "we paid this" and "we paid that", which is apparently the reason that has caused you incorrectly believe that you have a right to complain about the situation. There is a very simple solution. YOU can quit paying for your husband's obligations at any time.

Just because the child wore old, ratty clothes and shoes to dad's house doesn't mean a damn thing. More often than not (especially when the parents can't seem to get along or there is some nosey 3rd party butt out and mind their own business) the CP doesn't send the child to the NCP wearing their "good clothes". It's not at all unusual. You might want to tell hubby to look into the laws in your state. Several states require EACH parent to provide the necessities for the child during the times that they have the children. Even if your state doesn't require this, bitching about the child's clothing is ridiculously petty.

YOU really need to back off. My ex TRIED to have HIS girlfriends (he went through several during the divorce) present during the case and later, after he got married again, he tried to have his wife present at various proceedings. NONE of them got to stay, 2 of them were "escorted" out of the room by the bailiff and one was taken to a holding cell in handcuffs.

If you have the time to meddle in dad's business, you would be much better off spending that time dealing with the child support issues with YOUR ex, not his.

 

[stepmom&mom]

We know exactly how much the mom pays in rent per month. Her utilities are included in her rent. Let's just say that the amount we pay in total child support is more than 2/3rds of her total rent + utilities. She does not buy food. She gets food stamps. She does not have a car. She does not buy clothes for her kids. So you are telling me if you were paying that much in child support and you KNEW that it wasn't going to the child's needs you wouldn't be pretty upset?

You know, I think we've been conditioned as a society to expect the NCP to suffer because they "chose to procreate" but yet we feel sorry for the CP. Our government will pay all of their bills and provide for all of the childs needs and make sure that the NCP pays up, but the CP is rarely held accountable. You say that the CP is providing the home, yet there are just as many NCP's that wanted to be the CP. They wanted to provide for the child. They wanted to have the luxury of being able to tuck their kid in at night, but the system took that away from them, and then twists the knife by making them feel guilty if they don't provide for ALL of the child's and CP's financial needs. Personally, I believe if the CP gets the privilege of having the child live with them, then they ought to bear more of the financial responsibility. If they don't want to do that, then why not let the child live with the NCP?

 

[moburkes]

We know exactly how much the mom pays in rent per month. Her utilities are included in her rent. Let's just say that the amount we pay in total child support is more than 2/3rds of her total rent + utilities. She does not buy food. She gets food stamps. She does not have a car. She does not buy clothes for her kids. So you are telling me if you were paying that much in child support and you KNEW that it wasn't going to the child's needs you wouldn't be pretty upset?

You know, I think we've been conditioned as a society to expect the NCP to suffer because they "chose to procreate" but yet we feel sorry for the CP. Our government will pay all of their bills and provide for all of the childs needs and make sure that the NCP pays up, but the CP is rarely held accountable. You say that the CP is providing the home, yet there are just as many NCP's that wanted to be the CP. They wanted to provide for the child. They wanted to have the luxury of being able to tuck their kid in at night, but the system took that away from them, and then twists the knife by making them feel guilty if they don't provide for ALL of the child's and CP's financial needs. Personally, I believe if the CP gets the privilege of having the child live with them, then they ought to bear more of the financial responsibility. If they don't want to do that, then why not let the child live with the NCP?

If this is the case, then why bring into the argument that your child's NCP hasn't paid child support to the tune of $20k? Go down to the support office and ask how you can forgive his arrearages. But, since this isn't your money, WHY do you have such a problem with it?

 

[fairisfair]

We know exactly how much the mom pays in rent per month. Her utilities are included in her rent. Let's just say that the amount we pay in total child support is more than 2/3rds of her total rent + utilities. She does not buy food. She gets food stamps. She does not have a car. She does not buy clothes for her kids. So you are telling me if you were paying that much in child support and you KNEW that it wasn't going to the child's needs you wouldn't be pretty upset?

You know, I think we've been conditioned as a society to expect the NCP to suffer because they "chose to procreate" but yet we feel sorry for the CP. Our government will pay all of their bills and provide for all of the childs needs and make sure that the NCP pays up, but the CP is rarely held accountable. You say that the CP is providing the home, yet there are just as many NCP's that wanted to be the CP. They wanted to provide for the child. They wanted to have the luxury of being able to tuck their kid in at night, but the system took that away from them, and then twists the knife by making them feel guilty if they don't provide for ALL of the child's and CP's financial needs. Personally, I believe if the CP gets the privilege of having the child live with them, then they ought to bear more of the financial responsibility. If they don't want to do that, then why not let the child live with the NCP?

Newsflash. Oklahoma child support calculator indicates that it is a shared income model. In other words, BOTH parents incomes are taken into consideration when child support is calculated. So mom is paying her portion. Whether or not you like how she contributes her portion, is really irrelevant.

Give the kid to the NCP, Okay, so give your kids to your ex. Oh wait, no that would be different right?

Most of us here believe that both parents are accountable for the support of their children. In fact, I can't come up with anyone who doesn't. Sure some may be more biased a little one way or the other, for personal reasons. But as a rule, those personal biases don't affect the legal aspects one iota. Your husband was ordered to pay xxx amount in child support, and pay it he will, unless of course, mom decides to just let it go, as you apparently have with your ex.

Oh, yeah, mom must be living it up, on child support, food stamps and no car. Life of Riley huh?

 

[stepmom&mom]

Newsflash. Oklahoma child support calculator indicates that it is a shared income model. In other words, BOTH parents incomes are taken into consideration when child support is calculated. So mom is paying her portion. Whether or not you like how she contributes her portion, is really irrelevant.

Give the kid to the NCP, Okay, so give your kids to your ex. Oh wait, no that would be different right?

Most of us here believe that both parents are accountable for the support of their children. In fact, I can't come up with anyone who doesn't. Sure some may be more biased a little one way or the other, for personal reasons. But as a rule, those personal biases don't affect the legal aspects one iota. Your husband was ordered to pay xxx amount in child support, and pay it he will, unless of course, mom decides to just let it go, as you apparently have with your ex.

Oh, yeah, mom must be living it up, on child support, food stamps and no car. Life of Riley huh?

Are you kidding me? Are you telling me that you seriously don't think that there are people on government assistance who buy personal luxuries? Or who abuse the system? As for the car, she had a BRAND NEW car which she used my dh's tax return to put the down payment on, but it got repossessed because she didn't make the payments. So there went a couple of thousand dollars which could have gone to his daughter which literally got thrown away.

I don't get what is so difficult about providing the basic needs for a child. My point in bringing up my situation is that I managed to do it without ANY help whatsoever and she can't even do it when she is getting child support from two different dads! So because she either refuses to get a full time job or gets fired from hers or decides she wants to go back to school but then drops out after a month in a half, the government just pats her on the back, tells her it is going to be ok and hands her a check.

You and I both know that if the NCP did that or if the NCP even missed ONE MONTH of paying child support, they'd be all over the NCP. I think that if the NCP has no control over what the child support money is being used for, then why should the CP. I believe that ALL of it should be monitored and accounted for. There should be no double standard. That is the point.

 

[moburkes]

Good Lord. I'm a custodial parent, and I've wasted money. Lots of times. It happens. Yep, the money was wasted. Too bad. So sad.

What are you trying to prove? Except the fact that he owes child support that you don't think he should pay, which is ridiculous.

 

[stepmom&mom]

I asked if child support arrears can be created prior to the existence of a child support order. I've seen it posted here before that they cannot. I was trying to get clarification, but then this got turned into a "he's a deadbeat that's just trying to get out of paying up" argument.

I think that children should be supported by both parents within reason and in a manner that is not biased toward or against one parent. What is so ludicrous about that?

 

[moburkes]

Life isn't fair. Parents in the SAME household don't treat children equally. What are you expecting? Yes, you are being unreasonable. You CANNOT police this woman's household. Why are you so concerned about what goes on there? You're amazing.

 

[fairisfair]

Are you kidding me? Are you telling me that you seriously don't think that there are people on government assistance who buy personal luxuries? Or who abuse the system? As for the car, she had a BRAND NEW car which she used my dh's tax return to put the down payment on, but it got repossessed because she didn't make the payments. So there went a couple of thousand dollars which could have gone to his daughter which literally got thrown away.

I don't get what is so difficult about providing the basic needs for a child. My point in bringing up my situation is that I managed to do it without ANY help whatsoever and she can't even do it when she is getting child support from two different dads! So because she either refuses to get a full time job or gets fired from hers or decides she wants to go back to school but then drops out after a month in a half, the government just pats her on the back, tells her it is going to be ok and hands her a check.

You and I both know that if the NCP did that or if the NCP even missed ONE MONTH of paying child support, they'd be all over the NCP. I think that if the NCP has no control over what the child support money is being used for, then why should the CP. I believe that ALL of it should be monitored and accounted for. There should be no double standard. That is the point.

Really, then why aren't they all over YOUR NCP???

I am a single parent, I raised two children by myself. I received the first child support ever, on the SECOND child in August of this year, she is almost 17 years old. So don't even compare me to one of those welfare moms. Yes, people abuse the system, so what is your point? If you are aware of and can prove welfare fraud, then you are just as guilty for not reporting it.

Basically, the main problem here, is you don't want "your" money, as in your husband's money, going to another household. Well guess what, the court, has already told you tough crap, in so many words, and now you are hearing it again.

You don't get to determine how other people spend their money, or how they raise their children, or whether or not they qualify for gov't benefits. Boy you really think you are quite important, don't you?

 

[stepmom&mom]

You assume that because I'm talking about this situation and because I'm typing on a mb that I'm "interferring." Just because people talk about things and just because they show concern or interest doesn't make them a meddler. As a matter of fact, it is my dh that is concerned. So you think that the NCP doesn't have a right to be concerned about or know how their child is being cared for? Doesn't that sound kind of silly?

 

[fairisfair]

I asked if child support arrears can be created prior to the existence of a child support order. I've seen it posted here before that they cannot. I was trying to get clarification, but then this got turned into a "he's a deadbeat that's just trying to get out of paying up" argument.

I think that children should be supported by both parents within reason and in a manner that is not biased toward or against one parent. What is so ludicrous about that?

that is because people think of arrears as being child support that was owed and not paid. Some may not be aware that CSE calls retroactive child support "arrears" and handles it quite similarly. You may have noticed however, that your husband is not facing incarceration, or license suspension or any other remedies that go with the collection process of true child support arrears. THAT IS the difference. Again, you are the ONLY one that has called hubby a deadbeat.

 

[moburkes]

No one said that you are interfering. All we've asked is what is your point. You keep stating what "we" do for your husband's child. You haven't stated that "My husband thinks...". You haven't given the impression that you are asking questions FOR him. I've said all along that if he is SSSSSSSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOO concerned, then he should take her to court. However, what will that accomplish?

It takes more than money to raise a child. Someone has to get them dressed, cook the food, get them to/from school and activities, help them with homework, etc. If your DH was so concerned, then why didn't he ask for more custody/visitation at the same time that he left the house? He apparently didn't have a problem then.

 

[fairisfair]

You assume that because I'm talking about this situation and because I'm typing on a mb that I'm "interferring." Just because people talk about things and just because they show concern or interest doesn't make them a meddler. As a matter of fact, it is my dh that is concerned. So you think that the NCP doesn't have a right to be concerned about or know how their child is being cared for? Doesn't that sound kind of silly?

No actually, when you said that you were in the meeting discussing arrears, that is when I knew that you were interfering. Of course your husband, oh, get that, let me make it bigger letters husband has the right to be concerned about how his child is being cared for. Nobody said that he didn't. You on the other hand, are a different story.