CS related licene suspension question...

"Dave the wave" wrote in message
...
I think you're missing the point of the complaints levied by most. The
point
isn't that a person is made to be responsible for their offspring, but
that
the state has the ability to step in and make demands -with threat of
imprisonment, loss of driving privileges, etc- at the whim of some
Low-Level
Government Beauracrat. The room for abuse is unacceptable, and everyone
should be concerned. What goes around eventually comes around. A system
that
accepts abuse of anyone has no problem abusing everyone!

I'm certainly not going to defend the stupid mistakes that the
government/courts make. But, it is the only system we have right now.
Attempting to ignore, or just complain, about the system will not change
anything. One has to find a (legal) way to work within, or change, the
system.


My experience:
My LLGB decided that because I once earned $X/week working as an
independent
contractor on a job that lasted 4 to 5 weeks, that I should be held to an
earning capacity that was 52 x $X? (Never mind that unlike a fulltime
employee I don't get vacation/personal paid leave or that I have to pay
for
my benefits and additional self-employment taxes.) I tried to explain this
and other details (like this job was a explicitly temporary assignment
that
I may never get to do again, and that if they were to hire me fulltime it
would not be for the same money) about being a independent contractor. My
LLGB just looked at me like I was speaking Hebrew. Needless to say, my CS
was calculated based on an income that I only wished I had been able to
earn
over the 3 years it was enforced.

When I was divorcing, the court required us to supply copies of our last two
income tax returns, W2's and two recent paychecks. Both incomes (mine and my
ex's) were used to define the financial obligations for monthly CS from BOTH
of us. The only 'extra' expense I incurred, was to continue to cover my
children underneath my health insurance (I was already covering them
anyway). Since my income has been pretty steady over many years, the amount
of CS obligation assigned to me was about what I expected.


It gets better. My X lucks into this fab 2nd mortgage lending job and
starts
to make serious money. Is she happy then? Nope. Back to mediation we go.
Now
my CS is not only calculated on an income level I've NEVER achieved, but
because the X is making more money the total CS goes significantly higher
therefore I have to pay MUCH more CS????? To make matters worse she acts
like I don't support the kids. She just bought a $150,000 townhome, but
she
told the LLGB that she couldn't afford to buy our son a pair of shoes or
clothes.

It is 'possible' that my CS payment could actually go 'up' in the scenario
you suggest above. If my ex suddenly got a really good paying job (say, over
50K a year) then there is a mathematical chance that my CS payments could go
up. The system takes BOTH parents incomes as a baseline and then calculates
a percentage of that total for CS. Then, the amounts are divided by the % of
income provided by the individual. As an example of what you alude to above
(but very hypothetical):

Scenario #1 -- I make $15,000 per year... Ex makes $5,000. Total combined
income is $20,000. The ex is the Custodial Parent. The state says that kids
should get 10% of total combined income in CS. The state also says that 75%
of CS obligation is mine, and the ex gets 25% of the obligation. Therefore,
the years CS is $2,000 (20K x .1) and I have to pay 75% of that which is
$1,500 (2K x .75). I pay the ex $1,500 per year in CS. Ex then gets a job
that pays her $25,000 per year. Now the new total combined income is
$40,000. The state says that the CS is now $4,000 (40K x .1). If all the
other things were to stay exactly as before, my obligation now comes to
$3,000 (4K x .75). In this case, my CS payments increased -- by quite a
bit -- even though my income didn't increase one cent.

Scenario #2 -- Using the same numbers above: The actual obligation
percentages change because the ex now makes much more money, say to a 37.5%
for me and 62.5% for the ex (15K/40k and 25K/40K). However, the actual %
that the state now says the CS should be, changes from 10% to 20% of total
income, which is now $8,000 (40K x .2). Out of that $8,000 total CS, my
obligation is now $3,000 (8k x .375). In this scenario, my CS payments
increased quite a bit because the actual % of total income that was assigned
was increased, even though -- once again -- my income didn't increase one
cent.

The reality is (in my state anyway) that the actual obligation of CS is
weighted based upon the individuals income; and percentages of CS obligation
changes with total combined incomes. In scenario(s) above, my actual CS
payments probably would not go up, because the state would consider my ex in
a better position to contribute more of the % of total CS, and would adjust
it accordingly. In my case specifically, the state calculated a 80/20%
obligation (with me getting 80%) for financial support, because I was in a
much better financial position then my ex was. Since the divorce, my ex has
gotten full time employment, and I could go back to court and actually have
my CS payments reduced (the split would be more like 50/50). But, I see no
reason to do that. I know my kids have been able to do even more things,
engage in more activities, since my ex found a good job. So I know the CS
payments are being used for the kids. And that's really all that matters to
me.



FTR. I do not begrudge my X any pleasure or worldly gain. Good for her -
provided it's her money. But given all the details of our situation no one
could not conclude that she has used the system to get at me. And the
state
has only encouraged it.

I have no doubt that people abuse the system (and I'm not specifically
speaking of just civil courts, and Department(s) for Social Services).


We read about the Judge being enlightened only after being on the other
side
of the court room. How can we ever expect a LLGB to be able to make a wise
judgment if the more trained judges don't see it? My LLGB was a young
female
who undoubtedly identified with my X. Being a LLGB who has never had to
deal
with being self-employed, and was enjoying an extremely secure job, and
don't forget that she's a female like my X, there was simply too much of a
bias to overcome to even be able to consider my side of the equation. (And
I
am being very generous in even assuming that she might have cared about my
side of the equation. It didn't exactly come across that way.)

Well, technically... she's not paid to care about your (or your ex's)
side(s) of the equation. She's probably paid to enforce the
laws/rules/regulations handed down by the state legislature and/or local
laws/rules/regulations. Now, if those laws/rules/regulations are unfair,
then they need to be changed. If this person is blatantly ignoring the
laws/rules/regulations of the state/local municipality, then you need to
sue. Personally, before/during and even after the divorce, I asked a lot of
questions, and looked up the information myself, so that I had a very good
idea of what to expect. If I ever though I was being treated unfairly, I was
prepared to ask tough straight forward questions. As I said before, the
numbers came very close to what I had already calculated even before the
very first paper was delivered to court.


f
There are more sordid mildly interesting details, some that even make my
skin crawl, but I've decided to focus on being able to make the monthly CS
payment and trust my income will at least be enough to keep myself out of
jail, warm, dry, and modestly fed. (Unlike my LLGB, I have no promises of
future employment.) I only have 25 months then my youngest will be
emancipated. Then I can take back control of my life and once again be
able
to decide for myself what is best for supporting my offspring. (These are
2
things my X has not had to experience.) This process has taught me a great
deal about life whether I wanted to learn it or not.

"kyfunguy" wrote in message
...

"Mark" wrote in message
...
As a side note -- when my divorce was final, I was working full
time,
and
my
ex hadn't had a steady, full-time job, for years. As such, the
burden
of
CS
was place heavily on me (it was about a 80/20 split for financial
responsibility). Since that time, my ex now works full time... and
makes
a
reasonable income. Theoretically, now that she's had full time
employment
for several months, I could go back to court and have the CS
re-figured
based upon her ability to contribute more. But I won't. Why..?
Because
my
kids are even better off with my CS and my ex's good income... and
that's
just fine with me.


There are all kinds of generosity, but generosity of spirit is the
finest
kind. You have that.

Pamela


Why do some men seem happy to over pay CS?
After all they could use any money they keep and spend it on the kids
themselves.

Having pondered this, the I have come to the conclusion that these men
are
on a guilt trip, and overpaying helps elivate.


Define 'over paying'...? If you mean that my kids live in a better
home....
have nicer clothing... good meals... are warm in the winter... have
money
for fun activities... then I suppose your 'over pay' comment would be
accurate.

I'm sure there are some CP that abuse the system, and don't use much of
the
CS payments for the kids. With the amount I paying... if my ex lived in
a
broken down trailer, with poor heat; and the kids were wearing rags; and
their daily intake of food consisted of only Mac and Cheese; and every
time
a school or extra curricular function came along, they were not able to
attend.... then I might have an issue. But I know my kids are bring well
provided for... so what's the problem?

BTW -- I don't have a 'guilt trip'.... I live a pretty good lifestyle
(not
extravagant).. I just manage my money very carefully. I don't have the
desire to buy a new car every two-three years; or buy the latest gadgets
that come out. Here's a news flash for ya -- I actually live within my
means! I go out to the movies/dinner often. I have cable T.V. and high
speed
internet access at home.... I buy books and DVD's... And this summer...
my
kids are coming down to spend the entire month of July with me. I have
all
sorts of fun activities planned for their visit... including a trip to a
amusement park... tickets to a baseball game... a trip to a aquarium
(that
I'm told is a wild thing to see)... laser tag... bowling......... you
get
the point.

I'm sure you're going to come back with something like "see... lookie --
he's a big sucker for [fill in reason]" But just for the record... I'm
quite
happy.

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
om...
Here's the problem, Pamela. You originally stated that you do not
find it extreme having a driver's license pulled for failure to
provide. You have since gone to great lengths to explain what you
mean by "failure to provide." How nice. But the courts don't give a
rat's rosey tush what YOU mean by "failure to provide." They have
their own opinions--and when an NCP reaches $X.00 in arrearages, the
threat of loss of license hangs over his head--no matter what the
reason. So you waltz into a group of people who have the threat of
having their licenses pulled--some for no fault of their own--and
announce that you don't find that extreme--and you get a bunch of
negative responses. What did you really expect?

Now, I will say that you have adequately demonstrated your total
ignorance of the NCP's side of the child support system, so perhaps
your comment could be forgiven. Except that you seem to be trying to
prove that your original comment was perfectly ok, because, in your
mind, you had all these qualifiers that you figured that people
already screwed blue by the system should certainly have understood
from the beginning. Maybe if you had gone into a bit more detail in
your original post, you would not have received the negative
responses. But, considering your ignorance of the other side of the
system, I can understand why you didn't.

The threshold for being subjected to having your DL suspended is $2,500. A
CS modification applied retroactively 4-5 months to the date of filing of
the modification, coupled with the state taking 3-4 months to plug in the
newly modified amount, can easily push an NCP over the $2,500 limit.
Through no fault of his own, the NCP can be subjected to DL suspension just
for participating in the system and having the "instant arrearage" added to
his CS payment account.

The mothers with the smaller dollar amount CS orders always think DL
suspensions are "funny." In reality, they are very serious consequences to
any father who makes a decent living and has a track record of supporting
his chidldren.

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
om...
Here's the problem, Pamela. You originally stated that you do not
find it extreme having a driver's license pulled for failure to
provide. You have since gone to great lengths to explain what you
mean by "failure to provide." How nice. But the courts don't give a
rat's rosey tush what YOU mean by "failure to provide." They have
their own opinions--and when an NCP reaches $X.00 in arrearages, the
threat of loss of license hangs over his head--no matter what the
reason. So you waltz into a group of people who have the threat of
having their licenses pulled--some for no fault of their own--and
announce that you don't find that extreme--and you get a bunch of
negative responses. What did you really expect?

Now, I will say that you have adequately demonstrated your total
ignorance of the NCP's side of the child support system, so perhaps
your comment could be forgiven. Except that you seem to be trying to
prove that your original comment was perfectly ok, because, in your
mind, you had all these qualifiers that you figured that people
already screwed blue by the system should certainly have understood
from the beginning. Maybe if you had gone into a bit more detail in
your original post, you would not have received the negative
responses. But, considering your ignorance of the other side of the
system, I can understand why you didn't.

The threshold for being subjected to having your DL suspended is $2,500. A
CS modification applied retroactively 4-5 months to the date of filing of
the modification, coupled with the state taking 3-4 months to plug in the
newly modified amount, can easily push an NCP over the $2,500 limit.
Through no fault of his own, the NCP can be subjected to DL suspension just
for participating in the system and having the "instant arrearage" added to
his CS payment account.

The mothers with the smaller dollar amount CS orders always think DL
suspensions are "funny." In reality, they are very serious consequences to
any father who makes a decent living and has a track record of supporting
his chidldren.

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
om...
Here's the problem, Pamela. You originally stated that you do not
find it extreme having a driver's license pulled for failure to
provide. You have since gone to great lengths to explain what you
mean by "failure to provide." How nice. But the courts don't give a
rat's rosey tush what YOU mean by "failure to provide." They have
their own opinions--and when an NCP reaches $X.00 in arrearages, the
threat of loss of license hangs over his head--no matter what the
reason. So you waltz into a group of people who have the threat of
having their licenses pulled--some for no fault of their own--and
announce that you don't find that extreme--and you get a bunch of
negative responses. What did you really expect?

Now, I will say that you have adequately demonstrated your total
ignorance of the NCP's side of the child support system, so perhaps
your comment could be forgiven. Except that you seem to be trying to
prove that your original comment was perfectly ok, because, in your
mind, you had all these qualifiers that you figured that people
already screwed blue by the system should certainly have understood
from the beginning. Maybe if you had gone into a bit more detail in
your original post, you would not have received the negative
responses. But, considering your ignorance of the other side of the
system, I can understand why you didn't.

The threshold for being subjected to having your DL suspended is $2,500. A
CS modification applied retroactively 4-5 months to the date of filing of
the modification, coupled with the state taking 3-4 months to plug in the
newly modified amount, can easily push an NCP over the $2,500 limit.
Through no fault of his own, the NCP can be subjected to DL suspension just
for participating in the system and having the "instant arrearage" added to
his CS payment account.

The mothers with the smaller dollar amount CS orders always think DL
suspensions are "funny." In reality, they are very serious consequences to
any father who makes a decent living and has a track record of supporting
his chidldren.

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
om...
Here's the problem, Pamela. You originally stated that you do not
find it extreme having a driver's license pulled for failure to
provide. You have since gone to great lengths to explain what you
mean by "failure to provide." How nice. But the courts don't give a
rat's rosey tush what YOU mean by "failure to provide." They have
their own opinions--and when an NCP reaches $X.00 in arrearages, the
threat of loss of license hangs over his head--no matter what the
reason. So you waltz into a group of people who have the threat of
having their licenses pulled--some for no fault of their own--and
announce that you don't find that extreme--and you get a bunch of
negative responses. What did you really expect?

Now, I will say that you have adequately demonstrated your total
ignorance of the NCP's side of the child support system, so perhaps
your comment could be forgiven. Except that you seem to be trying to
prove that your original comment was perfectly ok, because, in your
mind, you had all these qualifiers that you figured that people
already screwed blue by the system should certainly have understood
from the beginning. Maybe if you had gone into a bit more detail in
your original post, you would not have received the negative
responses. But, considering your ignorance of the other side of the
system, I can understand why you didn't.

The threshold for being subjected to having your DL suspended is $2,500. A
CS modification applied retroactively 4-5 months to the date of filing of
the modification, coupled with the state taking 3-4 months to plug in the
newly modified amount, can easily push an NCP over the $2,500 limit.
Through no fault of his own, the NCP can be subjected to DL suspension just
for participating in the system and having the "instant arrearage" added to
his CS payment account.

The mothers with the smaller dollar amount CS orders always think DL
suspensions are "funny." In reality, they are very serious consequences to
any father who makes a decent living and has a track record of supporting
his chidldren.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote...
The threshold for being subjected to having your DL suspended is
$2,500. A CS modification applied retroactively 4-5 months to the
date of filing of the modification, coupled with the state taking 3-4
months to plug in the newly modified amount, can easily push an
NCP over the $2,500 limit. Through no fault of his own, the NCP
can be subjected to DL suspension just for participating in the system
and having the "instant arrearage" added to his CS payment account.
--------------------
I've avoided this topic thus far because my thoughts are colored by
my stepson's experience... My stepson pays CS in a paternity case.
He has paid every dime that he owes, as ordered. However, in a
dependency proceeding, CFS placed the child with the maternal GM,
which caused CSE to create a 2nd account. I told him that this was
SOP and not to worry. However, CSE's attorneys botched the order,
which caused a misallocation of his payments.

You can guess the rest. The 1st account was overpaid and the 2nd
account was shorted though no fault of his. I did get a court order
prohibiting enforcement, pending a fix. But CSE ignored it and
suspended his DL anyway. On New Year's Eve, I took him to the
CSE office, he showed them the order and got his DL back.

It took over 6 mos. for CSE and their attorney's to accept that they
had made a mistake and do something about it. CSE is so inept
that in fixing the situation, they screwed up again. Now, the way
the order is written, he only owes $13/mo. for retroactive CS and
nothing for ongoing CS. But he's still paying in full, cuz' they may
catch on, eventually. [Roger]

"Bob Whiteside" wrote...
The threshold for being subjected to having your DL suspended is
$2,500. A CS modification applied retroactively 4-5 months to the
date of filing of the modification, coupled with the state taking 3-4
months to plug in the newly modified amount, can easily push an
NCP over the $2,500 limit. Through no fault of his own, the NCP
can be subjected to DL suspension just for participating in the system
and having the "instant arrearage" added to his CS payment account.
--------------------
I've avoided this topic thus far because my thoughts are colored by
my stepson's experience... My stepson pays CS in a paternity case.
He has paid every dime that he owes, as ordered. However, in a
dependency proceeding, CFS placed the child with the maternal GM,
which caused CSE to create a 2nd account. I told him that this was
SOP and not to worry. However, CSE's attorneys botched the order,
which caused a misallocation of his payments.

You can guess the rest. The 1st account was overpaid and the 2nd
account was shorted though no fault of his. I did get a court order
prohibiting enforcement, pending a fix. But CSE ignored it and
suspended his DL anyway. On New Year's Eve, I took him to the
CSE office, he showed them the order and got his DL back.

It took over 6 mos. for CSE and their attorney's to accept that they
had made a mistake and do something about it. CSE is so inept
that in fixing the situation, they screwed up again. Now, the way
the order is written, he only owes $13/mo. for retroactive CS and
nothing for ongoing CS. But he's still paying in full, cuz' they may
catch on, eventually. [Roger]

"Bob Whiteside" wrote...
The threshold for being subjected to having your DL suspended is
$2,500. A CS modification applied retroactively 4-5 months to the
date of filing of the modification, coupled with the state taking 3-4
months to plug in the newly modified amount, can easily push an
NCP over the $2,500 limit. Through no fault of his own, the NCP
can be subjected to DL suspension just for participating in the system
and having the "instant arrearage" added to his CS payment account.
--------------------
I've avoided this topic thus far because my thoughts are colored by
my stepson's experience... My stepson pays CS in a paternity case.
He has paid every dime that he owes, as ordered. However, in a
dependency proceeding, CFS placed the child with the maternal GM,
which caused CSE to create a 2nd account. I told him that this was
SOP and not to worry. However, CSE's attorneys botched the order,
which caused a misallocation of his payments.

You can guess the rest. The 1st account was overpaid and the 2nd
account was shorted though no fault of his. I did get a court order
prohibiting enforcement, pending a fix. But CSE ignored it and
suspended his DL anyway. On New Year's Eve, I took him to the
CSE office, he showed them the order and got his DL back.

It took over 6 mos. for CSE and their attorney's to accept that they
had made a mistake and do something about it. CSE is so inept
that in fixing the situation, they screwed up again. Now, the way
the order is written, he only owes $13/mo. for retroactive CS and
nothing for ongoing CS. But he's still paying in full, cuz' they may
catch on, eventually. [Roger]

"Bob Whiteside" wrote...
The threshold for being subjected to having your DL suspended is
$2,500. A CS modification applied retroactively 4-5 months to the
date of filing of the modification, coupled with the state taking 3-4
months to plug in the newly modified amount, can easily push an
NCP over the $2,500 limit. Through no fault of his own, the NCP
can be subjected to DL suspension just for participating in the system
and having the "instant arrearage" added to his CS payment account.
--------------------
I've avoided this topic thus far because my thoughts are colored by
my stepson's experience... My stepson pays CS in a paternity case.
He has paid every dime that he owes, as ordered. However, in a
dependency proceeding, CFS placed the child with the maternal GM,
which caused CSE to create a 2nd account. I told him that this was
SOP and not to worry. However, CSE's attorneys botched the order,
which caused a misallocation of his payments.

You can guess the rest. The 1st account was overpaid and the 2nd
account was shorted though no fault of his. I did get a court order
prohibiting enforcement, pending a fix. But CSE ignored it and
suspended his DL anyway. On New Year's Eve, I took him to the
CSE office, he showed them the order and got his DL back.

It took over 6 mos. for CSE and their attorney's to accept that they
had made a mistake and do something about it. CSE is so inept
that in fixing the situation, they screwed up again. Now, the way
the order is written, he only owes $13/mo. for retroactive CS and
nothing for ongoing CS. But he's still paying in full, cuz' they may
catch on, eventually. [Roger]

"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
person's
license for failure to provide for his children is extreme.

I have an ex who has not paid child support for years, may see his
daughter
whenever he wants, makes a great income, and cheats and steals his
way
through life.

OK, try this one for size (mind the subtle sarcasm).. NCP -can't-
pay
the
ordered amount because it's way more then the NCP earns (include the
fact
that the economy sucks and NCP has had little luck in retaining work
in
the
profession of choice). Because of the already existing restrictions
placed
upon NCP, NCP can't see the children much beyond every few months.
NCP
makes just barely enough to cover -basic- expenses (food, gas,
phone,
etc..), so there's very little left over for yachting excisions to
the
Mediterranean with Trophy Wife/Husband #5...

How is it that the child support ordered would be far more than what
the
NCP
earns? When my ex left, I took jobs far outside my profession because
I
needed to earn money to take care of my children. My children came
before
my ego.

Taking his driver's license away seems a rather amusing way to
wake
him
up.
More I think about it, the more I like it.

I find the idea of license suspension hardly amusing at all. How is
this
in
the best interest of any NCPs children? How does this help CSE get
what
they want, that being the NCPs wallet/purse?

Taking my ex's license would not affect his children in anyway. He
doesn't
pay a thing. He doesn't do a thing for them in any way.


We teach our children that there are consequences to what we do.
Perhaps,
ex's who disregard the health and welfare of their children ought
to
be
taught the same lesson.

The same can (and often is) said of CSE agencies that overstep their
bounds - but far too often hide from their actions with "I was only
following orders"...

I don't think that NCP's should be driven to the ground at all. I
think
they should pay their fair share, that's all. Often, child support
becomes
oppressive because it is so in arrears that the amount becomes
overwhelming.
Why would anyone let it go that far?
My brother didn't pay child support for years. He worked off the book
jobs
so his income could not be garnished. In the end, he had a huge debt.
But,
he caused that to happen by his own foolishness. He not only had
years
of
unpaid child support to make up for, but interest, and the amount they
took
was far more than the original ordered amount.

Tough lesson to learn.

No, I don't think that NCPs should be run into ruin either. But it
happens
far too often.

Ah, the old "pay your fair share" ploy. Did you know the IRS uses this
same
argument to entice people to pay a tax that they have no legal reason to
pay? Ah, but that's for another newsgroup...

It's not a ploy. It's reasonable assumption that both parent's should
contribute to the welfare of their children.




What is fair? Should an NCP pay 30% of their PRE-tax income? What
about
40%? Do I hear 50, 60, 70%? There are numerous cases where NCPs have
been
ordered to pay 200% or more of their income. Case in point, the
Canadian
father that was ordered to pay TWICE his take home pay. He killed
himself
after the courts took everything from him - including his child.

Is that your meaning of "fair share"? It surely isn't mine.

Did I say that I thought any of that was fair? I think you know I did
not.
Every state child support calculation I have ever seen seemed to be around
20-30%. In my ex's case it was a little less than 20%, and that was based
on my income, which was derived from TWO jobs. The court didn't make him
pay more, so I could work only one job. The 20% he was ordered to pay was
calculated from the earnings of his ONE job.

Now, do you think that was fair? Was he paying his fair share? Was I
paying my fair share?

CS -is- oppressive because there are no laws that force married,
non-married
/ co-habitating or single parents to set-aside a certain percentage of
their
incomes to cover the costs of raising their children. That comes right
out
of the family budget and has no bearing on what the courts use to base
their
judgments on. The courts don't follow any logical pattern to determine
CS.

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

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.
------------------
*raises hand* My DHs cs was set at 45% (of imputed income!) now because of
arrears they take 50% (of real income) which is three times what the actual
cs obligation was. They can take up to 75%. But this is WA state, they
don'tjust take a percentage of the ncps income.

~AZ~
(sorry this post isn't timely. for some reason my newsreader doesn't show
some posts right away. I just got this one.)
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.

This means that you actually are having your CS orders based on $2700 a
month. Not the $2000 you actually bring home. A 50% CS order means
$1350
is what you are ordered to pay. But you tell me who bases their
take-home
pay on PRE-tax income????

Where does this happen? What state?



I'll tell you - NO ONE. Save for the twisted system that the so-called
Family Court uses. Is this fair to you to base a CS order on money that
you
don't even have? And I'm -not- taking about imputed income either.
That
is
a whole other ball-game....


well, I could be wrong. But, I have never heard of such a thing, except
in
cases where the child support has not been paid, and the NCP is made to
pay
both current and past child support combined.

Pamela