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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Ya'll have got to read this
http://www.divorcesource.com/ubbthre...fpart=1&vc =1
So much sickening about it I wouldn't know where to start, just got to read it yourself. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Ya'll have got to read this
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ya'll have got to read this
What's so surprising: thieves have always tried to justify their
behavior in some way or another. Child support is no different. 5 pages to this - a bunch of money-grubbing women attacking the OP (CP-mom) for not squeezing NCP for everything she can!. Doesn't matter how much you really need or how much he can really afford, the LAW says you're entitled to X amount so take it and put the extra in a savings account, you're a bad Cp for not taking everything the law says you can. The kicker is that she says that the guideline amount she's entitled to is based on total household income of NCP and his current wife. Whether that's actually true or not is besides the point, the point is all the money-grubbers don't care how illegal or unfair the determined amount is - just take it! Just when you start having a more positive outlook, you read something like this that reminds you that attitudes will never change as long as there's a system encouraging women to dump ethics in favor of the LAW. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Ya'll have got to read this
On Mar 13, 7:18�am, John Meyer wrote:
wrote: http://www.divorcesource.com/ubbthre...t=0&Number=208... So much sickening about it I wouldn't know where to start, just got to read it yourself. What's so surprising: thieves have always tried to justify their behavior in some way or another. *Child support is no different. Since when is a spouses income taken into account for a CS obligation? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Ya'll have got to read this
On Mar 13, 7:18 am, John Meyer wrote:
wrote: http://www.divorcesource.com/ubbthre...t=0&Number=208... So much sickening about it I wouldn't know where to start, just got to read it yourself. What's so surprising: thieves have always tried to justify their behavior in some way or another. Child support is no different. Did either of you actually read the thread???? It was originated by a woman asking if she should suggest a REDUCTION to CS, and the vast majority of the opinions were telling her to leave the situation as it was. Sheesh, you two won't be happy until you can run around sticking your dick in any willing participant with no responsibility for the consequences. And before you write it: your CHOICE comes with the act, and if you can't trust her CHOICE after the act, that should factor into your CHOICE before you take your dick out of your pants. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Ya'll have got to read this
On Mar 13, 10:56 am, "Paula" wrote:
Did either of you actually read the thread???? Me? Of course I read the thread. It was originated by a woman asking if she should suggest a REDUCTION to CS, and the vast majority of the opinions were telling her to leave the situation as it was. Sheesh, you two won't be happy until you can run around sticking your dick in any willing participant with no responsibility for the consequences. And before you write it: your CHOICE comes with the act, and if you can't trust her CHOICE after the act, that should factor into your CHOICE before you take your dick out of your pants. The discussion in question is/was NOT about a man trying to shirk reponsibility for kid(s) he helped create. It's about a CP being attacked by other CPs for considering doing the right thing. If the LAW says you can take something, then you're supposed to take it. A prevalent attitude made revoltingly clear in that discussion. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Ya'll have got to read this
On Mar 13, 10:38 am, "Relayer" wrote:
Since when is a spouses income taken into account for a CS obligation? It's not. The OP was either mixed up on how things work, or a judge/ lawyer/caseworker did something illegal and it actually was ordered that way. Who knows. The point is that none of the respondants cared how the amount was arrived at - the law came up with a number and that's that, the CP needs to take it all. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Ya'll have got to read this
On Mar 13, 10:24�am, wrote:
On Mar 13, 10:56 am, "Paula" wrote: Did either of you actually read the thread???? Me? Of course I read the thread. It was originated by a woman asking if she should suggest a REDUCTION to CS, and the vast majority of the opinions were telling her to leave the situation as it was. Sheesh, you two won't be happy until you can run around sticking your dick in any willing participant with no responsibility for the consequences. *And before you write it: your CHOICE comes with the act, and if you can't trust her CHOICE after the act, that should factor into your CHOICE before you take your dick out of your pants. The discussion in question is/was NOT about a man trying to shirk reponsibility for kid(s) he helped create. It's about a CP being attacked by other CPs for considering doing the right thing. *If the LAW says you can take something, then you're supposed to take it. A prevalent attitude made revoltingly clear in that discussion. Actually, the right thhing to do is pay the $900 and quit buying food and clothes and other stuff...then these friggin arguements wouldn't happen. He would be better off finacially anyway. This is coming down to the woman claims her neighbor telling her something (his wifes income in also included in CS payment) and her believing it when it is completely false. And a bunch from the c*** brigade coming out and screaming for her to raise the amount beyond his income and try to take the new wifes income. Just to stay in tune with Paula's mood, if that woman didn't spread her legs, she also wouldnt be in this mess. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Ya'll have got to read this
"Relayer" wrote ............................. Since when is a spouses income taken into account for a CS obligation? == It is frequently taken into consideration to the extent it decreases the obligor's living expenses. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Ya'll have got to read this
On Mar 13, 10:31 am, "Relayer" wrote:
On Mar 13, 10:24?am, wrote: On Mar 13, 10:56 am, "Paula" wrote: Did either of you actually read the thread???? Me? Of course I read the thread. It was originated by a woman asking if she should suggest a REDUCTION to CS, and the vast majority of the opinions were telling her to leave the situation as it was. Sheesh, you two won't be happy until you can run around sticking your dick in any willing participant with no responsibility for the consequences. And before you write it: your CHOICE comes with the act, and if you can't trust her CHOICE after the act, that should factor into your CHOICE before you take your dick out of your pants. The discussion in question is/was NOT about a man trying to shirk reponsibility for kid(s) he helped create. It's about a CP being attacked by other CPs for considering doing the right thing. If the LAW says you can take something, then you're supposed to take it. A prevalent attitude made revoltingly clear in that discussion. Actually, the right thhing to do is pay the $900 and quit buying food and clothes and other stuff...then these friggin arguements wouldn't happen. He would be better off finacially anyway. This is coming down to the woman claims her neighbor telling her something (his wifes income in also included in CS payment) and her believing it when it is completely false. And a bunch from the c*** brigade coming out and screaming for her to raise the amount beyond his income and try to take the new wifes income. Just to stay in tune with Paula's mood, if that woman didn't spread her legs, she also wouldnt be in this mess. Hmm, my mood has f'-all to do with this. Evidently you didn't read the thread because the vast majority of the responses were to "leave well enough alone", that if she didn't need the money that the court would order but that she agreed to do without then to continue to do so. The OP also stated that her "husband's lawyer" had told them the same information regarding household income. You need to get your facts straight, Relayer, because you've also misinformed people with respect to Illinois law on these matters, as well. You've stated that CP's income is never considered ... which is not true. I live in Illinois; I am dealing with a petition for CS right now; and I had to disclose both my 2006 income tax filing and pay stubs. Maybe it's a difference in jurisdiction, maybe a significant difference in CP income (as I do have one, and I do actually use the money that I make to support my child), maybe something else entirely ... dunno, but your reading of Illinois law is opposite that which my attorney has described to me. Just because the CP in your case is a money-grubber does not make us all money-grubbers. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
You have got to read this one to believe it | John Meyer | Child Support | 2 | January 23rd 07 02:46 AM |
Please Read | [email protected] | General | 0 | July 3rd 06 03:23 PM |
at least read it!!)- RETRACTION..PLEASE READ | Jan | Pregnancy | 1 | April 10th 04 06:09 AM |
plz read | Arron Allmark | Child Support | 0 | January 6th 04 06:35 PM |