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
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

"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

"Editor - Child Support News" wrote in message
...
Then that would be Arizona's CSE requesting the suspension from Washington
through URISA?
-------------------
Hmmm, I was looking over the paperwork and it seems to be since AZ got word
that there were arrears, they can attempt to force him to pay them by
suspending the AZ drivers license. It even says that they can do this even
if he is currently paying cs and paying toward the arrears. What a bunch of
crap.

~AZ~


"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...

"Editor - Child Support News" wrote in
message
...
I THINK that Virginia could not, say, order North Carolina to suspend
your
North Carolina drivers license.
--------------------------
Actually, in our situation the cs order is from Washington state and we
are
living in AZ and yes they can suspend the AZ drivers license.
-----------------------


"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Editor - Child Support News" wrote in
message
...
In Virginia, the thieves want you to pay 5% of your outstanding
arrearage...

If you can't you can go to your local JDR Court and request a
restricted
license...when I did that, the judge let me drive 24/7/365 after
telling
me
that if I stoof before him in a contempt hearing, I'd be placed
UNDER
his
jail...fortunately my case is in another jurisdiction -- albeit
with
the
judges just as corrupt.

OK, but which state would you go to for this "restricted" license?
The
one
where you owe the CS to or the license issuing state?
----------------------
You would get your restricted license in the state where you are legally
a
resident.

~AZ~

Could you just
bring
it to them, the legal question that is? Or would you need to wait
for
them
to start something first?

What gets me is that one state can tell another to enforce it's own
orders.
As I understand it, they can't (usually) do that.

Another thing.. you said that the state ordered you to cough up 5%,
couldn't, but yet, after taking it to a judge and making an offer to
pay
X
amount, you got your DL back? Interesting. Why not just eliminate
the
middle-man and go straight to a judge instead? Seems faster to me.
And
would amount to a lesser chance of running afoul of the local "law
enforcement" thugs... er, police.

"Editor - Child Support News" wrote in message
...
Then that would be Arizona's CSE requesting the suspension from Washington
through URISA?
-------------------
Hmmm, I was looking over the paperwork and it seems to be since AZ got word
that there were arrears, they can attempt to force him to pay them by
suspending the AZ drivers license. It even says that they can do this even
if he is currently paying cs and paying toward the arrears. What a bunch of
crap.

~AZ~


"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...

"Editor - Child Support News" wrote in
message
...
I THINK that Virginia could not, say, order North Carolina to suspend
your
North Carolina drivers license.
--------------------------
Actually, in our situation the cs order is from Washington state and we
are
living in AZ and yes they can suspend the AZ drivers license.
-----------------------


"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Editor - Child Support News" wrote in
message
...
In Virginia, the thieves want you to pay 5% of your outstanding
arrearage...

If you can't you can go to your local JDR Court and request a
restricted
license...when I did that, the judge let me drive 24/7/365 after
telling
me
that if I stoof before him in a contempt hearing, I'd be placed
UNDER
his
jail...fortunately my case is in another jurisdiction -- albeit
with
the
judges just as corrupt.

OK, but which state would you go to for this "restricted" license?
The
one
where you owe the CS to or the license issuing state?
----------------------
You would get your restricted license in the state where you are legally
a
resident.

~AZ~

Could you just
bring
it to them, the legal question that is? Or would you need to wait
for
them
to start something first?

What gets me is that one state can tell another to enforce it's own
orders.
As I understand it, they can't (usually) do that.

Another thing.. you said that the state ordered you to cough up 5%,
couldn't, but yet, after taking it to a judge and making an offer to
pay
X
amount, you got your DL back? Interesting. Why not just eliminate
the
middle-man and go straight to a judge instead? Seems faster to me.
And
would amount to a lesser chance of running afoul of the local "law
enforcement" thugs... er, police.

"Editor - Child Support News" wrote in message
...
Then that would be Arizona's CSE requesting the suspension from Washington
through URISA?
-------------------
Hmmm, I was looking over the paperwork and it seems to be since AZ got word
that there were arrears, they can attempt to force him to pay them by
suspending the AZ drivers license. It even says that they can do this even
if he is currently paying cs and paying toward the arrears. What a bunch of
crap.

~AZ~


"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...

"Editor - Child Support News" wrote in
message
...
I THINK that Virginia could not, say, order North Carolina to suspend
your
North Carolina drivers license.
--------------------------
Actually, in our situation the cs order is from Washington state and we
are
living in AZ and yes they can suspend the AZ drivers license.
-----------------------


"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"Editor - Child Support News" wrote in
message
...
In Virginia, the thieves want you to pay 5% of your outstanding
arrearage...

If you can't you can go to your local JDR Court and request a
restricted
license...when I did that, the judge let me drive 24/7/365 after
telling
me
that if I stoof before him in a contempt hearing, I'd be placed
UNDER
his
jail...fortunately my case is in another jurisdiction -- albeit
with
the
judges just as corrupt.

OK, but which state would you go to for this "restricted" license?
The
one
where you owe the CS to or the license issuing state?
----------------------
You would get your restricted license in the state where you are legally
a
resident.

~AZ~

Could you just
bring
it to them, the legal question that is? Or would you need to wait
for
them
to start something first?

What gets me is that one state can tell another to enforce it's own
orders.
As I understand it, they can't (usually) do that.

Another thing.. you said that the state ordered you to cough up 5%,
couldn't, but yet, after taking it to a judge and making an offer to
pay
X
amount, you got your DL back? Interesting. Why not just eliminate
the
middle-man and go straight to a judge instead? Seems faster to me.
And
would amount to a lesser chance of running afoul of the local "law
enforcement" thugs... er, police.

"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...

"Editor - Child Support News" wrote in
message
...
Then that would be Arizona's CSE requesting the suspension from
Washington
through URISA?
-------------------
Hmmm, I was looking over the paperwork and it seems to be since AZ got
word
that there were arrears, they can attempt to force him to pay them by
suspending the AZ drivers license. It even says that they can do this
even
if he is currently paying cs and paying toward the arrears. What a bunch
of
crap.

~AZ~

Rather sounds like a "damned it you do, damned it you don't" situation to
me. Either way the NCP is screwed.

"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...

"Editor - Child Support News" wrote in
message
...
Then that would be Arizona's CSE requesting the suspension from
Washington
through URISA?
-------------------
Hmmm, I was looking over the paperwork and it seems to be since AZ got
word
that there were arrears, they can attempt to force him to pay them by
suspending the AZ drivers license. It even says that they can do this
even
if he is currently paying cs and paying toward the arrears. What a bunch
of
crap.

~AZ~

Rather sounds like a "damned it you do, damned it you don't" situation to
me. Either way the NCP is screwed.

"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...

"Editor - Child Support News" wrote in
message
...
Then that would be Arizona's CSE requesting the suspension from
Washington
through URISA?
-------------------
Hmmm, I was looking over the paperwork and it seems to be since AZ got
word
that there were arrears, they can attempt to force him to pay them by
suspending the AZ drivers license. It even says that they can do this
even
if he is currently paying cs and paying toward the arrears. What a bunch
of
crap.

~AZ~

Rather sounds like a "damned it you do, damned it you don't" situation to
me. Either way the NCP is screwed.

The question, Dusty, is what can we do about this bull****?


"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...

"Editor - Child Support News" wrote in
message
...
Then that would be Arizona's CSE requesting the suspension from
Washington
through URISA?
-------------------
Hmmm, I was looking over the paperwork and it seems to be since AZ got
word
that there were arrears, they can attempt to force him to pay them by
suspending the AZ drivers license. It even says that they can do this
even
if he is currently paying cs and paying toward the arrears. What a
bunch
of
crap.

~AZ~

Rather sounds like a "damned it you do, damned it you don't" situation to
me. Either way the NCP is screwed.

The question, Dusty, is what can we do about this bull****?


"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...

"Editor - Child Support News" wrote in
message
...
Then that would be Arizona's CSE requesting the suspension from
Washington
through URISA?
-------------------
Hmmm, I was looking over the paperwork and it seems to be since AZ got
word
that there were arrears, they can attempt to force him to pay them by
suspending the AZ drivers license. It even says that they can do this
even
if he is currently paying cs and paying toward the arrears. What a
bunch
of
crap.

~AZ~

Rather sounds like a "damned it you do, damned it you don't" situation to
me. Either way the NCP is screwed.