Illinois post-secondary education

The oldest turned 22 recently and is in his fourth year of college. As
far as whether the system will permit any further support. Who knows?
If mommy has her way it will continue. Her words: "he has at least
one more semester after this one" And she will send us the additional
costs to reimburse "her" Luckily my husbands order does "not" state
he have to pay her directly but can (and will) apply for parent loans. =

The youngest is in her freshman year at college at this time. From
things we hear she is still drinking and doing drugs. So if that and
the behavior from last year are any indication she will drop out of
college as well. If she has not already done so.
Unfortunately nothing is stated in the order for my husband to have
access to attendance and grade records that he requested in court. So
we are in the process of petitioning the court on the subject. Also to
correct other mistakes we found on the last order.

I know the feeling of being told my kid are irrelevant! I was
basically told the same thing. The judges exact words were "they did
not exist when the divorce was filed, and as far as the court is
concerned still do not exist." Yet they tried to make me give my
income and work information to them. Being I don't exist I can't and
won't provide that to them.
I also wish the best for you in your situation. Lord willing all this
will be over for us in June. But then again we can never tell, not
with the system in Illinois.



teachermama wrote:


If the oldest is 22, why is he still getting support? Shouldn't he have
graduated by now? Surely the system cannot permit him to be in college
indefinitely. =A0 Is the youngest, who has a "Thank you, Mom GED," going
to attend college, too?
We're caught in the same kind of mess--except that my husband had a 1
night stand with a professional baby-maker (that's how she makes her
money--bringing babies into the world that the taxpayers support). He
didn't know that a child had been born, he found out he was a father
just before the child turned 13. We'd been married for 10 years by that
time, and had 2 children of our own. The judge flat out told my husband
that our children were irrelevant. The system that was created to make
sure that children are taken care of feels that certain children are
irrelevant! What a crock!!
I certainly wish you well--the nightmare should be over soon. We have 3
years, 5 months left. Hang in there.

"D. Cloninger" wrote in message
...
The oldest turned 22 recently and is in his fourth year of college. As
far as whether the system will permit any further support. Who knows?
If mommy has her way it will continue. Her words: "he has at least
one more semester after this one" And she will send us the additional
costs to reimburse "her" Luckily my husbands order does "not" state
he have to pay her directly but can (and will) apply for parent loans.
The youngest is in her freshman year at college at this time. From
things we hear she is still drinking and doing drugs. So if that and
the behavior from last year are any indication she will drop out of
college as well. If she has not already done so.
Unfortunately nothing is stated in the order for my husband to have
access to attendance and grade records that he requested in court. So
we are in the process of petitioning the court on the subject. Also to
correct other mistakes we found on the last order.

I know the feeling of being told my kid are irrelevant! I was
basically told the same thing. The judges exact words were "they did
not exist when the divorce was filed, and as far as the court is
concerned still do not exist." Yet they tried to make me give my
income and work information to them. Being I don't exist I can't and
won't provide that to them.
I also wish the best for you in your situation. Lord willing all this
will be over for us in June. But then again we can never tell, not
with the system in Illinois.

Don't you just love it? On one hand you don't exist and on the other they
want to know just enough about you to set up a method to make a grab at your
finances... that's your gummit at work.
Phil #3


teachermama wrote:


If the oldest is 22, why is he still getting support? Shouldn't he have
graduated by now? Surely the system cannot permit him to be in college
indefinitely. Is the youngest, who has a "Thank you, Mom GED," going
to attend college, too?
We're caught in the same kind of mess--except that my husband had a 1
night stand with a professional baby-maker (that's how she makes her
money--bringing babies into the world that the taxpayers support). He
didn't know that a child had been born, he found out he was a father
just before the child turned 13. We'd been married for 10 years by that
time, and had 2 children of our own. The judge flat out told my husband
that our children were irrelevant. The system that was created to make
sure that children are taken care of feels that certain children are
irrelevant! What a crock!!
I certainly wish you well--the nightmare should be over soon. We have 3
years, 5 months left. Hang in there.

Gini wrote:

In article , Indyguy1 says...

Gini wrote:

In article , Indyguy1 says...
.........................
I thought in every state a 2nd CS order is figured on the NCPs income
*after*
his prior support is deducted.

Mrs Indyguy

====
Not "every state"--PA does not discriminate against subsequent children,
even
when their home is intact. Makes sense, doesn't it?

See Gini, I don't see it as discrimination.
===
I know. It's just been so long since we've argued about it, I thought, what
the
heck....

LOL. I always enjoy *arguing* with you.



===
......................

It took two people to make a child and it should be those two same people
that
have to agree on any financial changes their child will suffer from. Hence
the
way many states deal with additional children when setting CS orders.
====
This is far too simplistic and, as the state is wont to do, fails to deal
with
the reality that divorce happens and parents go on with their lives.

No parent should *go on with their life* without putting their existing
children in the same light they did while still married. But ya see that
doesn't tend to happen, esp when the new spouses get on board.

The
state
has no more business telling parents how many children they can have any more
than it should be mandating that NCPs hand over a percentage of their income
to
their former spouse so that it might (or might not) trickle down to the kids.

I think it would be so very nice if the state didn't have to get involved at
all. Problem is that it is the actions of *some* NCPs that started that ball
rolling when they didn't provide sufficent support.

And no noone should be able to tell anyone how many kids they can have. But on
the other hand those same people need to suck it up if they have children they
can't afford.

====
.....................
Bottom line: Responsible people don't have children they can't afford.
====
An overgeneralization. We *could* afford to have our two little
subsequents--The
state said "If you can afford to have more kids, you must not be paying
enough
child support. Let's double it and call it even."
====

Hmmm...... How did they get around using the set %?

..............................

That's probably why other
states don't do it. FL does, of course, discriminate against subsequent
children. Older children are always favored by the courts with subsequent
children having no standing regardless of their economic peril.

So you really believe the courts should be supporting irresponsible
behavior,
as in having children that can't be afforded because unilateral financial
chioces for a child with two parents isn't allowed?
====
I disagree with your characterization so no comment is warranted.
====

I figured you would.

.......................
Oh, but it would be just fine and dandy if the pre existing children became
the
*Cinderella children* because only one of their parents chooses to have more
children than they can afford? You can't put back the pre existing children,
but you sure can stop the subsequent children from having to suffer the
perils.
====
Ah c'mon--You're a much deeper thinker than this! These statements are
absurd.

Just being honest.

On one hand you say that parents/state shouldn't discriminate against older
children, while on the other hand you claim the state *should* discriminate
against younger children and claim that the states that view *all* the
children
as *equally important* (which they are) are slighting the older children.

Well you see I don't see the subsequent children as being treated unfairly, in
most cases. Their parents brought them into the world knowing the other
children already existed and just how much money goes to support them. Like I
said before you can't put back the existing children, but you can prevent
additional children.

Have
you really thought that through?

Of course, for a long time. However this last convo with Nephew's wife got me
riled up about it. LOL

BTW, where do *you* stand in birth order?
(Had
to ask

Ah me? The middle child. Older sib got *everything* because well she was the
oldest. Younger sib got *everything+* because he was the baby and the only son.
Me? I worked my ass off and ended up more succesful and happier than both of
them put together.

Mrs Indyguy


====
====

In article , Indyguy1 says...

Gini wrote:
..........
====
An overgeneralization. We *could* afford to have our two little
subsequents--The
state said "If you can afford to have more kids, you must not be paying
enough
child support. Let's double it and call it even."
====

Hmmm...... How did they get around using the set %?
====
They didn't. It was set at the guideline amount (1200.) It was 600.00 before. FL
statute provides that subsequent children can be used as a reason to *not*
increase CS but not as a reason to decrease support. The ex had filed for an
increase--We did not file for a decrease. The judge ignored the statute and
doubled the award. We did not have the money to appeal. Shortly after that I was
disabled from the "accident." *Very* difficult years followed.
====


BTW, where do *you* stand in birth order?
(Had
to ask

Ah me? The middle child. Older sib got *everything* because well she was the
oldest.
===
Me too, but my older siblings were twin girls (talk about attention grabbers)
and the only son. He protected me from the girls when he was around. When he
wasn't I was a sitting duck.
===

Younger sib got *everything+* because he was the baby and the only son.
===
My only younger sibling was born when I was 13--pushed me right out of the "baby
of the family" role. No matter--the twins got everything anyway. But, I'm over
it now ;-)
Guess I trumped your traumatic childhood, eh?
===
===

"Indyguy1" wrote in message
...
Gini wrote:

In article , Indyguy1
says...

Gini wrote:

In article , Indyguy1
says...
.........................
I thought in every state a 2nd CS order is figured on the NCPs income
*after*
his prior support is deducted.

Mrs Indyguy

====
Not "every state"--PA does not discriminate against subsequent children,
even
when their home is intact. Makes sense, doesn't it?

See Gini, I don't see it as discrimination.
===
I know. It's just been so long since we've argued about it, I thought,
what
the
heck....

LOL. I always enjoy *arguing* with you.



===
......................

It took two people to make a child and it should be those two same people
that
have to agree on any financial changes their child will suffer from.
Hence
the
way many states deal with additional children when setting CS orders.
====
This is far too simplistic and, as the state is wont to do, fails to deal
with
the reality that divorce happens and parents go on with their lives.

No parent should *go on with their life* without putting their existing
children in the same light they did while still married. But ya see that
doesn't tend to happen, esp when the new spouses get on board.


It *could* be a plausable statement IF it was a requirement for BOTH
parents. Since it isn't, it's just more hot air directed at the only parent
who has no control over the children's SOL, regardless the amount of money
given to the CP.

The
state
has no more business telling parents how many children they can have any
more
than it should be mandating that NCPs hand over a percentage of their
income
to
their former spouse so that it might (or might not) trickle down to the
kids.

I think it would be so very nice if the state didn't have to get involved
at
all. Problem is that it is the actions of *some* NCPs that started that
ball
rolling when they didn't provide sufficent support.

I disagree. If there was any mechanism to insure the children RECEIVED the
SOL that should be attainable by the C$, it might sound real. The fact that
the cash flow is the only consideration points out that it is not about
children at all.
It was not because of "some" NCPs that the state got so heavily involved in
C$; it was greed on the part of CPs and the state, pure and simple.


And no noone should be able to tell anyone how many kids they can have.
But on
the other hand those same people need to suck it up if they have children
they
can't afford.


If applicable to both parents, sure. As it is, it only applies to the NCP in
the case of C$ awards, which is considerably one-sided.
It should apply to the poor as well as the CPs and NCps but it doesn't and
won't because it's not about children. It's about money and occasionally
revenge and/or punishment.

====
.....................
Bottom line: Responsible people don't have children they can't afford.
====
An overgeneralization. We *could* afford to have our two little
subsequents--The
state said "If you can afford to have more kids, you must not be paying
enough
child support. Let's double it and call it even."
====

Hmmm...... How did they get around using the set %?

..............................

That's probably why other
states don't do it. FL does, of course, discriminate against subsequent
children. Older children are always favored by the courts with
subsequent
children having no standing regardless of their economic peril.

So you really believe the courts should be supporting irresponsible
behavior,
as in having children that can't be afforded because unilateral financial
chioces for a child with two parents isn't allowed?
====
I disagree with your characterization so no comment is warranted.
====

I figured you would.

.......................
Oh, but it would be just fine and dandy if the pre existing children
became
the
*Cinderella children* because only one of their parents chooses to have
more
children than they can afford? You can't put back the pre existing
children,
but you sure can stop the subsequent children from having to suffer the
perils.
====
Ah c'mon--You're a much deeper thinker than this! These statements are
absurd.

Just being honest.

"Only one parent has more children than they can afford" is only true
because only one specific parent is demanded to support their children, that
being divorced or never-married NCPs. Intact families and especially single
CP mothers have the gummit ready, willing and able to help fund their
choices.
What it sounds like you're trying to say is that no parent can ever have a
second child because no matter what, the second child will draw funding
that, according to you, is *earmarked* for the first. This would be true
even in intact familes unless the family had more money than necessary,
which I doubt is true for most.


On one hand you say that parents/state shouldn't discriminate against
older
children, while on the other hand you claim the state *should*
discriminate
against younger children and claim that the states that view *all* the
children
as *equally important* (which they are) are slighting the older children.

Well you see I don't see the subsequent children as being treated
unfairly, in
most cases. Their parents brought them into the world knowing the other
children already existed and just how much money goes to support them.
Like I
said before you can't put back the existing children, but you can prevent
additional children.


This just backs up your supposition that parents can only have one child.
My parents had 9 children. Do you suppose the first was neglected because of
the "drain" the other 8 had on the family economy?
I wonder how they could have afforded to support all these children if they
were forced to do so according to guidelines??? Answer: they couldn't have,
even in our intact family.
You seen the basic problem is that C$ guidelines are not based in reality
nor are they equally applied to both parents. Therein lies the problem.

Have
you really thought that through?

Of course, for a long time. However this last convo with Nephew's wife got
me
riled up about it. LOL

BTW, where do *you* stand in birth order?
(Had
to ask

Ah me? The middle child. Older sib got *everything* because well she was
the
oldest. Younger sib got *everything+* because he was the baby and the only
son.
Me? I worked my ass off and ended up more succesful and happier than both
of
them put together.

Mrs Indyguy

I'm the 'baby'. I'm just glad my siblings immediately older than I were
boys. (for those not old enough to understand hand-me-downs, 40 or more
years ago, it was common for younger children to wear the older children's
outgrown clothes. It's not practiced much anymore with the ever-changing
"styles" and name-brand clothing that must be replaced at least yearly in
order to remain "cool").
Phil#3



====
====