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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
Man Forced To Use Loan For Child Support, Not Car
Leave it to indy to try to flamboozle us with her lack of logic. Let's
try thinking this through: Let's assume mommy "would have spent" the money on the kids if she'd had it.... So what? She didn't have it so she didn't spend it so why should she be "repaid" for spending what she didn't spend? The money should be owed directly to the kids if owed at all. HOWEVER....in this case, the mother CHOSE not to accept the money (by disappearing) and in so doing CHOSE not to either not spend it on the kids or to spend on them and do without herself. It matters not which option she chose, only that SHE CHOSE to do without the CS. *I*F* she did without herself, it was her choice and she should not be able to decide now to "have her cake and eat it too". And if she chose not to spend on the kids what she didn't receive for them....then SHE owes an amount equivalent to the ignored CS directly to the kids. But, as usual, indy would have dad pay for mommy's choices...no matter how much her choices hurt his kids. You see, indy is like your legislators...she really doesn't give a **** what happens to kids as long as mommies get to make whatever choices they want... Mel Gamble Indyguy1 wrote: editor wrote: "Indyguy1" wrote in message ... editor wrote: When you're order directs you to pay your ex-wife and she vanishes with your child ILLEGALLY, you're not left with much of a choiice, are you? You could have put the money you have been ordered to pay in CS in an interest drawing account and then you'd have had it to pay when she resurfacd. We're fathers...not ATMs. Fathers WITH the obligation to support their kids. As I told you, at least ONE Virginia judge has ruled that when a parent "actively conceals" a child in violation of a court order, the non-custodial parent has NO DUTY to seek the parent in hiding out and put money into her hands. I didn't say the NCP should have actively sought them out. I just said the money would be owed regardless and a smart person would stash it as oppossed to spending it and crying about when they didn't have it to pay if and when the owed shows up again. Mrs Indyguy |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Paternity Fraud - US Supreme Court | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 12 | June 4th 04 02:19 AM |
Sample Supreme Court Petition | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 0 | January 16th 04 03:47 AM |