modify child support (lower)

"Beverly" wrote in message
om...
(TeacherMama) wrote in message
. com...
"REB4MWC" reb4mwc@nospam. wrote in message
alkaboutparenting.com...
Why? So the parent responsible for paying support can be legal
deadbeats?
(moms or dads) And yes you do have both parties paying support and
evading
support.

Are you of the opinion that there is no good reason to request a
lowering of child support?

There certainly are good reasons for lowering child support. Had the
couple raised the children as a famly, each parent would normally
contribute according to their ability. This is oftentimes done by
combining the incomes to pay the bills. When couples do not do this
together, is there any reason why it should be different? Hence, a
large child support amount when the custodial parent is making less
than the non-custodial parent would certainly need to be lowered if
the tables were turned. The goal of child support should be to
provide for the children while allowing each parent enough to live on
themselves...so they will be alive for the children's benefit, if you
will. Children of separated households are not entitled to more than
they would have had if the household remained intact.

Actually child of intact and separated households are NOT ientitled to any
of the parents money.

"Beverly" wrote in message
om...
(TeacherMama) wrote in message
. com...
"REB4MWC" reb4mwc@nospam. wrote in message
alkaboutparenting.com...
Why? So the parent responsible for paying support can be legal
deadbeats?
(moms or dads) And yes you do have both parties paying support and
evading
support.

Are you of the opinion that there is no good reason to request a
lowering of child support?

There certainly are good reasons for lowering child support. Had the
couple raised the children as a famly, each parent would normally
contribute according to their ability. This is oftentimes done by
combining the incomes to pay the bills. When couples do not do this
together, is there any reason why it should be different? Hence, a
large child support amount when the custodial parent is making less
than the non-custodial parent would certainly need to be lowered if
the tables were turned. The goal of child support should be to
provide for the children while allowing each parent enough to live on
themselves...so they will be alive for the children's benefit, if you
will. Children of separated households are not entitled to more than
they would have had if the household remained intact.

Actually child of intact and separated households are NOT ientitled to any
of the parents money.

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"REB4MWC" reb4mwc@nospam. wrote in message
lkaboutparenting.com...

Why? So the parent responsible for paying support can be legal
deadbeats?
(moms or dads) And yes you do have both parties paying support and
evading
support.

You know, I'd like to meet one of these CP's that's evading the payment of
their CS....

I've yet to hear about a court ordering -both- parents to pay CS. Who
would
get the money??

It depends on the definition of "ordering." I had a judge tell me he
"routinely ordered both parents to pay child support everyday." The
problem, of course, is not in what they order - it's how they keep track of
what is ordered and who gets all the enforcement attention.

I came close to going to jail for contempt when I told the judge his
statement was inconsistent with how the CS system works and case law only
allowed him to order an NCP to pay CS unless the child hired an attorney,
"joined" the case, and got an order against both parents. He tried to tell
me I was citing an "old" case and that was why he had not heard about it.
(It was from 1986.) I offered to show him the copy of the case I had with
me, and he told me to sit down and shut up.

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"REB4MWC" reb4mwc@nospam. wrote in message
lkaboutparenting.com...

Why? So the parent responsible for paying support can be legal
deadbeats?
(moms or dads) And yes you do have both parties paying support and
evading
support.

You know, I'd like to meet one of these CP's that's evading the payment of
their CS....

I've yet to hear about a court ordering -both- parents to pay CS. Who
would
get the money??

It depends on the definition of "ordering." I had a judge tell me he
"routinely ordered both parents to pay child support everyday." The
problem, of course, is not in what they order - it's how they keep track of
what is ordered and who gets all the enforcement attention.

I came close to going to jail for contempt when I told the judge his
statement was inconsistent with how the CS system works and case law only
allowed him to order an NCP to pay CS unless the child hired an attorney,
"joined" the case, and got an order against both parents. He tried to tell
me I was citing an "old" case and that was why he had not heard about it.
(It was from 1986.) I offered to show him the copy of the case I had with
me, and he told me to sit down and shut up.

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"REB4MWC" reb4mwc@nospam. wrote in message
lkaboutparenting.com...

Why? So the parent responsible for paying support can be legal
deadbeats?
(moms or dads) And yes you do have both parties paying support and
evading
support.

You know, I'd like to meet one of these CP's that's evading the payment of
their CS....

I've yet to hear about a court ordering -both- parents to pay CS. Who
would
get the money??

It depends on the definition of "ordering." I had a judge tell me he
"routinely ordered both parents to pay child support everyday." The
problem, of course, is not in what they order - it's how they keep track of
what is ordered and who gets all the enforcement attention.

I came close to going to jail for contempt when I told the judge his
statement was inconsistent with how the CS system works and case law only
allowed him to order an NCP to pay CS unless the child hired an attorney,
"joined" the case, and got an order against both parents. He tried to tell
me I was citing an "old" case and that was why he had not heard about it.
(It was from 1986.) I offered to show him the copy of the case I had with
me, and he told me to sit down and shut up.

I found a better "kit" on a men's website...a PROMINENT men's website where
I guy is selling a "surefire" way to get rid of your child support.

I like buying these "kits" this one, for $37, advocates the father filing a
notice to terminate his parental rights -- that's another way to ABANDON
your kids.


"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"R Isaacs J.D." wrote in message
om...
The new site lowersupport.com has a free petition to modify(lower) child
support.

And just where are people that little to live on supposed to come up with
the cash to pay $75 for one of your "kits", much less the $175 to cover
one
of your "deluxe litigation kit"??

Sounds like a sure-fire scam to get some cash from those that don't have
it
to spend in the first place. Give a beaten dead parent a ray of hope,
watch
the courts turn a deaf ear (again) and take their money and run. Good
plan.

Nothin' like adding to the divorced parents suicide rate...

I found a better "kit" on a men's website...a PROMINENT men's website where
I guy is selling a "surefire" way to get rid of your child support.

I like buying these "kits" this one, for $37, advocates the father filing a
notice to terminate his parental rights -- that's another way to ABANDON
your kids.


"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"R Isaacs J.D." wrote in message
om...
The new site lowersupport.com has a free petition to modify(lower) child
support.

And just where are people that little to live on supposed to come up with
the cash to pay $75 for one of your "kits", much less the $175 to cover
one
of your "deluxe litigation kit"??

Sounds like a sure-fire scam to get some cash from those that don't have
it
to spend in the first place. Give a beaten dead parent a ray of hope,
watch
the courts turn a deaf ear (again) and take their money and run. Good
plan.

Nothin' like adding to the divorced parents suicide rate...

I found a better "kit" on a men's website...a PROMINENT men's website where
I guy is selling a "surefire" way to get rid of your child support.

I like buying these "kits" this one, for $37, advocates the father filing a
notice to terminate his parental rights -- that's another way to ABANDON
your kids.


"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"R Isaacs J.D." wrote in message
om...
The new site lowersupport.com has a free petition to modify(lower) child
support.

And just where are people that little to live on supposed to come up with
the cash to pay $75 for one of your "kits", much less the $175 to cover
one
of your "deluxe litigation kit"??

Sounds like a sure-fire scam to get some cash from those that don't have
it
to spend in the first place. Give a beaten dead parent a ray of hope,
watch
the courts turn a deaf ear (again) and take their money and run. Good
plan.

Nothin' like adding to the divorced parents suicide rate...

In article , Beverly says...

(TeacherMama) wrote in message
.com...
"REB4MWC" reb4mwc@nospam. wrote in message
news:928bac8bfb498ac175a49cbcbb69defa@localhost .talkaboutparenting.com...
Why? So the parent responsible for paying support can be legal deadbeats?
(moms or dads) And yes you do have both parties paying support and evading
support.

Are you of the opinion that there is no good reason to request a
lowering of child support?

There certainly are good reasons for lowering child support. Had the
couple raised the children as a famly, each parent would normally
contribute according to their ability. This is oftentimes done by
combining the incomes to pay the bills. When couples do not do this
together, is there any reason why it should be different? Hence, a
large child support amount when the custodial parent is making less
than the non-custodial parent would certainly need to be lowered if
the tables were turned. The goal of child support should be to
provide for the children while allowing each parent enough to live on
themselves...so they will be alive for the children's benefit, if you
will. Children of separated households are not entitled to more than
they would have had if the household remained intact.

===
Indeed. And in intact households, parents are not required by the government to
provide their children with a standard of living comensurate with their earnings
(Can you imagine the public outcry if they were?). Rather, they are required to
provide sustenance with more than that at the parent's discretion. Only in
"broken" households does the government mandate a lifestyle--and the lifestle is
not mandated to the CP. It is mandated only to the NCP while the CP has the
discretion to provide basic necessities, or more from the child support paid by
the NCP. This arrangement is clearly not in the best interest of the children.
It is, in fact, in the best interest of the CP and the state.
===

(PLEASE NOTE: I never bottom-sign my posts.
Check Headers to Verify the Authenticity of This Post)

In article , Beverly says...

(TeacherMama) wrote in message
.com...
"REB4MWC" reb4mwc@nospam. wrote in message
news:928bac8bfb498ac175a49cbcbb69defa@localhost .talkaboutparenting.com...
Why? So the parent responsible for paying support can be legal deadbeats?
(moms or dads) And yes you do have both parties paying support and evading
support.

Are you of the opinion that there is no good reason to request a
lowering of child support?

There certainly are good reasons for lowering child support. Had the
couple raised the children as a famly, each parent would normally
contribute according to their ability. This is oftentimes done by
combining the incomes to pay the bills. When couples do not do this
together, is there any reason why it should be different? Hence, a
large child support amount when the custodial parent is making less
than the non-custodial parent would certainly need to be lowered if
the tables were turned. The goal of child support should be to
provide for the children while allowing each parent enough to live on
themselves...so they will be alive for the children's benefit, if you
will. Children of separated households are not entitled to more than
they would have had if the household remained intact.

===
Indeed. And in intact households, parents are not required by the government to
provide their children with a standard of living comensurate with their earnings
(Can you imagine the public outcry if they were?). Rather, they are required to
provide sustenance with more than that at the parent's discretion. Only in
"broken" households does the government mandate a lifestyle--and the lifestle is
not mandated to the CP. It is mandated only to the NCP while the CP has the
discretion to provide basic necessities, or more from the child support paid by
the NCP. This arrangement is clearly not in the best interest of the children.
It is, in fact, in the best interest of the CP and the state.
===

(PLEASE NOTE: I never bottom-sign my posts.
Check Headers to Verify the Authenticity of This Post)