Ya'll have got to read this

"Relayer" wrote in message
ps.com...
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.

And who's to say she wasn't on top?

"Paula" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

Correct. Actually, taking unearned money by force makes one a THIEF.

"Gini" wrote in message
news:C8GJh.1583$2%3.355@trndny06...

"Paula" wrote
..................

I sincerely hope not ... because if the Judge comes in and craps
all over our hard work in coming to an agreement (because that is
the plan ... filing the PA with the Court), I'm going to be seriously
****ed off.
===
Paula, I am not familiar with IL law but I can tell you that judges
nationwide have taken the
position that the CS belongs to the child and the parents do not have the
right to negotiate it away.
Not all judges do this. but it happens. My ex and I stayed completely out
of
court with our kids (no custody or CS). Turning
our kids over to court jurisdiction didn't set well with either of us.
And,
once the court gets jurisdiction over your kids,
you need the court's permission to get it back. At the very base, it is
all
about money and no amount of
money or lack of money was worth the tradeoff to us.

But hasn't anyone told you yet? .................... "It takes a village".

Those kids are now
grown (late 20s) and we have never regretted our decision,
and my ex and I still speak to each other. And you know the greatest
benefactors of our choices are the kids who have
had to field a few inquiries about how/why their divorced parents get
along
so well. Our kids appreciate that we put their welfare
and best interest above whatever disagreements we might have had with each
other--and still do. I wish you all the best, knowing
there is a lot of pressure to comply with the very broken system.

"John Meyer" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
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.


I just signed up over there, if only to be the fly in their ointment.

They probably would not like me signing up there because I would burden them
with the TRUTH!

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...
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.

These types of discussions about how much CS is the right amount leave out
one important factor - How much is the CP supposed to be paying for their
share of the CS obligation.

I really doubt any of the women who were advocating going for more CS even
considered the amount the CP would be getting is in addition to the CP's
required share to support the children. And an increase in NCP CS could
also mean an increase in CP CS. They all seemed to want to push a greater
financial burden onto the NCP dad without any consideration for how much
the
CP plus NCP CS obligation really provides (if actually spent) for the care
and maintenance of the children.

Indeed! $1278 from each parent adds up to $2556. That works out to $852 per
child. My guess is a majority of the fools responding to the OP are paying
far LESS than this amount to support their OWN children. ......just a guess.

"Paula" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 13, 4:12 pm, "Relayer" wrote:
On Mar 13, 4:00?pm, "Paula" wrote:





On Mar 13, 12:56 pm, "Relayer" wrote:

On Mar 13, 12:37?pm, "Paula" wrote:

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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

NO where in 750 ILCS 5/505 does it ever take the NCP's income into
account in firguring CS.

I've been paying CS for 17 years and navigating Illinois family
courts
for as long and believe me if my ex could of try to attach my
present
wifes income, she would have.

Never said anything about this ... and for the record, I don't believe
that a subsequent spouse's income - from any source - should be
used in child support calculation.

As far as taking the CP's income into account, it is ONLY taken into
account in regards from diviating from the guidelines.

Wrong. I was told that it was completely at the discretion of the
presiding judge, and that BY LAW I had to provide it. Ours is not
a situation of deviating from the guidelines; both NCP and CP work
and provide for the child.

Then the
financial resources and needs of the custodial parent are taken into
account. Example, if you have two kids, the guidline is 28% of NET.
As
CP, if YOU can't get by on that (for whatever reason), they will
look
at your income (maybe you are diababled, stay at home, whatever) and
adjust UP from there. NEVER down,as you imply.

I never implied any such thing.

I have 3 kids by my first and two by my second. My wife second made
around $60,000 a year. I made around $180,000. My first wife (and
her
husband) did not work. I paid around 42% of MY net to my first wife
for my kids. The guideline is 32%.

So, by you admitting your income is taken into account simply
broadcasts the fact that you are trying to push upward from the
guideline, so ****ing come off it Paula. You are just another
greeedy
CP.

Actually we (the parents involved, not the Court) are tentatively
agreeing to leave the CS amount at the amount agreed upon 3+ years
ago ... in favor of creating a Parenting Agreement, because _that's_
what's in the child's best interests.

Sounds like you, Relayer, have both made some questionable choices
_and_ gotten screwed over by the Court in favor of your ex ... neither
of
which says anything about me or my motives and situation.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Naw, Paula, I don't feel screwed. I feel I paid my fair share. It's
ok. It's was for my kids and I owed it to them. What I don't like to
see are CP's running around, saying they are screwed.. he guideline is
the minimum a NCP pays, the CP's incoome has no bearing. Any lawyer
who tells you otherwise is milking you for money as the statute is
clear. The JPA has no bearing if it is not recognized by the court so
you have to bring before the judge and the final amount is his
decision, with the minimum being the guideline and then a new order of
support has to be entered. I know, because it happened to me.

I sincerely hope not ... because if the Judge comes in and craps
all over our hard work in coming to an agreement (because that is
the plan ... filing the PA with the Court), I'm going to be seriously
****ed off.

Do you really think it is the Court and not your ex to blame in
your situation going so awry?

It's BOTH! The "family court" people and mothers are BOTH needed to inflict
damage. Neither one can do it alone.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Relayer" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 13, 6:42?pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:

CP plus NCP CS obligation really provides (if actually spent) for the
care
and maintenance of the children.


I know in my case, very little

Most CP mothers forget their teenage children are smarter than they give
them credit for and understand what is going on. The children tell their
dads what is really happening and where the money goes.

My ex actually showed one of my children a spreadsheet of how she planned
to
spend a lump sum CS payment. Then my ex denied she made the spreadsheet
when I suggested she was not spending the CS as intended.

If it wasn't for stuff like that I couldn't laugh at what I went through
and
realize her life was a lie and cover-up of reality when it came to how CS
money was really spent.

Which is why "child support" should not exist in the first place.

"Gini" wrote in message
news:HCAJh.4695$0W5.1325@trndny05...

"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.

Which is just another one of the court's ASSumptions.

On Mar 13, 8:24 pm, John Meyer wrote:
I just signed up over there, if only to be the fly in their ointment.

Looks like someone else signed up over there too and got the OP to
answer the question about how the $1278 was figured. She's saying that
is just based on the NCP's (but her lawyer told her it could be even
more because it should be based on total household income).

NCP is earning $49k. Less say $7k for taxes, less the $8,400 he's
paying now in CS, he's got $33,600. left to support himself, support
the kids on his time, buy all the extras he's paying for (food,
clothes, camp, haircuts...) for the joint kids, and support his baby
on the way. OK all the way around. NCP isn't being stuck in the
poorhouse, good relationship with kids and CP, kids needs are met, and
$700 to the CP is more than adequate because he IS paying for all
those extras directly.

At $1278, his net would go down to $26,314 and he wouldn't be able to
afford all of the above anymore. The situation would deteriorate, hard
feeling would arise on both sides, and relationship between parents
and NCP & kids would suffer because of it. And CP's attitude would
change from everything's coming up roses to "my lousy ex won't pay a
DIME beyond the ordered amount...."

Interesting "case study" here. Hope she doesn't let others convince
her to go for the $1278.

wrote:
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.

I'm going to go on a little bit of a technical rant here. Is it just
me, or are all of these divorce forums run on the same crappy web forum
software? Dear God people, upgrade to SMF already!