MA - Deadbeat hysteria

"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
oups.com...
Okay I don't know hw much she maskes... but how is she full of it..

I don't have any idea how much she makes either. All I know is she said she
makes a good living and is forced to make up for the $1,275 per month she
doesn't get from the children's father.

To do that she has to: a.) not pay her CS share, b.) significantly reduce
her personal spending so she can provide the combined CS award she suggests
she is spending on the children, or c.) use her credit cards to spend money
she does not have.

I suggested she is full of it because if she is doing option a she is not
telling the whole story; if she is suggesting she is doing option b she is
probably lying; and if she is doing option c she is going into debt and
blaming her ex for her own uncontrollable spending sprees.

I'm not sure why you can't rap your head around this... If the 2 of
them were together in the same home.. then their Children would Benefit
from both of their Incomes. His and Hers.

Now I'm not saying she should be able to live an Exotic Life on his
money. But think of it like this. You live with a woman.. You make a
good living.. your Children are enrolled in a good school, play
soccer... whatever.. having a good life

Now you happen to make more then she does.. In most cases this is the
situation, for a variety of reasons... But then your income leaves the
home.. Should your children suffer by not being able to attend in a
good school, or play soccer because your Ex cannot affoard it on her
own on what she makes..

Her comes the the Idea of Child support. You and your Wife decided
to split up, not your child.. your child didn't ask to have all that
he/she has been used to disrupted over the fact that you and your Ex
can't get along.

Now if you don't like the idea of paying her cash for these things,
then offer to pay for them yourself. Offer to pay for the Soccer
League, Pay for the Gas to get them to the Games... Use your time that
could be using to earn money to drive them to it..

Your children should not have to live a lesser life becuase you and
their Mom can no longer be together in the same home.. By doing that
you are infact harming the Child more then the parent.

SpiderHam77

One extra note... Just cause the NCP does not pay their Support..
does not make the Bills Magically dissapear.. And I know some Single
Moms out there that become Very creative in figuring out a way to
ensure things are met...

Right from cutting Coupons, to playing the Bill Game... deciding
which Bill to pay this month.. which to pay the next month. And they
do this to ensure that their Child does not go without.

SpiderHam77

"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm not sure why you can't rap your head around this... If the 2 of
them were together in the same home.. then their Children would Benefit
from both of their Incomes. His and Hers.

In the U.S. we refer to this BS tactic as moving the goal posts. It's a
football expression that suggests an end point of any discussion or debate
topic keeps shifting to another end point when the prior response cannot be
refuted. FO!

LLL wrote:
NO ONE answered my question: why not pay something, anything on your
child support obligations. WHY is this so hard to answer.

You wouldn't understand.

Sometimes you don't have anything to give.

Cameron

LLL wrote:
When the state has taken everything away, what are you supposed to send to
them?



Are you saying that you are homeless with absolutely NO money in your
pocket? Absolutely none?

It could happen.

But I personaly know of one severely disabled man who draws General
Asistance, less than $500 per month, IS homeless and send the mother of
his child $25 each month.

I understand that the system is unfair but I'll never understand the
people who make NO payment for years and years


Yes... YOU will never understand.

C

"C" wrote in message
...
LLL wrote:
NO ONE answered my question: why not pay something, anything on your
child support obligations. WHY is this so hard to answer.

You wouldn't understand.

Sometimes you don't have anything to give.

Cameron

Quite true.

And some people just can't do the math.. that x% from nothing is STILL
nothing.

"lola" wrote in message ...
dusty + bob~
the circumstances you describe may be likely, and are certainly unfortunate.

the simple fact is that there are children whose care and upbringing bears a financial burden. whether fair or not, we have a court system that imposes an order for the support of the children. the amount is normally calculated with a formula that weighs the income and earnings of both parents. if the NCP feels the order is too burdensome, simply withholding payment is unacceptable, leaving the NCP to one or both of the two practical options that would validate that position. (1) petition the court to modify the order to an amount that fairly contributes to the kids' care, but allows NCP to maintain reasonable living standards; and (2) NCP can make partial payments to demonstrate good faith. this is not a position borne of ignorance, spite, or cluelessness -- just basic math.

Something is more than nothing. If you can refute that, explain how the alternative works.

In my situation, NCP is a journeyman union steamfitter and has base earning potential of $60,000, plus tons of OT available and the best benefits around. The court ordered monthly CS of $1,275, plus $100 a month towards any arrears. A wage withholding order was also issued so CS is deducted from his wages and CSE remits payment to me. This means that his annual salary after CS would leave him just under $45,000 to maintain his "lifestyle". If that amount is too little to live on, he can supplement his income as many construction workers do with side work, or he can return to bartending or dealing -- all of which are cash income, no taxes, no CS withholding. Though few could argue this as a conspiratorial drain on his earnings, he could clearly live and work without starving.

In this case his decreased income is a result of only one factor: voluntary UNDER-employment.
He chooses not to work. My income alone has to cover my share plus the $1,275 he would have contributed towards after-school care, clothes, food, shelter, etc. I have had a good job for over five years, never take a vacation, do not party, gamble, or otherwise act irresponsibly.

While I have resigned myself to supporting the kids myself, he appears now and then and in the kids' world, he's the only dad they have. I figure I'll do what I can to make the best for them without making my struggle a reason to make them feel badly about him. All the same, he is their dad and loves them -- he's a loser, but it is what it is. So if NCP is not up to working, even though he's fully able to, he's a 42 year old man and he has to be doing something so he can eat, live, and get around.

To LLLs point, throw me $20 so I can get gas to take the kids to the doctor and their friends' birthday parties. Don't give me the money if that's the issue, but maybe take them to a movie or pay for a haircut, buy them new tennis shoes... just making a statement.

Every month I cover his obligation, and because I am bearing all the financial burden, I haven't been able to save at all. His arrears are now over $18,000, and as hard as I have to give the kids all I can and meet all my obligations, there is something more than the money that I feel is owed. My two kids and I still share a one bedroom apartment, and at this point after almost six years of paying rent every month (money after taxes), and still have no equity, assets, or savings.

It's beyond money ~ it gets worse. In a three month period there are over 500 work hours, and the union requires a minimum of 400 hours worked to maintain health insurance benefits. In May, June, and July he worked less than 200 hours. The union dropped his coverage August 1, and the kids were uninsured. The union calculated the employer contribution for the unworked time to be $800.

Part of the support order includes health insurance coverage, and his plan had no copays, minimal deductibles, and $5 for Rxs. Yes, I considered my company's benefits, but they suck in comparison: $45 doctor copays, Rxs cost up to $65, and the additional premium to add them to my plan would be almost $300 a month ~ no choice there. I also researched state coverage for uninsured children, and I earn just over the amount that would have qualified us.

Since I had no alternative since the kids had to be insured, I paid the $800 to get the plan reinstated so my kids would have coverage before school started. And he now has insurance too, luck would have it. You may see how this is the same as me covering his part of the cost to raise the kids.

Consequently, if an NCP fails to pay CS, the CP is compelled to pay NCP Support. What I still don't get is how NCPs can rationalize not supporting their kids. I have my kids and my pride, and I have done all that I think a parent would do to *support* a child. Children are not a liability, they are a resource. Financial support of one's children is not an assessment of debt, it is an investment in the interest of the most enriched and fulfilled life one can provide.


What percentage of the children's support do the courts consider $1250 to cover? And what percent do they expect you to cover?

My husband found out a few years back that he was the father of an almost-13-year-old girl by a one night stand (before he and I even met.) He had never been told about the child. The courts tried to force him to pay expenses back to the birth of the child but, fortunately, where we are, he could only be assigned arrearages two years back from proof of paternity. We have 2 children of our own. That is how many we knew we could afford to comfortably. When the child support issue came up, we were informed that our children were "subsequent children," and totally irrelevant. Child support would be decided based only on the existence of the newly discovered child. The mother of the child does not, and never has, worked. She has a number of ******* children by an equal number of fathers. She is on disability because she drinks. She will never have to work a day in her life. But my husband has 20% of his pay taken from his paycheck each and every month, and we have a lien on our house, just in case he loses his job--because they still want their money, no matter what it does to our children.

I understand that his daughter needs to be supported--but why are her needs considered to be greater than the needs of our children? Why are our children considered to be irrelevant? To the point that they could be put out on the street just to make sure that the mother of their half sister continues to receive more money per month than she has ever earned in her entire life? Why is supporting her children not HER responsibility, too?

"SpiderHam77" wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm not sure why you can't rap your head around this... If the 2 of
them were together in the same home.. then their Children would Benefit
from both of their Incomes. His and Hers.

Now I'm not saying she should be able to live an Exotic Life on his
money. But think of it like this. You live with a woman.. You make a
good living.. your Children are enrolled in a good school, play
soccer... whatever.. having a good life

Now you happen to make more then she does.. In most cases this is the
situation, for a variety of reasons... But then your income leaves the
home.. Should your children suffer by not being able to attend in a
good school, or play soccer because your Ex cannot affoard it on her
own on what she makes..

Her comes the the Idea of Child support. You and your Wife decided
to split up, not your child.. your child didn't ask to have all that
he/she has been used to disrupted over the fact that you and your Ex
can't get along.

Now if you don't like the idea of paying her cash for these things,
then offer to pay for them yourself. Offer to pay for the Soccer
League, Pay for the Gas to get them to the Games... Use your time that
could be using to earn money to drive them to it..

Your children should not have to live a lesser life becuase you and
their Mom can no longer be together in the same home.. By doing that
you are infact harming the Child more then the parent.


Here's the problem, Spidey. When they were living in the same household,
there was 1 mortgage payment, 1 electric bill,1 phone bill, etc. Now that
they have split up, there are 2 households to support. Everyone's lifestyle
is going to go down a bit. It is ridiculous to expect the NCP to make sure
that the CP and children's lifestyles do not change. The courts can order
the sun to stand still--but it ain't a'goin' to happen. Supporting 2
households with the same amount of money that was supporting one household,
and expecting the lifestyle of the first household to be maintained is just
as ridiculous.

teachrmama wrote:



"lola"
wrote in message ...
dusty + bob~
the circumstances you describe may be likely, and are certainly
unfortunate.

the simple fact is that there are children whose care and upbringing
bears a financial burden. whether fair or not, we have a court
system that imposes an order for the support of the children. the
amount is normally calculated with a formula that weighs the income
and earnings of both parents. if the NCP feels the order is too
burdensome, simply withholding payment is unacceptable, leaving the
NCP to one or both of the two practical options that would validate
that position. (1) petition the court to modify the order to an
amount that fairly contributes to the kids' care, but allows NCP to
maintain reasonable living standards; and (2) NCP can make partial
payments to demonstrate good faith. this is not a position borne of
ignorance, spite, or cluelessness -- just basic math.

Something is more than nothing. If you can refute that, explain how
the alternative works.

In my situation, NCP is a journeyman union steamfitter and has base
earning potential of $60,000, plus tons of OT available and the best
benefits around. The court ordered monthly CS of $1,275, plus $100
a month towards any arrears. A wage withholding order was also
issued so CS is deducted from his wages and CSE remits payment to
me. This means that his annual salary after CS would leave him just
under $45,000 to maintain his "lifestyle". If that amount is too
little to live on, he can supplement his income as many construction
workers do with side work, or he can return to bartending or dealing
-- all of which are cash income, no taxes, no CS withholding.
Though few could argue this as a conspiratorial drain on his
earnings, he could clearly live and work without starving.

In this case his decreased income is a result of only one factor:
voluntary UNDER-employment.
He chooses not to work. My income alone has to cover my share plus
the $1,275 he would have contributed towards after-school care,
clothes, food, shelter, etc. I have had a good job for over five
years, never take a vacation, do not party, gamble, or otherwise act
irresponsibly.

While I have resigned myself to supporting the kids myself, he
appears now and then and in the kids' world, he's the only dad they
have. I figure I'll do what I can to make the best for them without
making my struggle a reason to make them feel badly about him. All
the same, he is their dad and loves them -- he's a loser, but it is
what it is. So if NCP is not up to working, even though he's fully
able to, he's a 42 year old man and he has to be doing something so
he can eat, live, and get around.

To LLLs point, throw me $20 so I can get gas to take the kids to the
doctor and their friends' birthday parties. Don't give me the money
if that's the issue, but maybe take them to a movie or pay for a
haircut, buy them new tennis shoes... just making a statement.

Every month I cover his obligation, and because I am bearing all the
financial burden, I haven't been able to save at all. His arrears
are now over $18,000, and as hard as I have to give the kids all I
can and meet all my obligations, there is something more than the
money that I feel is owed. My two kids and I still share a one
bedroom apartment, and at this point after almost six years
of paying rent every month (money after taxes), and still have no
equity, assets, or savings.

It's beyond money ~ it gets worse. In a three month period there
are over 500 work hours, and the union requires a minimum of 400
hours worked to maintain health insurance benefits. In May, June,
and July he worked less than 200 hours. The union dropped his
coverage August 1, and the kids were uninsured. The union
calculated the employer contribution for the unworked time to be $800.

Part of the support order includes health insurance coverage, and
his plan had no copays, minimal deductibles, and $5 for Rxs. Yes, I
considered my company's benefits, but they suck in comparison: $45
doctor copays, Rxs cost up to $65, and the additional premium to add
them to my plan would be almost $300 a month ~ no choice there. I
also researched state coverage for uninsured children, and I earn
just over the amount that would have qualified us.

Since I had no alternative since the kids had to be insured, I paid
the $800 to get the plan reinstated so my kids would have coverage
before school started. And he now has insurance too, luck would
have it. You may see how this is the same as me covering his part
of the cost to raise the kids.

Consequently, if an NCP fails to pay CS, the CP is compelled to pay
NCP Support. What I still don't get is how NCPs can rationalize not
supporting their kids. I have my kids and my pride, and I have done
all that I think a parent would do to *support* a child. Children
are not a liability, they are a resource. Financial support of
one's children is not an assessment of debt, it is an investment in
the interest of the most enriched and fulfilled life one can provide.


What percentage of the children's support do the courts consider
$1250 to cover? And what percent do they expect you to cover?

My husband found out a few years back that he was the father of an
almost-13-year-old girl by a one night stand (before he and I even
met.) He had never been told about the child. The courts tried to
force him to pay expenses back to the birth of the child but,
fortunately, where we are, he could only be assigned arrearages two
years back from proof of paternity. We have 2 children of our own.
That is how many we knew we could afford to comfortably. When the
child support issue came up, we were informed that our children were
"subsequent children," and totally irrelevant. Child support would
be decided based only on the existence of the newly discovered
child. The mother of the child does not, and never has, worked.
She has a number of ******* children by an equal number of fathers.
She is on disability because she drinks. She will never have to
work a day in her life. But my husband has 20% of his pay taken
from his paycheck each and every month, and we have a lien on our
house, just in case he loses his job--because they still want their
money, no matter what it does to our children.

I understand that his daughter needs to be supported--but why are
her needs considered to be greater than the needs of our children?
Why are our children considered to be irrelevant? To the point that
they could be put out on the street just to make sure that the
mother of their half sister continues to receive more money per
month than she has ever earned in her entire life? Why is
supporting her children not HER responsibility, too?

People who cannot support their kids, should have their kids taken away.

This would raise a squawk from the feminists to rattle the heavens, but
it is still true.

At least, it is CERTAINLY true when there is another parent, a solvent,
non-abusive parent, waiting in the wings and willing to take their child
into their care.

Writing this into law and then putting it into effect would solve a
world of problems.

- Ron ^*^