Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: jamusta on August 08, 2003, 10:30:39 PM
-
Altough I agree that dead beat dads are a problem it seems to me that a majority of them are created by the system its self. I pay 50% of my salary to child support. I cannot afford this so I am collecting arrears as I type.
Here are my thoughts on child support:
The system is totally biased against the non custodial parent (ncp).
They take that 50% after taxes but it was calculated against my salary before taxes. Its not considered income to the custodial parent so they dont have to pay taxes on it. Whats the difference between alimony and child support? Alimony one has to pay taxes tho.
Their is no accountablity for the custodial parent. My child support has bought new cars and leather furniture. One wants to get a motorcycle. (Did I mention both of my kids moms are in the military so housing food and medical are paid for.) I am expected to maintain their housholds and mine. (say they get a two bedroom apartment. Instead of paying the difference between a 1 br and a 2 br they think I should pay for the cost of a 2 br. see above about military.) I was ordered to provide medical????? (see above about military)
My bills are not really considered in the calculations. So the fact I live in an area where $1100 is avg rent for 1 br doesnt matter. I got laid off last year and made around 71000. This year I will bring in around 43000 so I ask for a review and was told it would go off of what I made last year...Huh????
I pay some of my support but I cannot afford to pay all my support so I guess I will be a dead beat dad.
Just venting my frustrations.
-
Now you get to go to the next step...... Finding employers that Hire dead beat dads that owe back support.
Or if you happen to live in my state (Washington) they pull your Drivers lic. 2 weeks after you miss a payment ... that really makes getting a new job easy.... and you just dont get it back that easily.(pay half now and this and that fee and they let you have it back)
And counting on your tax return guess what ... they take that to .
Yes the system is helping to create more DBD's, its a bunch of @#$%
ive been there 2 times already .... the hole is almost impossiable to get out of these days. ok ive added my vent to this...
-
Yeah I think my license is suspended. Oh and my credit is now screwed because I owe 10k in back support. Im still trying to figure out how to pay the arrears which is difficult since I cant pay the regular amount. Why is there interest on my arrears did i sign for some sort of loan? I was paying child support before I had an court order to pay. They back dated my support to the time when they 1st submitted the paperwork. I was instantly 6 months behind even though I had been paying. When I asked if they would back date my payment to the time I put in the paper work for the review they said nope.
It seems the ones who dont pay or are avoiding the child support agencies have it easier than the ones who want to pay but cant.
I NEED A HUG!!!!!:(
-
ya it's very screwed up. (luckly I've only had a spectators view)
a couple of examples
one of my best friends, we went through our apprenticeship together. so, he's doing the good dad thing always putting his wife and kids first. one day I pick him up to share a ride to a union meeting (about 60 miles away), things are going great as far as h can tell, she kisseshim goodbye at the door and we leave. we show back-up after noon and the house is empty. no furniture, no kids stuff, none of her stuff, none of his personal stuff that had any value what so ever, just some garbage and things she couldn't sell. oh, ya and no contact. no note, no letter, no msg on the answering machine (not that she left it or the phone), no msg through a friend, no idea what happened to his wife and kids for about 3 weeks.
when he gets contact it's through a process server, filing for divorce and a restraining order. typical legal ploy, claim abuse, no evedence, no injury, no police report, no bruises, no witnesses, just her saying it happend. no specific day it happened or anything, no calls for help in the night. just "I'd like a divorce, and a restraining order, ya, he hit me once I don't remember when but I'm afraid"
so now he's got the dangerouse wife beater label, can't see his kids (which is really killing him), can't even get an answer as to why.
so she gets everything, he doesn't even fight for it. even though he'd worked his bellybutton off for about 8 years and finally got on top of the bills and some equity in his house (probably why she left then, waiting till it was worth it).
so he lets her have everything (she had to take care of the kids after all and she might need it), agreed to a high suport payment without a fight (again his kids would need it).
then a year or 2 go by and he meets a new girl and tries to start over.
he's happy again for the first time in years. working hard paying his bills, walking on air, he's got a new kid on the way.
so the new baby comes and the bills start piling up so he realizes that taking the local jobs isn't going to be enough to suport his house and the ex's, so he travels to hit some bigger money jobs.
thats where the fun begins.
so we make 35-60k a year depending on the economy.
if you are willing to travel you can make some good money in a short time but you can't do it every week.
so he takes a couple of the out of state jobs to make enough extra to cover the bills. on a 7-12's job you can gross about $3,200.
so he travels 2000 mi, and works 7 days a week 12 hours a day on a 3 month job. time away from his family but it will cover the bills, and maybe save enough that he can afford to stay in the area to work for most of the year.
so off he goes to work, a couple weeks later she gets the 2 or 3 checks he owes her, she asks around (knows people in the trade) and finds out he headed out of town for a good money job.
then she files for a change in his support. he is making $3,200 a week, thats 166k a year, he's not sharing near enough with his kids. so he gets a letter stating he needs to be in court in a couple weeks or he can not show and his new suport payment will be based on 166k per year (btw this also doesn't take into account that even if he could find the work make 166k he's also need to deduct the price of 365 days of hotels plaus food and travel expenses)
he can't afford that so he quits the job and drives home (you don't get a couple of weeks off in this kind of work, you either work here and show up every day, or you don't work here).
he argues it in court and they dont change the suport (even though he actually had made less that year then the year they origanally based his suport on they didn't adjust it lower, they just decide not to raise it)
so a 5 or 6 months go by and he finds another out of town job that would get him out of the hole financially. so off he goes, a couple weeks later another sumons and the whole thing goes again.
so this happens 3 or 4 more times, always the same thing and the same arguments. she don't work, and since she's on welfare she gets an attorney for free any time she wants to file for an adjustment (suprisingly, he can't seem to get a hearing to have his adjusted when he loses work. he can only have it looked at on certain aniversary dates (not sure exactly how that works, just that she can ask to have it looked at, he can't)
so one day he gets the summons and quits the job to go to court, he gets back in town and the new wife tells him she can't live like this.
he's constantly leaving town for work, yet they never have any money, and when he is in town all he does is fight it out with his ex about money and when he's gone she has to listen to the ex call and squeak about money. basicly this isn't what she signed on for, she's sorry, she loves him, but she wants out.
they argue about it she stands by her decision, and goes off to the store to let it all kind of sink in.
while she was gone he stuck a .44 to his chest and put a round through his hart.
you always hear about the women, and how hard single mother have it (and some do). but the system is perfectly willing to stand by some greed money grubbing squeak while she uses the kids as a tool to suck the life out of some poor guy whos only crime was giving a damn about her.
so for the record guys are often the victim too. abviosly most don't end up as bad off as my friend and most gold diggers have at least a piece of a soul and know when to let up.
but the suport system is screwed and it needs fixing.
sorry, there was another example but after dragging all this up I don't feel much like anymore typing tonight
-
never mind...
-
A good friend of mine is in the same situation... :(
-
Sorry to hear...:(
-
Damn. Capt. Apathy. I cannot see how you can post without any apparent concern for those kids.
I'm sorry. You must be overcome with the loss of your friend. But his kids will have to deal with this the rest of their lives.
This needs to be said. A dad's body is not his own. He has a job to do, and your friend failed to do his job if he committed suicide. There is no way that I cut your friend any slack on this. He didn't do his job.
Its just another pathetic story in a sea of them, people who don't take responsibility for their actions and blame everybody else.
It is a shame as far as I'm concerned.
-
Sorry, no sympathy here.
You start families with multiple women, then don't take custody of the kids, then hire a crappy divorce lawyer.
Step up to the plate.
-
actually he was forced into a situation where no matter what he did he was the one thing he couldn't stand, a father who couldn't take care of his own kids. up until his last moments he did everything right, he worked hard (at work, at school, and at home), he put his wife and kids first. and no matter what he did the squeak wanted more cash and the system helped her shake him down.
he rarely saw his kids anyway. he'd drive 30 miles to pick them up and she wouldn't be home at the time, he'd sit in the car for hours and she wouldn't show. she held them hostage for more cash all the while spewing lies about what a lousy father he was, and how he didn't care.
then he sees a split with the new wife and as far as his experience shows it's going to be more of the same.
he jst reached a desparate moment, wher the math added up and (with his insurance, freed up pension and anuity money) he could do a better job as a father from the grave.
I don't much care for his decision, and he had no idea how many would have done anything to help (standing room only at the funeral, guessing at 400+). but I wasn't in his shoes and he was a man who was out of options.
btw-martlet, he didn't set out to 'start familys with multiple women', he was a devoted husband and father, who one day came home to an empty house. his only real mistake was picking the wrong girl (a lot of them out there), and she decided being grown-up wasn't fun and would rather split and party on the cash he sends for his kids. when that didn't work out he paid his bills and tried to start again, but it just wasn't enough for her.
I can only see it one way no matter how many times I try, the squeak killed him.
-
Man. Just shows you there's two sides to every story. Never really thought about it from the side of the "deadbeat dad." Sigh. You hear about kids slipping through the cracks in the system, but never about the fathers that do too.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Sorry, no sympathy here.
You start families with multiple women, then don't take custody of the kids, then hire a crappy divorce lawyer.
Step up to the plate.
Step up to the plate?
I did. how many jobs did you have last year? I had 3 at one time. 2 full time jobs and the reserves. I lost 20lbs in a month. Lack of sleep was the biggest problem. I dont need sympathy. I just need to vent and to see who else has been through this. Obviously you havent..
Capt...
the one thing he couldn't stand, a father who couldn't take care of his own kids..
thats the hardest thing to deal with....I feel the same way...
-
My guess is that there is some legal option if the custodial parent spouse is mis-spending child support. You can seek to have a guardian ad litem appointed or a trustee who will verify the uses of the money. Also, as for support amounts varying, it sure seems to me that the issue could be solved by setting up a percentage allocation from the paycheck.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Sorry, no sympathy here.
You start families with multiple women, then don't take custody of the kids, then hire a crappy divorce lawyer.
Step up to the plate.
I'm not married. I'm not sure about kids, though. I've planted seed in more than one Canudian. I figured they have superior health care, she's good, right?
This is how Marty steps up, i think you're doing a much better job Jam.
-
You can seek to have a guardian ad litem appointed or a trustee who will verify the uses of the money. Also, as for support amounts varying, it sure seems to me that the issue could be solved by setting up a percentage allocation from the paycheck.
I've never hears of anyone getting either of these options(the varifying of spending or trustee thing on trustfunds but not suport).
many people have complained to the courts about mis-spent money. and AFAIK I've never heard of anyone getting any responce from it without picturese of starving kids living in waste and a needle hanging out of the ex's arm.
both are excellent ideas though and would go along way twards bettering the situation if implemented.
you have to keep records of the suport you pay. my brother got a bit behind on his, and in the same time period someone broke into his house and vandalized it while he was away, destroying all his records. he didn't keep very good records anyway (money order receipts instead of checking account), his ex claimed he didn't pay anything after the first year (10 yrs after the break-up). I know this was BS because I'd paid a couple of those months myself. but he couldn't prove he paid. so he had to pay all again.
why not audit the custodial parent? we all keep reciepts for taxes or whatever anyway. why not some accountabilit?
-
Wow.
Some very tough stuff in this thread.
I really feel for everyone involved...Jamusta, Capt and his friend, and the children.
Vent away Jamusta..I'm reading it. I wish I had a solution for you man.
Where is all this support going btw? I think Capt. has the right idea...audit both sides of the equasion. Child support isn't going to mean squat if a father kills himself. Is your wife working? Does she take vacations while you are working 2 and 3 jobs?
-
No woman no cry
-
Originally posted by jamusta
Step up to the plate?
I did. how many jobs did you have last year? I had 3 at one time. 2 full time jobs and the reserves. I lost 20lbs in a month. Lack of sleep was the biggest problem. I dont need sympathy. I just need to vent and to see who else has been through this. Obviously you havent..
What does the number of jobs I have got to do with anything? I don't start families I can't afford to support. I've "been through it" in my own way, though. By watching my tax dollars support the families of dead beat dads.
Vent away, though, if it makes you feel better. If you are honestly getting screwed in child support, then take her to court.
-
Martlet, don't you think you are being a bit unfair.
Situations change. People change.
There are lots of dead-beat dad's and I agree with you that they need to get responsible, but that doesn't seem to be what is happening here. Because of the extraodinary numbers of dead-beat dads the system has leaned way too far onto the rights of mothers...the assumption being that the male is at fault. But it isn't so "cut and dry" in every case.
-
Last New Years, me and my best friend, who happens to be my Brother-In-Law, celebrated the New Years with champagne not for the calendar event, but his first year making over $100,000 dollars as they just did their taxes. He’s an engineer for Hewlett Packard.
He has a daughter with my sister, and that is just a terrific family meld of sorts. Visiting them is just perfect.
Thing is, he plays drums in a band and met a beer drinking skank that after 13 years with my sister is more fun, or so he believes.
Now this is MY sister, and My best friend. Guess what he gets after popping the champagne bottle at his house and left my sister after a fight, filing for divorce?
From the court, he gets per-divorce $1200 a month to pay rent, buy weed before a show, and entertain a chubby Wisconsinite skank that loves his band. $4000 for my sister.
"Sympathy" is right between Sh*t and Syphilis in the dictionary.
Now you all know.
Be a MAN or be Punkd.
-
That sucks and I don't blame you for feeling that way Creamo.
Problem is, a woman "can" use the system that enabled such excellent economic retribution on your former brother in law to her advantage and is empowered legally to act in much the same way he did towards your sister except without consequences. (except in the case of Capt. Apathy's friend obviously, and the inevitable scarring to the children which will happen either way.)
-
I don't give a sh*t one way or another regarding law or what a woman can and cannot do.
I do know because my bro-in-law/best friend wants to chase skank rather than be a man to his kid and wife, a simple and rewarding family visit is now an impossible event to see my sister, neice, and best friend, in a holiday setting, which I put HUGE worth in.
Should she be able to "use the system that enabled such excellent economic retribution on your former brother in law to her advantage and is empowered legally to act in much the same way he did towards your sister except without consequences"?
No! I think...., christ. What in the fuk were you saying?! lol.
She should be able to put my neice in a house, continue as a teacher, and carry on after 13 years as a working house wife? All while concidering he said this wasn't his bag and wanted to entertain Harley Chicks in Milwaukee bars? On his dime, and 2 quarters too?
Yup.
-
Okay..layman's terms.
A chick can screw a guy by using the system. This system benefitted your sister, and rightly so, but can be used against guys who don't deserve it. They have been good fathers and husbands.
-
I see what you're saying creamo( I thnk. the big problem is that withthe no-fault divorce laws you end up with the women getting the deal you discribe even if he was the steady dependable parent & she was the one who threw it all away for some party time.
the courts go into these 'zero-tolarance' programs to get tough on dead-beats, wich on the serface seems a good thing. but in fact 'zero-tolorance' translates into arbitrary decisions with out looking into the details of the situation.
sometimes the kids suffer, not because the dad doesn't pay, but because the mom uses the money to buy her new boyfriend a harley. (seen that more than a couple times).
I see nothing wrong with accountability. you have your kids you should support them, no question about that.
but accountability should be a 2 way street, if the courts are gonna get involved to insure the father is accountable for his suport. then they should also take the effort to make sure the money is going where it's suposed to.
I'm not advocating creating some big gov't monster that watchdogs over every child from divorced parents. but it seems reasonable that if the courts can take the effort to back up a mother if she complains the father isn't paying, then a father should be able to get the same participation by the court when he believes the money isn't going to the kids.
as I see it, it would be a win/win situation. fathers who are watching their suport money go to partys, dope, and supplying spending money that doesn't have to be subtrated from the mothers welfare, will get some sort of satisfaction (either custody for themselves or the appointmet of a someone to supervise expenditures on women with a history of abusing the suport system). and mothers who are doing their job and spending aproprietly will lose nothing.
an added bonus to this would be that maybe if we made the laws so it wasn't like hitting the lotto everytime a welfare mom gets pregnant there might be a few less kids around from broken homes.
-
serves you right for marrying the b*tch and having kids with her :)
what did you expect? to go on living like a carefree batchelor now your away from her? oooooooooooooooooo no you got that wrong.
If you have kids you have to pay. you cant afford to pay? dont leave your wife or better yet DONT have kids you cant afford. You want to be free of your wife? (and kids?) then you have to damn well pay for them to be brought up. As far as i have seen the payments are worked out against the estimated costs of bringing up a child. You had the children and therefore you should pay for them.If you have some problem with the level of your payment then i suggest you get off your bellybutton and go and prove you cannot afford the money in a court. When you say you are paying for them and in actual fact the GOVERNMENT is paying for them through child support that means WE ALL are paying for them. Maybe if people didnt have kids until they could afford to financially support them we would all have more money to spend eh?
hehe at least this is what i think (before ive had kids) :) we'll see what i think after, things might be different. One thing i do know is, I wont have kids unless i know i can afford to bring them up well.
-
did you even read the above posts? where not talking about people who had kids they can't afford. or guys who want to be free of the kids and not pay.
te topic guys who make a good faith effort to be a father and husband. then the squeak leaves taking the kids, and exploits the system (that was designed to protect women from dead-beats who have no interest in paying), and uses it to continually ruin the life of the guy (as if what she did while married wasn't enough) after they separate.
people keep bringing up the irisponsable people who won't pay. but that's not the subject here, those people do exist, but the problem is good people who are trying to do the right thing are being robbed (with gov't help) by dead beat squeakes who would rather have a kid ever 18 months or so then work.
now if she's on the 2nd or 3rd kid you would expect the guy to see it comming, but if you're the unluck first guy, you really have no warning.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Martlet, don't you think you are being a bit unfair.
Situations change. People change.
.
Possibly. It's hard to say without knowing the whole story.
Some things he said are obviously way off. If he's paying 100% housing and medical, regardless if his ex wives are in the military, then he should go back to court. He can get a back dated support order and alleviate some of his arrears.
However, having children in 2 seperate households is going to be more costly than having the same number of children under one roof. And rightly so.
-
Pre-Nup.
-
Mens "justice" and womens "justice".
I won custody of my daughter in the divorce, got the house, also all the bills from the marriage.
My ex-wife was in excess of $13,000 behind in child support, I filed felony charges against her, (failure to provide for a minor child) the D.A. called her attorney, she was never arrested, the charge dropped by the D.A.
A year later she took me back to court for change of custody, the judge ignored all the wicked sh*t she had done and gave her custody. :mad:
I later became unemployed and was $1,500 behind in support, I was arrested----sentenced to 90 days in jail and only was released after I borrowed the full amount to pay her off.
If women didn't have a ***** there would be a bounty on their heads.
-
it's a sad world we live in....
jamusta, instead of worrying about money why don't you worry about your kid growing up in a broken home :P
-
Going through the same thing. Lost a job, divorce and move all in less then a month, was truly crushing. The only thing that kept me going was the thought of my 2 girls growing up without a dad. I couldn't do that to them. I got into some dark places because of it.
I sucked it up and am pressing on. I let her have everything. All I got was my computer, clothes and a truck I can't afford. I am moving back to Houston because being away from the kids is killing me. It hurts knowing their female role model is a HO, but I can just be the best dad I can and be there for them. I used to feel the way martlet did, till I went through it. Fathers get hosed.
When I think about it now I was an idiot for giving her everything because I didn't want to fight. She is a squeak either way :)
-
Wedding contract that are the 2 magic words.
If ur "future" wife dont want to sign a fair contract, Kick her
-
Originally posted by Curval
Okay..layman's terms.
A chick can screw a guy by using the system. This system benefitted your sister, and rightly so, but can be used against guys who don't deserve it. They have been good fathers and husbands.
Yes, I agree totally. I was bored and boozing and it was just a take on it from personal experience.
This was all really about apathy's friends case, and the system can be a real b*tch indeed. And of course if it was me I'd not want to shoot myself. Then how could I strangle the hag?Naw...
Situations suck like that, but if you could just leave your family and move in with some skank without repercussion, there would be alot more sad stories from the other end.
It sucks all around for everyone involved, that's a fact.
-
Captain A: Sorry to hear about the death of your friend. Suicide is a tragedy under any circumstances. Some say he doesn’t deserve sympathy, but clearly he was trying his best. Our distorted western society adjudged his best as not good enough. Too bad a few people here agreed with that. I don’t care for the smugness of those who have no sympathy.
The situation is as bad or even worse over here in Britain, where the 50-50 rule applies - whatever the circumstances. My ex-wife did bugger all in our marriage. Didn’t have children but didn’t want to go to work either, so tried to live her life through me. It could not go on, so in 1996 we put the marriage out of its misery. Despite the fact that she contributed nothing to our matrimonial home and had no money of her own, she was able to walk away with the house and a substantial proportion of my other assets.
I have never said a bad word against marriage, so sought encouragement from my remaining married friends. Trouble is, one by one they all started divorcing! One of those was Tom, who ran the village lawnmower shop. His wife Candy was a real gold digger. Tom had to move out of the house (his house) while the divorce was going on. Now Tom was not a wealthy man, and his house was, shall we say, humble. But guess what? He was ordered to give his wife HALF the equity he had in it, which was £60,000. So his wife got £30,000 for that. What an injustice! That house was Tom’s house, never hers. He had lived there since before he knew Candy, and to top it all, she was just about to move in with a man of means in a more prestigious house in a neighbouring village! She should not have been taking £30,000 from Tom. If anything, she should have been paying Tom back rent.
The story doesn’t end there. Despite Candy’s assurances to be fair (before the initial consultation with the divorce solicitor), she wanted more. Tom had a classic car – a Jaguar Mk2 – just like the one in the Inspector Morse series, only red. Candy wanted half of its value which, as a classic car, might have been valued at £15,000-£20,000. WTF!!! Why should she get half of that?!! That car was Tom’s, and had nothing to do with Candy, and nothing to do with the marriage.
But good for Tom – he sold that car to the owner of the house he moved to as surety for the rent payment. Sale price - £1. LOL. After the divorce, Tom having made good on his rent debts, the car was transferred back to him. And Candy? She now lives it up in Australia, where she moved with her new man and hers and Tom’s son, Tom junior. So Tom effectively has no access to his son, unless he makes the trip to Australia, which he has done once.
-
Rule one in marriage...never, repeat never, marry a woman named Candy.
Candy, in my experience, isn't a real name. It is a ...ummm...stage name. ;)
(no offense meant Beet1e)
-
Originally posted by Curval
Martlet, don't you think you are being a bit unfair.
Because of the extraodinary numbers of dead-beat dads the system has leaned way too far onto the rights of mothers...the assumption being that the male is at fault.
THE RIGHTS OF MOTHERS. My favorite thing. Having survived a similar situation I can say that, at least in my case, my sons' mother was the only one catered to by the system.
-
Well reading some of these post I gather alot of you dont know how this really works...
1. No they cannot monitor the spending of the support, or should I say will not.
2. Them being in the military matters not to the courts. Its all about income. Guess how much military folks make. Nada cus all their needs are taken care of.
3. At one point in time I could afford to pay the support. It was set when I was making 60k. I made just over 70k last year. This year I will make just over 43k. When the review goes through they will use last years numbers... You do the math.
4. It is cheaper to have 2 kids by 2 different women because the child support from one is deducted from your income.
5. The courts will not back date support unless it is filed by the custodial parent. So therefore my arrears will always remain the same.
-
Tired of hearing about "dead beat DADS" what about "dead beat MOMS"? HUH? Well????
I raised both of my biological children without a dime of support from the egg donor (sorry, but MOM just doesn't fit). The courts just didn't think to award it at the time and I was too stupid to push the issue. I was afraid I wouldn't get custody since the cards were stacked in favor of the mother back then.
Call em dead beat parents or something..... Moms too!
-
MT I feel what you are saying. It does go both ways. But honestly how many times have you heard the term dead beat MOMs or parents. I just use the term because thats how the judge looked at me when she said that I could not talk to her.
-
I had a friend who after 20+ years with his wife found out that she was leaving him for a Dr. He was a paramedic, paramedics don't make a lot of money and she was living with a guy who made $200k year easy. She nailed him on child support and alamony since she wasn't married to this Dr. They had a 13 yo daughter when they got divorced, 2 weeks after she turned 18 he gets a letter stating she was taking him back to court to retroactively raise child support for the last 5 years, even though the daughter was 18 and away at a university!!!! This Biatch wants an extra $300/ month for the last 60 months! Well he didn't have $18, 000 laying around and was paying for her school as it was. 2 days before he was due in court the helicopter he was working on crashed. He was critical and in ICU on a ventilator when his ex (who knew about the crash) went through with the hearing and because Chuck wasn't there she won. 10 months later Chuck died in ICU, his ex wife forced the sale for his house and got all his savings and the money from the house. His new wife got nothing except some of his belongings.
-
Originally posted by jamusta
Well reading some of these post I gather alot of you dont know how this really works...
1. No they cannot monitor the spending of the support, or should I say will not.
2. Them being in the military matters not to the courts. Its all about income. Guess how much military folks make. Nada cus all their needs are taken care of.
3. At one point in time I could afford to pay the support. It was set when I was making 60k. I made just over 70k last year. This year I will make just over 43k. When the review goes through they will use last years numbers... You do the math.
4. It is cheaper to have 2 kids by 2 different women because the child support from one is deducted from your income.
5. The courts will not back date support unless it is filed by the custodial parent. So therefore my arrears will always remain the same.
It's no wonder you're getting screwed, you don't know squat about support.
If the custodial parent is in the military, the judge can add BAQ/BOQ to to the support allowance, thus reducing your cost of living portion.
For the same reason, it is cheaper to pay support for 2 children residing in the same household. Unless you have a complete moron for a lawyer (or were dumb enough to represent yourself), some cost of living allowances for two children residing in the same household are redundant, therefore you only pay them once. If you decide to go starting families all over town, then there is no redundancy, and you pay it all.
The courts WILL backdate a support order. Generally, you can only get it backdated to the date the request was filed, but if you can show the amount you were ordered to pay is a gross overpayment it can be dated to the previous order or time when your earnings changed, whichever is closer to the filing date.
Unless, of course, you come from a state with support laws like I'd never heard of.
Get custody of the kids and see what it costs to raise them.
-
Martlet you our a pro at this I see.
1 They dont get BHA they live in housing. Income is figured out by the child support services. All income is included in figuring out support.
2 Under california I would pay 1795 for 2 kids. Thats just a a few hundred $ more than I pay for 2 now.
3 Had a lawyer found out that it is alot of money and not worth the trouble. Even Non custodial parents support groups said it would be. I should have listened. But will end up with a lawyer again.
4 They do not back date your arrears. Tried that. Unless the child support services lied to me.
Not saying you dont know the law but it seems to be case by case basis. Everything you said I have tried and the only response I get from a judge is "I see no reason to deviate from the guidlines." Remember I have done this a couple of times just my experience.
-
Originally posted by jamusta
Martlet you our a pro at this I see.
1 They dont get BHA they live in housing. Income is figured out by the child support services. All income is included in figuring out support.
2 Under california I would pay 1795 for 2 kids. Thats just a a few hundred $ more than I pay for 2 now.
3 Had a lawyer found out that it is alot of money and not worth the trouble. Even Non custodial parents support groups said it would be. I should have listened. But will end up with a lawyer again.
4 They do not back date your arrears. Tried that. Unless the child support services lied to me.
Not saying you dont know the law but it seems to be case by case basis. Everything you said I have tried and the only response I get from a judge is "I see no reason to deviate from the guidlines." Remember I have done this a couple of times just my experience.
My mother represented one of my college buddies when he went back to get his support order changed.. We spent many long nights looking for any way to keep her from screwing him. He was in the military, not his wife, but one of the things I remember reading was a way to have a % of the BAQ to count not as income, but as support.
We got the support order changed, but his judge wouldn't back date it either, even though we cited several precedents.
You really don't have any choice except to keep trying. Either that or wait until they lock you up.
-
Yeah they know where I am at so if they need to come get me I wont run atleast I know Im trying. Fortunately I still have my sanity. The good news is I have 9 years for my son and 14 years for my daughter.. Unless they go to college and their moms still needs support. The BHA is included but only if they are receiving it. Im getting ready for round 4 this month.
-
what saur said. get a good lawyer to write a good all encompassing prenup. #2 dont own stuff in your name. its called a trust fund or property held in trust. #3 incorperate, that keeps you personal salry down while the big chunk goes in the trust or expences. #4 VASECTOMY, if you dont want the expence and trouble involved in owning kids dont sire them. dont get me wrong i like kids, i own one myself. i read an article in the paper a few years ago about a guy who won the lottery. he was divorced when he won it. so he gets a lawyer, sells the right to collect the winnings to a bank for cash right now. then puts it in a trust fund. he had it locked up so tight the govt. couldnt even get at it. and he owed child support so his EX was pissed that she and all the kings lawyers couldnt get at it.
-
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.
-
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')
-
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.