GM bonuses cut because of child support

"T.J." wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
Where I am, (and where others in this group are, from what I've read)
unless
the laid off person is out of work for a very long time, or spends a
very
long time at a lower salary, no modification is permitted. Which means
that
arrearages continue to accrue until the judge finally decides that the
former salary is just not coming back. But the NCP is still stuck with
all
the arrearages and the penalties and interest. And is labeled
"deadbeat"
by
the system.

My husband found out a couple of years ago that he has a 13 year old
daughter that he never knew about. He pays child support now--has never
missed a payment, but also has arrearages to pay off. He is labeled as
a
deadbeat. Do you think he deserves that label?

How could he have arrearages to pay off? Did they go all the way back to
the childs birth??? Clarification please.

**How can someone who makes $40,000 not be able to make ONE payment of
650.00 for one child??? Dont get defensive im just asking. **

$40,000 gross, not net. I live in a very high cost-of-living area. Out
in
the rural area I live in, a one bedroom apt would run you $800 per
month.
In the nearby city, it is far higher than that. $40K gross doesn't go
very
far. You didn't mention mom not working. Don't you think that she
should
be required to contribute financially for her own child, too? Or is it
ok
for her to not work? (I'm really trying to discuss this with you--no
put-downs intended)

Dont they take out the child support before taxes and doesnt this person
get
to claim it on his taxes??


There are no consideration for taxes. You pay child support based on money
you do not receive since it is taxed. What kind of bull**** is that and you
support this.

Well I guess it would depend on the situation, but im assuming that there
are no special circumstances involved then yes she should at least be
computed in at what she can potentially earn. I know that my state does
this unless their is special circumstances involved. She should have at
the
very least be computed to make minimum wage

"gini52" wrote in message
...

If this is true (and I have no reason to disbelieve it), it is
inexcusable.
However, the anger you obviously have isn't good
for you or the child/children.

im not angry in the way you think I am.. more disgusted with the system.
How is my anger any different than those who are here angry
about a system that treats them badly?

You should know that most men are not like
your ex
and most do care about their kids.
well I know that there are good fathers out there, im not saying that all
dads are deadbeats!!! IM trying to point out that there are different
circumstances and
when everyone makes general statements about NCP's that are trying vs those
who are deadbeats its very misleading.

Many of the dads here have fought for
years trying to get access to their kids
and get visitation enforced.

Well ok, thats find and i commend those individuals for doing so.

Very few, if any, are "deadbeats."

I dont agree. I talk to a TON of CP's that have similar stories as I do.
If there are so many good fathers then why are their so many cases where the
man pays NOTHING at all to the CSE for support? Why is there so many CP's
that get ONE payment for the entire year ? Collection rates are barely at
50%..so I would agree that there are a lot more deadbeats than you propose.

The system
has glaring errors in its unfairness to devoted dads
and its laziness at going after the ones who are truly jerks.

I would agree. I would rather see the courts spend time going after
deadbeats than going after a man who pays on time and then has one period of
bad times. However, even those who have bad times should not be allowed to
just skip a payment. They should at least send what they can even when its
10.00. I hate hearing that men think its ok to just skip a month of
payments because they are having problems. The CP doesnt get to skip a
month ever!! Does that make sense?

The courts
have found that rather than spend the effort chasing down dads like your
ex,
it can triple its child support collections (and hence, its federal grant
money) by tripling the amount of money the working/paying dads have to
pay.

If you can back this up with some kind of statistical data I would agree.
However, I dont see how they can do this when the guidelines for monetary
support are already laid out based on a combined income. But im willing to
look at something that shows otherwise. Please dont post some personal link
to a website thats one sided, I really want a reputable source.

This has resulted in a lot of fathers barely able to support themselves. I
would like to ask you to calm down your rhetoric in ACS and listen to how
the system miserably fails fathers and more significantly, children.

Im trying to listen, but getting called names makes it a little more
difficult to listen. I would ask you to look at things from the other
persons point of view as well. There are parents that have deadbeats, there
are men who take lower paying jobs to get their support lowered, the list
goes on and on.

I can
assure you there are *no* dads in this group like your ex--Well, at least
not at the present. One does straggle in
once in a while but usually doesn't stay long.

I will take that into consideration when I read posts. In my opnion there
is no excuse for not supporting your children because you went out and had
another family or because you have a bad month. You must be able to support
yourself somehow so support your children. I can see if you make an
attempt to pay, even send what you can in and getting behind as acceptable
vs not sending in anything at all which is totally unacceptable. But thats
my opinion.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"T.J." wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
Where I am, (and where others in this group are, from what I've read)
unless
the laid off person is out of work for a very long time, or spends a
very
long time at a lower salary, no modification is permitted. Which
means
that
arrearages continue to accrue until the judge finally decides that the
former salary is just not coming back. But the NCP is still stuck
with
all
the arrearages and the penalties and interest. And is labeled
"deadbeat"
by
the system.

My husband found out a couple of years ago that he has a 13 year old
daughter that he never knew about. He pays child support now--has
never
missed a payment, but also has arrearages to pay off. He is labeled
as
a
deadbeat. Do you think he deserves that label?

How could he have arrearages to pay off? Did they go all the way back
to
the childs birth??? Clarification please.

They wanted to go back to birth, but, since my husband demanded a
paternity
test, they could only go back to 2 years before the test. So he owes 2
years of back support. Not so long ago, they COULD have forced him to pay
all the way back to the child's birth AT HIS CURRENT SALARY, plus hospital
costs. Thank goodness that particular law was made more fair, although
still not totally fair. How could anyone be expected to pay for a child
they never even knew existed?


I have had joint physical custody for many years and despite contributing
more during those years than my ex I have been told by my lawyer despite my
contributions they can still make me pay back to the childs birth date
depending on how liberal the Judge is.

The only reason I do not have joint physical custody now is my ex told me
she was jealous of her friends fancy cars, vacations and furs, etc. She
said she wanted the money like all of her girlfriends. My ex makes 80k a
year but expects to buy those extras with child support. Since there is no
accountability she can. The Judge would only sign off for Joint physical
custody in the first place as long as we both agree and that if she changes
her mind he will grant her wishes.

Men have no rights. My child only has a part time father now because of
assholes like TJ that take advantage and support this ****.


**How can someone who makes $40,000 not be able to make ONE payment
of
650.00 for one child??? Dont get defensive im just asking. **

$40,000 gross, not net. I live in a very high cost-of-living area.
Out
in
the rural area I live in, a one bedroom apt would run you $800 per
month.
In the nearby city, it is far higher than that. $40K gross doesn't go
very
far. You didn't mention mom not working. Don't you think that she
should
be required to contribute financially for her own child, too? Or is
it
ok
for her to not work? (I'm really trying to discuss this with you--no
put-downs intended)

Dont they take out the child support before taxes and doesnt this person
get
to claim it on his taxes??

No, the NCP does not get to claim the child support on his taxes. The NCP
PAYS taxes on his gross earnings, then the child support is taken out and
sent to the CP tax free. On top of that, the CP gets to claim the
children
on her taxes (gets all the child tax credits, etc) and only pays taxes on
what she actually earns--child support not included.


Well I guess it would depend on the situation, but im assuming that
there
are no special circumstances involved then yes she should at least be
computed in at what she can potentially earn. I know that my state does
this unless their is special circumstances involved. She should have at
the
very least be computed to make minimum wage

Not all states are so generous. Some of the folks here can tell you about
exes who have graduate degrees who do not work and are not imputed their
earning potential, so the NCP bears the burden of financially supporting
the
child, even though mom could bring in a chunk of change with very little
effort.

The system is not set up to be fair right at this moment. States want to
collect as much child support as possible because of federal monies
attached
to successful collections. I know deadbeats who are ignored by the system
because the cost of forcing them to pay would be more than the system
would
make from the collection. (My step-nephew happens to be one of them) I
guess "for the good of the children" goes out the window when it would
cost
the system money. You haven't mentioned why your child's father seems to
be
getting away with not paying. Is the system serving your needs well?

"Angel" wrote in message
...
Sorry, But you are wrong. When I met my husband, he didn't even own a
car.
Was staying with a friend, because all of his money went to child support.

So at least he was paying his support good for him.

He has been pushed out of his older childrens lives by his ex.

Well thats something I dont agree with. She shouldnt do things like that.
Has he filed charges against her for contempt if he cant see them?

And to say
that he shouldn't pay for my dead ass. You don't even know me, I have run
into some serious medical problems, and am now just getting back into the
work force.

He should put his first kids before you, im not saying that he shouldnt take
care of you or help you but to put you before his children to me is wrong.
Its wrong of you to even ask too.

And as far as buying a car, or a house. Yaw gotta be making more
than about 30,000 a year.

You do?? My brother just bought a house and makes less than that. A car,
you can get anywhere making less than 30,000 a year.

And if you are the custodial parent, you must
have a pretty damn good job, or your screwing some one with money then.

Nope..not doing either. I have a job its doesnt pay the best and it has to
be very flexible because I have to take my son to 5 doctors appointments
weekly. I get by and im not screwing anyone with money . I just dont live
beyond my means.

Yeah
these kids are his first priority, but when they were turned against him,
and the ex still wants more and more what ya suppose to do?

Your husband should take legal action against her. He doesnt even need an
attorney, just file contempt charges for non compliance of the visitation
order. Futhermore, just because your husbands ex has turned against him and
somehow turned his children against him doesnt mean your husband can stop
paying child support. I know that it seems unfair, and it is, but
visitation and child support are TWO seperate matters. Ive seen a lot of
good articles and steps being taken to prevent things like this in the
future. I hope that he gets to see them and she stops playing games.

And you can't
tell me that the money all goes for or too the kids I have seen first hand
my self growing up where the money goes, in the custodial parents pockets
to
screw around and party on.

Well this is what happen in your case, but to assume that all CP's are like
this is incorrect. I have a seperate bank account that all Child Support
goes into so it only gets spent on the childrens needs. I dont use it for
my own personal party money.

And I see alot of it being done now with people I
see every day.

And I see NCP's neglecting to pay support and leaving their kids out in the
cold. I also see CP's that use money for things they shouldnt. I also see
CP's who use that money to pay for their childrens needs.

It is the custodial parents who are being selfish.

Why? Because they expect the father of their children to help support
them??

My husbands ex is married
to a man who is very well to do now and these kids have better clothes and
cars than what we do.

So?? Sounds to me like there is a bit of jealousy going on here. You should
be happy that another man is giving your husbands children a better life
than you have. It doesnt however give your husband the right to not
financially pay for his children. The financial situation of this new hubby
has nothing to do with the obligation your husband has to his children.

I drive an old car that the exhaust has needed fixed
for months, the door handle broke and needs back brakes. I bet you drive
a
better car than me and probably eat better also.

Ha!!! Now thats funny. Well I guess if eating tube steak (hotdogs incase
you didnt know), ramen noodles, PB and J is eating good then wow I must be
in heaven. As far as my vehicle its a cheap pos. Its got 140,000 miles on
it and its falling apart as we speak. If it goes, I have nothing and cant
get anything either because I couldnt afford the payments.


You need to get your head
out of your ass and see that all people need a chance to survive.

My head is out of my ass, thank you. I think you need to pull your head out
and stop being jealous of other people around you.

"Angel" wrote in message
...
TJ
You did say that your childs mother was an asswipe!
And you did send me an email also to my user account.

An I apologized for sending them too. Cant you read? I said YES I DID BY
MISTAKE.

Where did I say that MY CHILDS mother was an asswipe?? Please send me the
ENTIRE post. I would like to reread it.

"Dave" Dave@freedoms-door wrote in message
...


Men have no rights. My child only has a part time father now because of
assholes like TJ that take advantage and support this ****.

So you just clump all CP's into this huge group of people like your ex??
Sorry I dont do those types of things and I dont keep my ex from seeing his
children. He chooses to do so. Stop thinking that all CP's are like your
ex, because they arent.

"Dave" Dave@freedoms-door wrote in message
...
Listen dick head, it that makes no sense to punish 97% of all fathers for
the actions of the dead beat 3%, who mind you if they want to be dead
beats
and evade no matter what laws are on the books these guys will find away
out
it.

Um actually there are WAY more than 97% of fathers who are deadbeats, lol.

Go back and read my post to try an understand what so called today's child
support is all about.

Coming from you Dave with your wonderful langauge no thanks.

"Dave" Dave@freedoms-door wrote in message
...

Due to the 1986 Bradley amendment a Judge cannot eliminate those arreages
even if the man is disabled or dieing. T.J is one sick **** for
supporting
crimes like this.

Hey you owe the money you should pay it. There are however statute of
limiations on how long a person can collect the arrearages in each state.
SOme have no limiations and others do. So on your theory, if a person is
dying or disabled they should have their past debts erased? SO if you have
a mortgage on a house and get sick or are dying a judge should eliminate
that debt? Credit cards? Utilities? Food?

"T.J." wrote in message
...

"Angel" wrote in message
...
Sorry, But you are wrong. When I met my husband, he didn't even own a
car.
Was staying with a friend, because all of his money went to child
support.

So at least he was paying his support good for him.

He has been pushed out of his older childrens lives by his ex.

Well thats something I dont agree with. She shouldnt do things like that.
Has he filed charges against her for contempt if he cant see them?

And to say
that he shouldn't pay for my dead ass. You don't even know me, I have
run
into some serious medical problems, and am now just getting back into
the
work force.

He should put his first kids before you, im not saying that he shouldnt
take
care of you or help you but to put you before his children to me is wrong.
Its wrong of you to even ask too.

TJ, it is WRONG for a man to be charged a ruinous amount of child support.
It is WRONG to force a man to live in poverty just so he can afford those
child support payments. The children should have their NEEDS met, but the
father should not have to live in a one bedroom hovel just so the children
can have sports, dance lessons, summer camp, and other luxury items. If mom
and dad were still married, and dad's financial situation took a downturn,
the children would do without the luxury items, and no judge in the country
would step in and say "You owe your children the lifestyle they had when you
were making more money!" Yet it happens to divorced dads every day. Yes,
the children's needs should be a priority--but the fathers NEEDS should come
before the children's luxuries. NCPs should not be forced to live in
poverty. I don't think Angel is asking her husband to put her needs before
the children's needs. I think she is complaining that the children are
being supported far more than adequately, and there is not enough left after
child support to adequately meet his needs, andyet the mother wants more,
more, more.

"Dave" Dave@freedoms-door wrote in message
...

There are no consideration for taxes. You pay child support based on
money
you do not receive since it is taxed. What kind of bull**** is that and
you
support this.

So the money that you earn is taxed BEFORE the child support comes out.
The money I earn is taxed BEFORE I spend it on my children to support them
and other needs. Why should the money be taxed twice???