DADS - How to Lower your Child Support Payments with Psycho Ex

I'm interested in anybody's thoughts on my ideas for how to lower support
payments with a psycho EX -- one who receives a hugh support payment every
month or up to 1/2 of an ex-es income every month, they aren't working and
refuse to work to milk you, the timeshare % is low, dad is a decent income
earner and mom is at home with 2+ kids. They have an axe to grind or just
to "prove they are right" in the divorce, they go back every year and get an
increase as his income increases. As we know, extreme cases perpetuate the
"deadbeat dad" syndrome (because Dad can't feed himself, pay rent, etc).

Here's the two "real life" scenarios I've discovered to deal with the above
situation:

1) Own your own business and "control" how much you pay to yourself -- this
results in lower support. Run expenses through the company.
2) If you were to somehow unfortunately lose your job, while you have no
income and the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) can't garnish
your check anymore and after ex realizes there is no cash-flow or insurance
might cause lazy ex to get a job so she can do her part to feed the family.
Once she gets a job, go back and get an adjustment and watch the number go
down to a more reasonable figure. Now ex can't be lazy anymore because she
can't just live off your support.

Problem solved.

Note: In California I've heard you don't get $0 for your income in this
example because you have the "ability to earn" what you did previously so it
adjusts down just on her new job's income. You still have to pay the back
support when you get the new job and they re-garnish your check. Some
judges I have heard may give you a break.

"flinrius" wrote in message
k.net...
I'm interested in anybody's thoughts on my ideas for how to lower support
payments with a psycho EX -- one who receives a hugh support payment every
month or up to 1/2 of an ex-es income every month, they aren't working and
refuse to work to milk you, the timeshare % is low, dad is a decent income
earner and mom is at home with 2+ kids. They have an axe to grind or just
to "prove they are right" in the divorce, they go back every year and get
an increase as his income increases. As we know, extreme cases perpetuate
the "deadbeat dad" syndrome (because Dad can't feed himself, pay rent,
etc).

Here's the two "real life" scenarios I've discovered to deal with the
above situation:

1) Own your own business and "control" how much you pay to yourself --
this results in lower support. Run expenses through the company.
2) If you were to somehow unfortunately lose your job, while you have no
income and the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) can't garnish
your check anymore and after ex realizes there is no cash-flow or
insurance might cause lazy ex to get a job so she can do her part to feed
the family. Once she gets a job, go back and get an adjustment and watch
the number go down to a more reasonable figure. Now ex can't be lazy
anymore because she can't just live off your support.

Problem solved.

Note: In California I've heard you don't get $0 for your income in this
example because you have the "ability to earn" what you did previously so
it adjusts down just on her new job's income. You still have to pay the
back support when you get the new job and they re-garnish your check.
Some judges I have heard may give you a break.

Sadly, the amounts don't go down very much as her income goes up. It hardly
makes a difference. When my husband learned that he was father to an almost
13 year old daughter by a one night stand with a welfare drunk, I spent
quite a bit of time with the tables--and she could earn quite a bit more
than minimum wage without his CS changing one bit. Play with the tables for
a while. The system is slanted in favor of the CP.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

SNIP

Sadly, the amounts don't go down very much as her income goes up. It
hardly makes a difference. When my husband learned that he was father to
an almost 13 year old daughter by a one night stand with a welfare drunk,
I spent quite a bit of time with the tables--and she could earn quite a
bit more than minimum wage without his CS changing one bit. Play with the
tables for a while. The system is slanted in favor of the CP.

Agreed -Those in California can download the DISS-omaster program and see
where the numbers fall. By the way, does anybody know the difference
between "standard support" and "Tactic 9a"??? Lawyers out there?

http://www.cflr.com/download/download_index.php

"teachrmama" wrote in

Sadly, the amounts don't go down very much as her income goes up. It
hardly makes a difference.

Again, CS rates has nothing to do with supporting the child!
The courts only care about collecting as much money as possible regardless
of ability to pay.

Things have not really improved since the days of cutting of hands for
stealing a loaf of bread!
The family court system is nothing more than a sham and the politicians who
support this system abuse should be ashamed.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 06:29:43 GMT, "flinrius"
wrote:

I'm interested in anybody's thoughts on my ideas for how to lower support
payments with a psycho EX -- one who receives a hugh support payment every
month or up to 1/2 of an ex-es income every month, they aren't working and
refuse to work to milk you, the timeshare % is low, dad is a decent income
earner and mom is at home with 2+ kids. They have an axe to grind or just
to "prove they are right" in the divorce, they go back every year and get an
increase as his income increases. As we know, extreme cases perpetuate the
"deadbeat dad" syndrome (because Dad can't feed himself, pay rent, etc).

Here's the two "real life" scenarios I've discovered to deal with the above
situation:

1) Own your own business and "control" how much you pay to yourself -- this
results in lower support. Run expenses through the company.

Unless you are able to file for a modification from prison claiming $0
income since you are incarcerated, how does this work?

Since you put quotations around the word control, I'm assuming that
what you really meant is attributing more expenses to the business
than is proper (i.e. personal expenses) to result in a lower net
profit because net profit from a sole proprietorship IS the owner's
income (whether it is withdrawn as "income" or not). Not only will
you be dealing with a fraud situation in the family courts, but the
IRS isn't going to be too happy either. The ability to pay less in
child support for a time can be more than extinguished by the
discovery of what you are doing both by the family courts (which may
retroactively refigure child support because the original amount was
based upon a fraud) and the IRS which will charge you extra taxes,
penalties and interest... and send you to prison if they find it was
purposeful.

I understand why men are looking for ways to reduce child support
awards as the current system/formulas are extremely unkind to men. I
agree that something needs to be done. But your suggestions are like
treating the symptoms of the cancer rather than the cancer itself.
Sure, it may make things feel better for a while, but it'll still kill
you.

2) If you were to somehow unfortunately lose your job, while you have no
income and the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) can't garnish
your check anymore and after ex realizes there is no cash-flow or insurance
might cause lazy ex to get a job so she can do her part to feed the family.
Once she gets a job, go back and get an adjustment and watch the number go
down to a more reasonable figure. Now ex can't be lazy anymore because she
can't just live off your support.

If she is adamant about not working, she will turn to welfare (if not
already receiving benefits) and welfare be be the recipient of the
arrearages which accrue. When the state (CSE) is collecting money for
the state (welfare), it goes after the man with a vengeance to the
point of stripping him of everything he may need to get/keep a job
(i.e. driver's license, professional license, freedom).


Problem solved.

Note: In California I've heard you don't get $0 for your income in this
example because you have the "ability to earn" what you did previously so it
adjusts down just on her new job's income. You still have to pay the back
support when you get the new job and they re-garnish your check. Some
judges I have heard may give you a break.

The Bradley Amendment would prohibit a judge from giving you a break
on arrears.

"Beverly" wrote in message
...

Unless you are able to file for a modification from prison claiming $0
income since you are incarcerated, how does this work?

The person I know paid himself from his company $3K a month. I'm not saying
that once you made $5K a month and then your income drops to $3K a month
that the court will necessarily adjust support down. and by the way He
didn't go to jail.

Since you put quotations around the word control, I'm assuming that
what you really meant is attributing more expenses to the business
than is proper (i.e. personal expenses) to result in a lower net
profit because net profit from a sole proprietorship IS the owner's
income (whether it is withdrawn as "income" or not). Not only will
you be dealing with a fraud situation in the family courts, but the

Nope it's not fraud. He's just held his income at $3K a month due to psycho
ex.

IRS isn't going to be too happy either. The ability to pay less in
child support for a time can be more than extinguished by the
discovery of what you are doing both by the family courts (which may
retroactively refigure child support because the original amount was
based upon a fraud) and the IRS which will charge you extra taxes,
penalties and interest... and send you to prison if they find it was
purposeful.

He goes through an accountant so there is no IRS, or fraud issues with FL
court.

I understand why men are looking for ways to reduce child support
awards as the current system/formulas are extremely unkind to men. I
agree that something needs to be done. But your suggestions are like
treating the symptoms of the cancer rather than the cancer itself.
Sure, it may make things feel better for a while, but it'll still kill
you.

Most of us NCPs don't think things will change for a decade or more. We
have to deal with what we have today, not what may happen in the future.

If she is adamant about not working, she will turn to welfare (if not
already receiving benefits) and welfare be be the recipient of the
arrearages which accrue. When the state (CSE) is collecting money for

Yes she can do this and she waives her right to collect as the DCSS will
collect for her. Based upon this scenario, welfare is always less than what
child support is so this doesn't benefit Mom or the children much.

the state (welfare), it goes after the man with a vengeance to the
point of stripping him of everything he may need to get/keep a job
(i.e. driver's license, professional license, freedom).

I can't remember the rule here but if somebody gets laid off in a workforce
reduction this seems crazy to yank his license. Then he gets pulled over
going to the new job trying to support his children and goes to jail. These
laws seem to support what I think is a system-perpetuated deadbeat dad
system.

Note: In California I've heard you don't get $0 for your income in this
example because you have the "ability to earn" what you did previously so
it
adjusts down just on her new job's income. You still have to pay the back
support when you get the new job and they re-garnish your check. Some
judges I have heard may give you a break.

The Bradley Amendment would prohibit a judge from giving you a break
on arrears.

Correct - what I was talking about was getting a break on the "ability to
earn" clause that may adjust NCPs income down.

"Beverly" wrote in message
...

[snip]

The Bradley Amendment would prohibit a judge from giving you a break
on arrears.

OK, here's one for ya - what if an arrears was based on fraudulent
information supplied to a very biased judge? Would that in and of it self
cause the Bradley Amendment to fall on it's face?

BTW, the above arrears scenario actually happened. I'm curious as to how
the Bradley Amendment (IMO it should be repealed) would effect this
discovery and how attempting to bring this new information to a judge would
effect the over all case..

Dusty wrote:
"Beverly" wrote in message
...

[snip]


The Bradley Amendment would prohibit a judge from giving you a break
on arrears.


OK, here's one for ya - what if an arrears was based on fraudulent
information supplied to a very biased judge? Would that in and of it self
cause the Bradley Amendment to fall on it's face?

BTW, the above arrears scenario actually happened. I'm curious as to how
the Bradley Amendment (IMO it should be repealed) would effect this
discovery and how attempting to bring this new information to a judge would
effect the over all case..

Kourts do whatever they want, and damn their own rules. If a woman were
victimized in the manner you describe above, they would find a way
around the Bradly Amendment, rest assured.

- Ron ^*^