CS related licene suspension question...

"Pamela" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Pamela" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Pamela" wrote in message
hlink.net...
I never respond to this stuff, but you know, I don't think taking
a

I am sorry, but I have never known of a case where the child support
ordered
was 50% of the NCP income. I only have heard of the 50% when there are
arrears to be paid. A friend of mine in CA earns $2000 a month. His
child
support is $567. a month for three children, + $160 a month, which is his
share of the child care costs. I do not see that as excessive.

THESE ARE HIS CHILDREN. They come before new car payments, cable, or
anything else.
Pamela



Your friend earns 2k/month, pays out $727/month, leaving them with
$1273/month. Let's assume their X also makes 2k/month. After CS, the X has
$2727/month. If your friend wants the children in their life, they have to
spend as much as the X to provide the necessary living space. The only
difference in living expenses would be for food, and quite possibly slighter
higher utilities. So, what the X does with $2727/month, your friend is
supposed to do with just $1273? (And there is no guarantee that the children
receive any benefit from the CS other than those items which they share in
common with the CP.)

My X told the mediator at our CS hearing that she didn't have enough money
to buy her son shoes. She also mentioned in passing that she just bought a 1
year old town house for $145,000.00. No one even blinked or bothered to ask
her to justify her actions. Why would a mother buy a home if it would cause
her children go without basic clothing? My X thinks CS is an entitlement
program -for her. The up'd my child support. She's buying a home and I had
to give up an apartment that was just 4 blocks away from my sons because I
couldn't afford the rent any longer.

The whole idea of fair share becomes a quagmire when you stop looking at
just one set of the groups involved. I keep coming to the same conclusion
that there should be 2 sets of rules. 1 set for those who can rule
themselves, and another set for those that can't. CS only has rules for
those that can't and assumes anyone that doesn't toe their line is someone
who can't rule themselves.


--
from Dave the wave

^^^^^^\________

"Pamela" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Pamela" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Pamela" wrote in message
hlink.net...
I never respond to this stuff, but you know, I don't think taking
a

I am sorry, but I have never known of a case where the child support
ordered
was 50% of the NCP income. I only have heard of the 50% when there are
arrears to be paid. A friend of mine in CA earns $2000 a month. His
child
support is $567. a month for three children, + $160 a month, which is his
share of the child care costs. I do not see that as excessive.

THESE ARE HIS CHILDREN. They come before new car payments, cable, or
anything else.
Pamela



Your friend earns 2k/month, pays out $727/month, leaving them with
$1273/month. Let's assume their X also makes 2k/month. After CS, the X has
$2727/month. If your friend wants the children in their life, they have to
spend as much as the X to provide the necessary living space. The only
difference in living expenses would be for food, and quite possibly slighter
higher utilities. So, what the X does with $2727/month, your friend is
supposed to do with just $1273? (And there is no guarantee that the children
receive any benefit from the CS other than those items which they share in
common with the CP.)

My X told the mediator at our CS hearing that she didn't have enough money
to buy her son shoes. She also mentioned in passing that she just bought a 1
year old town house for $145,000.00. No one even blinked or bothered to ask
her to justify her actions. Why would a mother buy a home if it would cause
her children go without basic clothing? My X thinks CS is an entitlement
program -for her. The up'd my child support. She's buying a home and I had
to give up an apartment that was just 4 blocks away from my sons because I
couldn't afford the rent any longer.

The whole idea of fair share becomes a quagmire when you stop looking at
just one set of the groups involved. I keep coming to the same conclusion
that there should be 2 sets of rules. 1 set for those who can rule
themselves, and another set for those that can't. CS only has rules for
those that can't and assumes anyone that doesn't toe their line is someone
who can't rule themselves.


--
from Dave the wave

^^^^^^\________

"Pamela" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Pamela" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Pamela" wrote in message
hlink.net...
I never respond to this stuff, but you know, I don't think taking
a

I am sorry, but I have never known of a case where the child support
ordered
was 50% of the NCP income. I only have heard of the 50% when there are
arrears to be paid. A friend of mine in CA earns $2000 a month. His
child
support is $567. a month for three children, + $160 a month, which is his
share of the child care costs. I do not see that as excessive.

THESE ARE HIS CHILDREN. They come before new car payments, cable, or
anything else.
Pamela



Your friend earns 2k/month, pays out $727/month, leaving them with
$1273/month. Let's assume their X also makes 2k/month. After CS, the X has
$2727/month. If your friend wants the children in their life, they have to
spend as much as the X to provide the necessary living space. The only
difference in living expenses would be for food, and quite possibly slighter
higher utilities. So, what the X does with $2727/month, your friend is
supposed to do with just $1273? (And there is no guarantee that the children
receive any benefit from the CS other than those items which they share in
common with the CP.)

My X told the mediator at our CS hearing that she didn't have enough money
to buy her son shoes. She also mentioned in passing that she just bought a 1
year old town house for $145,000.00. No one even blinked or bothered to ask
her to justify her actions. Why would a mother buy a home if it would cause
her children go without basic clothing? My X thinks CS is an entitlement
program -for her. The up'd my child support. She's buying a home and I had
to give up an apartment that was just 4 blocks away from my sons because I
couldn't afford the rent any longer.

The whole idea of fair share becomes a quagmire when you stop looking at
just one set of the groups involved. I keep coming to the same conclusion
that there should be 2 sets of rules. 1 set for those who can rule
themselves, and another set for those that can't. CS only has rules for
those that can't and assumes anyone that doesn't toe their line is someone
who can't rule themselves.


--
from Dave the wave

^^^^^^\________

"Dave the wave" wrote in message
...

"Pamela" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Pamela" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Pamela" wrote in message
hlink.net...
I never respond to this stuff, but you know, I don't think
taking
a

I am sorry, but I have never known of a case where the child support
ordered
was 50% of the NCP income. I only have heard of the 50% when there
are
arrears to be paid. A friend of mine in CA earns $2000 a month.
His
child
support is $567. a month for three children, + $160 a month, which
is his
share of the child care costs. I do not see that as excessive.



THESE ARE HIS CHILDREN. They come before new car payments, cable,
or
anything else.
Pamela



Your friend earns 2k/month, pays out $727/month, leaving them with
$1273/month. Let's assume their X also makes 2k/month. After CS, the X
has
$2727/month. If your friend wants the children in their life, they
have to
spend as much as the X to provide the necessary living space. The only
difference in living expenses would be for food, and quite possibly
slighter
higher utilities. So, what the X does with $2727/month, your friend is
supposed to do with just $1273? (And there is no guarantee that the
children
receive any benefit from the CS other than those items which they
share in
common with the CP.)

I see your point. In this particular case, the CP carries the health
insurance for the children. She pays out $280 a month for that.
Additionally, she does pay half the child care costs. $160. Her costs,
then are $430.00. Your guess was correct regarding her income. That
leaves her with $2287. per month. He tells me his time with the
children is calculated at 19%. I do know that she has the children 5
days a week. He has them two days, but they more often spend one
overnight. So, her food costs are 80%, while his are 20%. If you
consider food costs for three children at approximately $400 a month,
which I think is reasonable, then her costs are$320 a month, while his
are $80. That would reduce her income to $1920. a month, and his to
$1193. He does not buy the children clothing, pay for school supplies,
or any additional activities they might be involved with. They are
involved in sports, so she pays for the uniforms, and other costs
associated with that. It is his position that since he pays child
support, that money is to cover any costs the children incur. She may
benefit to a some degree, but it seems small considering her additional
costs, and that he does not contribute more than the child support
ordered. Evidently, he feels it is equitable.

Personally, I think they are both living with terribly low incomes. I
think it is hard on all of them.



My X told the mediator at our CS hearing that she didn't have enough
money
to buy her son shoes. She also mentioned in passing that she just
bought a 1
year old town house for $145,000.00. No one even blinked or bothered
to ask
her to justify her actions. Why would a mother buy a home if it would
cause
her children go without basic clothing? My X thinks CS is an
entitlement
program -for her. The up'd my child support. She's buying a home and I
had
to give up an apartment that was just 4 blocks away from my sons
because I
couldn't afford the rent any longer.

I guess it depends on whether the payments on the townhouse equaled the
payments for rent. If she works, she would get a deduction for
interest, which might cause it to be less costly, equally costly, or
only slightly more costly to own rather than rent. If they upped your
CS based on her increased housing costs that would be unfair, I agree.


The whole idea of fair share becomes a quagmire when you stop looking
at
just one set of the groups involved. I keep coming to the same
conclusion
that there should be 2 sets of rules. 1 set for those who can rule
themselves, and another set for those that can't. CS only has rules
for
those that can't and assumes anyone that doesn't toe their line is
someone
who can't rule themselves.


There are many people who can rule themselves. Those people agree to
what they consider a fair and equitable child support arrangement and
then stick to it, or modify it as circumstances require. People write
their own settlement agreements all of the time. In those cases, the
government does not step in. It is when people cannot, for whatever
reasons, come to agreement on what is fair for both that the courts are
utilized to make decisions over people's lives. My ex and I eventually,
after many years of separation, wrote our own agreement, presented it to
the court, and it was signed and ordered by the judge. We didn't have
to provide income statements or any personal information to anyone.
That, he chose to ignore the order was his choice. That I choose not to
do anything legal about it, because I do not want government
interference in my life, and because I see it more as a moral issue, is
my choice. That doesn't mean I respect him for his choice. I do not.
That, also does not mean that the thought of him losing his driver's
license after almost 14 years of not attempting to meet his obligations
doesn't amuse me, it does.

I am sorry for your situation. I do not think the courts are fair. I
think the courts are costly and burdensome. I do not believe in
alimony, nor do I believe that mother's are the best caretaker's for
their children, simply by virture of their motherhood. I do not like
the attitude of most of the people who work in the family court system,
and I wish we could do without it. I believe reforms need to be made.

I also wish you luck with your situation.

Pamela


--
from Dave the wave

^^^^^^\________

"Dave the wave" wrote in message
...

"Pamela" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Pamela" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Pamela" wrote in message
hlink.net...
I never respond to this stuff, but you know, I don't think
taking
a

I am sorry, but I have never known of a case where the child support
ordered
was 50% of the NCP income. I only have heard of the 50% when there
are
arrears to be paid. A friend of mine in CA earns $2000 a month.
His
child
support is $567. a month for three children, + $160 a month, which
is his
share of the child care costs. I do not see that as excessive.



THESE ARE HIS CHILDREN. They come before new car payments, cable,
or
anything else.
Pamela



Your friend earns 2k/month, pays out $727/month, leaving them with
$1273/month. Let's assume their X also makes 2k/month. After CS, the X
has
$2727/month. If your friend wants the children in their life, they
have to
spend as much as the X to provide the necessary living space. The only
difference in living expenses would be for food, and quite possibly
slighter
higher utilities. So, what the X does with $2727/month, your friend is
supposed to do with just $1273? (And there is no guarantee that the
children
receive any benefit from the CS other than those items which they
share in
common with the CP.)

I see your point. In this particular case, the CP carries the health
insurance for the children. She pays out $280 a month for that.
Additionally, she does pay half the child care costs. $160. Her costs,
then are $430.00. Your guess was correct regarding her income. That
leaves her with $2287. per month. He tells me his time with the
children is calculated at 19%. I do know that she has the children 5
days a week. He has them two days, but they more often spend one
overnight. So, her food costs are 80%, while his are 20%. If you
consider food costs for three children at approximately $400 a month,
which I think is reasonable, then her costs are$320 a month, while his
are $80. That would reduce her income to $1920. a month, and his to
$1193. He does not buy the children clothing, pay for school supplies,
or any additional activities they might be involved with. They are
involved in sports, so she pays for the uniforms, and other costs
associated with that. It is his position that since he pays child
support, that money is to cover any costs the children incur. She may
benefit to a some degree, but it seems small considering her additional
costs, and that he does not contribute more than the child support
ordered. Evidently, he feels it is equitable.

Personally, I think they are both living with terribly low incomes. I
think it is hard on all of them.



My X told the mediator at our CS hearing that she didn't have enough
money
to buy her son shoes. She also mentioned in passing that she just
bought a 1
year old town house for $145,000.00. No one even blinked or bothered
to ask
her to justify her actions. Why would a mother buy a home if it would
cause
her children go without basic clothing? My X thinks CS is an
entitlement
program -for her. The up'd my child support. She's buying a home and I
had
to give up an apartment that was just 4 blocks away from my sons
because I
couldn't afford the rent any longer.

I guess it depends on whether the payments on the townhouse equaled the
payments for rent. If she works, she would get a deduction for
interest, which might cause it to be less costly, equally costly, or
only slightly more costly to own rather than rent. If they upped your
CS based on her increased housing costs that would be unfair, I agree.


The whole idea of fair share becomes a quagmire when you stop looking
at
just one set of the groups involved. I keep coming to the same
conclusion
that there should be 2 sets of rules. 1 set for those who can rule
themselves, and another set for those that can't. CS only has rules
for
those that can't and assumes anyone that doesn't toe their line is
someone
who can't rule themselves.


There are many people who can rule themselves. Those people agree to
what they consider a fair and equitable child support arrangement and
then stick to it, or modify it as circumstances require. People write
their own settlement agreements all of the time. In those cases, the
government does not step in. It is when people cannot, for whatever
reasons, come to agreement on what is fair for both that the courts are
utilized to make decisions over people's lives. My ex and I eventually,
after many years of separation, wrote our own agreement, presented it to
the court, and it was signed and ordered by the judge. We didn't have
to provide income statements or any personal information to anyone.
That, he chose to ignore the order was his choice. That I choose not to
do anything legal about it, because I do not want government
interference in my life, and because I see it more as a moral issue, is
my choice. That doesn't mean I respect him for his choice. I do not.
That, also does not mean that the thought of him losing his driver's
license after almost 14 years of not attempting to meet his obligations
doesn't amuse me, it does.

I am sorry for your situation. I do not think the courts are fair. I
think the courts are costly and burdensome. I do not believe in
alimony, nor do I believe that mother's are the best caretaker's for
their children, simply by virture of their motherhood. I do not like
the attitude of most of the people who work in the family court system,
and I wish we could do without it. I believe reforms need to be made.

I also wish you luck with your situation.

Pamela


--
from Dave the wave

^^^^^^\________

"Dave the wave" wrote in message
...

"Pamela" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Pamela" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Pamela" wrote in message
hlink.net...
I never respond to this stuff, but you know, I don't think
taking
a

I am sorry, but I have never known of a case where the child support
ordered
was 50% of the NCP income. I only have heard of the 50% when there
are
arrears to be paid. A friend of mine in CA earns $2000 a month.
His
child
support is $567. a month for three children, + $160 a month, which
is his
share of the child care costs. I do not see that as excessive.



THESE ARE HIS CHILDREN. They come before new car payments, cable,
or
anything else.
Pamela



Your friend earns 2k/month, pays out $727/month, leaving them with
$1273/month. Let's assume their X also makes 2k/month. After CS, the X
has
$2727/month. If your friend wants the children in their life, they
have to
spend as much as the X to provide the necessary living space. The only
difference in living expenses would be for food, and quite possibly
slighter
higher utilities. So, what the X does with $2727/month, your friend is
supposed to do with just $1273? (And there is no guarantee that the
children
receive any benefit from the CS other than those items which they
share in
common with the CP.)

I see your point. In this particular case, the CP carries the health
insurance for the children. She pays out $280 a month for that.
Additionally, she does pay half the child care costs. $160. Her costs,
then are $430.00. Your guess was correct regarding her income. That
leaves her with $2287. per month. He tells me his time with the
children is calculated at 19%. I do know that she has the children 5
days a week. He has them two days, but they more often spend one
overnight. So, her food costs are 80%, while his are 20%. If you
consider food costs for three children at approximately $400 a month,
which I think is reasonable, then her costs are$320 a month, while his
are $80. That would reduce her income to $1920. a month, and his to
$1193. He does not buy the children clothing, pay for school supplies,
or any additional activities they might be involved with. They are
involved in sports, so she pays for the uniforms, and other costs
associated with that. It is his position that since he pays child
support, that money is to cover any costs the children incur. She may
benefit to a some degree, but it seems small considering her additional
costs, and that he does not contribute more than the child support
ordered. Evidently, he feels it is equitable.

Personally, I think they are both living with terribly low incomes. I
think it is hard on all of them.



My X told the mediator at our CS hearing that she didn't have enough
money
to buy her son shoes. She also mentioned in passing that she just
bought a 1
year old town house for $145,000.00. No one even blinked or bothered
to ask
her to justify her actions. Why would a mother buy a home if it would
cause
her children go without basic clothing? My X thinks CS is an
entitlement
program -for her. The up'd my child support. She's buying a home and I
had
to give up an apartment that was just 4 blocks away from my sons
because I
couldn't afford the rent any longer.

I guess it depends on whether the payments on the townhouse equaled the
payments for rent. If she works, she would get a deduction for
interest, which might cause it to be less costly, equally costly, or
only slightly more costly to own rather than rent. If they upped your
CS based on her increased housing costs that would be unfair, I agree.


The whole idea of fair share becomes a quagmire when you stop looking
at
just one set of the groups involved. I keep coming to the same
conclusion
that there should be 2 sets of rules. 1 set for those who can rule
themselves, and another set for those that can't. CS only has rules
for
those that can't and assumes anyone that doesn't toe their line is
someone
who can't rule themselves.


There are many people who can rule themselves. Those people agree to
what they consider a fair and equitable child support arrangement and
then stick to it, or modify it as circumstances require. People write
their own settlement agreements all of the time. In those cases, the
government does not step in. It is when people cannot, for whatever
reasons, come to agreement on what is fair for both that the courts are
utilized to make decisions over people's lives. My ex and I eventually,
after many years of separation, wrote our own agreement, presented it to
the court, and it was signed and ordered by the judge. We didn't have
to provide income statements or any personal information to anyone.
That, he chose to ignore the order was his choice. That I choose not to
do anything legal about it, because I do not want government
interference in my life, and because I see it more as a moral issue, is
my choice. That doesn't mean I respect him for his choice. I do not.
That, also does not mean that the thought of him losing his driver's
license after almost 14 years of not attempting to meet his obligations
doesn't amuse me, it does.

I am sorry for your situation. I do not think the courts are fair. I
think the courts are costly and burdensome. I do not believe in
alimony, nor do I believe that mother's are the best caretaker's for
their children, simply by virture of their motherhood. I do not like
the attitude of most of the people who work in the family court system,
and I wish we could do without it. I believe reforms need to be made.

I also wish you luck with your situation.

Pamela


--
from Dave the wave

^^^^^^\________

"Dave the wave" wrote in message
...

"Pamela" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Pamela" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Pamela" wrote in message
hlink.net...
I never respond to this stuff, but you know, I don't think
taking
a

I am sorry, but I have never known of a case where the child support
ordered
was 50% of the NCP income. I only have heard of the 50% when there
are
arrears to be paid. A friend of mine in CA earns $2000 a month.
His
child
support is $567. a month for three children, + $160 a month, which
is his
share of the child care costs. I do not see that as excessive.



THESE ARE HIS CHILDREN. They come before new car payments, cable,
or
anything else.
Pamela



Your friend earns 2k/month, pays out $727/month, leaving them with
$1273/month. Let's assume their X also makes 2k/month. After CS, the X
has
$2727/month. If your friend wants the children in their life, they
have to
spend as much as the X to provide the necessary living space. The only
difference in living expenses would be for food, and quite possibly
slighter
higher utilities. So, what the X does with $2727/month, your friend is
supposed to do with just $1273? (And there is no guarantee that the
children
receive any benefit from the CS other than those items which they
share in
common with the CP.)

I see your point. In this particular case, the CP carries the health
insurance for the children. She pays out $280 a month for that.
Additionally, she does pay half the child care costs. $160. Her costs,
then are $430.00. Your guess was correct regarding her income. That
leaves her with $2287. per month. He tells me his time with the
children is calculated at 19%. I do know that she has the children 5
days a week. He has them two days, but they more often spend one
overnight. So, her food costs are 80%, while his are 20%. If you
consider food costs for three children at approximately $400 a month,
which I think is reasonable, then her costs are$320 a month, while his
are $80. That would reduce her income to $1920. a month, and his to
$1193. He does not buy the children clothing, pay for school supplies,
or any additional activities they might be involved with. They are
involved in sports, so she pays for the uniforms, and other costs
associated with that. It is his position that since he pays child
support, that money is to cover any costs the children incur. She may
benefit to a some degree, but it seems small considering her additional
costs, and that he does not contribute more than the child support
ordered. Evidently, he feels it is equitable.

Personally, I think they are both living with terribly low incomes. I
think it is hard on all of them.



My X told the mediator at our CS hearing that she didn't have enough
money
to buy her son shoes. She also mentioned in passing that she just
bought a 1
year old town house for $145,000.00. No one even blinked or bothered
to ask
her to justify her actions. Why would a mother buy a home if it would
cause
her children go without basic clothing? My X thinks CS is an
entitlement
program -for her. The up'd my child support. She's buying a home and I
had
to give up an apartment that was just 4 blocks away from my sons
because I
couldn't afford the rent any longer.

I guess it depends on whether the payments on the townhouse equaled the
payments for rent. If she works, she would get a deduction for
interest, which might cause it to be less costly, equally costly, or
only slightly more costly to own rather than rent. If they upped your
CS based on her increased housing costs that would be unfair, I agree.


The whole idea of fair share becomes a quagmire when you stop looking
at
just one set of the groups involved. I keep coming to the same
conclusion
that there should be 2 sets of rules. 1 set for those who can rule
themselves, and another set for those that can't. CS only has rules
for
those that can't and assumes anyone that doesn't toe their line is
someone
who can't rule themselves.


There are many people who can rule themselves. Those people agree to
what they consider a fair and equitable child support arrangement and
then stick to it, or modify it as circumstances require. People write
their own settlement agreements all of the time. In those cases, the
government does not step in. It is when people cannot, for whatever
reasons, come to agreement on what is fair for both that the courts are
utilized to make decisions over people's lives. My ex and I eventually,
after many years of separation, wrote our own agreement, presented it to
the court, and it was signed and ordered by the judge. We didn't have
to provide income statements or any personal information to anyone.
That, he chose to ignore the order was his choice. That I choose not to
do anything legal about it, because I do not want government
interference in my life, and because I see it more as a moral issue, is
my choice. That doesn't mean I respect him for his choice. I do not.
That, also does not mean that the thought of him losing his driver's
license after almost 14 years of not attempting to meet his obligations
doesn't amuse me, it does.

I am sorry for your situation. I do not think the courts are fair. I
think the courts are costly and burdensome. I do not believe in
alimony, nor do I believe that mother's are the best caretaker's for
their children, simply by virture of their motherhood. I do not like
the attitude of most of the people who work in the family court system,
and I wish we could do without it. I believe reforms need to be made.

I also wish you luck with your situation.

Pamela


--
from Dave the wave

^^^^^^\________

Yes, they do. As far as I am aware, it has to do with percentage of
income.
It did in my case.


And sometimes, that % is completely unfair, and inaccurate.

CS arrears becomes an insurmountable mountain of money that NCP's can
rarely, if ever hope to pay because of oppressive CS orders in the first
place. When you take home $2000 (after tax income) a month, have
expenses
around $1600 (basic stuff, rent, food, car payment, insurance, gas,
phone,
electricity and maybe cable), that doesn't leave much room to move. Yet
courts routinely issue orders that NCPs are to pay 50% (or more) of
their
income at PRE-tax rates as CS.

I am sorry, but I have never known of a case where the child support
ordered
was 50% of the NCP income. I only have heard of the 50% when there are
arrears to be paid. A friend of mine in CA earns $2000 a month. His
child
support is $567. a month for three children, + $160 a month, which is his
share of the child care costs. I do not see that as excessive.

Right after my divorce it wasn't quite 50%, but closer to 45%. I don't
recall the exact amount (its been lowered due to a pay decrease) but the
deductions on my paystub were quite a bit more than my take home pay, I can
tell you that.

I don't have a problem with paying support at all. What I have a problem
with is not being able to see my son, and there isn't a person in that state
government to enforce that part of the divorce decree without an attorney.
Support is all automated, you don't pay that and you have someone calling
you 2 weeks after you start a job to start the garnishing. She disappears
with the kid, and they just say Sorry 'bout your luck! and then go on like
you didn't say anything to them at all.


short

Yes, they do. As far as I am aware, it has to do with percentage of
income.
It did in my case.


And sometimes, that % is completely unfair, and inaccurate.

CS arrears becomes an insurmountable mountain of money that NCP's can
rarely, if ever hope to pay because of oppressive CS orders in the first
place. When you take home $2000 (after tax income) a month, have
expenses
around $1600 (basic stuff, rent, food, car payment, insurance, gas,
phone,
electricity and maybe cable), that doesn't leave much room to move. Yet
courts routinely issue orders that NCPs are to pay 50% (or more) of
their
income at PRE-tax rates as CS.

I am sorry, but I have never known of a case where the child support
ordered
was 50% of the NCP income. I only have heard of the 50% when there are
arrears to be paid. A friend of mine in CA earns $2000 a month. His
child
support is $567. a month for three children, + $160 a month, which is his
share of the child care costs. I do not see that as excessive.

Right after my divorce it wasn't quite 50%, but closer to 45%. I don't
recall the exact amount (its been lowered due to a pay decrease) but the
deductions on my paystub were quite a bit more than my take home pay, I can
tell you that.

I don't have a problem with paying support at all. What I have a problem
with is not being able to see my son, and there isn't a person in that state
government to enforce that part of the divorce decree without an attorney.
Support is all automated, you don't pay that and you have someone calling
you 2 weeks after you start a job to start the garnishing. She disappears
with the kid, and they just say Sorry 'bout your luck! and then go on like
you didn't say anything to them at all.


short

Yes, they do. As far as I am aware, it has to do with percentage of
income.
It did in my case.


And sometimes, that % is completely unfair, and inaccurate.

CS arrears becomes an insurmountable mountain of money that NCP's can
rarely, if ever hope to pay because of oppressive CS orders in the first
place. When you take home $2000 (after tax income) a month, have
expenses
around $1600 (basic stuff, rent, food, car payment, insurance, gas,
phone,
electricity and maybe cable), that doesn't leave much room to move. Yet
courts routinely issue orders that NCPs are to pay 50% (or more) of
their
income at PRE-tax rates as CS.

I am sorry, but I have never known of a case where the child support
ordered
was 50% of the NCP income. I only have heard of the 50% when there are
arrears to be paid. A friend of mine in CA earns $2000 a month. His
child
support is $567. a month for three children, + $160 a month, which is his
share of the child care costs. I do not see that as excessive.

Right after my divorce it wasn't quite 50%, but closer to 45%. I don't
recall the exact amount (its been lowered due to a pay decrease) but the
deductions on my paystub were quite a bit more than my take home pay, I can
tell you that.

I don't have a problem with paying support at all. What I have a problem
with is not being able to see my son, and there isn't a person in that state
government to enforce that part of the divorce decree without an attorney.
Support is all automated, you don't pay that and you have someone calling
you 2 weeks after you start a job to start the garnishing. She disappears
with the kid, and they just say Sorry 'bout your luck! and then go on like
you didn't say anything to them at all.


short