Request for production of documents/child support hearing

[LdiJ]

It is put right into the court paperwork. You have to provide your banking statements. But you know what... you're probably right. I mean it isn't like I just looked it up and it's not like it is on all of my court paperwork. Silly me.

Your list is a list of items that a JUDGE ordered you and your ex to provide. That isn't the case here. The case here is that opposing council has asked for "discovery"...and a ridiculous amount of discovery as well. Its apples and oranges.

If she had a order from a judge to provide the information then I would also be telling her to provide it. However she won't GET an order from the judge to provide all of that, because 1) it isn't reasonable and 2) it asks for records that people are either not required to keep, or not required to keep for the length of time being requested and 3) its irrelevant for the purpose of enforcing an existing order.

I would be really surprized if opposing council even takes this any further....he/she already got WAY more than they were probably expecting to recieve.

 

[TNBSMommy]

It does matter.... If I am paying 800 dollars amonth for my kids because my x claims that she is only making min wage and I go into arrears..... if she takes me to court for back support she needs to be able to prove that she was indeed making what she claimed she was making.

And the time to make her PROVE she was making what she said she was WOULD HAVE BEEN WHEN THE CS WAS ORIGINALLY ORDERED! Not years later when he is being forced to own up to it!

 

[Whyte Noise]

Lets use this example:
Lets say that you pay 700 a month for 3 kids in CS. You make 30,000 a year and your ex makes 30,000 a year when the order was submitted. 2 months after the original CS order the CP receives this big promotion at work and is now pulling 75,000 a year. She doesn't inform the NCP and there is no way for the NCP to find out about the CP's pay increase. If NCP goes into arrears and CP takes them to court for this they legally have to prove that their income has not changed. They are seeking back support based on their income level that they claim that they were making the whole time. If CP fails to inform NCP of their pay increase and also does not notify the courts then why should the NCP have to pay back support at an amount that was not what it in fact should have been? Wisconsin is a percentage state so this will make a big difference.
I do not see how it would be fair that CP could get a pay increase and not tell anyone and yet still be able to get back support based on the lower amount. If the CP has noting to hide then I don't see how it would be a problem providing the documents. Legally if she had "lied" about her income (and YES this would be the case for my example) then chances are decent for NCP to not have to owe so much in arrears. The fact that she provides her tax returns should cover this.....

The parts of your posts that I put in BOLD text are what I am responding to newguy.

You do not normally have to show your financials unless you're wanting to INCREASE or DECREASE the CS amount. OP isn't wanting to increase or decrease a thing... only enforce the current court order. Yanno... the one the NCP is behind on. The one the NCP is in contempt on. Opposing counsel is probably wanting the financials to see if he/she can get their client (the NCP) a reduction in CS... it's called a modification.

As for the second bold part... the OP can get it because it's court ordered. Plain and simple. It doesn't matter if OP had a pay increase or not. The court set an amount that was ORDERED, and that is the amount that the NCP had to pay per month. Even if the NCP's or the CP's income had increased that amount would still be the same because... no one has taken it back to court to modify it!

You have to pay what is court ordered unless the CP or NCP takes it back to get it lowered or raised. Period. She has the court order. He hasn't paid in 9 years. She's going back to court to get it enforced, not get a new amount figured.

 

[stealth2]

You need to go read what that site said.

Maybe it would help if you posted a link? And I suspect much of this is state-specific.

 

[haiku]

OP already gave the law that she was asking about. Do a google search from there.

where?
you keep talking about a "site" but post no link.
you need to back up what YOU post.

because I cannot imagine a CP winning the lottery is going to get an NCP off the hook for arrearages, and would like to see that law in print somewhere, for one..........

 

[stealth2]

Continue making an ass out of yourself, newguy.

 

[haiku]

Pot........ meet Black

huh? if I have a site for info I POST it, I don't just talk about it and expect people to take my word on it.....

I am going to have to agree with Stealth here.......

 

[amiegaines654]

I have 2 questions that I am sure someone will jump all over me for asking, but I will ask anyway

1: I thought CS was based on the NCP's income. Why should the CP's income be in question. Child support isn't paid only because the CP isn't making enought money. Child support is ordered because the NCP has to take financial responsibility for the life it helped create. Why does the CP's income make a difference????

2: Why do they need cancelled checks. I understand the bank records and tax statements, but I would think that would tell someone all they need to know about her income. Why should the NCP get to see if his ex went to the mall to buy an outfit?? That is really none of his business, and I can't imagine a judge ordering her to do so. But what do I really know??

OP---Good luck!!!!!!!

 

[amiegaines654]

Because Wis bases the CS off of a % of the parents income. If CP's income far exceeds the NCP's income then it stands to say that CP is responsible for more of the CS.[/QUOTE]





Well that is crazy. So if the father makes 350,000 a year, that doesn't matter??? What if the mother wanted more in c/s, she could just work a lower paying job??

 

[amiegaines654]

Are you serious??!! Both parents SHARE in the financial responsibility of supporting the child. Just because the woman laid on her back doesn't mean she gets out of it with a clean break. It's bad enough there is trash out there that abuse the system and pop out kids like it's a job and collect welfare and whatever assistance they can get. IF this was the case, holy crap! It would be more out of control than it is now.

Yes, I am dead serious!! She doesn't get out with a clean break. She has to raise the kids. All he has to do is send a check every week. Or vise versa. You know some dads are full time parents!! I NEVER said that he should have to support the child alone and that she should not have any responsibility, but why does he get lower child support just because she works a job that pays her more??? That makes no sense.
Is this the way it goes----"Because my ex is making a good living, I don't have to support my kids as much" That is a bunch of bull sh**!!! The OP is not collecting welfare as far as I have read, so why would you even bring that up. Sounds like you have had your issues with trash that abuse the system, but not everyone is like that.

 

[amiegaines654]

LOL I knew I would get jumped on for asking my questions. I live in Texas (please no cowboy jokes I do not ride a horse to work ) CS here is based on the NCP's income. I have never heard of basing it on the CP's income. It seemed strange to me. I was not saying that the CP gets to lay on their azz with CS as their only income. That is wrong!!! Hopefully you were not implying that I am a CP with no job living off of my CS. I am a CP, but I do have a job, and receive no CS. I am going back to court for that though. LOL I was just curious sorry if I ruffled some feathers

 

[amiegaines654]

Yes, it does!! She has CUSTODY of the kids. BOTH parents should be raising the child. Just because the NCP is "not there" physically full-time does not mean that the NCP is not an active part of the child's life.



Stop ASSuming. You can't even understand this whole process, so slow down on the assuming of one's character. There ARE people out there that abuse the system because THEY CAN!! And if you think there isn't, then you need to get out more, read the paper and catch up with the time.

You clearly do not understand this whole process. The person who makes more money, usually (although there are exceptions) pay a higher amount of support. If the CP makes more than the NCP, then the NCP's support will (usually) be lower.

Listen, the system bases the financial support of the children as if the child(ren) were living with BOTH parents!

How much more clearer can anyone make this for you?

OK OK OK OK OK I am sorry. If you will read my post, I was just asking a question. That is not how my child support was figured. I know I know, I live in a different state.
What did I assume about this poster???????????
I know you assumed that she was trash!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes I know that there are people that abuse the system, but that doesn't mean this lady is doing that. For you to ASSume that she is, is just that, ASSuming.
I do know how this process works---in my state. Which is why I asked the question. I do not know how it works in other states.

 

[amiegaines654]

Did I say YOU were lazy? No, I didn't. I am going to say this one more time: THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO ABUSE THE SYSTEM AND TRY EVERY WAY POSSIBLE TO GET OUT OF PAYING OR TRYING TO GET MORE THAN THEY DESERVE!! Just look at some of these threads as an example.

Why don't YOU recieve child support?

I would think child support is based on BOTH incomes of both parents, even in Texas LOL. There is obviously something more to why you are not recieving support.

As I said in the post, I am in the process of going back to court. I am not getting support because he is not paying support. I have filed a case with the Texas AG's office

Why do YOU ASSume that there is something more to me not getting child support???? Could it possibly be that he isn't paying???
Lets see if you can get this through your head--SOME NCP'S DON'T PAY SUPPORT LIKE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO. I am doing something about it, but this thread is not about my issue. I have already addressed that which is what brought me to this site in the first place.

Seems like you do a lot of ASSuming to tell me not to assume when I didn't even assume anything!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[stealth2]

1: I thought CS was based on the NCP's income. Why should the CP's income be in question. Child support isn't paid only because the CP isn't making enought money. Child support is ordered because the NCP has to take financial responsibility for the life it helped create. Why does the CP's income make a difference????

A: Many states use a shared income model, where the incomes of both CP and NCP are used in the calculation of CS.

 

[stealth2]

It can be both ways... think about it.

Uuuuh, no, it really can't.

And legal - you're getting obnoxious again.