Child's College Support Goes to Mother
Bob Whiteside
threatened with 6 months in jail for contempt of court for failing to
pay child support for an adult child in college. A couple of the
regulars in acs asked me to post the results of my hearing. So here
goes . . . I presented seven issues to the judge.
1. The judgment creditor was set up as my ex-spouse in conflict with the
law and the order. This changed the modification order after the fact.
The Hearing Officer who heard the case created an order covering up the
fact my daughter was not present at the hearing. The hearing Officer
has been fired by the state.
2. The child support accounting unit had not implemented the order in
its entirety, paid support to the wrong party, and failed to fix their
mistakes.
3. My daughter had asked me not to put money into the system because it
was not being paid to her as intended, and she was not getting the money
to pay for her post secondary education expenses.
4. My daughter was intentionally not in compliance with the child
attending school provisions so the support accruals would be cut off and
financing her college e education would become a private matter.
5. The amount ordered came out of a flawed process without due process,
equal protection under the law, and there was false testimony from my ex
about her expenses and income, and all of my attempts to gain rehearing
and reconsideration had been stonewalled by the Hearing Officer who was
fired.
6. My adult child daughter was not properly served for any of the
proceedings even though the law says she should be a party for all
matters.
7. The state agencies should be sanctioned for their collective lack of
responsiveness to legitimate issues, and bias against my daughter and
me.
The judge said none of that mattered, and asked me if there was anything
I wanted to tell him that would cause him to not send me to jail today.
Of course, I had nothing more to add.
So it came down to paying by Friday or going to jail today. I chose to
pay.
When I agreed to pay, I asked the judge for a second time if he would
provide some judicial oversight to ensure the money I paid went to my
daughter for her educational expenses. He refused. So much for the
Oregon law that allows this support to 18-21 year old children to
"ensure the state's interest in an educated population."
It came down to pay or go to jail. And a total disregard for the
child's education. I found out something interesting though. The state
considers the current amount due to be payable to the child. Any
arrears accrues to the custodial parent. So my ex-spouse walked off
today with the money I had been withholding because she was ripping it
off from my daughter and the child support accounting unit was paying
incorrectly, and the court handed it to her.
The entire process reinforced my belief that the family law system is
corrupt, ignores the truth, is biased against father's issues, and is
unable to respond when cases like this one become a mess.
Hopefully, this scenario will spur some debate.
Bob
Tracy
Asshole judge.
So Bob... I wonder who your attorney was, etc. That type of crap really
upsets me. Yeah, let's go and punish the daughter because of child
support laws.
Got to run... and thanks for posting an update.
Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/ ICQ: 18737275
....................................
I believe that all humans are created equal and deserve
the same respect and dignity. Let's end hatred...
*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***
Ivyjade2
decisions, along with the judges' names.
Put some light on the matter.
Ivy
Cement Hands
Bob Whiteside wrote:
It SHOULD spur a riot! This is a sickening example of what you stated
above...I wish you and your daughter well for the future.
>
>
> Bob
Mel Gamble
oregunian, I'd like to see these gems barred from the public trough.
Mel Gamble
>Bob
>
>
>
>
>
Ivyjade2
>How about reposting with the names of all the guilty included??? As an
>oregunian, I'd like to see these gems barred from the public trough.
Yeah....repost with the names and let's all have a part in publicizing this.
We can post the names over and over and over........we can write letters to the
editor of the paper in the town in which this happened, etc.
Ivy
Bob Whiteside
probably have to go back in front of this judge at some time in the future. Talk
to any attorney and they'll tell you one of the worst aspects of their job is
having to kiss the asses of these arrogant jerks.
I'm sure this judge feels he did the right thing by ruling there was a "valid
order" and therefore nothing else mattered. He was not willing to accept the fact
that when a flawed order is created in the administrative law process and it comes
over to a circuit court judge for an approval signature, that the circuit court
judge's signature doesn't fix the flaws in the order. The judge that signed it
probably didn't even read it. And even if he had read it, he would not have known
about the issues because the Hearing Officer created an order to cover up his
mistakes.
It is very discouraging to have the laws applied literally and jurisdicationally
against you, while at the same time they are applied as guidelines and
directionally against the state agencies.
My ex told my daughter the proceedings against me were for getting money for her
college expenses. When my ex talked with my daughter after the hearing she said
she was going to put several thousand into her own retirement account, buy a few
things for my daughter, and put the rest in a previously undisclosed investment
account in a different state. You can imagine the reaction my daughter had to
these revelations by her mother. She thinks her mother lied to her about her true
intent, and stole the money from her that was supposed to finance her educational
pursuit.
Tracy's post was right on . . . my daughter is being penalized by the child support
system that is supposed to be helping her. What the family law system fails to
understand is the children, particularly those in the 18-21 year old range,
understand exactly who is telling the truth, who is getting screwed, and how they
are impacted personally.
Ivyjade2 wrote:
> >From: melg...@aol.com (Mel Gamble)
>
> >How about reposting with the names of all the guilty included??? As an
> >oregunian, I'd like to see these gems barred from the public trough.
>
Tracy
> Oh . . . how I'd love to do just what you suggest . . . but reality is I will
> probably have to go back in front of this judge at some time in the future. Talk
> to any attorney and they'll tell you one of the worst aspects of their job is
> having to kiss the asses of these arrogant jerks.
>
> I'm sure this judge feels he did the right thing by ruling there was a "valid
> order" and therefore nothing else mattered. He was not willing to accept the fact
> that when a flawed order is created in the administrative law process and it comes
> over to a circuit court judge for an approval signature, that the circuit court
> judge's signature doesn't fix the flaws in the order. The judge that signed it
> probably didn't even read it. And even if he had read it, he would not have known
> about the issues because the Hearing Officer created an order to cover up his
> mistakes.
>
> It is very discouraging to have the laws applied literally and jurisdicationally
> against you, while at the same time they are applied as guidelines and
> directionally against the state agencies.
>
> My ex told my daughter the proceedings against me were for getting money for her
> college expenses. When my ex talked with my daughter after the hearing she said
> she was going to put several thousand into her own retirement account, buy a few
> things for my daughter, and put the rest in a previously undisclosed investment
> account in a different state. You can imagine the reaction my daughter had to
> these revelations by her mother. She thinks her mother lied to her about her true
> intent, and stole the money from her that was supposed to finance her educational
> pursuit.
Has your daughter ever thought of taking her mother to court? Do the
papers state that your ex is suppose to provide a certain amount of cost
towards your daughter's education, or does it just state how much you are
to pay? I'm not looking for a specific dollar amount, but perhaps an
assumption that she is to provide x% and you the rest. If total support
for your daughter is $1,000/month and you are required by law to provide
80% of it, or $800/month... if your ex is pocketing part of that support,
plus not providing anything out of her own pocket... it sounds as if your
daughter has a case against her mother.
Look at it this way... you couldn't have a case since if the court reduced
it, or took it away from "poor" _mommy dearest_, then they would be
"reducing" your daughters living. This wouldn't be "right" in the court's
eyes. But if your daughter took mommy dearest to court and pointed out
that she is burdened because her mother is pocketing money that is suppose
to go to her from you, and she is not providing based on a court
document... your daughter just may have a case against her mother. Then
your ex wouldn't have that extra in her retirement, and your daughter
wouldn't be so burden. One other thing... maybe your daughter can give
you some of it back, if she wins. But this would be between you and she.
Bob, I know the above may sound really mean and spiteful... and it could
cause problems between your daughter and her mother. So she should
probably try and talk to mom first. If mom still refuses, then all I've
got to say is that there is a time and place for everything. Your
daughter shouldn't allow her mother to rule her life and take away from
her what you would have given without a court order. She is literally
robbing your daughter.
> Tracy's post was right on . . . my daughter is being penalized by the child support
> system that is supposed to be helping her. What the family law system fails to
> understand is the children, particularly those in the 18-21 year old range,
> understand exactly who is telling the truth, who is getting screwed, and how they
> are impacted personally.
I still like the idea of it being in the Oregonian. But then, if your
daughter does decide to take mom to court, it could be without you looking
like the bad guy. Your daughter wouldn't look like the bad guy either...
your ex would. I know myself, and plenty others, would view it that your
ex is robbing your daughter.
I wish you luck, and I'm really sorry to hear that it didn't work out.
Tracy
Nobody
> Has your daughter ever thought of taking her mother to court?
This is the correct action to take at this point.
The daughter files a complaint of civil theft
against the mother.
Drew
Joe Nobody
What you should have tried to do is to tell the judge that you should not be paying child support after your daughter is the age of majority. Your reasons for this would be to tell him, that the state doesn't demand that intact families pay for their childrens' education. And by allowing an order of child support while in college, they have created a special class of people, and under the 14th admendment, they cannot do such a thing.
It worked in Pennsylvania. I do not know the specific case, but I am sure that someone in here can point you in the right direction....
Joe
"Bob Whiteside" <rob...@teleport.com> wrote in message news:39A2BB5A...@teleport.com...
> Oh . . . how I'd love to do just what you suggest . . . but reality is I will
> probably have to go back in front of this judge at some time in the future. Talk
> to any attorney and they'll tell you one of the worst aspects of their job is
> having to kiss the asses of these arrogant jerks.
>
> I'm sure this judge feels he did the right thing by ruling there was a "valid
> order" and therefore nothing else mattered. He was not willing to accept the fact
> that when a flawed order is created in the administrative law process and it comes
> over to a circuit court judge for an approval signature, that the circuit court
> judge's signature doesn't fix the flaws in the order. The judge that signed it
> probably didn't even read it. And even if he had read it, he would not have known
> about the issues because the Hearing Officer created an order to cover up his
> mistakes.
>
> It is very discouraging to have the laws applied literally and jurisdicationally
> against you, while at the same time they are applied as guidelines and
> directionally against the state agencies.
>
> My ex told my daughter the proceedings against me were for getting money for her
> college expenses. When my ex talked with my daughter after the hearing she said
> she was going to put several thousand into her own retirement account, buy a few
> things for my daughter, and put the rest in a previously undisclosed investment
> account in a different state. You can imagine the reaction my daughter had to
> these revelations by her mother. She thinks her mother lied to her about her true
> intent, and stole the money from her that was supposed to finance her educational
> pursuit.
>
> Tracy's post was right on . . . my daughter is being penalized by the child support
> system that is supposed to be helping her. What the family law system fails to
> understand is the children, particularly those in the 18-21 year old range,
> understand exactly who is telling the truth, who is getting screwed, and how they
> are impacted personally.
>
>
>
> Ivyjade2 wrote:
>
> > >From: melg...@aol.com (Mel Gamble)
> >
> > >How about reposting with the names of all the guilty included??? As an
> > >oregunian, I'd like to see these gems barred from the public trough.
> >
Cement Hands
Tracy wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Bob Whiteside wrote:
>
> > Oh . . . how I'd love to do just what you suggest . . . but reality is I will
> > probably have to go back in front of this judge at some time in the future. Talk
> > to any attorney and they'll tell you one of the worst aspects of their job is
> > having to kiss the asses of these arrogant jerks.
> >
> > I'm sure this judge feels he did the right thing by ruling there was a "valid
> > order" and therefore nothing else mattered. He was not willing to accept the fact
> > that when a flawed order is created in the administrative law process and it comes
> > over to a circuit court judge for an approval signature, that the circuit court
> > judge's signature doesn't fix the flaws in the order. The judge that signed it
> > probably didn't even read it. And even if he had read it, he would not have known
> > about the issues because the Hearing Officer created an order to cover up his
> > mistakes.
> >
> > It is very discouraging to have the laws applied literally and jurisdicationally
> > against you, while at the same time they are applied as guidelines and
> > directionally against the state agencies.
> >
> > My ex told my daughter the proceedings against me were for getting money for her
> > college expenses. When my ex talked with my daughter after the hearing she said
> > she was going to put several thousand into her own retirement account, buy a few
> > things for my daughter, and put the rest in a previously undisclosed investment
> > account in a different state. You can imagine the reaction my daughter had to
> > these revelations by her mother. She thinks her mother lied to her about her true
> > intent, and stole the money from her that was supposed to finance her educational
> > pursuit.
>
> Has your daughter ever thought of taking her mother to court? Do the
> papers state that your ex is suppose to provide a certain amount of cost
> towards your daughter's education, or does it just state how much you are
> to pay? I'm not looking for a specific dollar amount, but perhaps an
> assumption that she is to provide x% and you the rest. If total support
> for your daughter is $1,000/month and you are required by law to provide
> 80% of it, or $800/month... if your ex is pocketing part of that support,
> plus not providing anything out of her own pocket... it sounds as if your
> daughter has a case against her mother.
I think that this is what is going to start happening more and more. Children are going
to start holding the CP accountable for where the CS went and take them to court. In
this case, it sounds like it will be the only legal way to make the mother use the money
for what it was intended...the daughter's education. I don't think it is mean or
spiteful, it is using the only recourse available. The court screwed this case up, the
court doesn't want to remedy it's mistake. The mother has shown that she has no problem
stealing money that was intended for the child to benefit herself. Why shouldn't the
daughter take the mother to court? The daughter has no obligation to make nice-nice with
the mother after the mother has proven to be so selfish. Nobody balked when the mother
took the father to court on the child's behalf...why should anyone balk when the daughter
takes the mother to court to get what the original court says was for her benefit? It
would be a brave move indeed and would bring attention to the mockery the court made of
this case.
>
>
> Look at it this way... you couldn't have a case since if the court reduced
> it, or took it away from "poor" _mommy dearest_, then they would be
> "reducing" your daughters living. This wouldn't be "right" in the court's
> eyes. But if your daughter took mommy dearest to court and pointed out
> that she is burdened because her mother is pocketing money that is suppose
> to go to her from you, and she is not providing based on a court
> document... your daughter just may have a case against her mother. Then
> your ex wouldn't have that extra in her retirement, and your daughter
> wouldn't be so burden. One other thing... maybe your daughter can give
> you some of it back, if she wins. But this would be between you and she.
>
> Bob, I know the above may sound really mean and spiteful... and it could
> cause problems between your daughter and her mother. So she should
> probably try and talk to mom first. If mom still refuses, then all I've
> got to say is that there is a time and place for everything. Your
> daughter shouldn't allow her mother to rule her life and take away from
> her what you would have given without a court order. She is literally
> robbing your daughter.
>
> > Tracy's post was right on . . . my daughter is being penalized by the child support
> > system that is supposed to be helping her. What the family law system fails to
> > understand is the children, particularly those in the 18-21 year old range,
> > understand exactly who is telling the truth, who is getting screwed, and how they
> > are impacted personally.
>
Nobody
> I think that this is what is going to start happening
> more and more. Children are going to start holding the
> CP accountable for where the CS went and take them to court.
> In this case, it sounds like it will be the only legal way
> to make the mother use the money for what it was intended...the
> daughter's education. I don't think it is mean or spiteful,
> it is using the only recourse available.
This case is a very good example of why I support the
disaggregation of CS into: (a) actual out-of-pocket costs
to raise the child, and (b) the standard of living component.
The NCP can pay the CP their share of the out-of-pocket
costs directly, but the SOL component of CS goes into a
restricted trust account for the benefit of the children,
with the NCP named a sole trustee. Greedy CPs COULDN'T
steal anything. This solution solves a LOT of problems,
IMO.
Drew
Bob Whiteside
Joe Nobody wrote:
> Bob,
>
> What you should have tried to do is to tell the judge that you should not be paying child support after your daughter is the age of majority. Your reasons for this would be to tell him, that the state doesn't demand that intact families pay for their childrens' education. And by allowing an order of child support while in college, they have created a special class of people, and under the 14th admendment, they cannot do such a thing.
>
> It worked in Pennsylvania. I do not know the specific case, but I am sure that someone in here can point you in the right direction....
>
> Joe
>
This approach has already been tried in Oregon and is currently being litigated. A circuit court judge ruled ORS 107.108, the law providing for support to adult children attending college, was unconstitutional because it set up the special class in violation of the 14th amendment. For reference this is the "Crocker" case.
The Appeals Court ruled the circuit court erred, and created a defense for their reversal that was not supported by law. The "Crocker" case was elevated to the Oregon Supreme Court on 2/16/99 challenging the logic and reasoning employed by the court of appeals as being faulty and erroneous and not being supported by caselaw, statute, or legislative history. The petition to the Oregon Supreme Court references Curtis V. Kline, which is the
Pennsylvania case you mentioned.
It is anticipated that the Supreme Court will hand down their ruling in the next month or so.
Ironically, the Appeals Court's decision makes a clear distinction between "care and maintenance" of child under the age of 18, versus the purpose 18-21 year old support being ordered to "finance the post secondary educational pursuits for children of divorced families" and thereby advance the state's underlying interest to have a well educated populace.
The problem I encountered is the circuit court judge was unwilling to recognize the distinction already established by the Appeals Court and and provide oversight to ensure the money went to my daughter for her education expenses, as intended in the law. The judge chose to say just pay the money and the state will do what they normally do with it.
Where the conflict comes in to play is the deputy DA in my case set up the mother as the "judgment creditor" which means she is the party entitled to the money. The modification order and the law say the money is to be paid directly to my daughter. The Child Support Accounting Unit sets up what they call a "pay to" party so they pay the money that is owed to the mother to the child, and cover their butts in the process. The Child
Support Accounting Unit has told me ORS 107.108 is a bad law, they would like to see it changed or go away completely, because there is a problem with every order they administrate under this law.
Bob
>
> "Bob Whiteside" <rob...@teleport.com> wrote in message news:39A2BB5A...@teleport.com...
> > Oh . . . how I'd love to do just what you suggest . . . but reality is I will
> > probably have to go back in front of this judge at some time in the future. Talk
> > to any attorney and they'll tell you one of the worst aspects of their job is
> > having to kiss the asses of these arrogant jerks.
> >
> > I'm sure this judge feels he did the right thing by ruling there was a "valid
> > order" and therefore nothing else mattered. He was not willing to accept the fact
> > that when a flawed order is created in the administrative law process and it comes
> > over to a circuit court judge for an approval signature, that the circuit court
> > judge's signature doesn't fix the flaws in the order. The judge that signed it
> > probably didn't even read it. And even if he had read it, he would not have known
> > about the issues because the Hearing Officer created an order to cover up his
> > mistakes.
> >
> > It is very discouraging to have the laws applied literally and jurisdicationally
> > against you, while at the same time they are applied as guidelines and
> > directionally against the state agencies.
> >
> > My ex told my daughter the proceedings against me were for getting money for her
> > college expenses. When my ex talked with my daughter after the hearing she said
> > she was going to put several thousand into her own retirement account, buy a few
> > things for my daughter, and put the rest in a previously undisclosed investment
> > account in a different state. You can imagine the reaction my daughter had to
> > these revelations by her mother. She thinks her mother lied to her about her true
> > intent, and stole the money from her that was supposed to finance her educational
> > pursuit.
> >
> > Tracy's post was right on . . . my daughter is being penalized by the child support
> > system that is supposed to be helping her. What the family law system fails to
> > understand is the children, particularly those in the 18-21 year old range,
> > understand exactly who is telling the truth, who is getting screwed, and how they
> > are impacted personally.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ivyjade2 wrote:
> >
> > > >From: melg...@aol.com (Mel Gamble)
> > >
> > > >How about reposting with the names of all the guilty included??? As an
> > > >oregunian, I'd like to see these gems barred from the public trough.
> > >
Cement Hands
Nobody wrote:
> Cement Hands wrote:
> > I think that this is what is going to start happening
> > more and more. Children are going to start holding the
> > CP accountable for where the CS went and take them to court.
> > In this case, it sounds like it will be the only legal way
> > to make the mother use the money for what it was intended...the
> > daughter's education. I don't think it is mean or spiteful,
> > it is using the only recourse available.
>
> This case is a very good example of why I support the
> disaggregation of CS into: (a) actual out-of-pocket costs
> to raise the child, and (b) the standard of living component.
> The NCP can pay the CP their share of the out-of-pocket
> costs directly, but the SOL component of CS goes into a
> restricted trust account for the benefit of the children,
> with the NCP named a sole trustee. Greedy CPs COULDN'T
> steal anything.
But on the flip side it could give manipulative NCP's power and control
over the CP..how do you see avoiding that in your scenario?
Bob Whiteside
Tracy wrote:
> (snippped for brevity)
> I still like the idea of it being in the Oregonian.
Do you really think the ultra-leftist Oregonian would take this on? No way!
Their slant would read, "Defiant dad owing thousands of dollars in child support finally
pays up when faced with jail time. Mother and deputy DA team up to bring a deadbeat dad
to court and force compliance with a court order he ignored. This dad is one of the many
scoundrels the Oregon support enforcement heroes are trying to track down and prosecute
for failing to pay support for their children. This case proves the new, tougher
enforcement mechanisms passed by our brave legislature are working. When asked for
comment, the local vice president for the National Organization for Women said, "This is
just one success. There are many more cases just like this one where men are not living
up to their financial responsibilities under the law to support their former wives and
the children they fathered. We need much tougher laws if we are ever going to bring
mothers and children out of the poverty that is forced on them by child support awards
that are woefully too low."
At least I haven't lost my sense of humor.
Bob
Nobody
>> the SOL component of CS goes into a restricted trust
>> account for the benefit of the children, with the NCP
> But on the flip side it could give manipulative NCP's
> power and control over the CP..how do you see avoiding
> that in your scenario?
Short answer:
The incentive to hoard someone else's money (knowing
that you cannot spend it) is less than the incentive
to spend someone else's money on yourself (knowing that
you can't be held accountable).
Long answer:
The 'power and control' argument is predicated on the
assumption that the number of manipulative CPs is less
than the number of manipulative NCPs. Thus, transferring
'power and control' from the CP to the NCP will result in
less beneficial outcomes for the children.
I'm not buying this. The trust arrangement only places
the NCP's share of the SOL component into the trust, not
the actual out of pocket expenses. Thus, all a "manipulative"
NCP could do would be to deny the children a standard of
living that would be recaptured when the child reaches the
age of majority anyhow (i.e., the assets in the trust
account become the property of the children at age 18).
When some greedy CP spends the CS on themself, what is
a 13 year old supposed to do?
There are additional side benefits. First, the CP will
have to lobby the NCP to release assets - my view is that
this dependency will mirror the dependency of the NCP
on the CP concerning visitation. Both parties will
quickly begin to realize that neither now holds an "upper
hand" in the grand scheme of things. This is the post-divorce
analogy to the finding that states with joint custody laws
have a lower divorce rate - when people KNOW that they won't
"win it all," they magically begin to cooperate.
Second, the children will credit the NCP as being a major
contributor to their financial security. The crap you
hear like, "Mommy loves us more than Daddy, because she
buys us all these neat toys..." will come to an end. Which
it should, obviously.
Drew
Cement Hands
Nobody wrote:
> Cement Hands wrote:
> >> the SOL component of CS goes into a restricted trust
> >> account for the benefit of the children, with the NCP
> >> named as sole trustee. Greedy CPs COULDN'T steal anything.
> > But on the flip side it could give manipulative NCP's
> > power and control over the CP..how do you see avoiding
> > that in your scenario?
>
> Short answer:
>
> The incentive to hoard someone else's money (knowing
> that you cannot spend it) is less than the incentive
> to spend someone else's money on yourself (knowing that
> you can't be held accountable).
>
> Long answer:
>
> The 'power and control' argument is predicated on the
> assumption that the number of manipulative CPs is less
> than the number of manipulative NCPs.
Not by me...I've seen 'em all!
> Thus, transferring
> 'power and control' from the CP to the NCP will result in
> less beneficial outcomes for the children.
No, I don't want to see the power trip in either one's hands. My
question came up because I tried to imagine myself and my ex in that
situation...end result still would have been the same...zero support. I
asked for your opinion so I can see past the narrow scope of *my*
case...
>
>
> I'm not buying this. The trust arrangement only places
> the NCP's share of the SOL component into the trust, not
> the actual out of pocket expenses.
So the NCP would be paying half of actual cost of needs...the rest would
go into trust for the extras? I'm big on needs vs. extras...
> Thus, all a "manipulative"
> NCP could do would be to deny the children a standard of
> living
Which means that the NCP would have the discretion to do more if he/she
chose to...I'm liking it.
> that would be recaptured when the child reaches the
> age of majority anyhow (i.e., the assets in the trust
> account become the property of the children at age 18).
I'm liking it even more.
>
> When some greedy CP spends the CS on themself, what is
> a 13 year old supposed to do?
As this thread shows, it isn't just young children that don't have any
options when faced with a greedy CP. This case is a perfect example of
a young adult being robbed by the CP.
>
>
> There are additional side benefits. First, the CP will
> have to lobby the NCP to release assets - my view is that
> this dependency will mirror the dependency of the NCP
> on the CP concerning visitation.
I never received support or stopped visitation...it is a fact that many
CP's do...I never did like that 'trade off' mentality between CS and
visitation...I didn't want CS as a reward for letting my kids see their
father.
> Both parties will
> quickly begin to realize that neither now holds an "upper
> hand" in the grand scheme of things. This is the post-divorce
> analogy to the finding that states with joint custody laws
> have a lower divorce rate - when people KNOW that they won't
> "win it all," they magically begin to cooperate.
That would be a refreshing change!
>
>
> Second, the children will credit the NCP as being a major
> contributor to their financial security. The crap you
> hear like, "Mommy loves us more than Daddy, because she
> buys us all these neat toys..." will come to an end. Which
> it should, obviously.
Agreed. I was never in that situation, I had the Daddy doing all the
fun stuff that I couldn't because I was supporting the kids 100%...but I
still believe that each parent should contribute the extras at their
discretion and the kids should know who's pocket it is coming out of.
Thanx for clarifying...food for thought.
>
>
> Drew
Bob Whiteside
Tracy wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Bob Whiteside wrote:
>
> > Oh . . . how I'd love to do just what you suggest . . . but reality is I will
> > probably have to go back in front of this judge at some time in the future. Talk
> > to any attorney and they'll tell you one of the worst aspects of their job is
> > having to kiss the asses of these arrogant jerks.
> >
> > I'm sure this judge feels he did the right thing by ruling there was a "valid
> > order" and therefore nothing else mattered. He was not willing to accept the fact
> > that when a flawed order is created in the administrative law process and it comes
> > over to a circuit court judge for an approval signature, that the circuit court
> > judge's signature doesn't fix the flaws in the order. The judge that signed it
> > probably didn't even read it. And even if he had read it, he would not have known
> > about the issues because the Hearing Officer created an order to cover up his
> > mistakes.
> >
> > It is very discouraging to have the laws applied literally and jurisdicationally
> > against you, while at the same time they are applied as guidelines and
> > directionally against the state agencies.
> >
> > My ex told my daughter the proceedings against me were for getting money for her
> > college expenses. When my ex talked with my daughter after the hearing she said
> > she was going to put several thousand into her own retirement account, buy a few
> > things for my daughter, and put the rest in a previously undisclosed investment
> > account in a different state. You can imagine the reaction my daughter had to
> > these revelations by her mother. She thinks her mother lied to her about her true
> > intent, and stole the money from her that was supposed to finance her educational
> > pursuit.
>
> Has your daughter ever thought of taking her mother to court? Do the
> papers state that your ex is suppose to provide a certain amount of cost
> towards your daughter's education, or does it just state how much you are
> to pay? I'm not looking for a specific dollar amount, but perhaps an
> assumption that she is to provide x% and you the rest. If total support
> for your daughter is $1,000/month and you are required by law to provide
> 80% of it, or $800/month... if your ex is pocketing part of that support,
> plus not providing anything out of her own pocket... it sounds as if your
> daughter has a case against her mother.
Your numbers are close to the actual support requirements. One of my issues is the law
provides for an order for an adult children going to school to be against either one or
both parents. The modification order was not specific about the type of order the
administrative law judge was issuing. The support calculations were done under the
assumption both parents paid a specific amount to my daughter. But then the deputy DA
filed the order with the mother being the judgment creditor. I believe the order was
changed after the hearing from an order against both parents to an order against one
parent by the filing methodology used by the deputy DA. I argued the Da's filing was a
change of the recipient and type of order and a modification without due process, but the
judge didn't agree.
>
>
> Look at it this way... you couldn't have a case since if the court reduced
> it, or took it away from "poor" _mommy dearest_, then they would be
> "reducing" your daughters living. This wouldn't be "right" in the court's
> eyes. But if your daughter took mommy dearest to court and pointed out
> that she is burdened because her mother is pocketing money that is suppose
> to go to her from you, and she is not providing based on a court
> document... your daughter just may have a case against her mother. Then
> your ex wouldn't have that extra in her retirement, and your daughter
> wouldn't be so burden. One other thing... maybe your daughter can give
> you some of it back, if she wins. But this would be between you and she.
>
> Bob, I know the above may sound really mean and spiteful... and it could
> cause problems between your daughter and her mother. So she should
> probably try and talk to mom first. If mom still refuses, then all I've
> got to say is that there is a time and place for everything. Your
> daughter shouldn't allow her mother to rule her life and take away from
> her what you would have given without a court order. She is literally
> robbing your daughter.
This is a good idea, but it requires the child to be directly involved in a legal dispute
between her parents. My daughter loves both of us and prefers to not get into the
"details of the case." She is reluctant to take sides, but she also knows she is being
ripped off by her mother.
There is one more detail in this case that has haunted me from day one. I have been
reluctant to post it because it is so personal. But here goes . . . when we got divorced
I had just gotten a large inheritance from my mother. The plan had been to put the money
from my mother's estate into a college education trust fund for both of my children. My
ex restated her agreed to that plan during mediation, and then at the divorce hearing
repudiated her agreement. I got stuck between agreeing for her keeping inheritances
from her relatives and her repudiating the agreement that my inheritance should be used
for the college funds. The court gave her the money from her relatives and 75% of the
inheritance from my mother. In essence my perspective is I am paying for the college
education of my daughter a second time. The first time it went up her mother's nose, and
I think you know what I mean.
Bob
>
> > Tracy's post was right on . . . my daughter is being penalized by the child support
> > system that is supposed to be helping her. What the family law system fails to
> > understand is the children, particularly those in the 18-21 year old range,
> > understand exactly who is telling the truth, who is getting screwed, and how they
> > are impacted personally.
>
> I still like the idea of it being in the Oregonian. But then, if your
> daughter does decide to take mom to court, it could be without you looking
> like the bad guy. Your daughter wouldn't look like the bad guy either...
> your ex would. I know myself, and plenty others, would view it that your
> ex is robbing your daughter.
>
> I wish you luck, and I'm really sorry to hear that it didn't work out.
>
> Tracy
>
Tracy
Then there is an assumption that she is suppose to be providing something
to your daughter while she is in college. It is her part of the total
support the state believes is correct.
BTW, my figure came about when I looked up how much mine would be with my
youngest son. The state claims it should be a total of around
$1,300/month, with a 65/35 split in contribution. The son's father is
suppose to be providing the 65% of the $1,300/month. Nuts if you ask me.
> > Look at it this way... you couldn't have a case since if the court reduced
> > it, or took it away from "poor" _mommy dearest_, then they would be
> > "reducing" your daughters living. This wouldn't be "right" in the court's
> > eyes. But if your daughter took mommy dearest to court and pointed out
> > that she is burdened because her mother is pocketing money that is suppose
> > to go to her from you, and she is not providing based on a court
> > document... your daughter just may have a case against her mother. Then
> > your ex wouldn't have that extra in her retirement, and your daughter
> > wouldn't be so burden. One other thing... maybe your daughter can give
> > you some of it back, if she wins. But this would be between you and she.
> >
> > Bob, I know the above may sound really mean and spiteful... and it could
> > cause problems between your daughter and her mother. So she should
> > probably try and talk to mom first. If mom still refuses, then all I've
> > got to say is that there is a time and place for everything. Your
> > daughter shouldn't allow her mother to rule her life and take away from
> > her what you would have given without a court order. She is literally
> > robbing your daughter.
>
> This is a good idea, but it requires the child to be directly involved in a legal dispute
> between her parents. My daughter loves both of us and prefers to not get into the
> "details of the case." She is reluctant to take sides, but she also knows she is being
> ripped off by her mother.
Ah... but she doesn't have to see it as taking sides. Just receiving what
is her's by law. If the law states that she is suppose to be receiving
$x/month total from both her parents, then she should be. I'm not sure if
she has applied for student loans. But I do know that if she is... that
means the federal government via the financial aid office at her school
has determined how much parental support is suppose to be spent on her.
What would be interesting to find out is if the figures agree. If they
don't, maybe that could help you to lower the amount (I believe Colorado
does that)... _or_ it could help your daughter obtain what is her's
through her mother.
For the life of me I would not understand why one parent would punish the
child by not allowing her to live by the standards the financial aid
office had set. In other words... if the financial aid office took into
consideration that your daughter would be receiving $x/month from mom and
dad, and took that out of her award, then your ex is punishing your
daughter by not giving her that money.
> There is one more detail in this case that has haunted me from day one. I have been
> reluctant to post it because it is so personal. But here goes . . . when we got divorced
> I had just gotten a large inheritance from my mother. The plan had been to put the money
> from my mother's estate into a college education trust fund for both of my children. My
> ex restated her agreed to that plan during mediation, and then at the divorce hearing
> repudiated her agreement. I got stuck between agreeing for her keeping inheritances
> from her relatives and her repudiating the agreement that my inheritance should be used
> for the college funds. The court gave her the money from her relatives and 75% of the
> inheritance from my mother. In essence my perspective is I am paying for the college
> education of my daughter a second time. The first time it went up her mother's nose, and
> I think you know what I mean.
What?!?!?!?!!!!!! Oh man Bob... it is a good thing I have no idea what
county, city, or your ex's name is. Oh man... that just pissed me off. I
better bite my lip right now, or take my hands off the keyboard!!!!
That just rips! Screw your ex Bob, find a damn good attorney, and fight
her to the bone... that is just crazy, greedy, slutty, low, mean, etc...
how dare her.
the first thing your attorny needs to do is find another judge to listen
to the case in full. Peiord... there was no reason to have you pay like
that again. YOu already did, and now she is pocketting the money again.
Sorry Bob... but your ex is not only steeling from your daughter once, but
twice... by taking part of the inheritance and keeping it for herself
instead of putting it where it was suppose to go. It was already there.
BTW... we are talking about your youngest daughter, right? I hope so for
you, and your children. Did you find new employment? If not, contact me
via email... I would like to help you get a job.
Greedy rude people piss me off... and I don't consider you one.
Tracy
> Tracy wrote:
>
> > (snippped for brevity)
>
> > I still like the idea of it being in the Oregonian.
>
> Do you really think the ultra-leftist Oregonian would take this on? No way!
If it would sell news papers, yes :-)
Keep in mind... it is election year. They like dirt during election year,
and this is dirt.
> Their slant would read, "Defiant dad owing thousands of dollars in child support finally
> pays up when faced with jail time. Mother and deputy DA team up to bring a deadbeat dad
> to court and force compliance with a court order he ignored. This dad is one of the many
> scoundrels the Oregon support enforcement heroes are trying to track down and prosecute
> for failing to pay support for their children. This case proves the new, tougher
> enforcement mechanisms passed by our brave legislature are working. When asked for
> comment, the local vice president for the National Organization for Women said, "This is
> just one success. There are many more cases just like this one where men are not living
> up to their financial responsibilities under the law to support their former wives and
> the children they fathered. We need much tougher laws if we are ever going to bring
> mothers and children out of the poverty that is forced on them by child support awards
> that are woefully too low."
>
> At least I haven't lost my sense of humor.
Your funny.... I still like, "Mom is taken to court over steeling money
from a child's college fund."
I'm glad you can still laugh over this. Hey, they are paving my streets
this Friday. If you need a place to hide... they can't come and get you
here! LOL
"The neighborhood heats up when police are on the hot trail of a man
wanted for back child support."
Nobody
>> The trust arrangement only places the NCP's share
>> of the SOL component into the trust, not the actual
>> out of pocket expenses.
> So the NCP would be paying half of actual cost of
> needs...the rest would go into trust for the extras?
> I'm big on needs vs. extras...
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "needs vs. extras,"
but I think the answer to your question is yes. The
NCP would directly pay the CP the portion of child
support that goes towards things like rent, food, and
clothing. Only the NCP's *share* of the standard of living
portion would go into the trust account. If you regard
the NCP's *share* of the SOL component as "extras," then
the answer to your question is yes. However, remember
that the CP also supports the child's SOL as well.
Drew
Bob Whiteside
Tracy wrote:
The problem NCP's face is they are forced to pay "hard dollars" that are paid after taxes and
run through the child support accounting unit to ensure compliance. The CP's provide "soft
dollar" support, or what I like to call "warm and fuzzy dollars" that may or may not be REAL
dollars. The CP's share is presumed to be spent on the child because the household costs some
total amount. And therein lies the problem the NCP's complain about all the time. The logic
goes like this. The father complains the mother takes the child support and funds her IRA,
buys a new car, goes on a glamorous vacation, etc. with it. The court assumes she must have
spent that amount already on the child so the support she received just paid her back for past
expenses, or the child got some benefit from these expenditures.
You are right on! The "expected family contribution" is calculated using a formula created by
Congress to determine the amount that needs to be spent by the NCP and child on education
expenses before student aid kicks in to help. In this case, the EFC is over $4,500 per year
based on the incomes of the mother, the child, and support received. The support order is more
than that, but the support pays for the mother's household expenses, and the child is expected
to pay for her college expenses out of her own income. In essence, my daughter is supporting
my ex when she is forced to sign support received over to her mother.
Thanks. Yes, I am still looking. I'll send you an email.
Bob
Pat Winstanley
<rob...@teleport.com> writes
>> Ah... but she doesn't have to see it as taking sides. Just receiving what
>> is her's by law. If the law states that she is suppose to be receiving
>> $x/month total from both her parents, then she should be. I'm not sure if
>> she has applied for student loans. But I do know that if she is... that
>> means the federal government via the financial aid office at her school
>> has determined how much parental support is suppose to be spent on her.
>> What would be interesting to find out is if the figures agree. If they
>> don't, maybe that could help you to lower the amount (I believe Colorado
>> does that)... _or_ it could help your daughter obtain what is her's
>> through her mother.
>
>You are right on! The "expected family contribution" is calculated using a
>formula created by
>Congress to determine the amount that needs to be spent by the NCP and child on
>education
>expenses before student aid kicks in to help. In this case, the EFC is over
>$4,500 per year
>based on the incomes of the mother, the child, and support received. The
>support order is more
>than that, but the support pays for the mother's household expenses, and the
>child is expected
>to pay for her college expenses out of her own income. In essence, my daughter
>is supporting
>my ex when she is forced to sign support received over to her mother.
Just a quick question - where does the student live whilst attending
college? Independently or still with her mother? If with her mother does
she have to stump up for rent, food etc?
--
Pat Winstanley
Bob Whiteside
The conflict that occurs between them stems from the fact her mother does not
actually spend her required share of support on the child's education expenses.
Instead, the mother requires the child to pay her the support received, and then
refuses to pay the "expected family contribution" towards the child's education.
The combination of mother's income, tax credits for educational expenses, portions
of the child's income spent on personal and joint household items, and support
received are being combined into a total household income that the mother is
controlling. My daughter gets nothing back to cover her education expenses and pays
for tuition and books out of the part time income she has to fight to retain. My
daughter is being forced to support her mother in the same fashion I used to support
her mother.
Let me give you an example of how it works. The child says, "Mom there is no food
here for us to eat." The mother says, "If you go to the store and buy us some food
I will pay you back." So the child goes to the store and buys food. The mother
looks at the food the child bought and says, " I don't like the food you bought so
I'm not going to pay you back."
Another example. The mother goes to the child and says, " I'm running a little
short this month can you loan me $50?". The child loans her the money. When the
child goes to the mother and says, "I need you to pay back the $50 I loaned you
because I need it for school," the mother says, "Well I bought you a new coat that
cost more than $50 so we are even."
In both examples the mother got the child to pay for household expenses, and she
paid nothing. Get it?
Six2nabit
(and children!) have from a mother who intentionally uses "Child Support" for
things other than supporting the CHILD(ren)?
I have been paying almost $1,000 a month in Child-Support for almost 10 years
and for 10 years I have seen my kids wearing clothes from Goodwill and
complaining about getting only $5.00 a week allowance IF they did "..all their
chores..".
I recently found out that my ex has almost paid off the house she bought after
the divorce (nine years ago) ..but has b\never worked more than 24 hrs a week
(as a church secretary) during the entire time!
Now, either church secretaries get paid a helluva lot more than engineering
managers (me) do, or ...could it be? Could the "Child-support" so
enthuastically enforced by the government actually have been used to ensure
that a lazy and penny-pinching woman can ensure that she will have a home and
security long after the children have grown up?
.......Or am I just being to paranoid?
Yeah
Right
Bob Whiteside
Six2nabit wrote:
I'd guess, based on your comments, your ex has another source of income you don't
know about. Look for inheritances, non-taxable income sources liked bartered
exchanges in the underground economy, love offerings from the church where she
works, etc.
Of course, maybe she was able to pay off the new house so quickly because she
didn't use the child support to buy a new car, buy lots of clothes for herself,
take expensive vacations, or fund her retirement and savings account. She may be
more frugal than you are giving her credit for. Supposing you are right, and she
diverted the child support to generate accelerated mortgage pay off payments, ask
yourself two questions. Who gets to keep the equity from the house when she sells
it? Does she share the equity buildup with the child because she used their
child support to enhance the asset's value? I'd bet the answers are she keeps it,
and the children are SOL a second time.
The bad news is it only gets worse! My theory is the closer the mothers who
display greedy characteristics get to the end of the child support revenue stream,
the more irrational they become over their fears of losing their lifestyle.
Cement Hands
Nobody wrote:
Regarding the needs v. extras, I know alot of CPs who like to think Nike
is a need, I think shoes are a need.
A well balanced diet is a need, 3 trips to McD's a week are extra. I
believe some vacation time with the parent to relax is a need, week long
trips to Disneyland are extra. I'm all for it if the CP says to the
NCP: We are going to buy shoes. The money is half from the CS and
half from me. I am willing to contribute extra for Nike 'cuz all the
kids are wearing them, what do you think? The present system robs NCPs
of the discretion on how to spend money on their child.
>
>
> Drew
Tracy
As promised... I'm responding. :-)
True... and that is why I said that your daughter should legally fight her
mother. It isn't between you and the mother, but the daughter and the
mother.
See... right there is where the child support system really fails in terms
of adult children in college. Child support should be determined based on
what the federal government has determined the parental support should be
when applying for loans and grants. The parents should not be required by
any court to provide anything more.
Juleelou
>house *all by herself* for the last 13 years despite the fact she's
>never held any job outside of that of a temp. She has bought 2 new
>mini vans (we assume she paid cash since she doesn't have a full time
>job) and takes yearly vacations to Disney World. She has also bought
>all new furniture for every room in the house since my husband left
>her. This I know from my husband's mother, my husband's daughter (who
>showed us pictures of the redecorated house), and a furniture store
>salesman working in a very elite and expensive store. When I recently
>bought a loveseat (on sale and a *dented, scratched, or damaged*
>clearance item), this salesman routinely ran my name thru the computer
>and mistakenly thought I was her. He commented on what a *good*
>customer I was and showed me the computer printout before I noticed
>that he was talking about the first wife. I got a kick out of it
>because she tries to keep all her shenanigans top secret. The truth
>will always come out sooner or later. <g>
I don't really think the furniture she buys for her home is any of your
business. That is appalling that you think it is. This just points out that
you and your husband are on nothing but a jealous power trip and are trying to
control another adult human being that you have no right to try and control.
>While my husband has paid her outrageous sums of CS, even that alone
>cannot possibly account for the incredibly high standard of living
>this woman enjoys sans a full time job. We have long suspected hidden
>or illegal incomes (or both).
Again, that is none of your business. She is not your spouse, nor your
husband's spouse. I thought this was a free country. Obviously, it is not.
>My husband's ex demonstrates the truthfulness of your theory. Her
>youngest just turned 13 last spring which means the gravy train for
>the ex will end in 2005. None of her 3 older children were college
>material.
Are these his children also? Why do you refer them as HER children?
None got gradepoint averages over 1.5 in high school and
>all were constant truants and behavior problems. We get copies of
>their report cards. No college would have the first 3 and I see no
>reason why the last one will behave any differently considering their
>mother's parenting style. So in 2005 she is finished and yes, she is
>getting frantic. She has the CSA whipped into a frenzy on a daily
>basis trying to generate false CS arrears and interest to carry her
>thru old age. My only prayer is that this greedy woman finally reaps
>what she has sown starting in 2005.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
fathers-rights
If his child support money is helping to pay for that furniture in any
way, it damn sure is their business.
That is appalling that you think it is. This just points out that
>you and your husband are on nothing but a jealous power trip and are trying to
>control another adult human being that you have no right to try and control.
Kind of like most CP moms attempt to control their ex-husbands?
>
>>While my husband has paid her outrageous sums of CS, even that alone
>>cannot possibly account for the incredibly high standard of living
>>this woman enjoys sans a full time job. We have long suspected hidden
>>or illegal incomes (or both).
>
>
>Again, that is none of your business. She is not your spouse, nor your
>husband's spouse. I thought this was a free country. Obviously, it is not.
Ah, but if the NCP dad was the one making "hidden" income....then would
that be his ex's business?
Lori
Juleelou <jule...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000827192348...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
that
> you and your husband are on nothing but a jealous power trip and are
trying to
> control another adult human being that you have no right to try and
control.
>
> >cannot possibly account for the incredibly high standard of living
> >this woman enjoys sans a full time job. We have long suspected hidden
> >or illegal incomes (or both).
>
>
> Again, that is none of your business. She is not your spouse, nor your
> husband's spouse. I thought this was a free country. Obviously, it is
not.
Then why should the income of the poster's husband be any business of the
CP's? If the CP possibly having hidden or illegal income is none of the
NCP's business, then the amount of the NCP's income is none of the CP's
business, either. Nor is the source of his income, or what he has as
assets. Unless, of course, you *meant* to say that as long as these things
are the CP's right to have information about, then the NCP should likewise
have the right to information regarding all of her income, sources of
income, and assets?
Lori
Pat Winstanley
fathers-rights <anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net> writes
>>I don't really think the furniture she buys for her home is any of your
>>business.
>
>way, it damn sure is their business.
So the children have no use of this furniture at all?
They sleep on, sit on and eat off bare floorboards?
--
Pat Winstanley
Cement Hands
NEEDED a 52" TV in her room when she was 6 weeks old. Of course, the other
TV had to be in the living room so it would have been incredibly unfair of
him to ask for 1 of the 2 that he paid for. Do you *ever* see the NCPs
side??
Juleelou
>What should I have done when the salesman started talking? Put my
>fingers in my ears and begin to screech the Star Spangled Banner so I
>couldn't hear his words? I didn't even know what the man was about to
>divulge was about the ex-bitch.
No but you got a lot of glee out of saying she was trying to hide her
shenanigins. It really should not have mattered one way or another to you.
But you are so conscious that she might have something you don't have that it
just ate at you. It's none of your business. If your husband has issues with
her assets, take her to court. I'm sure a judge would love to hear about how
unfair it was that the woman bought new furniture.
Mel Gamble
And she spake: "GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE
UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME;
GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO
ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE
UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME;
GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO
ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE
UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME;
GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO
ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE
UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME;
GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO
ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE
UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME;
GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO
ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE
UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME;
GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO
ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE UNTO ME; GIVE
UNTO ME.......................................................
Juleelou
>a *sacred mamma* goes unpunished or at least unseen. This particular
>nasty and vile woman has gotten herself caught in so many vicsious and
>cruel misdeeds so many times I can't count them anymore
Buying new furniture is a bad deed???
Juleelou
>thing is that no matter how awful this woman *proves* herself to be
>time and again, no matter how criminal, and how abusive to her
>children she continues to be, no one in the system including the judge
>will stop her. I bet you totally empathize with her.
>
>Having said that, it *is my* business what this awful woman does with
>the hard earned money my husband pays to support her children. We
>live in a marital property state. My assets are his. And his are
>mine. So I do have a vested interest in seeing that the CS he
>provides is spent on the children and not on the lazy, greedy woman he
>made the catastrophic mistake of marrying in his youth.
Hmmm...... Buying new furniture and taking the kids to Disneyland is criminal
and bad. You know, maybe it's not her with the problem, but you. Also you
refer to these as "her" children. Hey, his sperm was involved, was it not???
Maybe the judge doesn't stop her because she's not doing anything wrong??????
Edmund Esterbauer
quest for patricide and laziness.
The stolen generation of child will hold these SF responsible.
The SF are the real criminals.
The SF are the child abusers of the 90s.
"Mel Gamble" <melg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000828055450...@ng-cc1.aol.com...
Juleelou
>Repetition and rational debate will never sway a Stalinist feminazi in her
>quest for patricide and laziness.
>The stolen generation of child will hold these SF responsible.
>The SF are the real criminals.
>The SF are the child abusers of the 90s.
You think this dribble actually helps your cause??? It just makes you look
psychotic.
fathers-rights
Do the children get to take the furniture with them when they move out?
If the furniture is sold, is the money then given to the children? If
the answer to either of these questions is "no", then the CP is
benefitting from the furniture.
Juleelou
> If the furniture is sold, is the money then given to the children? If
>the answer to either of these questions is "no", then the CP is
>benefitting from the furniture.
>
In that case, the NCP should have to sell their furniture and give the
proceedings to the children also.
Sunny
jule...@aol.com (Juleelou) wrote:
(This just gets dumber and dumber as time goes on. )
fathers-rights
>>Do the children get to take the furniture with them when they move out?
>> If the furniture is sold, is the money then given to the children? If
>>the answer to either of these questions is "no", then the CP is
>>benefitting from the furniture.
>>
>
>In that case, the NCP should have to sell their furniture and give the
>proceedings to the children also.
Why? The NCP isn't paying for the furniture with court-ordered child
support money.
Juleelou
>support money.
>
And the CP works too I assume, so the money they may be using just might, egad,
be money they earned at their job????
Oh my god, what a concept.
Cement Hands
bought with what money was left after CS?????? Castrate him and get it over
with...your arguments aren't even rational anymore.
Cement Hands
fathers-rights
It is a concept for many CP moms, who live off the child support and
don't work. There are even some cases where a CP was making mortgage
payments using child support money.
Juleelou
>payments using child support money.
Oh my God! You mean the kids live in a tent in the backyard??? Let's see, the
CP uses the money wisely as an investment as well as providing a home for their
children. Hey, guess what, providing for your children includes helping out
with lodging.
Juleelou
You can't prove that she is using CS to do it. You only assume that because
you resent sending money to her.
Cement Hands
Juleelou wrote:
> >The sad
> >thing is that no matter how awful this woman *proves* herself to be
> >time and again, no matter how criminal, and how abusive to her
> >children she continues to be, no one in the system including the judge
> >will stop her. I bet you totally empathize with her.
> >
> >Having said that, it *is my* business what this awful woman does with
> >the hard earned money my husband pays to support her children. We
> >live in a marital property state. My assets are his. And his are
> >mine. So I do have a vested interest in seeing that the CS he
> >provides is spent on the children and not on the lazy, greedy woman he
> >made the catastrophic mistake of marrying in his youth.
>
> Hmmm...... Buying new furniture
Not what CS is for...so it's wrong.
> and taking the kids to Disneyland is criminal
> and bad.
Unless the CP is contributing 50% from her own earnings for the kiddies and 100%
from her own earnings for herself...
> You know, maybe it's not her with the problem, but you.
Hmmm...nahhh.
> Also you
> refer to these as "her" children.
Probably because the laws allow "her" to think of them that way until it comes to
CS...then they are "theirs."
> Hey, his sperm was involved, was it not???
It takes more than a sperm and CS to make a daddy much as some CPs would like to
deny it.
>
>
> Maybe the judge doesn't stop her because she's not doing anything wrong??????
Ya, okayyy....because the justice system is perfect and people *never* get away
with wrong doing, right?
Juleelou
>payments using child support money.
>
Oh how dreadful! A mom providing a home for her children! For shame! For
Shame!
Juleelou
>WHAT??? The NCP pays CS and now you want the NCP to lose the furniture they
>bought with what money was left after CS?????? Castrate him and get it over
>with...your arguments aren't even rational anymore.
Hell you don't want the CP to have furniture at all.
Juleelou
No CS is to provide the children with a home, food and clothing. Furniture is
part of the picture. And you have no way of knowing that she used the money
the government says she is entitled to for furniture or not.
I'd love to see you go to court and say... Gee, Judge she used the C.S. to buy
furniture and go to Disneyland. I'd just love to see that. That would be a
riot.
>
>> and taking the kids to Disneyland is criminal
>> and bad.
>
>Unless the CP is contributing 50% from her own earnings for the kiddies and
>100%
>from her own earnings for herself...
>
>> You know, maybe it's not her with the problem, but you.
>
>Hmmm...nahhh.
>
>> Also you
>> refer to these as "her" children.
>
>Probably because the laws allow "her" to think of them that way until it
>comes to
>CS...then they are "theirs."
Charming. So you don't consider them your children. So sad.
>
>> Hey, his sperm was involved, was it not???
>
>It takes more than a sperm and CS to make a daddy much as some CPs would like
>to
>deny it.
Not according to you. You won't even refer to them as his children.
>
>>
>>
>> Maybe the judge doesn't stop her because she's not doing anything
>wrong??????
>
>Ya, okayyy....because the justice system is perfect and people *never* get
>away
>with wrong doing, right?
Well an awful lot of people are getting away with it then.
Cement Hands
home cause I don't receive CS. If I *did* I wouldn't be spending it on anything
but the children cause (and I understand this is a concept you are having trouble
with) it is for the kids. The CP has the responsiblity of providing their own
furniture and needs. Try to get it will ya?
Cement Hands
Juleelou wrote:
Well, since *I* am a CP...I guess you just stuck your foot in your mouth huh?
Is it tasty? And *you* assumed that the CP works and isn't spending CS to do
it...go back and read the post...pretty sure in that scenario, the CP doesn't
work.
Juleelou
>furniture and needs. Try to get it will ya?
So if I go out and buy a couch, my kids can't sit on it? Because after all, I
used my money to pay for it.
Get real. It's there home. The CS is for them. And they need furniture as
much as the next person.
fathers-rights
>>There are even some cases where a CP was making mortgage
>>payments using child support money.
>
>Oh my God! You mean the kids live in a tent in the backyard??? Let's see, the
>CP uses the money wisely as an investment as well as providing a home for their
>children. Hey, guess what, providing for your children includes helping out
>with lodging.
And once again: when the children turn 21, are they given equity in
the house? Or can the CP sell the house and pocket ALL of the money?
Also, the NCP has to maintain a residence for the children as well.
One could argue that the costs of sheltering the children cancel each
other out.
fathers-rights
wrote:
>WHAT??? The NCP pays CS and now you want the NCP to lose the furniture they
>bought with what money was left after CS?????? Castrate him and get it over
>with...your arguments aren't even rational anymore.
Since the idea behind child support is to control the man and wreak
vengeance upon him for the divorce, heaven forbid he should be allowed
to have furniture.
Cement Hands
Juleelou wrote:
> >Not what CS is for...so it's wrong.
>
> No CS is to provide the children with a home, food and clothing.
No, CS is the NCPs contribution to the support of the children.
> Furniture is
> part of the picture.
A part that any decent CP should be able to provide on their own. After all,
*they* wanted custody and that entails providing a home and all it entails.
> And you have no way of knowing that she used the money
> the government says she is entitled to for furniture or not.
Nor do you. BTW...big hint coming....the government says the *child* is entitled
to the money, not mommy.
>
>
> I'd love to see you go to court and say... Gee, Judge she used the C.S. to buy
> furniture and go to Disneyland. I'd just love to see that. That would be a
> riot.
ROTFLMAO!!! You're right..that *would* be a riot...since *I* am a CP mommy.
One who is sick of CPs who justify all that they do in the guise of "the best
interest of the children" and give the rest of us a bad name.
Pat Winstanley
<kidd....@sympatico.ca> writes
>Well, I don't know about the kids in question but my SO's daughter really
>NEEDED a 52" TV in her room when she was 6 weeks old. Of course, the other
>TV had to be in the living room so it would have been incredibly unfair of
>him to ask for 1 of the 2 that he paid for. Do you *ever* see the NCPs
>side??
>
Regularly see the NCP side.
I was querying the comment/assertion that CS money should not be used to
help pay for furniture that is partly (and legitimately) for the use of
the child. Not the rare and extreme cases such as you suggest above.
Should I refuse to allow the children to use the cooker, the carpets,
beds etc? All cost money!
>Pat Winstanley wrote:
>
>> In article <3b6ad9d4c4443fc6...@mixmaster.shinn.net>,
>> fathers-rights <anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net> writes
>> >>I don't really think the furniture she buys for her home is any of your
>> >>business.
>> >
>> >If his child support money is helping to pay for that furniture in any
>> >way, it damn sure is their business.
>>
>> So the children have no use of this furniture at all?
>>
>> They sleep on, sit on and eat off bare floorboards?
>>
>> --
>> Pat Winstanley
>
--
Pat Winstanley
Sunny
<kidd....@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Juleelou wrote:
> > I'd love to see you go to court and say... Gee, Judge she used the C.S. to
> > buy
> > furniture and go to Disneyland. I'd just love to see that. That would be a
> > riot.
>
> ROTFLMAO!!! You're right..that *would* be a riot...since *I* am a CP mommy.
> One who is sick of CPs who justify all that they do in the guise of "the best
> interest of the children" and give the rest of us a bad name.
They say that one bad apple ruins the barrel, but in the case of CPs, I
like to think the good ones set a good example for the bad ones. One
sweet apple might not be able freshen up a sour barrel, but it sure
can't hurt.
Jill
<kidd....@sympatico.ca> sent the following thru the ether:
Maybe Julee was referring to me. You bet I resent sending money to
her. Because I *KNOW* beyond a doubt that her children see little to
none of it. You will probably say--what about their clothes and food?
She has her parents and my husband's parents (all sick and elderly
people) convinced she receives NO CS. That she has NEVER in 13 years
received ANY CS. My husband showed his parents his check stubs
showing the garnishment but they don't really understand. So they and
her parents and her sister and brother-in-law buy all the food and
clothes the kids ever see.
Now this bitch tells these elderly relatives and her children she has
NEVER receceived ANY CS and justifies it by saying that the only
support checks she gets come from the CSA. Not from her ex-husband.
His name is not on the checks, right? The County of XXXX is on the
checks. Get it? According to her manipulative lies, the money is
from the Government and not from the children's father.
She tells them all these are government assistance checks because he
is not and never has paid CS. Very clever, don't you think, Julee?
Maybe you will want to use that one if you haven't thought it up
already. Its not technically a lie...right?
As for the bitch working. She doesn't work full time and never has in
her entire life. NEVER. My husband put her through college so she
could get her nursing license. She has temped ever since and then
only sporadically. That has never changed per what she reports to the
court. And if she were to lie to the court she would tell them she
was employed full time because 1) it would make her look good, 2) it
would have gotten her extra $$$ for daycare, and 3) in Wisconsin it
does not affect CS amounts. So she isn't lying about being
underemployed or unemployed with a college degree. She is flaunting
it.
>
>
Jill
On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 20:11:08 GMT, Cement Hands
<kidd....@sympatico.ca> sent the following thru the ether:
>
>
>Juleelou wrote:
>
>> >The sad
>> >thing is that no matter how awful this woman *proves* herself to be
>> >time and again, no matter how criminal, and how abusive to her
>> >children she continues to be, no one in the system including the judge
>> >will stop her. I bet you totally empathize with her.
>> >
>> >Having said that, it *is my* business what this awful woman does with
>> >the hard earned money my husband pays to support her children. We
>> >live in a marital property state. My assets are his. And his are
>> >mine. So I do have a vested interest in seeing that the CS he
>> >provides is spent on the children and not on the lazy, greedy woman he
>> >made the catastrophic mistake of marrying in his youth.
>>
>> Hmmm...... Buying new furniture
>
>Not what CS is for...so it's wrong.
>
>> and taking the kids to Disneyland is criminal
>> and bad.
Where did I say she takes the kids? She goes to Florida at least
twice a year. Occasionally with her children. More often alone. Her
parents stay here with the kids when she takes off on her own. She
goes several other places each year without the kids in addition to
her Florida trips.
>
>Unless the CP is contributing 50% from her own earnings for the kiddies and 100%
>from her own earnings for herself...
>
>> You know, maybe it's not her with the problem, but you.
Think again. You are one cocky piece of work. I bet you've done all
of the things I've related that my husband's ex does and then some.
>
>Hmmm...nahhh.
>
>> Also you
>> refer to these as "her" children.
More often I refer to them as *his* children but YOU choose not to
focus on that. Your problem. Deal with it.
>
>Probably because the laws allow "her" to think of them that way until it comes to
>CS...then they are "theirs."
>
>> Hey, his sperm was involved, was it not???
Funny you should ask. As far as we can tell probably not his sperm
involved in most of the 4. Definitely not the last. Jokes on you.
You are just so damned sure of yourself, aren't you?
>
>It takes more than a sperm and CS to make a daddy much as some CPs would like to
>deny it.
In my husband's case most were probably not from his sperm and
apparently all of the CS he pays for kids that aren't biologically his
doesn't entitle him to be a daddy either. Go figure.
>>
>>
>> Maybe the judge doesn't stop her because she's not doing anything wrong??????
Maybe??? Cocky again aren't ya, hon?
If the judge didn't find her doing something wrong, then why did the
judge say she did do something wrong ON THE RECORD? And several times
at that? I can't wait to hear Julee's response to this? ROFL!!!
The judge reopened custody WITHOUT my husband requesting it FIVE years
after custody was decided. Why would a judge do that if he didn't
find her doing something wrong?
He called, her "vile, nasty, viscious, cruel, not credible, a liar,
and so on" and he deliberately read this Finding of Fact ON TO THE
RECORD. Why would he do that if he thought she was pure as the driven
snow, Julee?
>
>Ya, okayyy....because the justice system is perfect and people *never* get away
>with wrong doing, right?
Yup. The judge did all of the above and then rotated out of Family
Court leaving us to start from scratch with a new judge. That's
justice for you...
>
>
Bob Whiteside
Jill wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 20:23:00 GMT, Cement Hands
> <kidd....@sympatico.ca> sent the following thru the ether:
>
> >
> >
> >Juleelou wrote:
> >
How about the other scenarios the CP's falsely create that are technically not
lies, but intended to get sympathy and money, often from their own relatives.
My ex tells her relatives I refuse to pay the support I owe her. And the only way
she can get any money out of me is to take me to court and have the judge hold me
in contempt. She conveniently forgets about the tens of thousands of dollars in
regular payments she got without any problems. It worked, she got her mother to
send her several thousand dollars to get by.
Or the other sympathy scam she plays by claiming I constantly harass her by
dragging her back into court and the thickness of the court file proves her point.
She just forgets to say the file is so thick because every time I ask for a
modification or help from the judge she re-files all of the previous court filings,
related documentation, and court decisions as attachments to the current issues to
back up her claim I am the one responsible for the thick file. You'd think the
judges would see through this scam, but I actually had a judge sanction me for
continually harassing and dragging my ex back into court in a modification where I
prevailed. My penalty was to pay her attorney fees of $6,735 to fight the simple
support reduction that I was granted by the judge.
Bob
Pat Winstanley
fathers-rights <anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net> writes
>Also, the NCP has to maintain a residence for the children as well. One
>could argue that the costs of sheltering the children cancel each other
>out.
If the children live with them for similar amounts of time, yes. If not,
no.
--
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
<kidd....@sympatico.ca> writes
>Sorry Juleeloon...I AM A CP...and I buy my furniture and everything else in my
>home cause I don't receive CS. If I *did* I wouldn't be spending it on anything
>but the children cause (and I understand this is a concept you are having
>trouble
>furniture and needs. Try to get it will ya?
>
What about the table the kids eat from, the chairs in the lounge where
they sit? Is Mum (or Dad as the case may be) not allowed to use those
items of furniture?
>Juleelou wrote:
>
>> >
>> >WHAT??? The NCP pays CS and now you want the NCP to lose the furniture they
>> >bought with what money was left after CS?????? Castrate him and get it over
>> >with...your arguments aren't even rational anymore.
>>
>> Hell you don't want the CP to have furniture at all.
>
--
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
<kidd....@sympatico.ca> writes
>
>
>Juleelou wrote:
>
>> >Not what CS is for...so it's wrong.
>>
>
>No, CS is the NCPs contribution to the support of the children.
>
Yes... his or her share of the *overall* costs of the child. Are you
suggesting that does not include things such as a home for them to live
in and furniture, fittings, fixtures, appliances etc for them to use,
and for there to be a supply of electricity, water etc (or to be used on
their behalf) whilst living there?
--
Pat Winstanley
Jill
following thru the ether:
>>Why? The NCP isn't paying for the furniture with court-ordered child
>>support money.
>>
>
>And the CP works too I assume, so the money they may be using just might, egad,
>be money they earned at their job????
You ASSume wrong. I said that she didn't work full time ever at the
start of thread. I said she worked spordically as a temp. The CP, in
theory but not in enforced law, is expected to pay 50% of her
children's support. How does a temp fully support herself (working
part time at best) and also contribute 50% of her 4 children's support
and STILL be able to afford new furniture, vacations, mini vans, and
house payments out of her earnings alone?
I can't wait to hear Julee's theory on this one. ROFL!!!
>
>Oh my god, what a concept.
Do you financially support your children, Julee?
Jill
<anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net> sent the following thru the ether:
>On 28 Aug 2000 19:45:23 GMT jule...@aol.com (Juleelou) wrote:
>
>>>Why? The NCP isn't paying for the furniture with court-ordered child
>>>support money.
>>>
>>
>>And the CP works too I assume, so the money they may be using just might, egad,
>>be money they earned at their job????
>>
>>Oh my god, what a concept.
>
>It is a concept for many CP moms, who live off the child support and
>don't work. There are even some cases where a CP was making mortgage
>payments using child support money.
You mean like my husband's ex? Another of her many nasty misdeeds,
Julee.
>
>
>
>
Jill
following thru the ether:
>>There are even some cases where a CP was making mortgage
>>payments using child support money.
>
>Oh my God! You mean the kids live in a tent in the backyard??? Let's see, the
>CP uses the money wisely as an investment as well as providing a home for their
>children. Hey, guess what, providing for your children includes helping out
>with lodging.
If she uses CHILD support (NOT mommy support) to make the mortgage
payments, who's name is on the mortgage and who gets to stay in the
house after the CS ends? The kids or mommie dearest? The answer is
evident. So the house payments (and acquired home equity) are NOT for
the benefit of the children. Mothers who buy themselves houses with
CS money are STEALING from their own children.
Jill
following thru the ether:
>>There are even some cases where a CP was making mortgage
>>payments using child support money.
>>
>
>Oh how dreadful! A mom providing a home for her children! For shame! For
>Shame!
Mom provided? How so? SHE worked for the money? If anyone provided
it was Daddy and rightfully Daddy should get the house when the
children are grown.
Mama sitting on her ass and spending the proceeds of Daddy's hard
labor is not providing for her children. She is a new version of the
Welfare Queen. We could now call her the Entitlement Queen.
Jill
following thru the ether:
>>
>>WHAT??? The NCP pays CS and now you want the NCP to lose the furniture they
>>bought with what money was left after CS?????? Castrate him and get it over
>>with...your arguments aren't even rational anymore.
>
>Hell you don't want the CP to have furniture at all.
Sure I do. In my husband's ex's case she got ALL of the marital
furniture in the settlement. EVERY SINGLE STICK of ugly crap she
picked out and HE paid for when they married. There was nothing wrong
with that furniture. How do I know? She insisted on having a
professional appraiser come in and appraise the marital possessions
and that appraiser testified in court and provided a thorough written
appraisal (with pictures) which I have read.
Now if she *had* to have new furniture and she chose to go to WORK (a
foreign concept to that one) and paid for the furniture herself AFTER
providing 50% of her children's financial support, I'd say good for
her. But like you, she has an attitude that displays that she was too
lazy and greedy to do the right thing. And in that case she can park
her ass on the cold, bare floor for all I care.
Jill
following thru the ether:
>>The CP has the responsiblity of providing their own
>>furniture and needs. Try to get it will ya?
>
>So if I go out and buy a couch, my kids can't sit on it? Because after all, I
>used my money to pay for it.
That sounds like something you would do. Of course, it has nothing to
do with the discussion, but that too is par for your course.
>
>Get real. It's there home. The CS is for them. And they need furniture as
>much as the next person.
How much furniture do your kids need? How new must it be? What
colors must it come in? How fashionable do your children require it
to be? How much will they suffer without *new* furniture?
The CS is for them. For their food, clothes, health, and education.
New furniture is not necessary for life to go on. Unless you're a
greedy and self-centered person. Then I suppose it is a necessity for
you.
Jill
<Pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> sent the following thru the ether:
Patti I know you've heard this many times before and ignored it but
I'll take another SSSSSPPPPPIIIIIIINNNNNN with you.
Any adult, any man, any woman...must be able to provide a home with
furnishings, electricity, heat, etc. for themselves. Even if they do
not have any children. If they cannot provide that for themselves,
they have NO business having custody of children. It would hardly be
in the children's best interests to live with a psuedo adult who in
reality can't care properly for herself much less helpless children.
Simple really.
Jill
<rob...@teleport.com> sent the following thru the ether:
Oh sure, my husband's ex has gotten lots of cash out of the relatives
that way, too. And like your ex, this one just as easily lies to and
gouges her own parents as her ex in-laws. No shame...no conscience.
>
>Or the other sympathy scam she plays by claiming I constantly harass her by
>dragging her back into court and the thickness of the court file proves her point.
>She just forgets to say the file is so thick because every time I ask for a
>modification or help from the judge she re-files all of the previous court filings,
>related documentation, and court decisions as attachments to the current issues to
>back up her claim I am the one responsible for the thick file. You'd think the
>judges would see through this scam, but I actually had a judge sanction me for
>continually harassing and dragging my ex back into court in a modification where I
>prevailed. My penalty was to pay her attorney fees of $6,735 to fight the simple
>support reduction that I was granted by the judge.
>
>Bob
Ouch Bob! That really sucks. My husband got *blamed* by the judge of
over judicating the case, too, but happily he didn't get stuck with
costs for that. Then again he did get stuck with the costs for
everything else.
fathers-rights
Wrong. If the children reside with the father two nights a week, he
still needs to maintain a residence for them. He doesn't just pay for
the extra room for 2/7ths of the time.
Lori
Juleelou <jule...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000828140402...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
> >Do the children get to take the furniture with them when they move out?
> > If the furniture is sold, is the money then given to the children? If
> >the answer to either of these questions is "no", then the CP is
> >benefitting from the furniture.
> >
>
> In that case, the NCP should have to sell their furniture and give the
> proceedings to the children also.
Why should he have to do any such thing? *He* is not being paid a sum of
money each week from the other parent in order to provide these things "for
the child". No, he is made to pay CS to mom to provide for these things in
mom's home, and he is also expected to provide them in his home, on his own.
Therefore, they belong to him. Anything mom buys with CS should belong to
the children.
Lori
Lori
> >There are even some cases where a CP was making mortgage
> >payments using child support money.
>
see, the
> CP uses the money wisely as an investment as well as providing a home for
their
> children. Hey, guess what, providing for your children includes helping
out
> with lodging.
And if ownership of that house is put into unbreakable trust for the
children, i'd agree with you, but it rarely is. If the only way a CP can
pay for the purchase of a house is to use CS to cover the cost of it, then
by rights, that house should belong to the kids, and whenever the last one
reaches legal age, the house should be sold and the proceeds divided between
the children who's CS paid for it.
Lori
Lori
fathers-rights <anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net> wrote in message
news:328fbc7f32077e70...@mixmaster.shinn.net...
This is true. There is a man in our church who is low income, and
handicapped. He is on a limited income, and because of being handicapped
lives in low income, income based, housing. One bedroom apartment. he is
not permitted overnight visitation with his little girl because he cannot
afford a two bedroom place, even though he is more than willing that she
have the bedroom while there, and he'd sleep on the sofa.
Lori
Lori
Cement Hands <kidd....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:39AB036E...@sympatico.ca...
>
>
> Pat Winstanley wrote:
>
> > In article <39AAC8F4...@sympatico.ca>, Cement Hands
> > <kidd....@sympatico.ca> writes
> > >Sorry Juleeloon...I AM A CP...and I buy my furniture and everything
else in my
> > >home cause I don't receive CS. If I *did* I wouldn't be spending it on
anything
> > >but the children cause (and I understand this is a concept you are
having
> > >trouble
their own
> > >furniture and needs. Try to get it will ya?
> > >
> >
> > they sit? Is Mum (or Dad as the case may be) not allowed to use those
> > items of furniture?
>
furniture in my
> home was paid for by *me* and I choose to allow my children to use it...I
even let
> company sit on it...sometimes I even let the *dog* sit on it. Since *I*
paid for
> it, that is *my* right. *I* wouldn't use CS to pay for a table or couch
and then
> whine that because *my* kids use it too, it is OK.
> Your spin..I mean turn.
And in *our* home, we have paid for all of the furniture, and can allow the
kids to use it or not. They are currently not permitted use of any living
room furniture unless there is an adult in the room with them, as they have
shown themselves to be too destructive. They literally broke our two
rocker/recliners, to the tune of $120.00 in repairs, and that was about half
off the cost because the owner of the furniture store which repaired them is
a deacon in our church. I caught my stepson breaking pieces of wicker from
the sofa (small house, small couch!) that was given to us by my mom when our
older than dirt couch finally bit the dust. Now, unless there is an adult
in the room, they do not sit on the furniture. Feel free to disagree, but
even children need to learn respect for things.
Lori
Sunny
says...
>
>>It is if she's using CS to do it.
>
>You can't prove that she is using CS to do it.
Of course, not, CS is not accountible. A mom can buy Marlboro Lights and Jack
Daniels with her child support money, if she feels like it. Pity the poor
children.
>You only assume that because
>you resent sending money to her.
I can fully understand if there is some resentment, when Mom quits her job and
then starts, say, driving a brand new SUV, or booking cruises to the Bahamas.
Honey, if you're buying up new couches, bedroom sets, big TVs, with child
support money... you're getting way too much child support.
Cement Hands
Pat Winstanley wrote:
> In article <39A9D42A...@sympatico.ca>, Cement Hands
> <kidd....@sympatico.ca> writes
> >Well, I don't know about the kids in question but my SO's daughter really
> >NEEDED a 52" TV in her room when she was 6 weeks old. Of course, the other
> >TV had to be in the living room so it would have been incredibly unfair of
> >him to ask for 1 of the 2 that he paid for. Do you *ever* see the NCPs
> >side??
> >
>
> Regularly see the NCP side.
>
> I was querying the comment/assertion that CS money should not be used to
> help pay for furniture that is partly (and legitimately) for the use of
> the child. Not the rare and extreme cases such as you suggest above.
Well, I am of the belief that the CS should only be used to buy furniture for
the exclusive use of the child...bed, desk, dresser, etc.
I believe that providing furniture in the CPs house should fall under the CPs
responsiblity...if they are not capable of furnishing a home for the child and
themselves without CS, I question if they should be the CP. And the case I
suggested above was not a rare occurance..that particular CPs lawyer asked the
NCP if he would like to see his baby sleeping on the floor when the NCP brought
up splitting matrimonial property. He never would have wanted baby furniture
and it was a deliberate emotional stab used when defending the CPs "rights" and
it worked. He walked away from everything...even "double" items. I would like
to know why it is justified for the NCP to have no bed, couch, table, linens,
etc., so that the CP can have it 2 beds, 2 couches, 2 tables ... "in the best
interest of the child"? Just tack those 7 words on the end and alot of CPs will
justify anything...I've seen it done by so many it makes me ill.
>
>
> Should I refuse to allow the children to use the cooker, the carpets,
> beds etc? All cost money!
Huh? Since you need them anyway, you should provide them without using CS. If
you choose not to, that's your problem. It wasn't what I was suggesting in the
first place.
Cement Hands
Pat Winstanley wrote:
> In article <39AAC8F4...@sympatico.ca>, Cement Hands
> <kidd....@sympatico.ca> writes
> >Sorry Juleeloon...I AM A CP...and I buy my furniture and everything else in my
> >home cause I don't receive CS. If I *did* I wouldn't be spending it on anything
> >but the children cause (and I understand this is a concept you are having
> >trouble
> >with) it is for the kids. The CP has the responsiblity of providing their own
> >furniture and needs. Try to get it will ya?
> >
>
> What about the table the kids eat from, the chairs in the lounge where
> they sit? Is Mum (or Dad as the case may be) not allowed to use those
> items of furniture?
Let's see if I can clear *my* opinion up for you. Every stick of furniture in my
home was paid for by *me* and I choose to allow my children to use it...I even let
company sit on it...sometimes I even let the *dog* sit on it. Since *I* paid for
it, that is *my* right. *I* wouldn't use CS to pay for a table or couch and then
whine that because *my* kids use it too, it is OK.
Your spin..I mean turn.
>
>
> >Juleelou wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> >WHAT??? The NCP pays CS and now you want the NCP to lose the furniture they
> >> >bought with what money was left after CS?????? Castrate him and get it over
> >> >with...your arguments aren't even rational anymore.
> >>
> >> Hell you don't want the CP to have furniture at all.
> >
>
> --
> Pat Winstanley
Cement Hands
Jill wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 20:23:00 GMT, Cement Hands
> <kidd....@sympatico.ca> sent the following thru the ether:
>
> >
> >
> >Juleelou wrote:
> >
> >> >It is if she's using CS to do it.
> >>
> >> You can't prove that she is using CS to do it. You only assume that because
> >> you resent sending money to her.
> >
> >Well, since *I* am a CP...I guess you just stuck your foot in your mouth huh?
> >Is it tasty? And *you* assumed that the CP works and isn't spending CS to do
> >it...go back and read the post...pretty sure in that scenario, the CP doesn't
> >work.
>
> Maybe Julee was referring to me. You bet I resent sending money to
> her. Because I *KNOW* beyond a doubt that her children see little to
> none of it. You will probably say--what about their clothes and food?
Yes Jill, you may be right. However, she replies to me again in a later post about
what a riot it would be to see me go to court and complain to the judge that "she
spent the CS on furniture and Disneyland." Either she isn't aware of who she is
replying to or she just assumes that my attitude meant I was another nasty NCP.
>
>
> She has her parents and my husband's parents (all sick and elderly
> people) convinced she receives NO CS. That she has NEVER in 13 years
> received ANY CS. My husband showed his parents his check stubs
> showing the garnishment but they don't really understand. So they and
> her parents and her sister and brother-in-law buy all the food and
> clothes the kids ever see.
Parasites don't care who the feed off of.
>
>
> Now this bitch tells these elderly relatives and her children she has
> NEVER receceived ANY CS and justifies it by saying that the only
> support checks she gets come from the CSA. Not from her ex-husband.
> His name is not on the checks, right? The County of XXXX is on the
> checks. Get it? According to her manipulative lies, the money is
> from the Government and not from the children's father.
Interesting...if my ex were still around we could pair them up. He insisted that
the gov't sent me money whether he paid or not and that he would have to pay them
back. Since I wasn't collecting welfare, that was a lie.
>
>
> She tells them all these are government assistance checks because he
> is not and never has paid CS. Very clever, don't you think, Julee?
> Maybe you will want to use that one if you haven't thought it up
> already. Its not technically a lie...right?
Careful Jill...too much information is a dangerous thing in the wrong hands.
Cement Hands
Bob Whiteside wrote:
> Jill wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 20:23:00 GMT, Cement Hands
> > <kidd....@sympatico.ca> sent the following thru the ether:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Juleelou wrote:
> > >
> > >> >It is if she's using CS to do it.
> > >>
> > >> You can't prove that she is using CS to do it. You only assume that because
> > >> you resent sending money to her.
> > >
> > >Well, since *I* am a CP...I guess you just stuck your foot in your mouth huh?
> > >Is it tasty? And *you* assumed that the CP works and isn't spending CS to do
> > >it...go back and read the post...pretty sure in that scenario, the CP doesn't
> > >work.
> >
> > Maybe Julee was referring to me. You bet I resent sending money to
> > her. Because I *KNOW* beyond a doubt that her children see little to
> > none of it. You will probably say--what about their clothes and food?
> >
> > She has her parents and my husband's parents (all sick and elderly
> > people) convinced she receives NO CS. That she has NEVER in 13 years
> > received ANY CS. My husband showed his parents his check stubs
> > showing the garnishment but they don't really understand. So they and
> > her parents and her sister and brother-in-law buy all the food and
> > clothes the kids ever see.
> >
> > Now this bitch tells these elderly relatives and her children she has
> > NEVER receceived ANY CS and justifies it by saying that the only
> > support checks she gets come from the CSA. Not from her ex-husband.
> > His name is not on the checks, right? The County of XXXX is on the
> > checks. Get it? According to her manipulative lies, the money is
> > from the Government and not from the children's father.
> >
> > She tells them all these are government assistance checks because he
> > is not and never has paid CS. Very clever, don't you think, Julee?
> > Maybe you will want to use that one if you haven't thought it up
> > already. Its not technically a lie...right?
>
> How about the other scenarios the CP's falsely create that are technically not
> lies, but intended to get sympathy and money, often from their own relatives.
>
> My ex tells her relatives I refuse to pay the support I owe her. And the only way
> she can get any money out of me is to take me to court and have the judge hold me
> in contempt. She conveniently forgets about the tens of thousands of dollars in
> regular payments she got without any problems. It worked, she got her mother to
> send her several thousand dollars to get by.
>
> Or the other sympathy scam she plays by claiming I constantly harass her by
> dragging her back into court and the thickness of the court file proves her point.
> She just forgets to say the file is so thick because every time I ask for a
> modification or help from the judge she re-files all of the previous court filings,
> related documentation, and court decisions as attachments to the current issues to
> back up her claim I am the one responsible for the thick file. You'd think the
> judges would see through this scam, but I actually had a judge sanction me for
> continually harassing and dragging my ex back into court in a modification where I
> prevailed. My penalty was to pay her attorney fees of $6,735 to fight the simple
> support reduction that I was granted by the judge.
Oh Bob, I am sorry you have been so screwed over...she sounds like my SOs ex. And I do
see it happen on both sides.
>
>
> Bob
Cement Hands
Pat Winstanley wrote:
> In article <39AAD174...@sympatico.ca>, Cement Hands
> <kidd....@sympatico.ca> writes
> >
> >
> >Juleelou wrote:
> >
> >> >Not what CS is for...so it's wrong.
> >>
> >> No CS is to provide the children with a home, food and clothing.
> >
> >No, CS is the NCPs contribution to the support of the children.
> >
>
> Yes... his or her share of the *overall* costs of the child. Are you
> suggesting that does not include things such as a home for them to live
> in and furniture, fittings, fixtures, appliances etc for them to use,
> and for there to be a supply of electricity, water etc (or to be used on
> their behalf) whilst living there?
No Pat, I'm not "suggesting" anything. I've replied to the earlier post.
I'd rather not waste any more time on it because I'm trying to figure out if
I can get a modification because I forgot to factor in lightbulbs, faucets,
and a new burner for my stove.
>
>
> --
> Pat Winstanley
Cement Hands
Jill wrote:
> Piggybacking...
>
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 20:11:08 GMT, Cement Hands
> <kidd....@sympatico.ca> sent the following thru the ether:
>
> >
> >
> >Juleelou wrote:
> >
> >> >The sad
> >> >thing is that no matter how awful this woman *proves* herself to be
> >> >time and again, no matter how criminal, and how abusive to her
> >> >children she continues to be, no one in the system including the judge
> >> >will stop her. I bet you totally empathize with her.
> >> >
> >> >Having said that, it *is my* business what this awful woman does with
> >> >the hard earned money my husband pays to support her children. We
> >> >live in a marital property state. My assets are his. And his are
> >> >mine. So I do have a vested interest in seeing that the CS he
> >> >provides is spent on the children and not on the lazy, greedy woman he
> >> >made the catastrophic mistake of marrying in his youth.
> >>
> >> Hmmm...... Buying new furniture
> >
> >Not what CS is for...so it's wrong.
> >
Jill, my lawyer told me up front...if you're looking for fairness, don't look for it
in family court. And I was the one with the "odds" in my favor...
>
> >
> >
Mark Jebens
23:03:14 +0100:
> In article <2a86e39b6e125e91...@mixmaster.shinn.net>,
> fathers-rights <anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net> writes
> >Also, the NCP has to maintain a residence for the children as well. One
> >could argue that the costs of sheltering the children cancel each other
> >out.
> If the children live with them for similar amounts of time, yes. If not,
> no.
And here I thought that CS was supposed to ensure that the kids had
an equivalent SOL at both households. Thank you for clearing that up.
--
Mark Jebens
Xmje...@primenet.com (Remove the "X" to reply)
Jill
sent the following thru the ether:
>
>fathers-rights <anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net> wrote in message
>news:328fbc7f32077e70...@mixmaster.shinn.net...
>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 23:03:14 +0100 Pat Winstanley
>> <Pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <2a86e39b6e125e91...@mixmaster.shinn.net>,
>> >fathers-rights <anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net> writes
>> >>Also, the NCP has to maintain a residence for the children as well. One
>> >>could argue that the costs of sheltering the children cancel each other
>> >>out.
>> >
>> >If the children live with them for similar amounts of time, yes. If not,
>> >no.
>> >
>> >--
>> >Pat Winstanley
>>
>> Wrong. If the children reside with the father two nights a week, he
>> still needs to maintain a residence for them. He doesn't just pay for
>> the extra room for 2/7ths of the time.
>>
>
>
>This is true. There is a man in our church who is low income, and
>handicapped. He is on a limited income, and because of being handicapped
>lives in low income, income based, housing. One bedroom apartment. he is
>not permitted overnight visitation with his little girl because he cannot
>afford a two bedroom place, even though he is more than willing that she
>have the bedroom while there, and he'd sleep on the sofa.
>Lori
>
My husband was told by a *social* worker that he would have to have 3
separate bedrooms in order to have overnights with his kids. I could
understand that his son would need a separate room from his daughters
but apparently 3 daughters could not sleep together in one bedroom
either. Not to mention that none of the daughters were to bunk with
my daughter even though she and my husband's oldest are only a couple
of months apart in age. It would also not be acceptable for the son
to bunk with his dad. Child abuse crapola was hinted at, of course.
So needless to say my husband never had overnight visitation. But
within a year of that, his ex was denying him any contact with his
children and the *social* worker was giving her extra tips on how to
accomplish this and the court was turning it's head the other way.
>
>
>
Edmund Esterbauer
furniture.
IE when at the father he pays, when with you, you pay.
But that is not your motive.
You are about theft, extortion and you have no interest in the welfare of
the child.
"Pat Winstanley" <Pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fOVSNEBI...@pierless.demon.co.uk...
> In article <39A9D42A...@sympatico.ca>, Cement Hands
> <kidd....@sympatico.ca> writes
> >Well, I don't know about the kids in question but my SO's daughter really
> >NEEDED a 52" TV in her room when she was 6 weeks old. Of course, the
other
> >TV had to be in the living room so it would have been incredibly unfair
of
> >him to ask for 1 of the 2 that he paid for. Do you *ever* see the NCPs
> >side??
> >
>
> Regularly see the NCP side.
>
> I was querying the comment/assertion that CS money should not be used to
> help pay for furniture that is partly (and legitimately) for the use of
> the child. Not the rare and extreme cases such as you suggest above.
>
> Should I refuse to allow the children to use the cooker, the carpets,
> beds etc? All cost money!
>
fathers-rights
wrote:
>fathers-rights <anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net> wrote in message
>news:328fbc7f32077e70...@mixmaster.shinn.net...
>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 23:03:14 +0100 Pat Winstanley
>> <Pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <2a86e39b6e125e91...@mixmaster.shinn.net>,
>> >fathers-rights <anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net> writes
>> >>Also, the NCP has to maintain a residence for the children as well. One
>> >>could argue that the costs of sheltering the children cancel each other
>> >>out.
>> >
>> >If the children live with them for similar amounts of time, yes. If not,
>> >no.
>> >
>> >--
>> >Pat Winstanley
>>
>> Wrong. If the children reside with the father two nights a week, he
>> still needs to maintain a residence for them. He doesn't just pay for
>> the extra room for 2/7ths of the time.
>>
>
>
>This is true. There is a man in our church who is low income, and
>handicapped. He is on a limited income, and because of being handicapped
>lives in low income, income based, housing. One bedroom apartment. he is
>not permitted overnight visitation with his little girl because he cannot
>afford a two bedroom place, even though he is more than willing that she
>have the bedroom while there, and he'd sleep on the sofa.
>Lori
But surely if he had a second bedroom which was only occupied by a
child for one or two days a week, no landlord would charge him for the
room for the other five or six days! At least, according to what we've
heard from some of the CPs in here....
Nobody
>>Also, the NCP has to maintain a residence for the children as well. One
>>could argue that the costs of sheltering the children cancel each other
>>out.
> If the children live with them for similar amounts of time, yes. If not,
> no.
Your statement is false because the fixed costs of the
second household don't change as a function of shared
parenting time.
Drew
Cement Hands
Lori wrote:
> fathers-rights <anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net> wrote in message
> news:328fbc7f32077e70...@mixmaster.shinn.net...
> > On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 23:03:14 +0100 Pat Winstanley
> > <Pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <2a86e39b6e125e91...@mixmaster.shinn.net>,
> > >fathers-rights <anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net> writes
> > >>Also, the NCP has to maintain a residence for the children as well. One
> > >>could argue that the costs of sheltering the children cancel each other
> > >>out.
> > >
> > >If the children live with them for similar amounts of time, yes. If not,
> > >no.
> > >
> > >--
> > >Pat Winstanley
> >
> > Wrong. If the children reside with the father two nights a week, he
> > still needs to maintain a residence for them. He doesn't just pay for
> > the extra room for 2/7ths of the time.
> >
>
> This is true. There is a man in our church who is low income, and
> handicapped. He is on a limited income, and because of being handicapped
> lives in low income, income based, housing. One bedroom apartment. he is
> not permitted overnight visitation with his little girl because he cannot
> afford a two bedroom place, even though he is more than willing that she
> have the bedroom while there, and he'd sleep on the sofa.
That is crazy...does the CP have a problem with him having overnights? Who
told him he couldn't have overnights? The reason I ask is because I lived in
geared to income housing for the first two years I was separated and I didn't
have any restrictions on overnight guests...I just had to register them if they
needed a parking pass. But while talking to Tracy, I learned that it is
different in some places in the US. So I am curious if it is the court who
decided this or some restriction placed on him by whoever runs the housing he
lives in.
>
> Lori
Cement Hands
is that I don't freak on my kids if they ruin something as much as I would if I
bought brand new very expensive furniture. But I agree that children should
learn to respect things regardless of the cost. My point to Pat was that if the
CP uses their own money to buy things, they can do whatever they darn well
please. I just don't buy into using CS to buy items that the whole household
uses and then justify it by saying *my* kids use it too...so it's okedokee.
Lori wrote:
> Cement Hands <kidd....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:39AB036E...@sympatico.ca...
> >
> >
Jill
<kidd....@sympatico.ca> sent the following thru the ether:
Based on my husband's experience, I think its the courts who are
forbidding overnights because of bedroom space. IF the CP mom was not
making a fuss and objecting, the courts would not even ask about the
number of bedrooms at least not from what I know from our experience.
So in this case, too, I believe the CP mom is the one using the
courts to deny overnight parenting time between the children and the
father. Which is what my husband's ex did when involving the social
worker and the psychologist in vistiation matters. Another of her
many vile misdeeds.
Pat Winstanley
otmail.REMOVE_THIS.com> writes
>Pat Winstanley wrote:
>>>Also, the NCP has to maintain a residence for the children as well. One
>>>could argue that the costs of sheltering the children cancel each other
>>>out.
>> If the children live with them for similar amounts of time, yes. If not,
>> no.
>
>second household don't change as a function of shared
>parenting time.
>
>Drew
They may or may not do. My ex had the kids one night (and about two half
days) a week in a one bedroom flat. There were twin beds in the one
bedroom plus a sofa. Did he *really* need a dedicated bedroom for each
child (or one between them) for that one night a week?
If so, why?
--
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
I really don't care who paid for the furniture. The point is should the
child be allowed to use what was purchased for the adult, the adult
allowed to use what was purchased for the kids, or any of them be
allowed to use what was purchased for joint use?
>>
>>
>> >Juleelou wrote:
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >WHAT??? The NCP pays CS and now you want the NCP to lose the furniture
>they
>> >> >bought with what money was left after CS?????? Castrate him and get it
>over
>> >> >with...your arguments aren't even rational anymore.
>> >>
>> >> Hell you don't want the CP to have furniture at all.
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Pat Winstanley
>
--
Pat Winstanley