Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Relayer" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 12, 7:52?pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:

Because the courts have consistently ruled a gift to the child does not
apply against a CS obligation owed to the CP.


See, this has always bugged me big time. As we all know, NCP's have a
long history of showering CP's with money above and beyond their CS
obligation.

It really should be the reverse. ANY money given to CP should be
considered CS unless PROVEN otherwise. The burden of proof should be
on the CP. Since when is the victim forced to show burden of proof.
And when a CP defrauds the court and defrauds the NCP, that makes the
NCP the victim. The NCP is the ONE who lost the $$, not the CP.