Ya'll have got to read this

http://www.divorcesource.com/ubbthre...fpart=1&vc =1

So much sickening about it I wouldn't know where to start, just got to
read it yourself.

wrote:
http://www.divorcesource.com/ubbthre...fpart=1&vc =1

So much sickening about it I wouldn't know where to start, just got to
read it yourself.


What's so surprising: thieves have always tried to justify their
behavior in some way or another. Child support is no different.

What's so surprising: thieves have always tried to justify their
behavior in some way or another. Child support is no different.


5 pages to this - a bunch of money-grubbing women attacking the OP
(CP-mom) for not squeezing NCP for everything she can!. Doesn't
matter how much you really need or how much he can really afford, the
LAW says you're entitled to X amount so take it and put the extra in a
savings account, you're a bad Cp for not taking everything the law
says you can. The kicker is that she says that the guideline amount
she's entitled to is based on total household income of NCP and his
current wife. Whether that's actually true or not is besides the
point, the point is all the money-grubbers don't care how illegal or
unfair the determined amount is - just take it! Just when you start
having a more positive outlook, you read something like this that
reminds you that attitudes will never change as long as there's a
system encouraging women to dump ethics in favor of the LAW.

On Mar 13, 7:18�am, John Meyer wrote:
wrote:
http://www.divorcesource.com/ubbthre...t=0&Number=208...

So much sickening about it I wouldn't know where to start, just got to
read it yourself.

What's so surprising: thieves have always tried to justify their
behavior in some way or another. *Child support is no different.

Since when is a spouses income taken into account for a CS obligation?

On Mar 13, 7:18 am, John Meyer wrote:
wrote:
http://www.divorcesource.com/ubbthre...t=0&Number=208...

So much sickening about it I wouldn't know where to start, just got to
read it yourself.

What's so surprising: thieves have always tried to justify their
behavior in some way or another. Child support is no different.

Did either of you actually read the thread????

It was originated by a woman asking if she should suggest
a REDUCTION to CS, and the vast majority of the opinions
were telling her to leave the situation as it was.

Sheesh, you two won't be happy until you can run around
sticking your dick in any willing participant with no responsibility
for the consequences. And before you write it: your CHOICE
comes with the act, and if you can't trust her CHOICE after
the act, that should factor into your CHOICE before you
take your dick out of your pants.

On Mar 13, 10:56 am, "Paula" wrote:

Did either of you actually read the thread????

Me? Of course I read the thread.

It was originated by a woman asking if she should suggest
a REDUCTION to CS, and the vast majority of the opinions
were telling her to leave the situation as it was.


Sheesh, you two won't be happy until you can run around
sticking your dick in any willing participant with no responsibility
for the consequences. And before you write it: your CHOICE
comes with the act, and if you can't trust her CHOICE after
the act, that should factor into your CHOICE before you
take your dick out of your pants.

The discussion in question is/was NOT about a man trying to shirk
reponsibility for kid(s) he helped create.
It's about a CP being attacked by other CPs for considering doing the
right thing. If the LAW says you can take something, then you're
supposed to take it. A prevalent attitude made revoltingly clear in
that discussion.

On Mar 13, 10:38 am, "Relayer" wrote:

Since when is a spouses income taken into account for a CS obligation?

It's not. The OP was either mixed up on how things work, or a judge/
lawyer/caseworker did something illegal and it actually was ordered
that way. Who knows. The point is that none of the respondants cared
how the amount was arrived at - the law came up with a number and
that's that, the CP needs to take it all.

On Mar 13, 10:24�am, wrote:
On Mar 13, 10:56 am, "Paula" wrote:

Did either of you actually read the thread????

Me? Of course I read the thread.

It was originated by a woman asking if she should suggest
a REDUCTION to CS, and the vast majority of the opinions
were telling her to leave the situation as it was.
Sheesh, you two won't be happy until you can run around
sticking your dick in any willing participant with no responsibility
for the consequences. *And before you write it: your CHOICE
comes with the act, and if you can't trust her CHOICE after
the act, that should factor into your CHOICE before you
take your dick out of your pants.

The discussion in question is/was NOT about a man trying to shirk
reponsibility for kid(s) he helped create.
It's about a CP being attacked by other CPs for considering doing the
right thing. *If the LAW says you can take something, then you're
supposed to take it. A prevalent attitude made revoltingly clear in
that discussion.

Actually, the right thhing to do is pay the $900 and quit buying food
and clothes and other stuff...then these friggin arguements wouldn't
happen. He would be better off finacially anyway.

This is coming down to the woman claims her neighbor telling her
something (his wifes income in also included in CS payment) and her
believing it when it is completely false. And a bunch from the c***
brigade coming out and screaming for her to raise the amount beyond
his income and try to take the new wifes income.

Just to stay in tune with Paula's mood, if that woman didn't spread
her legs, she also wouldnt be in this mess.

"Relayer" wrote
.............................

Since when is a spouses income taken into account for a CS obligation?
==
It is frequently taken into consideration to the extent it decreases the
obligor's living expenses.

On Mar 13, 10:31 am, "Relayer" wrote:
On Mar 13, 10:24?am, wrote:





On Mar 13, 10:56 am, "Paula" wrote:

Did either of you actually read the thread????

Me? Of course I read the thread.

It was originated by a woman asking if she should suggest
a REDUCTION to CS, and the vast majority of the opinions
were telling her to leave the situation as it was.
Sheesh, you two won't be happy until you can run around
sticking your dick in any willing participant with no responsibility
for the consequences. And before you write it: your CHOICE
comes with the act, and if you can't trust her CHOICE after
the act, that should factor into your CHOICE before you
take your dick out of your pants.

The discussion in question is/was NOT about a man trying to shirk
reponsibility for kid(s) he helped create.
It's about a CP being attacked by other CPs for considering doing the
right thing. If the LAW says you can take something, then you're
supposed to take it. A prevalent attitude made revoltingly clear in
that discussion.

Actually, the right thhing to do is pay the $900 and quit buying food
and clothes and other stuff...then these friggin arguements wouldn't
happen. He would be better off finacially anyway.

This is coming down to the woman claims her neighbor telling her
something (his wifes income in also included in CS payment) and her
believing it when it is completely false. And a bunch from the c***
brigade coming out and screaming for her to raise the amount beyond
his income and try to take the new wifes income.

Just to stay in tune with Paula's mood, if that woman didn't spread
her legs, she also wouldnt be in this mess.

Hmm, my mood has f'-all to do with this.

Evidently you didn't read the thread because the vast majority of the
responses were to "leave well enough alone", that if she didn't need
the money that the court would order but that she agreed to do
without then to continue to do so. The OP also stated that her
"husband's lawyer" had told them the same information regarding
household income.

You need to get your facts straight, Relayer, because you've
also misinformed people with respect to Illinois law on these matters,
as well. You've stated that CP's income is never considered ... which
is not true. I live in Illinois; I am dealing with a petition for CS
right
now; and I had to disclose both my 2006 income tax filing and
pay stubs. Maybe it's a difference in jurisdiction, maybe a
significant
difference in CP income (as I do have one, and I do actually use
the money that I make to support my child), maybe something
else entirely ... dunno, but your reading of Illinois law is opposite
that which my attorney has described to me.

Just because the CP in your case is a money-grubber does not
make us all money-grubbers.