A bit of good news for us non custodial parents

http://www.ncprevue.com/blog/?p=190

http://www.masslaw.com/news0406.cfm
Hey guys; we actually do have the choice to live below our means! At
least, you are in Massachusetts.  The Mass supreme court ruled that
an increase in her husband's income wasn't necessarily a reason to raise
child support if it did not create a disparity between the two
household's standards of living. Smith v. Edelman, the full text of
which you can view at
http://www.masslawyersweekly.com/sig...oa/1106807.htm
.. Now, will this have an impact on states beyond New England. We can't
say for sure, but it does provide a good argument. And I love this
quote from the wife's attorney:/font/font/p
"In this case, the father lived a lifestyle far below what his
considerable means permitted, which prompted Ouellette to ask:
"[i]f you have a guy who voluntarily elects to live much more
cheaply than he could, should his children also be forced to live that way?"
Now, I don't know about you all, but I don't think my mother an father
lived as richly as they could, and I'm sure a lot of you could point out
examples of the same cheapskate parents who wouldn't buy me the car I
wanted, or the skateboard, or a thousand other things.  So how is
it that a non custodial parent all of a sudden loses the right to
"live much more cheaply" because of a divorce?  br /
I thought I would just bring this to you as an example of how, it's not
always bad news out there.  Not always.

"John Meyer" wrote in
[i]
"In this case, the father lived a lifestyle far below what his
considerable means permitted, which prompted Ouellette to ask: "f
you have a guy who voluntarily elects to live much more cheaply than he
could, should his children also be forced to live that way?"

Absolutely they should, if the Government doesn't have the right to dictate
the lifestyle of it's married citizens, then why in the hell does the
government think it has the right to guarantee a lifestyle for the same
divorced citizens?

America is no longer the land of the free, and should not boost about it to
the rest of the world.
The only freedom you have left is to bitch about government tyranny.

"John Meyer" wrote in message
...
http://www.ncprevue.com/blog/?p=190

http://www.masslaw.com/news0406.cfm
Hey guys; we actually do have the choice to live below our means! At
least, you are in Massachusetts.  The Mass supreme court ruled that
an increase in her husband's income wasn't necessarily a reason to raise
child support if it did not create a disparity between the two
household's standards of living. Smith v. Edelman, the full text of
which you can view at

http://www.masslawyersweekly.com/sig...in/coa/1106807
..htm[i]
. Now, will this have an impact on states beyond New England. We can't
say for sure, but it does provide a good argument. And I love this
quote from the wife's attorney:/font/font/p
"In this case, the father lived a lifestyle far below what his
considerable means permitted, which prompted Ouellette to ask:
"f you have a guy who voluntarily elects to live much more
cheaply than he could, should his children also be forced to live that
way?"
Now, I don't know about you all, but I don't think my mother an father
lived as richly as they could, and I'm sure a lot of you could point out
examples of the same cheapskate parents who wouldn't buy me the car I
wanted, or the skateboard, or a thousand other things.  So how is
it that a non custodial parent all of a sudden loses the right to
"live much more cheaply" because of a divorce?  br /
I thought I would just bring this to you as an example of how, it's not
always bad news out there.  Not always.

MA is essentially a percentage of income state. This change brings the MA
approach to setting CS obligations in line with how Income Shares Model
states' guideline do the same thing. It stops the CS straight line
percentage approach that does not recognize consumption spending declines as
income goes up because more of the additional income goes towards
investments and savings not child rearing.

The CS scales for Income Shares Model states are based on child rearing
estimates that consider when a person's income goes up the proportion of the
total income spent on rearing children goes down. This is sometimes referred
to as the "parental reserve." The new MA approach just gets to this end
result in a different way.