Points to ponder

[Lil Miss Smarty Panties]

Bambi, you are a rare gem. I wish they could all be like you. Unfortunately, they're not. Maybe you could donate some DNA and we could inject it into the spawns of Satan most of us deal with?

 

[Whyte Noise]

Bambi, you are a rare gem. I wish they could all be like you. Unfortunately, they're not. Maybe you could donate some DNA and we could inject it into the spawns of Satan most of us deal with?

I agree. Very rare indeed.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm just saying that I've personally not seen it, nor is it something that happens very often.

Some of my best friends are CP's and I see what hell they go through with their NCP's, so I do know a little about both sides of the coin. Right now, I have my children for the next year or perhaps permanantly if I can get the modification to go through, so I see some of the CP side of it myself. I've had my kids here for almost 2 months, and not once has their father called them. Not once. Their stepmother called once, talked for about 5 minutes, said her phone card was running out, but that she'd call back the next day. This was June 22nd. I guess in the backwoods part of Georgia that they live in, "next day" hasn't dawned yet because there's been no phone call.

I just happen to find family law terribly lopsided when it comes to dealing out punishments for CP's and NCP's. With the CP's it's usually about child support. No offense to anyone intended, but you more than likely know I'm right. That's the #1 complaint from CP's in court today. From an NCP side, the #1 complaint is denial of access to their children. These are just facts. I'm not meaning to insult anyone. And the biggest fact of them all, that I see, is that NCP's can get thrown under the jail for not paying CS, yet CP's have either no sanction at all or a minor slap on the wrist for denying the other parent access to their children.

I look at it like this... and this is just my own opinion... who gives a damn about the $? If I get custody, (God's willing) I could get almost $1,200 a month in CS for my 2 children. I could care less about that $1,200. I really could. I'd never even ASK for CS from him. My kids are what matters to me, and that's it, not his CS money. Maybe that's why I can't understand why some people go on and on about getting CS, or more CS, out of an NCP... because it's not something that I'd do myself. A lot of the NCP's I know personally would gladly tell their ex's to not pay them CS if they'd give them custody of the children.

Someone on another board told me... "Your children deserve CS. It's their right." It's a child's right to be supported by loving, caring parents, no matter if they are rich or poor. As long as children have what they need, a roof over their head, clothes on their back, food in their stomach... who cares if that roof is a $1 million dollar home in Bel Air, or that food is imported caviar, or those clothes are Tommy? Does that make you a better parent just because you can give them better things? Not to me it doesn't. The word "support" doesn't just mean monetary. And you can't put a price on emotional "support", love, understanding, compassion, being there for your child when they need you, and being that rock of Gibralter for them. To me, being able to do those things is worth more than some check that comes in the mail every week or month.

Again, just my $.02 and my own opinion.

 

[frylover]

Wow, what great posts BLCM!

BCB, I was wondering how long it would take for a lawyer to weigh in in defense of our legal system!

 

[kidoday]

What really got my goat yesterday I found the NY CS guideline for a guy that was coming into inheritance and wanted to know if that would be used in figuring CS. The answer is yes.

I am sorry, but what the gentleman does with that money I don't believe it is up to the courts to order him to pay it through CS. I can understand sitting a portion aside for the children, but not through CS. What makes the court think they can dictate what a person does with his inheritance. Would they dictate this if he were still married? I doubt it.

 

[haiku]

What really got my goat yesterday I found the NY CS guideline for a guy that was coming into inheritance and wanted to know if that would be used in figuring CS. The answer is yes.

I am sorry, but what the gentleman does with that money I don't believe it is up to the courts to order him to pay it through CS. I can understand sitting a portion aside for the children, but not through CS. What makes the court think they can dictate what a person does with his inheritance. Would they dictate this if he were still married? I doubt it.

yes, but thats what happens when we leave it up to the state to decide our lives. And it would seem the person in possession of the kids gets a better end of the pie.

if parents could come to an agreement on thier own, as we have to when we are married. We would still get to decide what to do with our private lives.

Problem is not enough NCP's are willingly paying support because it is what they are supposed to do without thought. And not enough CP's encourage children spending as much time as possible with the parent they don't live with, without thought.

Honestly having been raised by a CP and having been one, I just don't get why some of these posters and especially my husbands ex, just can't collect thier monthly check, and let thier ex's be PARENTS, over and above, what the standard vistation decree says. Get over the fact the guys a loser, not HIS fault ya did not notice until you got pregnant. (my tongue is firmly in cheek here-equal oppurtunity to those who complain thier CP is a worthless parent)

As a joint legal custody NCP. My husband pays his court ordered support faithfully, and then some, and still his ex's world revolves around whether or not WE bought a house or WE bought a car. her time would be so much better spent raising and enjoying the kids. I know if my husband had them,he would NOT be obsessing over HER money,or lack of. in 7 years he has never missed or been late with a payment, I don't expect him to get a medal for it, but considering I and quite a few others grew up with no dad at all, you would think she would just shut up once and a while. it may not be rockefeller money but it is the percentage he is obligated to pay, and if she wanted more she should have divorced a rockefeller.

His time is spent chasing down the kids for phonecalls, having to send mail certified so at least we know if the kids did not see it at least they 'got" it. having to put up with all her scheduling and every little whim, just so that the kids don't have to deal with her crap. WE had to spend 3000.00 just to get a set visitation wekend, money that could have been spent better elsewhere, all because she wants to be "in charge" to this day, we still walk a fine wire, because she never really got punished from it. My husband will NEVER get back his childs 5th birthday-he did NOTHING to deserve that.

Well I am rambling, but I got to say BCLM, and BCB for the legal end are right on the money.

Oh and Bambi, we need more reasonable moms like you.

 

[ktarra617]

what gets me is the same thing that an earlier poster stated about the NCP trying to better themselves. My husband works very hard at his job, he puts long hours to earn his SALARY, he is not eligilble for overtime.

after the last increase he lost TWO years worth of raises to a raise in child support. Because his ex wanted more money GUARANTEED to her. Rather than just asking us to pay for extras so she goes and gets the CS upped and then still has the gawl to ask to pay for the exact same extras that we were paying for before!!!

We can't get ahead. After he told her no to paying for anymore extras since she got such a big increase, she said he better watch out because she would have us back in court as often as she can to get more.....

We are tired of this. I understand that the law is there to keep order on society and balance the scales, but if justice is supposed to be blind and the law is supposed to be just and fair, then where the hell do the judges get off telling a man that when he gets a raise his exwife gets a raise too? Where is the CP's responsibility to financially support the child?

Our PBFH doesn't work, expects my husband to provide 100% of his daughter's financial support, except what she actually has to pay for, and like I said fully intends to take us back to court for more support as soon as she can. I can't wait for the day my sd either moves in with us or she graduates hs....

Then maybe my husband and I can really live. We try not to worry too much about her but we take her into consideration when we look at making big purchases that will take a little while to pay off...we have too. It would be our luck that we would make a big purchase and she would go after more support just to be spiteful....she might not get much in the way of a raise but she would have the satisfaction of knowing that she made us spend money on an attorney....


anyway that's my 2 cents worth, take it or leave it....

 

[Boxcarbill]

what gets me is the same thing that an earlier poster stated about the NCP trying to better themselves. My husband works very hard at his job, he puts long hours to earn his SALARY, he is not eligilble for overtime.

after the last increase he lost TWO years worth of raises to a raise in child support. Because his ex wanted more money GUARANTEED to her. Rather than just asking us to pay for extras so she goes and gets the CS upped and then still has the gawl to ask to pay for the exact same extras that we were paying for before!!!

We can't get ahead. After he told her no to paying for anymore extras since she got such a big increase, she said he better watch out because she would have us back in court as often as she can to get more.....

We are tired of this. I understand that the law is there to keep order on society and balance the scales, but if justice is supposed to be blind and the law is supposed to be just and fair, then where the hell do the judges get off telling a man that when he gets a raise his exwife gets a raise too? Where is the CP's responsibility to financially support the child?

Our PBFH doesn't work, expects my husband to provide 100% of his daughter's financial support, except what she actually has to pay for, and like I said fully intends to take us back to court for more support as soon as she can. I can't wait for the day my sd either moves in with us or she graduates hs....

Then maybe my husband and I can really live. We try not to worry too much about her but we take her into consideration when we look at making big purchases that will take a little while to pay off...we have too. It would be our luck that we would make a big purchase and she would go after more support just to be spiteful....she might not get much in the way of a raise but she would have the satisfaction of knowing that she made us spend money on an attorney....


anyway that's my 2 cents worth, take it or leave it....

If his divorce is a Texas decree, the ONLY way that "he lost TWO years worth of raises to a raise in child support" after the last increase in child support is if he was significantly under paying child support before the last increase. Fact and law. In Texas, only the obligor's salary is used to calculate child support so that makes calculation real simple and it is 25 percent of net income for two children when the obligor does not have children in multiple household, less for two when there are children in multiple households. So there is no way under Texas law that she would have gotten more than 25 percent of whatever amount of increase that he got or that he ever gets. Therefore, if and only if he way not paying 25 percent of his net income prior to the last increase could the last increase have taken a one percent more than 25 percent of the amount of the increase.

 

[ktarra617]

yes my husband has recieved two significant raises since the last increase. His decree is a Texas decree, and I understand that Texas law is the way it is. That his is the only income considered, but that is what I don't understand, why does Texas not take the CP's income into consideration?

We were planning on buying a house, but we are afraid to now as it is nearing the one year mark on the last modification and even though he hasn't gotten another raise since then, just the fact that we would have to pay more to our lawyer to fight with her would put us in serious financial strain, keeps us from buying the bigger house we so desperately need..

I understand that people are responsible for supporting their own children but what I don't understand is why the family court system seems to want to break the paying parent by getting as much as they can? I dont see why the NCP is held to such a standard but the CP can do just about anything they want?

On the flipside, I don't understand why the state fails to be able to make a contempt charge stick with my ex husband. my ex pays a pittance compared to what my husband pays to his ex, but they can't seem to charge him with anything, he has been to court five times in the last two years and has managed to get by on technicalities.....

I just don't get it, the system orders as much as they can from parents who have a track record of paying but seems to do very little to the ones that don't....

Here a while back Dallas county did a round of dead beat parents...ofcourse only those living in Dallas county....I can't even get my county to do a criminal non support case because they don't prosecute criminal non support cases, so I went to the county that has jurisdiction, and they won't touch it for three reasons, one I don't live there, 2) the attorney General has the case and 3) I have a private attorney of record, that I can't afford to pay anymore money to.

It just seems like with the system the NCP can't get ahead in life because he still has to support another household and CP's who aren't getting support, can't seem to get help either for one reason or another!

But for all that Bill, I promise you I understand that the law is the law and no amount of whining on my part will change it, but it sure makes me want to go back to school and become a lawyer so I can do our own legal wranglings(which in hindsight I'm not sure if the old saying the attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client wouldn't apply)

The whining also makes me feel better even though I realize it doesn't really help anything....

but as always thanks for your straight to point of the matter reply!!!

 

[Boxcarbill]

yes my husband has recieved two significant raises since the last increase. His decree is a Texas decree, and I understand that Texas law is the way it is. That his is the only income considered, but that is what I don't understand, why does Texas not take the CP's income into consideration?

We were planning on buying a house, but we are afraid to now as it is nearing the one year mark on the last modification and even though he hasn't gotten another raise since then, just the fact that we would have to pay more to our lawyer to fight with her would put us in serious financial strain, keeps us from buying the bigger house we so desperately need..

I understand that people are responsible for supporting their own children but what I don't understand is why the family court system seems to want to break the paying parent by getting as much as they can? I dont see why the NCP is held to such a standard but the CP can do just about anything they want?

On the flipside, I don't understand why the state fails to be able to make a contempt charge stick with my ex husband. my ex pays a pittance compared to what my husband pays to his ex, but they can't seem to charge him with anything, he has been to court five times in the last two years and has managed to get by on technicalities.....

I just don't get it, the system orders as much as they can from parents who have a track record of paying but seems to do very little to the ones that don't....

Here a while back Dallas county did a round of dead beat parents...ofcourse only those living in Dallas county....I can't even get my county to do a criminal non support case because they don't prosecute criminal non support cases, so I went to the county that has jurisdiction, and they won't touch it for three reasons, one I don't live there, 2) the attorney General has the case and 3) I have a private attorney of record, that I can't afford to pay anymore money to.

It just seems like with the system the NCP can't get ahead in life because he still has to support another household and CP's who aren't getting support, can't seem to get help either for one reason or another!

But for all that Bill, I promise you I understand that the law is the law and no amount of whining on my part will change it, but it sure makes me want to go back to school and become a lawyer so I can do our own legal wranglings(which in hindsight I'm not sure if the old saying the attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client wouldn't apply)

The whining also makes me feel better even though I realize it doesn't really help anything....

but as always thanks for your straight to point of the matter reply!!!

For the same reason that Texas law doesn't take into consideration day care expenses. All these things are factored in when arriving at the percentage per child, regardless of the particular formula which is used by the state.

Texas arrived at child support and visitation through a committee of people involving custodial parents, none custodial parents, a psychologist, a sociologist, a CPA, a Judge and a couple of lawyers. Surprised you didn't it, that the committee which arrived at all this was composed of real people involved in real family law situations! The percentage was reached through questionaire and studies showing how much of a families income was spent on their children.

The reason for increases is because the cost of living goes up for everyone--not just for the none custodial parent. The cost of raising a child increases as the child gets older. The financial responsibility for providing for one's child is according to financial means. This does not change because of divorce or remarriage. Of course, the REAL fact is that the new poor in the United States are children living with a single, female parent. That is reality. Slice it; dice it; spin it, part it down the middle, it is a cold, hard U.S. fact, which is why the federal government has gotten increasing involved in child support enforcement. Yes, they are the one's behind the license forfeiture, the requirement for new hire reporting, income tax interception--all that.

And, no, if your husband hasn't gotten a raise, it would be stupid to hire a lawyer "to fight it." You just walk into the AG's office with the paper work showing the income. Nothing to fight. If it isn't handled through the AG's office, attend court and bring the proof of income. Again there is nothing to fight. In fact, there is not a reason in the world for it to be heard by the court. You provide her attorney with the proof of income and there is nothing to fight. Child support is pure and simple--get the paper work, plug the figures into a calculator and that's it. Nothing to argue about.. It is simple arithmetic--whether done by the AG, two attorneys, one attorney or the Judge.

As to the ncp gets battered and the cp gets away with murder. It isn't true. The parties see what they want to see. The cp sees their glass as only half full and the ncp sees their glass as half empty. That will never change, at least, not until the person is no longer in the forest.

 

[theother]

Yeah, but I would rather have an empty glass with my children than a full glass without them. Being a poor CP may be hard, but at least you have your children.

 

[Boxcarbill]

Yeah, but I would rather have an empty glass with my children than a full glass without them. Being a poor CP may be hard, but at least you have your children.

It isn't nor should it be mutually exclusive choices. Have your children but forfeit the support. That is exactly the way it worked for years--in fact, right up until the early 80's. All the father had to do was move out of state if he didn't want to be bothered at all but he could stay in state and still not pay child support. Child support varied widely not only from city to city but from Judge to Judge in the same courthouse and t it also changed from day to day with the same Judge. Again this is why the mandate by the federal government for the states to establish and set into written form guidelines for child support, incidentally the same was ordered for possession and access to the child.

 

[theother]

Well, unfortunately in our case, the access laws don't work, while the support laws seem to be great at their job. Of course, this could be because my SO is not a deadbeat and pays his support. Even so, my SO had his credit damaged, his license threatened, his passport taken away, and his garnishment increased due to his ex collecting welfare while receiving CS. While CSE garnished his second job wages within two months of his hire, it took forever to clear up his arrearages from the fraud even though his paychecks clearly showed the garnishments during that time period. While he was suffering the fallout of that debacle, he was denied visitation. Of course, nothing happened to his ex. Maybe other people have trouble getting CSE to do their job, because CSE is spending all their time concentrating on my SO. I know that you shouldn't have to choose between having money or having your children, but my SO doesn't have his money OR his children. It's hard to argue that his glass is anything but empty. And his ex, well, her cup runneth over. I wonder if any CP who isn't getting her share of CS would trade places with a NCP who isn't getting any visitation. It shouldn't be all or nothing, you're right. But sometimes, it is.

 

[frylover]

So, BCB....(I'm gonna stir a little s*** here, hubby says I'm good at it!)

Can you honestly say that "the law" is applied equally to everyone? That no one ever REALLY gets screwed, that's it's all in that person's perception? That the Golden Rule--"he who has the gold makes the rules" NEVER applies? That the lady whose daddy plays golf with the judge never gets a better deal?

 

[theother]

My, my, Frylover. At first you were all shy, just asking your questions. Now you're, wading right in and causing a little controversy, I see. You're settling in here nicely aren't ya? *lol*

 

[frylover]

Who, ME??????

Told ya' hubby said I was a s*** stirrer!