MA - Deadbeat hysteria

"LLL" wrote in message
oups.com...
Anyone who can find a mother in jail for failure to pay CS should
immediately get in touch with Ripley's Believe It or Not. I'll act as
her
agent, for my usual 10 percent commission. Any such woman could be put
on
exhibit as a freak every bit a weird as the bearded lady. The fees she
receives should be perfectly adequate to take care of her CS obligation.

Weel these people are not in jail yet, but the government can find
them, they will be.

See e.g., http://www.mostwanted.dshs.wa.gov/

LLL, it's quite rare to find an NCP mother, let alone one that's been placed
in jail for non-payment.

And damned-near impossible to find a CP mother that's been put in jail for
keeping the kids from their father.

I said gals in an attempt to make all you folks who are sensitive to
the deadbeat "dad" thing, think I was not just picking on males. In my
experience females are as likely as males to be totally out of
compliance with their support orders.

You should see the stats on the number of mothers that thumb their noses at
visitation violations. The Feds and states claim that there's no
relationship between payment of CS and visitation. But if you read the
info, there is in fact a direct connection between those that get to see
their kids and a higher amount of payment compliance. Those that withhold
children from their fathers see the exact opposite.

On a personal note.. I've brought my X into court to have visitation
enforced, only to have the judge shrug his shoulders as if to say. "What?
You want me to actually enforce the law or something??"

But if the cash stops flowing or slows up for any reason, the courts will
fall all over themselves to force the cash to keep coming.

"LLL" wrote in message
oups.com...
From what I've been reading over the past several years, is that the
courts
seem to think that if they toss you in jail you'll cough up the cash.
Well,
this is the same ill-logic as was used to create Debtor's Prisons some
200-odd years ago. Throw them in jail and their family and friends will
come up with the money to cover their debt.


I would tend to concur with you except it is amazing how these guys
(and gals) come up with the cash quickly to get out. Some can't, but
most do.

In my state they can post bail, which goes towards the CS debt. They
usually set it at $500 for first timers, the more times the obligor
comes through on contempt the higher the bail.

Notably, the prosecuting atorney give these folks lots of time to
rectify their situation. LOTS of Time and many opportunities. Even
paying a small amount can keep you out of jail

Usually they only go to jail if they fail to apear and then fail to get
the warrant quashed by turning themselves into the court, or long term
failure to correct the deficiancies or take steps to enable the them to
be able to make some Kind of payment. I have seen people drag out the
contempt for years and pay very little.

I understand not making enough to meet the entire obligation, but why
do some people spend YEARS making NO payment whatsoever?

You are kidding, right? Are you really that clueless?

1.) A CS payer has a CS award amount to pay based on an established gross
income. The gross income less taxes minus the CS obligation equals a life
sustaining amount which is the NCP's budgeted amount to live on. If the
NCP's income drops enough, the new income minus taxes drops below the
previous life sustaining income amount leaving no marginal income to pay CS.
The courts do not respond to these types of situations to help NCP's. The
NCP is left with no choice but to maintain the previous life style at the
expense of not paying any CS.

2.) The NCP has their income imputed. Under this scenario the NCP has a
reduced income minus taxes that equates to a bare minimum life style
sustaining level. There is no money left to pay any CS out of income that
does not exist.

3.) Women go on welfare and the system assumes they cannot pay CS to cover
their share of CS so they pay nothing. It doesn't matter whether they are
the CP or the NCP. They are not required to pay CS.

4.) Men discover they have had children years ago in their past. They have
subsequent families. Being blind sided to pay CS is a serious conflict with
how they support their new family.

Under all of these situations there is no marginal income available to pay
CS. It's the same assumption that the CP's life style expenses continue
whether CS is received or not except the financial impact is on the NCP.
The major difference is the financial impact is on the NCP when arbitrary CS
rules drive them into not paying.

dusty + bob~
the circumstances you describe may be likely, and are certainly unfortunate.

the simple fact is that there are children whose care and upbringing bears a financial burden. whether fair or not, we have a court system that imposes an order for the support of the children. the amount is normally calculated with a formula that weighs the income and earnings of both parents. if the NCP feels the order is too burdensome, simply withholding payment is unacceptable, leaving the NCP to one or both of the two practical options that would validate that position. (1) petition the court to modify the order to an amount that fairly contributes to the kids' care, but allows NCP to maintain reasonable living standards; and (2) NCP can make partial payments to demonstrate good faith. this is not a position borne of ignorance, spite, or cluelessness -- just basic math.

Something is more than nothing. If you can refute that, explain how the alternative works.

In my situation, NCP is a journeyman union steamfitter and has base earning potential of $60,000, plus tons of OT available and the best benefits around. The court ordered monthly CS of $1,275, plus $100 a month towards any arrears. A wage withholding order was also issued so CS is deducted from his wages and CSE remits payment to me. This means that his annual salary after CS would leave him just under $45,000 to maintain his "lifestyle". If that amount is too little to live on, he can supplement his income as many construction workers do with side work, or he can return to bartending or dealing -- all of which are cash income, no taxes, no CS withholding. Though few could argue this as a conspiratorial drain on his earnings, he could clearly live and work without starving.

In this case his decreased income is a result of only one factor: voluntary UNDER-employment.
He chooses not to work. My income alone has to cover my share plus the $1,275 he would have contributed towards after-school care, clothes, food, shelter, etc. I have had a good job for over five years, never take a vacation, do not party, gamble, or otherwise act irresponsibly.

While I have resigned myself to supporting the kids myself, he appears now and then and in the kids' world, he's the only dad they have. I figure I'll do what I can to make the best for them without making my struggle a reason to make them feel badly about him. All the same, he is their dad and loves them -- he's a loser, but it is what it is. So if NCP is not up to working, even though he's fully able to, he's a 42 year old man and he has to be doing something so he can eat, live, and get around.

To LLLs point, throw me $20 so I can get gas to take the kids to the doctor and their friends' birthday parties. Don't give me the money if that's the issue, but maybe take them to a movie or pay for a haircut, buy them new tennis shoes... just making a statement.

Every month I cover his obligation, and because I am bearing all the financial burden, I haven't been able to save at all. His arrears are now over $18,000, and as hard as I have to give the kids all I can and meet all my obligations, there is something more than the money that I feel is owed. My two kids and I still share a one bedroom apartment, and at this point after almost six years of paying rent every month (money after taxes), and still have no equity, assets, or savings.

It's beyond money ~ it gets worse. In a three month period there are over 500 work hours, and the union requires a minimum of 400 hours worked to maintain health insurance benefits. In May, June, and July he worked less than 200 hours. The union dropped his coverage August 1, and the kids were uninsured. The union calculated the employer contribution for the unworked time to be $800.

Part of the support order includes health insurance coverage, and his plan had no copays, minimal deductibles, and $5 for Rxs. Yes, I considered my company's benefits, but they suck in comparison: $45 doctor copays, Rxs cost up to $65, and the additional premium to add them to my plan would be almost $300 a month ~ no choice there. I also researched state coverage for uninsured children, and I earn just over the amount that would have qualified us.

Since I had no alternative since the kids had to be insured, I paid the $800 to get the plan reinstated so my kids would have coverage before school started. And he now has insurance too, luck would have it. You may see how this is the same as me covering his part of the cost to raise the kids.

Consequently, if an NCP fails to pay CS, the CP is compelled to pay NCP Support. What I still don't get is how NCPs can rationalize not supporting their kids. I have my kids and my pride, and I have done all that I think a parent would do to *support* a child. Children are not a liability, they are a resource. Financial support of one's children is not an assessment of debt, it is an investment in the interest of the most enriched and fulfilled life one can provide.


.................................................. ..............................
I am who I am... who I am
well... who am I? ... requesting some enlightenment ~
could I have been anyone other than me?
sing and dance, I'll play for you tonight... and thrill at it all
dark clouds may hang on me sometimes~ but I'll work it out....
~~djm~~


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net...

"LLL" wrote in message
oups.com...
From what I've been reading over the past several years, is that the
courts
seem to think that if they toss you in jail you'll cough up the cash.
Well,
this is the same ill-logic as was used to create Debtor's Prisons some
200-odd years ago. Throw them in jail and their family and friends will
come up with the money to cover their debt.


I would tend to concur with you except it is amazing how these guys
(and gals) come up with the cash quickly to get out. Some can't, but
most do.

In my state they can post bail, which goes towards the CS debt. They
usually set it at $500 for first timers, the more times the obligor
comes through on contempt the higher the bail.

Notably, the prosecuting atorney give these folks lots of time to
rectify their situation. LOTS of Time and many opportunities. Even
paying a small amount can keep you out of jail

Usually they only go to jail if they fail to apear and then fail to get
the warrant quashed by turning themselves into the court, or long term
failure to correct the deficiancies or take steps to enable the them to
be able to make some Kind of payment. I have seen people drag out the
contempt for years and pay very little.

I understand not making enough to meet the entire obligation, but why
do some people spend YEARS making NO payment whatsoever?

You are kidding, right? Are you really that clueless?

1.) A CS payer has a CS award amount to pay based on an established gross
income. The gross income less taxes minus the CS obligation equals a life
sustaining amount which is the NCP's budgeted amount to live on. If the
NCP's income drops enough, the new income minus taxes drops below the
previous life sustaining income amount leaving no marginal income to pay CS.
The courts do not respond to these types of situations to help NCP's. The
NCP is left with no choice but to maintain the previous life style at the
expense of not paying any CS.

2.) The NCP has their income imputed. Under this scenario the NCP has a
reduced income minus taxes that equates to a bare minimum life style
sustaining level. There is no money left to pay any CS out of income that
does not exist.

3.) Women go on welfare and the system assumes they cannot pay CS to cover
their share of CS so they pay nothing. It doesn't matter whether they are
the CP or the NCP. They are not required to pay CS.

4.) Men discover they have had children years ago in their past. They have
subsequent families. Being blind sided to pay CS is a serious conflict with
how they support their new family.

Under all of these situations there is no marginal income available to pay
CS. It's the same assumption that the CP's life style expenses continue
whether CS is received or not except the financial impact is on the NCP.
The major difference is the financial impact is on the NCP when arbitrary CS
rules drive them into not paying.

"LLL" wrote in message
oups.com...
NO ONE answered my question: why not pay something, anything on your
child support obligations. WHY is this so hard to answer.

Perhaps this article will help..

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive...acks090205.htm
Persecuting Low Income Parents

September 2, 2005



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
by Jeffrey Leving and Glenn Sacks

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

In a highly-publicized move, Jefferson County, Kentucky Attorney Irv Maze
recently published the names and addresses of 1,000 alleged "deadbeat
parents" in the Louisville Courier-Journal. The move has drawn praise
nationally, and Maze says the list is helping his office locate debtors.
However, most of the parents on Maze's humiliating list are not those who
won't pay, but instead those who can't pay.


Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement data shows that two-thirds of
those who owe child support nationwide earned less than $10,000 in the
previous year. According to the largest federally funded study of divorced
dads ever conducted, unemployment, not willful neglect, is the largest cause
of failure to pay child support. A US Government Accounting Office survey
of custodial mothers who were not receiving the support they were owed found
that two-thirds of those fathers who do not pay their child support fail to
do so because they are indigent.

These research findings are reflected in Kentucky's Top 10 Most Wanted
Parents list. Of those "deadbeats" currently listed, only one appears to
have any education at all, and the most common designation for occupation is
"laborer." Far from being a list of well-heeled businessmen, lawyers, and
accountants, these men do low wage and often seasonal work, and owe large
sums of money which most could never hope to pay off.

Kentucky's list of low income "deadbeats" is typical of the child support
evaders lists put out by most states. For example, Virginia's new list is
topped by a laborer, a carnival hired hand, and a construction worker, who
collectively somehow "owe" over a quarter million dollars in child support!

The driving force behind child support arrearages is not bad parents, but
instead rigid child support systems which are mulishly impervious to the
economic realities noncustodial parents face, such as layoffs, wage cuts,
and work-related injuries. According to the Urban Institute, less than one
in 20 non-custodial parents who suffer substantial income drops are able to
get courts to reduce their child support payments. In such cases, the
amounts owed mount quickly, as do interest and penalties.

Compounding the problem is the fact that the federal Bradley Amendment bars
judges from retroactively forgiving child support arrearages, even when they
determine that the arrearage occurred through no fault of the obligor.
Bradley is so problematic that Congress will be conducting hearings on the
amendment this fall.

In one McCracken County, Kentucky case, Francis Borgia, a carpet cleaner in
Paducah, slit his throat in the courtroom after being sentenced to two years
in jail for being $7,000 behind on child support. According to newspaper
accounts, Borgia had become a "deadbeat" after he lost a good paying job
working in a casino and could not get a downward modification on his
support.

Also victimized by Maze's list are those who are named in error. For
example, according to television station WAVE 3 in Louisville, Maze
mistakenly listed James R. Frazier as a deadbeat who owes $57,000, and gave
out his current home address. Frazier and his wife Bertha have been
erroneously targeted by enforcement officials before, and have spent years
fighting to straighten out the error. The agency had previously acknowledged
its mistake-and then went ahead and published the erroneous information
anyway.

Child support collection agencies are notorious for their errors and
bureaucratic bungling, as even supporters of the lists such as the
Association for Children for Enforcement of Support admit. A study conducted
by ACES revealed that state child support enforcement agencies nationwide
had failed to distribute over $500 million which had been paid by
noncustodial parents.

Beyond mistaken identity, as in the Frazier case, common agency errors
include: mathematical errors; failure to record or transfer records of
payments; billing men for children they did not father; failing to stop
child support when a child reaches the age of emancipation; accepting
custodial parents' false reports of nonpayment; and failure to update child
support orders with later court rulings affecting modifications. Audits and
evaluations have shown that errors comprise a third of all arrearages in
some states and counties.

It is true that jailing those behind on child support does sometimes result
in some of the arrearages being paid. However, this is usually not because
the low income dad they've arrested has decided to sell his Porsche and his
vacation home, but instead because his family and friends have put up the
money to keep him out of jail.

Even when dealing with the small percentage of fathers who have the money to
pay but choose not to, Maze's approach is at times misguided. According to
the Children's Rights Council, a Washington-based advocacy group, more than
five million American children each year have their access to their
noncustodial parents interfered with or blocked by custodial parents. Family
courts are often tragically indifferent to enforcing noncustodial parents'
visitation rights. One can understand why noncustodial parents who have been
driven out of their children's lives feel little motivation to subsidize the
custodial parent's filching of their children.

In contrast to Maze's abusive, overkill approach, state child support
systems need to be made more flexible and responsive, so that low income
parents aren't made into criminals because they've failed to pay child
support obligations which are beyond their reach. As Borgia, who survived
his courtroom suicide attempt, noted:

"My only 'crime' was my failure to make as much money as the state
demanded.I couldn't quite understand why I was treated so harshly. I'm not a
deadbeat dad. I'm a broke dad."

This article first appeared in the Cincinnati Post & the Kentucky Post
(8/26/05).

Lola, first I would like to make a request - use a larger font size! I couldn't read half of what you wrote.
Second, read this and tell me the courts didn't screw me over... And this is not an isolated case - it happens everyday.

------------------------------------------------
Summary of Divorce
Docket No. [removed for privacy]
Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Last updated on 8/11/2005

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contents

Personal note to the reader 3

Summary of Divorce 4 - 10

Appendix 1 - Judgment of Divorce Nisi 11

Appendix 2 - Medical Insurance Information 12

Appendix 3 - Stock, 401K and Pension Summary 13

Appendix 4 - Stock 15

Appendix 5 - 401k 15

Appendix 6 - Arrears 1 (MA DOR/CSE calculations) 16 - 17

Appendix 7 - Arrears 2 (original decree) 18

Appendix 8 - Arrears 3 (imputed income and other monies) 19

Appendix 9 - "X"'s bank deposits, Mar '98 - Nov 2000 20

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personal note to the reader:

This summary is written in my own words and opinions. It may contain errors
and omissions, as some of the information is from memory, though the reader
should take note that this summary is, by the best of my ability, based upon
information from available court and financial records, bank statements,
e-mail, and other factual sources (the vast majority of which is contained
in one, very thick and ever growing, master file - hence this summary).

Some dates listed are approximate. As are monetary amounts pertaining to
the stock, 401k and pension (which is based on data supplied by "X" and her
attorney "D". - NOTE: "D" was our attorney of record during our 1994
bankruptcy proceedings and had detailed, prior knowledge of our financial
situations prior to divorce proceedings).

There are numerous times that visitation was delayed, cut short and at times
out right deigned by "X", in direct violation of court orders. Those dates
are not listed within this document, as there is insufficient data to
properly correlate when and how often visitation was interfered with (though
it continues to happen on a fairly regular basis). When there is sufficient
data to reflect an occurrence, it will be listed in as much detail as
possible.

There are also numerous legal documents that are, or appear to be, missing
from the docket kept at the courthouse. These include (but are not limited
to): petitions to the court to lower CS when work was scarce; petitions to
correct the visitation schedule; missing financial records for "X" that
where to be supplied to the court for the judge to review.

Also, it is interesting to note that Judge "L" always seemed to be the judge
we appeared before. It is also Judge "L" that refused to hear my testimony
on several occasions, refused to view my evidence and, at one point, told me
he would not act unless I brought him "new evidence". This strikes me as
blatant bias on the judges part, not to mention a complete disregard for
Constitutionally protected due process rights.

Please note that prior to and upon the date of divorce, "X" had
approximately $54,426.62 in her stock options, pension plan and 401k
(combined) that the court ordered her to divide in half with me (see Divorce
Nisi). However, thirty two (32) days after the date of divorce, it all
disappears (see April 1997 entry). Though, upon examination of "X"'s bank
statements shortly afterward, amounts matching (or very nearly matching) the
stock, pension and 401k suddenly make an appearance in her checking
account...

"X" dropped me from the court ordered medical insurance (see Divorce Nisi)
because, as she claims, "they told me I could". Yet, when this was brought
to the courts attention, it was dismissed (Judge "L").

One last item.. At no time throughout the divorce, or subsequent hearings,
has "D" ever presented even a shred of evidence for his allegations in open
court and when pressed for the judge to force him to do so, I was ignored.
The court habitually took his word - even when I had proof positive that "X"
and "D" were lying or they had presented fabricated arguments to the court.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Divorce


Jan 1, 1991 "X" and I are married.

1994 "X" and I filed for bankruptcy. At our first divorce hearing it is
decided that we shall equally divide the marital debt of $10,350.00

Both "X" and I where ordered by Judge "M" that each of us would cover an
amount of $5175.00 (an even split of the marital debt) in his "Judgment of
Divorce Nisi".

My half of the marital debt ($5175.00) would, in subsequent court
proceedings, be twisted into and later out-right claimed to be, a child
support arrears by "X"'s attorney, "D" (who was also our attorney in the
bankruptcy (a clear conflict of interest)).

Thereby placing me in an instant arrears of no less then $5175.00

Of course "D" wouldn't stop there, he would later combine his own
attorneys fees, car insurance (of which proof was repeatedly demanded, but
never produced) and the marital debt to place me at a sever financial
disadvantage.

Dates unknown Late one night, "X" makes the claim that our marriage is not
going well, she suggests seeing a marriage counselor. It is/was my belief,
that if we were to communicate and open up to each other more, that things
could have changed. It is at this time that I learn that "X" has felt for
some time that our relationship has been on a steady decline and that the
only reason we had a second child was so that, as "X" put it, "Son would not
be alone."

The counseling sessions go horribly. In my mind, it is nothing more then
paid man bashing, nothing less than an excuse to allow "X" to go off on me
and rant about everything I do or not do to her satisfaction - all the while
having someone present to approve of her abuses. She finds fault in
everything. Nothing is good enough for her she wants me to change every
aspect of my being to her satisfaction.

After several weeks of this insanity, "X" determines that she needn't
attend any longer; sessions last about a month or so before she makes this
epiphany known. But she is adamant that I should continue to attend,
because it seems, that I have "issues" that she wants changed.

At first I am shocked and amazed by her behavior, until, during some of
the counseling sessions, I remember some conversations that took place with
"X" (as well as her sisters and mother) in the early stages of your
relationship that didn't make much sense at the time. These conversations,
always short and contrite, (any mention of her father was taboo in her
mother's house) were of "X"'s feelings toward her father.

It is my firm belief that "X"'s hatred and anger for her father was then,
and continues to be, thrust upon myself as some sort of revenge for wrongs
she perceives happened to her and her mother when she was a child.

Mar 1, 1996 I am served with divorce papers - at work, in front of customers
and fellow employees.

Mar 12, 1996 "X" moves to her mother's house, taking the children and all
the household goods with her.

Apr 1, 1996 Without an attorney at this time, I request that "X"'s attorney
"D" file a continuance for me and schedule for sometime in May of that
year - he files for Apr 18th.

Apr 16, 1996 "E" signs on as my attorney. Other then overseeing that I get
a "fair share" he does little else to follow through.

Nov. 28, 1996 "X" (with help from her family) delays my picking up Son and
Daughter for Thanksgiving Day. We are unable to make the trip to my
mother's house for dinner because of this, so we stay at my apartment
instead.

Dec 20, 1996 First mention of the value of assets. Values are as follows:

401K: $20,455.24
Stock: NOT LISTED
Pension: UNKNOWN (but not less then $13,500.00 as shown in bankruptcy
papers of 1994 - also handled by Attorney "D").

Mar 14, 1997 Divorce is finalized. Judge issues his judgment. (see page
14)

Apr 16, 1997 Stock, 401K and Pension money disappear. (see: Sep 30, 1997 -
letter from Att. "D")

June 13, 1997 Judgment of Divorce Nisi is "absolute".

Jul 22, 1997 I discover that I am dropped from the court ordered insurance
coverage. I pay out of my own pocket for medicine and Doctor's visits that
has never been recovered.

Sep 30, 1997 Letter from Attorney "D" - he states that as of Apr 16, 1997
"X" has "CONTRIBUTED" only $1034.77 toward the purchase of stock. Both "X"
and "D" state to the court that no stock was ever purchased.

Judge "L" decides that the $1034.77 is the whole amount for the stock and
grants me half the amount ($517.39) as a "credit" toward alleged arrears
that "D" has convinced the Judge that I owe. "D" secedes at this ploy by
combining the marital debt, insurance for "X"'s truck and "D"' attorney
fees - though no Child Support arrears exists.

As of this date, I have overpaid "X" by $329.00

NOTE: The approximate value of the stock, 32 days prior to Apr 16, 1997,
was no less then $17,052.75

Where did the (approximately) $54,426.62 (stock, pension, 401k) go?? "D"
won't answer, the Judge "L" won't listen and I am shafted.

Nov. 27, 1997 "X" (again with help from her family) delays my picking up Son
and Daughter for Thanksgiving Day once again.

Dec. 25, 1997 "X" delays visitation. I am unable to spend more than a few
hours with Son and Daughter before having to bring them back to "X".

Consequently, my children are deigned spending any time with my family
(their Grandparents, Uncles, Aunts, cousins) over the holiday.

It strikes me that "X" only wants Son and Daughter to know her family and
that "X" is doing everything she can to all but assure that Son and Daughter
have as little contact as possible, with mine.

Jan 14, 1998 "D" files a Complaint of Civil Contempt.

Jan 22, 1998 I am served to appear in court on the charge of Contempt of
Court. "D" bases this on the grounds that I have not paid $5175.00 for the
marital debt; $1280.00 for car insurance; assorted attorney's fees; and
according to "D"' complaint, I am in arrears of child support by $300.00

"D" states that the contempt occurred on or about Oct 30, 1997 and "other
diverse dates".

Since the $5175.00 is coming from "X"'s stock, I cannot be in contempt for
failure to pay.

I have repeatedly demanded proof that the $1280.00 is for the car I had
during the time prior to the divorce. Neither "X" nor "D" have ever
produced any information to substantiate this claim of unpaid insurance for
any vehicle I was driving before the divorce.

I have overpaid "X" $751.22 as of the end of 1997 for child support. So,
it is impossible that I am in contempt for CS arrears.

Yet, "D" convinces the court that I am.

Feb 10, 1998 Contempt hearing: "D" now makes the claim that I am in arrears
$341.78 for CS.

The truth is: I am ahead on CS by $151.22 because of several over
payments to "X" over the past year.

I am ordered, by Judge "L", to pay additional attorney's fees of $360.00 -
bringing the total combined arrears set by Judge "L" to: $7156.78

Marital Debt: $5175.00
Arrears: $341.78
D's Fees: $360.00
Auto Ins.: $1280.00
-------------
Total: $7156.75

Mar 10, 1998 I find myself before the court on yet another contempt hearing.

"D" now claims I owe $941.78 in CS, the car insurance, marital debt, his
previous attorneys fees and requests an increase of $25.00 per week "to
arrears and monies owed". Judge "L" agrees.

The truth is: Actual arrears: $98.87 -not- the $941.78 "D" claims.

May 12, 1998 Out of work, filed a request for CS reduction - Request is
DENIED.
Filed for Relief of Judgment - DENIED by Judge "M".

Jun 11, 1998 Work slow down. Again I request the court reduce the CS
payments; "D" claims CS arrears of $816.78 - another fabrication on his
part.

The truth is: I am ahead on CS by $138.72

"D" requests an increase in the amount of payment; Judge "L" agrees and
orders an increase of $37.50 per week.

Marital Debt: $5175.00
Arrears: $816.78
D's Fees: $360.00
Auto Ins.: $1280.00
-------------
Total: $7631.78

Aug 17, 1998 I file a Change of Circumstance and request a reduction of CS.
Court takes no action.

Aug 25, 1998 Filed Modification of CS. Court takes no action.

Sep 2, 1998 Attorney "D" lies about the distance from "X"'s house to mine;
"D" makes it seem as though I have moved cross-country (actual distance is
52 miles, door-step to door-step; a drive of less then 60 minutes - Mr. "D"
contends that the drive takes 90 or more minutes). As a result, I must now
provide -all- transportation in order to see my children; visitation is
changed to every other weekend and one night during the week (until this
time I had enjoyed custody of my children approximately 48% of the time, now
it's less then 20%).

Labor Day Weekend I call "X" and leave a message requesting her to pick up
the children that night after supper as I am having some trouble with
keeping the car running for long; I extended an invitation to join us for a
home-made meatloaf dinner; "X" arrives 4 hours early and attempts to remove
Son and Daughter by force - I call the police (Milford PD). An officer
answers the call and enforces the visitation order. But seeing the effect
that "X"'s ranting and raving is having on the children, Officer suggests
that I let her take the children with her and avoid upsetting them further.
I reluctantly agree to his suggestion, but only for the sake of my children.

Sep 10, 1998 I attempt to sue for the money owed me by "X" (401K, stock and
pension; I had been authorized to receive half of the values by Judge "M" in
the original Divorce Nisi) and to have the visitation schedule clarified as
there are so many grossly inaccurate errors contained within the judgment
that allow "X" to flaunt her ability to interfere with visitation on a
regular basis.

I submit a more clearly defined visitation schedule that the court (Judge
"L") ignores - yet allows the version that attorney "D" submits.

Sep 15, 1998 Work slow down. I file a request for reduction of CS - DENIED.

"D" claims (by combining all monies owed - real and imagined, amounts to)
I am now in arrears of $9029.78 - which is false.

Judge "L" "credits" me $517.39 for the stock (based on "D"'s letter of Sep
30, 1997). The "new" combined (non-CS) arrears balance according to Judge
"L" and attorney "D": $8512.39

It is ordered that I pay an additional $50.00 per week in CS and DOR is
ordered to garnish my wages.

A 60-day jail sentence of non-compliance is ordered (suspended).

Visitation changed to favor "X", again.


Sep 21, 1998 Upon seeing "D"' visitation schedule, I submit what I believe
to be a more reasonable visitation schedule to the court.

"D" blatantly plagiarizes the visitation schedule I have submitted to the
court. "D" has taken what would have been a fair and reasonable schedule
and turned it into a lop-sided mess.

Sep ??, 1998 I sue for Enforcement of Judgment (for stock, 401K and
pension). Court takes no action.

Oct. 1998 I make payments to MA DOR.

Nov. 1998 I make payments to MA DOR.

Late Fall 1998 "X" complains to me that DOR has not sent her my CS money and
that she wants me to resume paying her directly. I do, but request that "X"
file papers with the court to remove DOR from the case.

She does not.

Feb 3, 1999 Work slow down. Once again I request a reduction of CS -
DENIED.

"D" now claims I am in arrears of $9192.00 (by combining all monies owed -
real and imagined); Judge "L" increases payments by an additional $85.00 per
week.

The truth is: Actual arrears: $711.39

Judge "L" increases the amount I owe each month to $1010.50 and I am to
pay, via payroll deduction to DOR the weekly amount of $235.00. ($235.00 x
4.3 = $1010.50).

Nov. 2000 According to my calculations, I have paid off the marital debt
without ever having received my share of the stock money from which the
marital debt rightfully should have been paid out.

"D's" attorney fees and the car insurance remain unpaid.

Mar. 1, 2001 I am laid off from my job. I do not head for court and seek a
reduction in CS. My reasoning is thus: each and every time I have made this
request of the court my CS has been increased! So why would I want it to go
even higher when I already cannot pay what the court has ordered?

The IT job market plummets. I am out of work.

Aug. 2003 After spending much of the last two (2) years working any job I
could find, I luck out and get a good (although temporary) job working in
MA. A few weeks later I start looking for apartments and saving up to move.

Oct. 2003 At work we are told that if we want to continue to work and keep
our jobs that we'd better get our passports in order, because the only thing
that's available are overseas assignments. I race into Boston to the
Federal Building and drop off my application for a passport.

Just days before I am to leave for my overseas assignment, I am told by
the State Department that MA DOR/CSE will not allow me to leave the country
and therefore keep my job. DOR claims that I owe $57,000.00 in Child
Support!!!

Of course, that includes all of DOR's penalties, fees and interest. All
of which is based on "D"' fraudulent arrearage claims in the first place!

I learn from my new attorney, "H", that "other monies owed" (marital debt,
attorney's fees, car insurance, etc..) cannot be claimed as CS, nor can it
be added to CS to create an arrearage - something "D" has repeatedly
managed to do in court - seemingly with Judge "L"'s approval.

May 13, 2004 While attempting to renew my drivers license, I discover that
my NH license has been suspended by MA and I am not allowed to drive or
renew my drivers license until I somehow come up with DOR's extortion
payments.

May 23, 2004 Estimate: By years end I will have a CS arrears approximately
that of $23,769.18

This is based on $600.00 monthly CS and does not take into account
possible reductions that may (-should-) have come from lack of work /
inability to pay at various dates (as shown above).

I learn that MA CS guidelines now allow the CP to deduct $20,000.00 from
CS calculations for things such as housing, food and other such costs to
provide for the children - yet the guidelines do not allow the NCP to do the
same.

Nor do the guidelines factor in taxes on wages. All CS calculations are
based on pre-tax income. CPs do not therefore pay any tax on this money,
just the NCP. Making CS a tax-free incentive for the CP.

The guidelines also do not allow NCP to take advantage (or share in) state
and Federal tax benefits that the CP enjoys each year. This can often be
several thousands of dollars.

Jun 2004 Conversation with my son, Son, via MSN Instant Messenger.. "X" has
him write to me that I am "..such an asshole.." (I kept a copy of the
conversation). I take this is an indicator of the type and style of
language and attitude "X" commonly uses around the children - in particular
when in reference to myself.

As I have been told, the courts do not want a child's parents to denigrate
one another. From what I've read, "X"'s behavior is a classic example of
PAS (Parent Alienation Syndrome).

I will ask that this be brought to the courts attention - this is not an
isolated case.

Jun 20, 2004 I call Son and apologize for not being able to be at his
birthday party. Since I have no drivers license, if I where to be stopped
by the police I would instantly be tossed into jail for "Failure to Pay".

But I don't tell him this. I explain that I am having "car trouble" so as
not to upset him or make him angry with his mother and get him into trouble
with her. When Son was about 8 years old, "X", with the help of a state
sponsored psychologist, threatened Son with being placed on Ritalin.

After I had a long talk with him, and explaining what Ritalin would/could
do to him, he stopped acting out against his mother.

Dec 23, 2004 "X" writes me in an e-mail that she does not want me to see the
children on Christmas Day. As she puts it, "You are not welcome in my
house."

Joy to the world.

Son tells me that one of the real reasons "X" does not want me to come a
pick up the kids is she is afraid that when I see the condition of the house
(an appallingly sloppy mess); how she's attempted to spoil the children by
spending vast amounts of money on anything they desire; the amount of
disposable cash she's wasted on trivial things; etc.. That I will want to
take her back to court and attempt to get the money that she has owed me
these many years.

Mar ??, 2005 During an MSN Instant Message session with Son's girlfriend, I
learn that "X" is not only denigrating me in front of the children, she is
also spreading those same lies to anyone that will listen - including our
children's friends.

July 15, 2005 Due to lack of revenue at my place of employment, all
contract-to-hire positions are canceled and all contract workers are let go.
I am without work and a driver' license. Without my driver's license it is
nearly impossible to find adequate employment and without my license I
cannot go to the unemployment office and make a claim for unemployment.
Besides, DOR/CSE would take it all anyway.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix 1 - Judgment of Divorce Nisi


Judge "M" ordered the following:

1. Joint legal custody between the Mother and Father.

2. Husband is ordered to pay $150.00 per week in CS.

3. Wife to provide medical insurance for the children and Husband; Husband
shall have the option of paying any additional cost necessary to maintain
his coverage; parties shall share equally the uninsured medical and dental
expenses of the children.

4. Husband shall have the children a portion of every week alternating first
Thursday 5:30 PM, to Sunday 7:00 PM extended to Monday 7:00 PM if Monday is
not a major holiday, then Wednesday 6:30 PM to Friday 10:00 AM; the parties
shall share the major holidays of Christmas, Easter, and Thanksgiving

5. Wife's 401k, Pension Plan and Stock shall be divided equally; Husband's
interest shall be as of April 10, 1995

6. Parties shall each pay 50% of the marital debt of approximately
$10,350.00; the husbands share of this debt shall be paid from his share of
the Stock

7. Husband shall reimburse Wife the amount of $1280.00 for car insurance on
his vehicle taken out the Wife's wages

8. Personal property including furniture and furnishings shall be owned by
the party now in possession

9. Wife shall take both children as exemptions for income tax purposes


Values for assets as follows:

401K: $23,873.87

Stock: $17,052.75

Pension: Listed as UNKNOWN (but not less then $13,500.00 as shown in our
bankruptcy papers of 1994 - which was handled by Attorney "D")

Marital Debt: $10,350.00 or $5175 each.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix 2 - Medical Insurance Information


14 Mar 97 "X" is ordered to maintain insurance by the court.

22 Jun 97 "X" claims she is told by the insurance agency that she can
remove me from the health insurance - against the orders of the court. As a
result my insurance coverage canceled.

22 Jul 97 - 13 Oct 98 Payments for my medications where $18.99

13 Oct 98 to ?? 1999 Payments for my medications where $21.99


28 Rx filled @$18.99* $531.72
7 Rx filled @$21.99* $153.93
1 Rx filled @$25.79* $25.79

1 un-recovered Dr's office visit: $143.00
VAM co-pay @$7.00 $170.45

Current Total:** $1,025.39



* CVS Pharmacy has this information in their computer system.

** The above total does not include all amounts paid out to CVS or Brooks
Pharmacy. That information is forth coming and will be applied as it is
made available.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix 3 - Stock, 401K and Pension Summary


The following based solely on court records and financial statements.

1994 Pension: $13,500.00*

*Note - From Bankruptcy papers. This amount appears as "UNKNOWN" in court
records and the actual amount of the pension has never been revealed.

Feb. 1996 401K: $20,455.24
Stock: $2483.25

Dec. 1996 401K: $23,873.87
Stock: $6339.75

Mar 14, 1997* 401K: $23,873.87
Stock: $17,052.75
Pension: UNKNOWN

*Note - This is the date of the divorce and "X" is ordered to equally divide
the above. To date she never has.

Apr 16, 1997 Stock, 401K and pension money disappear.*

*Note - Attorney "D" claims that from Mar. 14th, 1997 to Apr. 16th, 1997
that there was only a "CONTRIBUTION" of $1034.77 made "..toward the purchase
of stock.."

Feb. 1998 401K: $32,000.00
Stock: $8105.25
Pension: *

*CD of $20,000.00 is on 2/10/98 financial record.

Jun. 1998 401K: $32,000.00
Stock: Not Listed*
Pension: Unknown

*Note - Stock is not listed in court records, though an entry of $29,000.00
appears in "X"'s savings account (6/11/98 financial record).

Sep. 1998 401K: $35,000.00
Stock: Not Listed*
Pension: Unknown

*Note - Not listed in court records, though an entry for "X"'s house is
listed as $120,000.00 with an equity of $24,000.00
STOCK


The following is based on court and DOR/CSE records; the amounts are an
extrapolation of that data.



By taking the amount listed in court records ("X"'s 1998 Court Financial
Record) for the stock and dividing the amount in half, you can easily see
what "X" was ordered to pay out as my share (as told by Attorney "D" to
Family and Probate Court, as being the last known amounts associated with
the stock on the date of divorce).

To arrive at the amount the stock may be worth today divide the amount due
myself by the number of months the stock could be traced.

Next multiply the number of months that the stock has not been paid.

Lastly, subtract the amount of "credit" Judge "L" ordered and then add back
the original amount due.


$17,052.75 /2 = $8,526.38

$8,526.38 /13 months (Feb 96 - Mar 97) = $655.88

$655.88 x 101 months (Mar 97 - Aug 05) $66, 243.88

$66, 243.88 - $ 517.39 (credit from Sep 15, 1998) = $65, 726.49

$65, 726.49 + $8,526.38 (original amount due) = $74, 252.87

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix 4 - 401k

The following is based on court and DOR/CSE records; the amounts are an
extrapolation of that data.


Taking the amounts listed in court records for the 401k, subtract the Feb96
amount from the Dec96 amount and average the two amounts over an 11-month
period (Feb 96 - Dec 96).

Divide by 13 months (Feb 96 - Mar 97).

Next multiply the number of months that the stock has not been paid.

Lastly, divide by half the amount from #3 to achieve the resulting figure.



$23, 873.87 (Dec 96) /2 = $11, 936.94


$11, 936.94 /11 months (Feb 96 - Dec 96) = $1,085.18

$1,085.18 /13 months (Feb 96 - Mar 97) = $83.48

$83.48 x 101 months (Mar 97 - Aug 05) = $8, 431.48

$8, 431.48 + $11, 936.94 (original amount due) = $20, 368.42




Approximate combined value of the Stock, 401K, Pension Plan and Uninsured
Medical:


Stock: $74, 252.87
401K: $20, 368.42
Pension: $6, 750.00 (in 1994 dollars)
Medical: $1, 025.39

Total: $ 102, 396.68

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Appendix 5 - Arrears: Example 1

The following is based on information provided by the MA DOR/CSE web site:
http://www.cse.state.ma.us/ (using their short form) to determine the
correct weekly support order and gain a more accurate picture of the actual
CS arrears using MA DOR/CSE's own data.

The amounts are based upon a 40-hour workweek at an average hourly rate of
$10.00 or $400.00 (pre tax) weekly pay ($270.00 after taxes, using a tax
rate of 32.5%), times the average number of weeks in a month (52 ( 12 = 4.3
x $270.00 = $1, 161.00 per month take home pay).

The % of differential for the number of children is calculated into the
weekly rate by the MA DOR/CSE web site and is included in the weekly CS rate
(which is +24% for two children at the above rate).

Times the number of months of unpaid CS.

Starting figure is determined via MA DOR/CSE web site (see next page)


$23.00 x 4.3 = $98.90 (monthly CS)

$98.90 x 47 months (Sep 01 - Aug 05) = $4648.30


ARREARS = $4648.30








The next page is copied from the MA DOR/CSE web site (SHORT form).

NOTE: The web page did not come out when this document was changed for
publication, so it is omitted.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix 6 - Arrears: Example 2

The following is based on the original Child Support award as ordered by
Judge "M" .


Based on my calculations per Judge "M"'s Divorce Nisi, the total arrears for
Child Support (without any of DOR's interest, fees and other such nonsense)
is approximately:


$28, 569.18 As of August 2005



The file "Money Trail.XLS" uses this formula.

NOTE: The above file mentioned is not included as it is a spreadsheet and
contains highly personal information.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix 7 - Arrears: Example 3

The following is based on the NON-Child Support arrears created by Judge "L"
and Attorney "D" by adding together attorneys fees, auto insurance, marital
debt and other monies to create said arrears.


Using the "L" & "D" approach to mathematics - start with a Non-Child Support
based arrears of attorneys fees, car insurance and marital debt and create
the new monthly amount of $1010.50 per month in extortion.

Times the number of months DOR/CSE says you are behind in unpaid CS.




$1010.50 (monthly CS) x 53 months (Mar 01 - Aug 05) = $53, 556.50 in
NON-CS based arrears

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix 8 - "X"'s Deposits and Deposit Transfers of dollar amounts of
$500.00 or more

This information does -not- include: tax refunds, regular paychecks, etc -
only deposits and deposit transfers (possibly from other accounts).


The information is based solely on data found in "X"'s bank statements.


Mar 1998 Deposit $1500.00
Jun 16, 1998 Deposit/Transfer $6000.00
Jul 20, 1998 Deposit $10,000.00
Aug 1998 Deposit $3000.00

Jan 8, 1999 Deposit $2599.00
Jan 15, 1999 Deposit/Transfer $1000.00
Mar 8, 1999 Deposit/Transfer $1000.00
Jun 16, 1999 Deposit $12,899.49 (Pension??)
Jul 14, 1999 Deposit/Transfer $8958.22
Sep 13, 1999 Deposit $926.21
Nov 1, 1999 Deposit $24,000.00 (401k??)

Jan 19, 2000 Deposit $500.00
Apr 10, 2000 Deposit $2618.03
May 8, 2000 Deposit/Transfer $1000.00
Jun 20, 2000 Deposit $1312.65
Aug 1, 2000 Deposit $1126.66
Aug 18, 2000 Deposit $2587.90
Oct 13, 2000 Deposit $1000.00
Nov 28, 2000 Deposit $17,053.68 (Stock??)


Total Deposit and Deposit Transfers for this period: $ 99,081.84


"lola" wrote in message ...
dusty + bob~
the circumstances you describe may be likely, and are certainly unfortunate.

the simple fact is that there are children whose care and upbringing bears a financial burden. whether fair or not, we have a court system that imposes an order for the support of the children. the amount is normally calculated with a formula that weighs the income and earnings of both parents. if the NCP feels the order is too burdensome, simply withholding payment is unacceptable, leaving the NCP to one or both of the two practical options that would validate that position. (1) petition the court to modify the order to an amount that fairly contributes to the kids' care, but allows NCP to maintain reasonable living standards; and (2) NCP can make partial payments to demonstrate good faith. this is not a position borne of ignorance, spite, or cluelessness -- just basic math.

Something is more than nothing. If you can refute that, explain how the alternative works.

In my situation, NCP is a journeyman union steamfitter and has base earning potential of $60,000, plus tons of OT available and the best benefits around. The court ordered monthly CS of $1,275, plus $100 a month towards any arrears. A wage withholding order was also issued so CS is deducted from his wages and CSE remits payment to me. This means that his annual salary after CS would leave him just under $45,000 to maintain his "lifestyle". If that amount is too little to live on, he can supplement his income as many construction workers do with side work, or he can return to bartending or dealing -- all of which are cash income, no taxes, no CS withholding. Though few could argue this as a conspiratorial drain on his earnings, he could clearly live and work without starving.

In this case his decreased income is a result of only one factor: voluntary UNDER-employment.
He chooses not to work. My income alone has to cover my share plus the $1,275 he would have contributed towards after-school care, clothes, food, shelter, etc. I have had a good job for over five years, never take a vacation, do not party, gamble, or otherwise act irresponsibly.

While I have resigned myself to supporting the kids myself, he appears now and then and in the kids' world, he's the only dad they have. I figure I'll do what I can to make the best for them without making my struggle a reason to make them feel badly about him. All the same, he is their dad and loves them -- he's a loser, but it is what it is. So if NCP is not up to working, even though he's fully able to, he's a 42 year old man and he has to be doing something so he can eat, live, and get around.

To LLLs point, throw me $20 so I can get gas to take the kids to the doctor and their friends' birthday parties. Don't give me the money if that's the issue, but maybe take them to a movie or pay for a haircut, buy them new tennis shoes... just making a statement.

Every month I cover his obligation, and because I am bearing all the financial burden, I haven't been able to save at all. His arrears are now over $18,000, and as hard as I have to give the kids all I can and meet all my obligations, there is something more than the money that I feel is owed. My two kids and I still share a one bedroom apartment, and at this point after almost six years of paying rent every month (money after taxes), and still have no equity, assets, or savings.

It's beyond money ~ it gets worse. In a three month period there are over 500 work hours, and the union requires a minimum of 400 hours worked to maintain health insurance benefits. In May, June, and July he worked less than 200 hours. The union dropped his coverage August 1, and the kids were uninsured. The union calculated the employer contribution for the unworked time to be $800.

Part of the support order includes health insurance coverage, and his plan had no copays, minimal deductibles, and $5 for Rxs. Yes, I considered my company's benefits, but they suck in comparison: $45 doctor copays, Rxs cost up to $65, and the additional premium to add them to my plan would be almost $300 a month ~ no choice there. I also researched state coverage for uninsured children, and I earn just over the amount that would have qualified us.

Since I had no alternative since the kids had to be insured, I paid the $800 to get the plan reinstated so my kids would have coverage before school started. And he now has insurance too, luck would have it. You may see how this is the same as me covering his part of the cost to raise the kids.

Consequently, if an NCP fails to pay CS, the CP is compelled to pay NCP Support. What I still don't get is how NCPs can rationalize not supporting their kids. I have my kids and my pride, and I have done all that I think a parent would do to *support* a child. Children are not a liability, they are a resource. Financial support of one's children is not an assessment of debt, it is an investment in the interest of the most enriched and fulfilled life one can provide.


.................................................. ..............................
I am who I am... who I am
well... who am I? ... requesting some enlightenment ~
could I have been anyone other than me?
sing and dance, I'll play for you tonight... and thrill at it all
dark clouds may hang on me sometimes~ but I'll work it out....
~~djm~~


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net...

"LLL" wrote in message
oups.com...
From what I've been reading over the past several years, is that the
courts
seem to think that if they toss you in jail you'll cough up the cash.
Well,
this is the same ill-logic as was used to create Debtor's Prisons some
200-odd years ago. Throw them in jail and their family and friends will
come up with the money to cover their debt.


I would tend to concur with you except it is amazing how these guys
(and gals) come up with the cash quickly to get out. Some can't, but
most do.

In my state they can post bail, which goes towards the CS debt. They
usually set it at $500 for first timers, the more times the obligor
comes through on contempt the higher the bail.

Notably, the prosecuting atorney give these folks lots of time to
rectify their situation. LOTS of Time and many opportunities. Even
paying a small amount can keep you out of jail

Usually they only go to jail if they fail to apear and then fail to get
the warrant quashed by turning themselves into the court, or long term
failure to correct the deficiancies or take steps to enable the them to
be able to make some Kind of payment. I have seen people drag out the
contempt for years and pay very little.

I understand not making enough to meet the entire obligation, but why
do some people spend YEARS making NO payment whatsoever?

You are kidding, right? Are you really that clueless?

1.) A CS payer has a CS award amount to pay based on an established gross
income. The gross income less taxes minus the CS obligation equals a life
sustaining amount which is the NCP's budgeted amount to live on. If the
NCP's income drops enough, the new income minus taxes drops below the
previous life sustaining income amount leaving no marginal income to pay CS.
The courts do not respond to these types of situations to help NCP's. The
NCP is left with no choice but to maintain the previous life style at the
expense of not paying any CS.

2.) The NCP has their income imputed. Under this scenario the NCP has a
reduced income minus taxes that equates to a bare minimum life style
sustaining level. There is no money left to pay any CS out of income that
does not exist.

3.) Women go on welfare and the system assumes they cannot pay CS to cover
their share of CS so they pay nothing. It doesn't matter whether they are
the CP or the NCP. They are not required to pay CS.

4.) Men discover they have had children years ago in their past. They have
subsequent families. Being blind sided to pay CS is a serious conflict with
how they support their new family.

Under all of these situations there is no marginal income available to pay
CS. It's the same assumption that the CP's life style expenses continue
whether CS is received or not except the financial impact is on the NCP.
The major difference is the financial impact is on the NCP when arbitrary CS
rules drive them into not paying.

lola wrote:

dusty + bob~
the circumstances you describe may be likely, and are certainly
unfortunate.

the simple fact is that there are children whose care and upbringing
bears a financial burden. whether fair or not, we have a court system
that imposes an order for the support of the children. the amount is
normally calculated with a formula that weighs the income and earnings
of both parents. if the NCP feels the order is too burdensome, simply
withholding payment is unacceptable, leaving the NCP to one or both of
the two practical options that would validate that position.
(1) petition the court to modify the order to an amount that fairly
contributes to the kids' care, but allows NCP to maintain reasonable
living standards; and (2) NCP can make partial payments to demonstrate
good faith. this is not a position borne of ignorance, spite, or
cluelessness -- just basic math.

Something is more than nothing. If you can refute that, explain how the
alternative works.

In my situation, NCP is a journeyman union steamfitter and has base
earning potential of $60,000, plus tons of OT available and the best
benefits around. The court ordered monthly CS of $1,275, plus $100 a
month towards any arrears. A wage withholding order was also issued so
CS is deducted from his wages and CSE remits payment to me. This means
that his annual salary after CS would leave him just under $45,000 to
maintain his "lifestyle".

He doesn't have to pay taxes? How'd he pull that off?

- Ron ^*^

When the state has taken everything away, what are you supposed to send to
them?


Are you saying that you are homeless with absolutely NO money in your
pocket? Absolutely none?

It could happen.

But I personaly know of one severely disabled man who draws General
Asistance, less than $500 per month, IS homeless and send the mother of
his child $25 each month.

I understand that the system is unfair but I'll never understand the
people who make NO payment for years and years

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:372Se.6433$Cc5.745@lakeread06...


lola wrote:

dusty + bob~
the circumstances you describe may be likely, and are certainly
unfortunate.

the simple fact is that there are children whose care and upbringing
bears a financial burden. whether fair or not, we have a court system
that imposes an order for the support of the children. the amount is
normally calculated with a formula that weighs the income and earnings
of both parents. if the NCP feels the order is too burdensome, simply
withholding payment is unacceptable, leaving the NCP to one or both of
the two practical options that would validate that position.
(1) petition the court to modify the order to an amount that fairly
contributes to the kids' care, but allows NCP to maintain reasonable
living standards; and (2) NCP can make partial payments to demonstrate
good faith. this is not a position borne of ignorance, spite, or
cluelessness -- just basic math.

Something is more than nothing. If you can refute that, explain how the
alternative works.

In my situation, NCP is a journeyman union steamfitter and has base
earning potential of $60,000, plus tons of OT available and the best
benefits around. The court ordered monthly CS of $1,275, plus $100 a
month towards any arrears. A wage withholding order was also issued so
CS is deducted from his wages and CSE remits payment to me. This means
that his annual salary after CS would leave him just under $45,000 to
maintain his "lifestyle".

He doesn't have to pay taxes? How'd he pull that off?

- Ron ^*^

Ron, did you notice she did exactly as many family courts do? She imputed
his income. "..has base earning potential of $60,000, plus tons of OT
available.." How do we know that this OT is always going to be there? We
don't.

And where is good ol' mom's income in this calculation??? Where is her
contribution to her half of the CS bill?? Does she get to write off her
entire income because she gave birth? And for how many children does this
$1375 go to?? If you ask me, unless you're taking the kids to Six Flaggs
every week, there is no way justify spending this kind of cash, each month,
on 1, 2, or even 3 kids.

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Werebat" wrote in message
news:372Se.6433$Cc5.745@lakeread06...


lola wrote:

dusty + bob~
the circumstances you describe may be likely, and are certainly
unfortunate.

the simple fact is that there are children whose care and upbringing
bears a financial burden. whether fair or not, we have a court system
that imposes an order for the support of the children. the amount is
normally calculated with a formula that weighs the income and earnings
of both parents. if the NCP feels the order is too burdensome, simply
withholding payment is unacceptable, leaving the NCP to one or both of
the two practical options that would validate that position.
(1) petition the court to modify the order to an amount that fairly
contributes to the kids' care, but allows NCP to maintain reasonable
living standards; and (2) NCP can make partial payments to demonstrate
good faith. this is not a position borne of ignorance, spite, or
cluelessness -- just basic math.

Something is more than nothing. If you can refute that, explain how
the
alternative works.

In my situation, NCP is a journeyman union steamfitter and has base
earning potential of $60,000, plus tons of OT available and the best
benefits around. The court ordered monthly CS of $1,275, plus $100 a
month towards any arrears. A wage withholding order was also issued
so
CS is deducted from his wages and CSE remits payment to me. This
means
that his annual salary after CS would leave him just under $45,000 to
maintain his "lifestyle".

He doesn't have to pay taxes? How'd he pull that off?

- Ron ^*^

Ron, did you notice she did exactly as many family courts do? She imputed
his income. "..has base earning potential of $60,000, plus tons of OT
available.." How do we know that this OT is always going to be there? We
don't.

And where is good ol' mom's income in this calculation??? Where is her
contribution to her half of the CS bill?? Does she get to write off her
entire income because she gave birth? And for how many children does this
$1375 go to?? If you ask me, unless you're taking the kids to Six Flaggs
every week, there is no way justify spending this kind of cash, each
month,
on 1, 2, or even 3 kids.

There's another "gotcha" in what she wrote. The $1,275 CS order is 25.5% of
her ex's gross income of $5,000 per month. She claims to have a good paying
job and makes up for the $1,275 she doesn't receive out of her own income
each month. Let's say her "good paying job" grosses her $4,000 per month.
That means her CS obligation is 25.5% of $4,000 or $1,020. The combined CS
order would be for $1,275 plus $1,020 for a total of $2,295 per month. If
she pays 25% for income and payroll taxes on her $4,000 gross income, she
nets $3,000 per month. That means after spending $2,295 per month on her
two children, she has $705 left to cover her own personal expenses. I say
she is full of it!

Okay I don't know hw much she maskes... but how is she full of it..
Is it a bad thing to want to keep a confortable Lifestyle... or should
all just assume that because you have Custody of your child you are no
longer allowed to enjoy the finer things life..

I work as an Structural Engineer for a large Firm in Vancouver.. Make
over 80,000 a year, and have Sole Custody of my child as I am a Single
Father. My income is not included in the equation of CS on the sole
bases that my Son benefits from my Income by way of lving under the
roof I provide.. eating the food I buy, enjoying the heat I payfor and
enjoying all the extras I can provide for him.

But even if it were to be included in calculating CS... How does that
equate into my Ex not having to pay as much.. or even pay at all..
which she currently does not pay at all... Because is if my Ex was
currently still with me he would also have the Benefit of her income in
the house... Which is how the idea of Child Support came about..

As much as you all seem to be under this impression that it was
brought about as a way of punishing Dumb Men who couldn't do proper
life planning... It was brought about to ensure that even after a
seperation the Child would continue to live in Life Style that they had
been used to.

And I encourage any of you men out there who Bitch about the idea of
having to Pay Child Support... Get Custody of the Child you are paying
the Support.. or fight for Joint Custody... And you don't need a
Lawyer... Just read the Laws yourself... If you petition in front of
Judge yourself it will speak Volumes in regards to your commitment on
the matter.

SpiderHam77