Points to ponder

[frylover]

What is the name of your state? LA

I came here for some very simple, basic legal advice and was grateful to get it. I've hung around because I've always been very fascinated by the law. But, is it just me or is our legal system, family law in particular, pretty screwed up? After reading all I've read here, I think it is!

From what I've gleaned here, my next door neighbor could call CPS and tell them we are sexually or physically abusing our kids and they would yank our kids away so fast it would make our heads spin. But if a parent accuses a former spouse of the same, unless they have 15 witnesses to the child being beaten or raped, it gets blown off as the parent being vindictive. (Which I totally understand DOES happen!)

My husband and I could decide tomorrow that we think his parents and sister are the world's worst possible influence on our kids and cut them out of our kids lives forever and as long as he and I are married to each other, g'ma would have to suck it up and live with it. But if we died, the court would hand our kids over to them with no regard for what we think is best, simply because they are related by blood.

The court can force a NCP to pay for his child's college education, but if that same NCP had stayed married, no one could have forced them to do that--that would a personal decision based on values and family finances.

And I can't believe the number of people I have read about who have had their former spouses back in court for contempt time after time, and the former spouse is basically told "Now, that's not very nice, you 1) pay your support 2) let your child see mom
3)let your child talk to dad," etc, etc. and that's the extent of action taken.

As I said, I don't have any real "personal" issues here (except the judge giving my kids to my in-laws--I admit that one is REALLY sticking in my craw!). These are just some observations on my part.



Oh, and it Calibay drops in, it is "kindergarTen" not "kindergarDen"

 

[Whyte Noise]

1) Pretty often, yes... in both cases.

2.) Again, fairly often true.

3.) Exactly correct.

4.) Again, correct.

Don't you just love the law? *she says with sarcasm*

 

[nextwife]

You missed some.

How about the fact that if you are married to each other and one loses their job and eventually must take one that pays significantly less, you adjust AND LIVE WIITH THAT REALITY. If, however, you are a NCP under an order with exacly the same scenario, they might "impute" your income and state that you must be underemployed because your income should only increase and never decrease, and thus you must pay the same CS as before on far less income because children of divorce or of never-marrieds should be guaranteed a reliable, fixed income, even though children in a marriage are not "guarantied" that at all.

 

[theother]

Or if you are married and you get a raise or decide to work your ass off with overtime, you can decide that you can now afford more children and the increased income will go toward raising them. But, if you are divorced, then your existing kid has to get the biggest slice of that new income even if they are already taken care of well and your new children have to live without shoes. And then, these new children don't even get any sympathy because "you shouldn't have more kids if you can't afford the ones you've already got". Well, gee, I thought I could afford all of them with my nice, big raise until you took 25% of it that I still have to pay taxes on. And maybe I wanted to have kids that I could actually parent, since you will take my money but won't let me have visitation. That's okay. I will just have to wait 18 years to become a parent. Gawd forbid, that the kid you taught to hate me go without designer jeans. But you're right. I am being selfish. I should be thinking about the welfare of the children. Not all children of course. Just children that got their CS orders first.

 

[stealth2]

Just remember, folks.... for every scenario y'all presented, there is an opposite one as well - where it's the NCP who's a deadbeat in lots of ways. It's never as one-sided as you present.

 

[theother]

I'm sure there is a whole other side and many scenarios where the NCP is to blame. In fact, my sister and my best friend are living those right now. I just think that CP's have more people presenting their case in the real world and the mass media. The injustices of the single mom with the deadbeat ex are well-chronicled. It's only recently that the NCP has been heard. I realize that this is mainly because for years the NCP got off scottfree while the CP suffered, but changes were made and I think the pendulum has swung the other way. Whereas before, the system allowed bad NCP's to escape justice, the system now allows bad CP's to escape justice and mainly punishes good NCP's. Still bad NCP's get away because they are too hard to catch. Everyone loses. But at least, CP's are allowed to claim the moral highground in the name of the kids. I just want to point out that the other side deserves sympathy too. Just once, I'd like to see a movie of the week where the NCP was the good guy.

 

[Whyte Noise]

Just remember, folks.... for every scenario y'all presented, there is an opposite one as well - where it's the NCP who's a deadbeat in lots of ways. It's never as one-sided as you present.

momma, ya know I love ya, but I do have a question...

Would you please tell me what things a deadbeat NCP does? Besides not paying child support or not visiting the children that is. I know it's not one-sided, and I know there are deadbeats that are NCP's as well as CP's. But, just what exactly makes an
NCP or a CP a "deadbeat"? Besides the 2 items I already listed. Maybe I'm a bit clouded because I am an NCP, but this is how I see the issues...

1.) NCP doesn't pay CS like court ordered. NCP can have pay garnished, lose license, lose home through lien, be jailed, have income taxes taken, and a host of other punishments. Doesn't matter what reason they haven't been paying, (whether willful non-payment, or because they've lost their job and can't find another in this economy, or they do find another one making considerably less and therefore can't meet the total obligation.) the fact is they didn't meet that court order, so they can be sanctioned as above.

2.) CP denies visitation. NCP can file all the motions they want with the court, spend the money to do so, and in most cases, the CP gets no sanctions whatsoever just is told to allow visitations. (raddadthomas, my SO, LMSP's hubby, just to name 3 examples from this website)

3.) NCP doesn't exercise visitation. CP's normally don't even push this issue because of the fact that they'd just as soon not have their children go with the NCP anyways. Tell me, how many CP's have came to this website wanting to know how to force the NCP to exercise their visitation? I imagine we can count them on one hand. Maybe 2. Out of over 400,000 posts. Most of the time, when this is the case, the CP wants to know how to terminate parental rights or reduce the court ordered visitation since the NCP isn't taking it anyways.

4.) NCP gets a raise. CP automatically takes them back to court to get more of that raise. Court agrees, raises NCP's CS obligation based on new amount. NCP can't better themselves, because no matter what they do to try and reach that goal, it just keeps getting taken from them.

5.) CP gets a raise. NCP takes them back to court to get a reduction in CS based on the fact that the CP is making more money. Rarely do the courts lower the CS based on this scenario. Why not?

6.) NCP gets a second job to try and make their household better. To raise their own standard of living. CP finds out about second job, and takes NCP back to court to have that income counted as well. Again, 9 times out of 10 the CS will be based on BOTH incomes now, and will go up. Again, the NCP can't even better themselves by working 2 jobs.

7.) NCP's are told, "Don't have more kids if you can't support the ones you have." And, what if you ARE supporting the ones you have? You pay your CS every month, decide to have another child, and on a stroke of luck, you get a promotion with a higher salary. Again, the CP takes them back to court to get some of that additional income. This takes away from the NCP's child on the way. How is that fair to that other child? Why can't the CP be told, "Don't expect to live off CS, get your ass out and work to provide for your child." Why is it that each time the NCP tries to better themselves, the CP has to have a piece of the pie too?

8.) Why is it that when NCP's are ordered to pay for college for their children, the CP isn't given that same order as well? Why is it that married parents aren't ordered to pay for college? Just NCP's.

9.) Why is it that in most cases, a non-working CP doesn't have an income imputed to them in calculations of child support, but a non-working NCP does? All states say it's the responsibility of BOTH parents to provide for their children, so why don't they treat them equally when it comes to calculating CS?

I've never once heard a CP on here say, "He pays me too much money. I think I'll go to court to get it reduced". I've never once heard a CP on here say, "He's trying to better himself by taking that 2nd job, I'll just let him be." I've never once heard a CP on here say, "He has another child too. Even though he got that raise at work and I could get more CS, I'll let him keep that for his new baby. They need things too." I've very rarely heard a CP on here say, "I know he was laid off from work, so I'm not going to worry about getting the CS from him until he finds a job again."

Yes, there are bad CP's and NCP's both. But right now, NCP's are dealt a hell of a lot harsher judgements and punishments for not paying their CS than CP's are for just about any infraction they do. How many CP's have their licenses revoked for visitation interference? How many CP's are put in jail for denial of visitation? How many CP's have their houses taken for again interfering in the NCP's parent/child relationship? How many CP's have their taxes taken for not allowing their children to see the NCP? If you can show me a number of instances where this happened, I'll retract my statements and apologize. The fact is, I can't tell you of any of these instances myself. But, I can tell you of many instances of where the NCP hasn't paid CS and these things have happened.

Like I said, maybe my vision is cloudy because I see things from an NCP's perspective since that's what I am. But I just don't see how money takes precedence over a parent/child relationship. In every state, there are harsh penalties for non-payment of CS, and there are very few states that have any penalties at all for denial of visitation.

I just don't understand it.

 

[haiku]

Yes, there are bad CP's and NCP's both. But right now, NCP's are dealt a hell of a lot harsher judgements and punishments for not paying their CS than CP's are for just about any infraction they do. How many CP's have their licenses revoked for visitation interference? How many CP's are put in jail for denial of visitation? How many CP's have their houses taken for again interfering in the NCP's parent/child relationship? How many CP's have their taxes taken for not allowing their children to see the NCP? If you can show me a number of instances where this happened, I'll retract my statements and apologize. The fact is, I can't tell you of any of these instances myself. But, I can tell you of many instances of where the NCP hasn't paid CS and these things have happened.


I just don't understand it.

GREAT post! as someone who watched her own husband be denied his kids 6 months only for his ex to get the slap on the wrist for it.

Hell is not good enough for her, for what she did to thier kids, our kid, and him. I say the penalty should be the SAME on both sides!

 

[karma1]

and lets not forget....

the whole welfare system that goes after the ncp for full reinbursement instead of splitting that cost 50/50~
not to mention, those that do "take advantage" of this system, (example, nieces mom collected support, welfare and ssi while NOT having custody of child) and nothing is done about this.
just my 2 cents worth~

 

[nextwife]

Additionally, there are systems in place to collect anything that might be due the CP from the NCP up to and past their death. However, the NCP has almost no means of collecting back what the CP failed to deliver to the NCP - back visitation, which is just as important. Even in situations in which aggregious violations by the CP have occured, and repeated trips to court, the court generally only gives a slap on the wrist and says "In the future, don't do that." They do NOT give back what the NCP is owed- time and influence with their child. How often do they say "CP, you will now give NCP the X amount of days they are now due PLUS all those additional days they were entitled that you refused to make them available". Collect the back due amount, so to speak. Only one side gets to collect their "arrearages". The visitation arrearage is unaddressed.

 

[theother]

BCLM,
That post gave me chills. It was that good. You tell it, sister!

 

[Boxcarbill]

Everyone who loses believes that they got screwed. It is the nature of the beast and nothing will ever change that. So one can change the entire family code every time the legislature goes into session and still people will complain that the justice system sucks. The people in Texas complain about the injustice that child support ends at 18 or whenever the child completes high school whichever occurs later while the parents in other places complain about child support being allowed to continue until the child is 21.

People use and abuse CPS. They abuse CPS when they report a parent or their ex's live-in of sexual abuse in order to gain the upper hand in a custody battle and they do so with such great frequency that it is a well recognized abuse to which CPS will usually not take seriously unless a medical exam proves it up. John Q Public doing Monday morning quarter-backing sees the later unfounded case as an unwarranted removal. And the same John Q Public doing Monday morning quarter-backing sees the dead or abused child who wasn't removed and yells, "What the hell is wrong with the agency." The social worker themselves are generally young women with an undergraduate degree in one of the social sciences who is under twenty-five years of age and has little life experience and who has a low end salary and is over grossly over worked. Burn out is epidemic. The roll over in employment makes Burger King and McDonald look stable. (No, I have no particular love for these people but I do know what they are up against and I do know what they have to work with in terms of finances and man power and it woefully inadequate without some one attempting to hitch a free legal ride on their back in custody." People also attempt to use the criminal district attorney's office for a free ride on their personal legal matter.)


The truth of the matter is that the justice system is not founded in hard science. It is founded upon people and therein less the problem. People are basically selfish, greedy and vindictive. They can and often are difficult, unyielding and unreasonable. Law is about trying to preserve an orderly society. It is about balancing rights of these people and where to draw the line of where one person's right ends and the next person rights begins. It is a see-saw and if both parties feel at the end of the case that justice was not done, then it probably was.

 

[hexeliebe]

All I can say to BCB's post is....

AMEN BROTHER!!!

 

[bambi66]

BCLM

I must tell you that I am a CP that went to court and lowered the amount of CS I was receiving. He couldn't pay what the court was asking so I lowered it to something he told me he could afford and would pay. He has been paying that amount without fail since 1991. We have NOT been back to court since. I also will NOT ask him to pay for 50% of college (my son is enrolled for the fall semester) because no court should order divorced parents to pay for college if they aren't going to order married ones to pay. He also has 3 additional babies to feed.

 

[bambi66]

BLCM

Very nice post.