>Charlotte<
Lurker
My bad... geez... Let me rephrase somewhat.
Thanks for clarifying what you actually meant, but my post was a response to what you actually said.
My bad... geez... Let me rephrase somewhat.
and to the other critics:
My bad... geez... Let me rephrase somewhat.
There is a difference but that is NOT the intent. The intent is that both parents are legally responsible to contribute to the financial support of the child. It soudns pretty to state that the standard of living is close to what would have been enjoyed had the parents stayed together but that is not true. The purpose is to make sure that both parents (both the obligee and obligor) partake equitably in the costs of raising the child or children.The original intent of child support laws was to insure that the child may have a standard of living that is close to what he would enjoy if the parents had stayed together. Nothing was said about maintaining a standard of living that was enjoyed when the family was intact. There is a difference.
Also, the purpose is not to insure the child receives financial support equally from both parents, but equitably from both parents.
Finally, it is true that both parents' incomes are used to determine support in some states, but not in all states. Actually, the quote above speaks more to "standard of living" than not.
ps - if you have an accurate and relevant definition of child support, or the purpose of chlild support, then please post it for the rest of us.
I'm just gonna say on a topic somewhat unrelated to the last few responses, I tend to think that this OP is a troll, or really not worth the time of anyone on this board.
Every question she has asked, including this one, has completely lacked any form of using common sense (or for that matter, courtesy towards Mom and her child). Nothing is getting through to this woman.
Moreso, I believe it is a waste of the time of the people responding, because clearly, everytime one issue seems to be settled, another will come up, and rarely will they truly be valid in any legal sense beyond what she has already been told (ie, she will post more of the same petty crap in different contexts over, and over, and over again).
Unless you really like to be amused by this stuff, I would think you'd just want to ignore this OP in the future. There certainly probably other people on these boards who would better put to use your responses than this woman.
That's my 2 cents though.
What happened to ignoring the poster, ErynSMA? Admit it - you find her amusing, too!
My thoughts exactly! If I'm so annoying with the same questions and comments, then don't respond![]()
But, this one was MAJOR drama.Moreso, I believe it is a waste of the time of the people responding, because clearly, everytime one issue seems to be settled, another will come up, and rarely will they truly be valid in any legal sense beyond what she has already been told (ie, she will post more of the same petty crap in different contexts over, and over, and over again).
But, this one was MAJOR drama.![]()
Stepmom...Do not advise on other threads. You are not....qualified...to do so...
sure thing baystategirl, why is that? I see several people on this site giving advice that's not qualified![]()
sure thing baystategirl, why is that? I see several people on this site giving advice that's not qualified![]()
sure thing baystategirl, why is that? I see several people on this site giving advice that's not qualified![]()