Author Topic: Its cheaper to keep her...  (Read 1689 times)

Offline capt. apathy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4240
      • http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/moviewavs.cgi?Bandits=danger.wav
Its cheaper to keep her...
« Reply #45 on: August 12, 2003, 01:41:03 AM »
Quote
Unless, of course, you come from a state with support laws like I'd never heard of.


Washington has by far got the weirdest I've ever heard of.

there have been a few cases where they have just had to prove an 'emotional bond' with the child.  so if the kid looks to you as daddy, then you pay.

as I've been told (mostly radio news, while driving), it started with a divorce where the women was screwing around so they split up and the guy orders paternity tests on the kids (10-14 yr if I recall corectly).  so it turns out that 2 of them aren't his.  he takes the position that he has been defrauded on suportting the ones that wheren't his for however many years, and that he should only have to pay for the one that is his, and that the suport that he has been paying (unwittingly, from their birth upto the test time)) on the ones that wheren't his should be deducted from what he owes on the one that is his.

the judge didn't buy it. stating that the courts duty was to look out for the best interest of the child and the 'dad' disowning them would be tramatic.  the state welfare dept backed the wife up (because if dad isn't on the hook then the state welfare has to pay, and mom don't remeber who the real father is) so she had plenty of legal help.

then some squeak used that presedent (and again the help of child welfare dept) to hook some poor bastart who knew the kids wheren't his from the start.  the guy moves in with a single mother.  the dad is gone and not paying.  eventually they marry, and they does his best by his step kids.  then they get divorced and he gets stuck with suport payments.

now there are cases (it's becoming more common) where they aren't even married.  they guy just moves in with her for a couple months and moves out owing support.  so far it's just cases where the bio-father isn't paying or is uncolectable (prison, deadbeat, whatever).  then the state helps the woman in court (and sometimes even if the woman says she doesn't believe it's fare the state will sue 'in the best interest of the child' without the mothers help),  all they have to prove is an emotional bond with the child.  which basicly means coaching the kid to stand up in court, point at you and say 'daddy'.

DON'T SLEEP WITH SINGLE MOMS IN WASHINGTON!!!  and if you do don't even talk to the kids.

Offline Bcnu

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 81
      • http://www.fourthfightergroup.com
Its cheaper to keep her...
« Reply #46 on: August 12, 2003, 09:53:11 AM »
I happen to be "in" on this one, very deeply, since I am contracted developing Child Support Systems and my current speciality is support guidelines.

(That means, if you have a question, write!)

0.  This whole child support system (federal mandate, called FSA 88 and revised in 1997 as part of welfare reform under statutes called PRWORA) is all about paying back the State for welfare money.  Used to be mother and father would split up, mother goes on welfare, WE foot the bill (or vice versa).  In order to save the taxpayers money, phenominal amounts of money, the feds mandated that states implement child support systems so that the absent parent is responsible for the child's support.  If you're a taxpayer, cheer now; the money you DON'T spend any more for welfare due to this is enormous.

1.  YMMV between states.  Different states have different guidelines they use; the only federal requirement is that the state guidelines be uniformly applied, and that deviations from the guideline have a reason.  A totally separate bit of law prohibits taking more than 50% of the absent parents' income; over here we use NET income for that, not gross.

2.  The judge does not really determine the amount, but does have final say and override.  The caseworker works up a recommendation based on the available figures, and they can often include or exclude income or deductions based on their whim (e.g., the aforementioned housing allowances, or imputed income; that last is a nice one where they take from you money based on the money you 'could' earn even if you aren't.)  If you don't like that last one, blame scum who used to work cute deals with sympathetic employers to pay them virtually nothing, officially, and the rest under the table in order to dodge support.

3.  Since the caseworker determines the amount by selecting what goes into the formula, what does this mean for you?  Well, let's just say that the vast vast majority of caseworkers are rabidly biased against the male half of the species.  However the judge still has to approve the recommendation, and you may maintain representation (and whether you're the custodial or absent parent, unless it's a good-terms situation you had better).  If you make $45k due to a job downturn where you made $70k before, bring a lawyer and contest the figures already.  (You are entitled to a review once each two years).

4.  "Surcharge" (levies against your arrears) are federal law, nothing you can do about it.  Same thing with Federal Tax Offset; you may if you choose take some grim satisfaction in the fact that IRS withholding monies go to pay the State first and the family second (the only case where that's true).

5.  The limit on support is 18, or up to 19.5 years IF the child has not yet graduated from high school.  There is no mandate to pay for college.  Obviously many parents choose to do so, but we're talking mandates.

6.  You are entitled to credit against backdated support for the monies you paid during that period!  Again, you may need to have representation to get them to credit you properly.

But the big one is

7.  Kids are expensive, and LESS expensive if you stay married.  Choose your actions wisely.  Personally, I recommend finding a lady and sticking with her for life.  (the operative word there being 'lady')

Offline Snork

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 264
Its cheaper to keep her...
« Reply #47 on: August 13, 2003, 07:26:37 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Martlet


You really don't have any choice except to keep trying.  Either that or wait until they lock you up.


If I had done what I should have done 20 years ago I'd probably be out by now.
Flying as Noser