If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A bit of good news for us non custodial parents
http://www.ncprevue.com/blog/?p=190
http://www.masslaw.com/news0406.cfm Hey guys; we actually do have the choice to live below our means! At least, you are in Massachusetts. The Mass supreme court ruled that an increase in her husband's income wasn't necessarily a reason to raise child support if it did not create a disparity between the two household's standards of living. Smith v. Edelman, the full text of which you can view at http://www.masslawyersweekly.com/sig...oa/1106807.htm .. Now, will this have an impact on states beyond New England. We can't say for sure, but it does provide a good argument. And I love this quote from the wife's attorney:/font/font/p "In this case, the father lived a lifestyle far below what his considerable means permitted, which prompted Ouellette to ask: "[i]f you have a guy who voluntarily elects to live much more cheaply than he could, should his children also be forced to live that way?" Now, I don't know about you all, but I don't think my mother an father lived as richly as they could, and I'm sure a lot of you could point out examples of the same cheapskate parents who wouldn't buy me the car I wanted, or the skateboard, or a thousand other things. So how is it that a non custodial parent all of a sudden loses the right to "live much more cheaply" because of a divorce? br / I thought I would just bring this to you as an example of how, it's not always bad news out there. Not always. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
A bit of good news for us non custodial parents
"John Meyer" wrote in [i] "In this case, the father lived a lifestyle far below what his considerable means permitted, which prompted Ouellette to ask: "f you have a guy who voluntarily elects to live much more cheaply than he could, should his children also be forced to live that way?" Absolutely they should, if the Government doesn't have the right to dictate the lifestyle of it's married citizens, then why in the hell does the government think it has the right to guarantee a lifestyle for the same divorced citizens? America is no longer the land of the free, and should not boost about it to the rest of the world. The only freedom you have left is to bitch about government tyranny. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A bit of good news for us non custodial parents
"John Meyer" wrote in message ... http://www.ncprevue.com/blog/?p=190 http://www.masslaw.com/news0406.cfm Hey guys; we actually do have the choice to live below our means! At least, you are in Massachusetts. The Mass supreme court ruled that an increase in her husband's income wasn't necessarily a reason to raise child support if it did not create a disparity between the two household's standards of living. Smith v. Edelman, the full text of which you can view at http://www.masslawyersweekly.com/sig...in/coa/1106807 ..htm[i] . Now, will this have an impact on states beyond New England. We can't say for sure, but it does provide a good argument. And I love this quote from the wife's attorney:/font/font/p "In this case, the father lived a lifestyle far below what his considerable means permitted, which prompted Ouellette to ask: "f you have a guy who voluntarily elects to live much more cheaply than he could, should his children also be forced to live that way?" Now, I don't know about you all, but I don't think my mother an father lived as richly as they could, and I'm sure a lot of you could point out examples of the same cheapskate parents who wouldn't buy me the car I wanted, or the skateboard, or a thousand other things. So how is it that a non custodial parent all of a sudden loses the right to "live much more cheaply" because of a divorce? br / I thought I would just bring this to you as an example of how, it's not always bad news out there. Not always. MA is essentially a percentage of income state. This change brings the MA approach to setting CS obligations in line with how Income Shares Model states' guideline do the same thing. It stops the CS straight line percentage approach that does not recognize consumption spending declines as income goes up because more of the additional income goes towards investments and savings not child rearing. The CS scales for Income Shares Model states are based on child rearing estimates that consider when a person's income goes up the proportion of the total income spent on rearing children goes down. This is sometimes referred to as the "parental reserve." The new MA approach just gets to this end result in a different way. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Non Custodial Parents | RLC | Single Parents | 0 | December 21st 04 12:53 PM |
Non Custodial Parents? | RLC | Solutions | 0 | December 21st 04 12:52 PM |
Non-Custodial Parents SUE! | Batroc Z. Leaper | Child Support | 0 | December 19th 04 04:54 PM |
Across U.S., Non-Custodial Parents Sue | Dusty | Child Support | 19 | October 3rd 04 01:43 AM |
Custodial Parents | Fighting for kids | Child Support | 9 | November 2nd 03 08:39 PM |