A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Voluntary" proof of paternity form?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 6th 05, 03:28 AM
Werebat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Bob Whiteside wrote:

I'm not a CPA, but I think I understand this stuff fairly well. There are
advantages to how you plan to file your taxes.

First, the child's parent with the highest income can prove they provide
more than half the child's support to meet the support test. This allows
your partner to pay lower taxes by claiming head of household status and the
child exemption.

Second, she can claim the standard deduction (or her itemized deductions)
and you can claim the single standard deduction (or your itemized
deductions). The combination of two single standard deductions is greater
than a married couple claiming a married standard deduction. This causes
your combined deductions to increase and reduce your taxes.

Third, there is no marriage penalty. Your combined incomes can exceed the
point where a married couple will move up into a higher tax bracket. By
separating your incomes you pay less tax overall at lower tax bracket rates.


Yah, although that isn't the REASON we're choosing to do things this way
-- it is just a happy coincidence.


BTW - I just don't understand how gays and lesbians are pressing so hard to
get the right to marriage. They will end up complaining about the higher
taxes they pay based on the right to marry because they will lose the three
advantages listed above instead of just living together.


Oh, THAT. That's easy -- the people spearheading that movement aren't
even gay.

They're divorce lawyers.

;^)

- Ron ^*^

  #12  
Old June 8th 05, 11:31 AM
Moon Shyne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It's a *Paternity* acknowledgement - why would you expect it to deal with a
maternity acknowledgement?


"Werebat" wrote in message
news:1q7oe.8864$rb6.262@lakeread07...

snip

One part of the affidavit spells out that I, as the father, agree to
"assume the financial responsibility of the child". There is nothing on
the form that mentions the mother's financial responsibilities.

Both myself and my partner disagreed with this and were not comfortable
signing the document. We told the clerk at the hospital that we would
sign the document if the section about the father assuming financial
responsibility were either removed or altered to include the mother's
equal assumption of financial responsibility. We were told that this was
impossible.



  #13  
Old June 9th 05, 12:59 AM
Werebat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


I'd be fine with that if the wording didn't imply that the father is the
only parent who is financially responsible for the child, and/or if Mom
also had some document she were required to sign in order to get her
name on the birth certificate -- a document that specifically required
ber to agree to be financially responsible for the child.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

- Ron ^*^


Moon Shyne wrote:
It's a *Paternity* acknowledgement - why would you expect it to deal with a
maternity acknowledgement?


"Werebat" wrote in message
news:1q7oe.8864$rb6.262@lakeread07...

snip

One part of the affidavit spells out that I, as the father, agree to
"assume the financial responsibility of the child". There is nothing on
the form that mentions the mother's financial responsibilities.

Both myself and my partner disagreed with this and were not comfortable
signing the document. We told the clerk at the hospital that we would
sign the document if the section about the father assuming financial
responsibility were either removed or altered to include the mother's
equal assumption of financial responsibility. We were told that this was
impossible.





  #14  
Old June 9th 05, 01:09 AM
Beverly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 21:49:31 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


"Beverly" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 03:06:28 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:

p.s. If you want to claim the child as your dependent for tax purposes

you
will have to get married. The recent federal tax court decision limiting
child exemptions to non-married CP's, and not the child's majority

financial
support provider, works against your situation. See a qualified tax
professional on how to use the child exemption under the recent decision.


As far as I can tell, the IRS has not adopted any new rules regarding
the exemptions for unmarried parents. Where might you have learned of
this change?


In King 121 TC 245 that came down in December 2003 the federal tax court
overruled the IRS' previous position (and the congressional record's
reflection of legislative intent) that the "special support test" only
applies to divorced or spearated parents. In King, the court changed the
rules to extend the "special support test" that previously applied to
divorced or separated parents to also include never married parents. The
net result was to allow never married CP's to control the child exemption by
keeping it, signing it away to the NCP when there is a formal divorce or
separation custody agreement, or assigning the exemption under a Multiple
Support Agreement to any party contributing 10% or more of a child's
support.

This is the circumstance and case we discussed here about a month ago.

Okay, yes, I remember this discussion, but I will tell you downstream
why it would not apply in this case.


In any case, if the non-married couple lives together and the child
lives with them, the "member of household" test can be used to claim
the exemption rather than the "relationship" test.


That's not my understanding of what the tax court ruled in King. My
interpretation is the only way for someone in the OP's position to get the
child exemption is if he and the child's mother have a court ordered custody
agreement or enter into a Multiple Support Agreement. But the catch is a
Multiple Support Agreement only works when two or more people support a
person (in this case a child) and no one provides more than half of the
child's support. Since the mother makes more than the child's unmarried
father she cannot qualify for a Multiple Support Agreement. And I don't
think a court would order a child custody agreement designating the CP and
NCP when the parents are living together.


Alas, what you say about the King case is true; HOWEVER, by
disallowing the father to be on the birth certificate without signing
it as is effectively causes the father to be of no LEGAL relation.
Hence, the child would be said to live with the mother and a man
versus the mother and the father. THIS makes King irrelevant and a
"member of household test" rules. Of course, it doesn't matter in
this case because Mom will most likely contribute more than 50%. The
"member of household" test is different than a multiple support
agreement, by the way.
  #15  
Old June 9th 05, 03:28 AM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Werebat" wrote in message
news:lDLpe.28704$iU.23146@lakeread05...

I'd be fine with that if the wording didn't imply that the father is the
only parent who is financially responsible for the child, and/or if Mom
also had some document she were required to sign in order to get her
name on the birth certificate -- a document that specifically required
ber to agree to be financially responsible for the child.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.


You are overlooking one significant fact. The mother signed the child's
birth certificate at the hospital and her doctor signed it too as a witness
to the birth. And by operation of state law as the documented parent of the
child she has financial responsibility for the child, so no additional
declaration by her is necessary.

The question for you to answer for yourself is simple - Do you want your
name on the child's birth certificate as the father? If the answer is "no"
don't sign the Declaration of Paternity. If the answer is "yes" you can
sign the declaration now or later. Birth certificates can be changed at
later dates. In fact, the mother can ask that the child's father's name be
removed from a birth certificate.

Since you were not married to the child's mother it is most likely state law
prohibits the mother from placing your name on the birth certificate.
Usually, a married mother can only place her husband's name on the child's
birth certificate as the father.

The only other option you have is to get a court order directing the state
to add your name to the child's birth certificate. That option will cost
you time and money to accomplish the same results as just signing the
declaration of paternity.


  #16  
Old June 9th 05, 04:08 AM
Werebat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Werebat" wrote in message
news:lDLpe.28704$iU.23146@lakeread05...

I'd be fine with that if the wording didn't imply that the father is the
only parent who is financially responsible for the child, and/or if Mom
also had some document she were required to sign in order to get her
name on the birth certificate -- a document that specifically required
ber to agree to be financially responsible for the child.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.



You are overlooking one significant fact. The mother signed the child's
birth certificate at the hospital and her doctor signed it too as a witness
to the birth. And by operation of state law as the documented parent of the
child she has financial responsibility for the child, so no additional
declaration by her is necessary.


Then have the declaration of paternity reflect that, and not imply that
the father and the father alone is responsible for the child's financial
well-being. Come on -- this isn't rocket science, people.

It's not like the mother doesn't need to be present to sign the thing
anyway -- she does!


The question for you to answer for yourself is simple - Do you want your
name on the child's birth certificate as the father? If the answer is "no"
don't sign the Declaration of Paternity. If the answer is "yes" you can
sign the declaration now or later. Birth certificates can be changed at
later dates. In fact, the mother can ask that the child's father's name be
removed from a birth certificate.


You are using one injustice to "justify" another. Did a Master's
ability to rape his female slaves somehow justify his ability to beat
his other slaves? No, it did not -- although no doubt lawyers of the
time may have sought to use legalese to "prove" this.


Since you were not married to the child's mother it is most likely state law
prohibits the mother from placing your name on the birth certificate.
Usually, a married mother can only place her husband's name on the child's
birth certificate as the father.

The only other option you have is to get a court order directing the state
to add your name to the child's birth certificate. That option will cost
you time and money to accomplish the same results as just signing the
declaration of paternity.


No document can be rightfully called "voluntary" if choosing not to sign
it means signing away legal rights to your child.

Period.

End. Of. Story.

- Ron ^*^

  #17  
Old June 9th 05, 04:13 AM
Werebat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Beverly wrote:

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 21:49:31 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


"Beverly" wrote in message
. ..

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 03:06:28 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


p.s. If you want to claim the child as your dependent for tax purposes


you

will have to get married. The recent federal tax court decision limiting
child exemptions to non-married CP's, and not the child's majority


financial

support provider, works against your situation. See a qualified tax
professional on how to use the child exemption under the recent decision.

As far as I can tell, the IRS has not adopted any new rules regarding
the exemptions for unmarried parents. Where might you have learned of
this change?


In King 121 TC 245 that came down in December 2003 the federal tax court
overruled the IRS' previous position (and the congressional record's
reflection of legislative intent) that the "special support test" only
applies to divorced or spearated parents. In King, the court changed the
rules to extend the "special support test" that previously applied to
divorced or separated parents to also include never married parents. The
net result was to allow never married CP's to control the child exemption by
keeping it, signing it away to the NCP when there is a formal divorce or
separation custody agreement, or assigning the exemption under a Multiple
Support Agreement to any party contributing 10% or more of a child's
support.

This is the circumstance and case we discussed here about a month ago.


Okay, yes, I remember this discussion, but I will tell you downstream
why it would not apply in this case.


In any case, if the non-married couple lives together and the child
lives with them, the "member of household" test can be used to claim
the exemption rather than the "relationship" test.


That's not my understanding of what the tax court ruled in King. My
interpretation is the only way for someone in the OP's position to get the
child exemption is if he and the child's mother have a court ordered custody
agreement or enter into a Multiple Support Agreement. But the catch is a
Multiple Support Agreement only works when two or more people support a
person (in this case a child) and no one provides more than half of the
child's support. Since the mother makes more than the child's unmarried
father she cannot qualify for a Multiple Support Agreement. And I don't
think a court would order a child custody agreement designating the CP and
NCP when the parents are living together.



Alas, what you say about the King case is true; HOWEVER, by
disallowing the father to be on the birth certificate without signing
it as is effectively causes the father to be of no LEGAL relation.
Hence, the child would be said to live with the mother and a man
versus the mother and the father. THIS makes King irrelevant and a
"member of household test" rules. Of course, it doesn't matter in
this case because Mom will most likely contribute more than 50%. The
"member of household" test is different than a multiple support
agreement, by the way.


Personally, I don't care about any of this legal mumbo-jumbo. She's
going to claim him as an exemption, and that what will profit us best
anyway since she makes more than I do. I have no problem with that.

I'd just like to have my name on my child's birth certificate without
being required to sign my name to (thereby tacitly approving of) a
blatantly sexist legal document.

- Ron ^*^

  #18  
Old June 9th 05, 10:59 AM
Moon Shyne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Werebat" wrote in message
news:lDLpe.28704$iU.23146@lakeread05...

I'd be fine with that if the wording didn't imply that the father is the
only parent who is financially responsible for the child, and/or if Mom
also had some document she were required to sign in order to get her name
on the birth certificate


Think about this one - there's no question who the mother is, because the
child came out of her body, in front of all those witnesses. Therefore,
there is no necessity for her to acknowledge maternity - it's quite obvious
she is the mother.

It's the came concept as in Judaism - if the mother is Jewish the child is
considered to be Jewish - because you always know who the mother is.

-- a document that specifically required
ber to agree to be financially responsible for the child.




What's good for the goose is good for the gander.


So what's your problem with acknowledging the child as yours? My guess is
the mother would have no problem signing such an acknowledgement?



- Ron ^*^


Moon Shyne wrote:
It's a *Paternity* acknowledgement - why would you expect it to deal with
a
maternity acknowledgement?


"Werebat" wrote in message
news:1q7oe.8864$rb6.262@lakeread07...

snip

One part of the affidavit spells out that I, as the father, agree to
"assume the financial responsibility of the child". There is nothing on
the form that mentions the mother's financial responsibilities.

Both myself and my partner disagreed with this and were not comfortable
signing the document. We told the clerk at the hospital that we would
sign the document if the section about the father assuming financial
responsibility were either removed or altered to include the mother's
equal assumption of financial responsibility. We were told that this was
impossible.







  #19  
Old June 9th 05, 12:15 PM
Werebat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Moon Shyne wrote:
"Werebat" wrote in message
news:lDLpe.28704$iU.23146@lakeread05...

I'd be fine with that if the wording didn't imply that the father is the
only parent who is financially responsible for the child, and/or if Mom
also had some document she were required to sign in order to get her name
on the birth certificate



Think about this one - there's no question who the mother is, because the
child came out of her body, in front of all those witnesses. Therefore,
there is no necessity for her to acknowledge maternity - it's quite obvious
she is the mother.

It's the came concept as in Judaism - if the mother is Jewish the child is
considered to be Jewish - because you always know who the mother is.


Oh, I just recognized the handle. That explains a lot.

Moon, you aren't paying attention. I'm not upset that Mom doesn't have
to claim maternity. Obviously that would be silly.

Go back and read again. It's the implications on the "voluntary"
affidavit of paternity that upset me -- the implications that Dad is the
ONLY one financially responsible for the child.

I suppose that might seem paranoid to you -- and I would have thought
so, too, before I had my dealings with CSE and the Family Court System.
Their manner of dealing with fathers breeds paranoia. That's a
consequence of their attitudes and actions that we will ALL have to deal
with until some changes are made.

- Ron ^*^

  #20  
Old June 9th 05, 12:27 PM
Moon Shyne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Werebat" wrote in message
news:8xVpe.28726$iU.11828@lakeread05...


Moon Shyne wrote:
"Werebat" wrote in message
news:lDLpe.28704$iU.23146@lakeread05...

I'd be fine with that if the wording didn't imply that the father is the
only parent who is financially responsible for the child, and/or if Mom
also had some document she were required to sign in order to get her name
on the birth certificate



Think about this one - there's no question who the mother is, because the
child came out of her body, in front of all those witnesses. Therefore,
there is no necessity for her to acknowledge maternity - it's quite
obvious she is the mother.

It's the came concept as in Judaism - if the mother is Jewish the child
is considered to be Jewish - because you always know who the mother is.


Oh, I just recognized the handle. That explains a lot.

Moon, you aren't paying attention. I'm not upset that Mom doesn't have to
claim maternity. Obviously that would be silly.

Go back and read again. It's the implications on the "voluntary"
affidavit of paternity that upset me -- the implications that Dad is the
ONLY one financially responsible for the child.


As Bob pointed out, the mother is ALREADY financially responsible for the
child. The flaw here seems to be your insistant perception.


I suppose that might seem paranoid to you -- and I would have thought so,
too, before I had my dealings with CSE and the Family Court System. Their
manner of dealing with fathers breeds paranoia. That's a consequence of
their attitudes and actions that we will ALL have to deal with until some
changes are made.


Then again, perhaps the paranoia is all yours. I've had dealings with CSE
and the Family court system as well - and watched while my ex ignored court
orders on any number of topics, without so much as a slap on the wrist -
he's stopped paying child support and never put in jail, nor even threatened
with it.

So........... all of this Chicken Little "the sky is falling" ain't
necessarily so.


- Ron ^*^



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CA Court Overturns Paternity Fraud- Finally Andre Lieven Child Support 3 July 21st 04 01:54 PM
Paternity Fraud - US Supreme Court Wizardlaw Child Support 12 June 4th 04 02:19 AM
Mother's Paternity Fraud - US Supreme Court Case TrashBBRT Child Support 8 May 21st 04 05:52 PM
Sample US Supreme Court Petition Wizardlaw Child Support 28 January 21st 04 07:23 PM
Sample Supreme Court Petition Wizardlaw Child Support 0 January 16th 04 04:47 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.