Deadbeat dad (and singer) Sean Levert died of natural causes
Kenneth J.
Coroner: Singer Sean Levert died of natural causes By JOE MILICIA,
Associated Press Writer
CLEVELAND - A coroner ruled Thursday that R&B singer Sean Levert died
of natural causes after falling ill in jail, and his family reacted by
saying his death possibly could have been prevented.
Levert suffered from various ailments, the Cuyahoga County coroner's
ruling said. Attorneys for Levert's widow say sheriff's department
records they reviewed show he wasn't given his anti-anxiety medication
while in jail or seen by a doctor, which might have prevented his
death.
Levert, a member of the 1980s R&B trio LeVert and son of lead O'Jays
singer Eddie Levert, died at age 39 at 11:57 p.m. March 30 at a
hospital, about an hour after he was taken from the Cuyahoga County
jail. He was serving a 22-month sentence for failure to pay child
support.
Levert's family had questioned officials' account that Levert had been
acting strangely and was restrained before he fell ill. In his ruling,
county Coroner Frank Miller ruled out foul play or trauma.
Miller said Levert died from complications of sarcoidosis, an
inflammatory lung disease that produces tiny lumps of cells in the
body's organs. The coroner said Levert also suffered from other
conditions, including heart disease, high blood sugar and withdrawal
from alprazolam, a drug used to treat anxiety disorders and panic
attacks that is better known under the trade name Xanax.
After Levert died, jail warden Kevin McDonough said he had been sick
and guards were watching him because he had been acting strangely.
When he started pounding on his cell door, guards strapped him in a
restraint chair, McDonough said. Levert's breathing became shallow and
he was taken to the hospital.
"He was exhibiting classic signs of Xanax withdrawal," attorney Daryl
Dennie said. "A doctor would have been able to recognize these
problems. Had he been able to see one in that week's time things could
have been different."
Dennie and lawyer David Malik, who represent Levert's widow, Angela
Lowe, said they reviewed documents in the coroner's office showing
that Levert brought a bottle of Xanax with him to the jail.
"They inventoried it and they never gave it to him," Malik said. "He
requested it during the time he was in jail."
The coroner's office would not release the documents publicly on
Thursday.
The office of county Prosecutor Bill Mason declined to comment. A
message seeking comment from Chief Deputy Douglas Burkhart at the
sheriff's department was not immediately returned.
Malik and Dennie would not comment on possible legal action until they
complete their investigation. Malik said the family may ask the FBI to
investigate.
FBI spokesman Scott Wilson said in April that agents were willing to
meet with Levert's family. Wilson said Thursday that the FBI was never
contacted by the family.
Levert and his brother Gerald formed LeVert in the 1980s with
childhood friend Marc Gordon. Their hits included "Baby I'm Ready,"
"(Pop, Pop, Pop, Pop) Goes My Mind" and "Casanova."
His brother died in 2006 at age 40 of an accidental mix of
prescription and over-the-counter drugs.
Sean Levert, who was trying to start the group LeVert again, had
pleaded guilty in March to six counts of failure to pay child support.
He was accused of failure to pay $89,025 to children ages 11, 15 and
17.
He had pleaded guilty in 1995 to drug abuse and was placed on
probation and required to get treatment.
Levert's widow released a written statement Thursday saying: "Sean was
loved by many and both his family and fans are saddened beyond
comprehension. Sean Levert did not die as a result of illegal drug
usage."
Taylor
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080529/ap_en_mu/levert_death;_ylt=Aj0V7p...
DVD
> On May 29, 9:23 pm, kenneth...@aol.com (Kenneth J.) wrote:
>
>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080529/ap_en_mu/levert_death;_ylt=Aj0V7p...
>>
>>Coroner: Singer Sean Levert died of natural causes By JOE MILICIA,
>>Associated Press Writer
>>
Sounds like he died from bad lawyers and an absolute cunt of an ex.
Kenneth J.
Yeah, how dare she sue him for child support payments!
STRATEGY
He was Just Coolin'
STRATEGY
DVD
You are so stupid and so well indoctrinated that you will probably never
understand reality. No guy will go to jail for 22 months rather than pay
what he owes, a lawyer who negotiates a child support settlement that
his client can't afford is a bad one, and no woman will see this
situation and send her ex to jail for 22 months unless she is a cunt
with no common sense. Do you think she will be getting any money from
him while he is in jail? Do you think she really cares about her kids'
support or is she just being a vindictive cunt? She got what she
deserved though, no money and her kids will grow up knowing that she
killed their dad.
"So You Diane I"
"Kenneth J." <kenne...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:483f8ca2....@news.easynews.com...
he was only $90,000 behind.. he would have paid it.
"So You Diane I"
"DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
news:483fb77a$0$5154$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
how far behind are you in your child support!
LJ
Exactly why would the ex be labeled a cunt?? Because she and society as a
whole,not to mention common decency and good sense, dictates that children
should be supported by their parents??
LJ
I'd bet you dont pay support for your kids??? Just a guess!! But I would
bet money on it!!
Your comments speak more about YOU & your lack of character than about
anything else!
teachrmama
"LJ" <lj...@lsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ePS%j.61670$7a....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
Do you feel that children deserve to have their needs met by their parents?
Or do you feel that children are owed a certain lifestyle?
Phil
""So You Diane I"" <sy...@borat.com> wrote in message
news:Fd2dnYF1KpTTSaLV...@giganews.com...
Shooting the messenger because they cannot address the point is a
hallmark of feminist "debate".
1) How do you know the poster even has children, 2) owes child support
or 3) is behind?
The point remains unchallenged.
Phil #3
LJ
"teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:g1ov1...@news3.newsguy.com...
Needs: food, shelter, medical/dental care.......which is what support
means...support does not and is not intended for lifestyle, in my
estimation, it is provided for the needs of a child.
Phil
Las Vegas would LOVE for you to come visit. They built the city on
people like you.
>
> Your comments speak more about YOU & your lack of character than about
> anything else!
Shooting the messenger does not address the point.
The problem is NOT in addressing the fallacy of the system as the OP did
but failing to acknowledge that the whole system is wrong, as you did.
Phil #3
Phil
Do you realize that "child support" is based, not on needs but on
parent's incomes?
In case you missed it, that equates to lifestyle, not need.
If C$ were based on needs, all money orders in child support for any
given area would be identical, regardless the income of the parents
because the needs of children does not fluctuate according to their
parent's incomes.
Phil #3
DVD
>>
>>You are so stupid and so well indoctrinated that you will probably never
>>understand reality. No guy will go to jail for 22 months rather than pay
>>what he owes, a lawyer who negotiates a child support settlement that his
>>client can't afford is a bad one, and no woman will see this situation and
>>send her ex to jail for 22 months unless she is a cunt with no common
>>sense. Do you think she will be getting any money from him while he is in
>>jail? Do you think she really cares about her kids' support or is she
>>just being a vindictive cunt? She got what she deserved though, no money
>>and her kids will grow up knowing that she killed their dad.
>
>
> I'd bet you dont pay support for your kids??? Just a guess!! But I would
> bet money on it!!
>
> Your comments speak more about YOU & your lack of character than about
> anything else!
>
>
And yours come from ignorance, all of my kids live with me. So just as
much as you were wrong in that assumption, you are probably wrong about
most things common sense related. I see how you were unable to address
what I wrote though, are you one of those cunts who use child support as
a way to get even with your ex for dumping you?
DVD
I think the father should pay the same % towards his kids after a
divorce as he did before, if his salary changes the amount changes with
it. Anyone who thinks this guy went to jail because he just didn't want
to pay is crazy. Does anyone really think his ex made a smart move or
did this for any reason other than to be a vindictive cunt?
LJ
You are wrong. No child support here!
Janice
kenne...@aol.com (Kenneth J.) wrote:
> He had pleaded guilty in 1995 to drug abuse and was placed on
> probation and required to get treatment.
"we havent caught you using coke or in posession of COke, but you are
obviously a coke abuser so we will charge you with being a coke abuser".
Janice
"teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote:
> Do you feel that children deserve to have their needs met by their parents?
> Or do you feel that children are owed a certain lifestyle?
Their lifestyle met????? Their is no criterian that there lifestyle be
met, if the wife wants to meet their needs and use the rest for herself
that is perfectly legit.
Shadow36
"Janice" <Not...@you.com> wrote in message
news:Nothank-9A8834...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
It me be legit legally, but morally it's not.
DVD
I merely asked you a question ... start with the word "are" and finish
with the question mark if you don't understand this. I see you are still
avoiding any discussion about my opinion. I guess my work is done here.
teachrmama
You don't receive child support? Do you pay child support? Do you know a
lot about the system, or do you just assume that the system is fair and
based on the best interests of the children? (Real questions, trying to
find out where you are coming from. Please don't look at them as an attack,
because they aren't)
teachrmama
Hmmmm....you do realize that the children's needs are not the basis for
child support, right? They say that "the childen should be supported at the
same level after a divorce that they were before." How does one use the
same amount of money to support 2 households that used to be used to support
one?
teachrmama
I am very aware of that. My personal opinion is that 50/50 joint custody
with no money changing hands should be the default choice. If that is not
possible, then the children's **needs** should be met with child support. No
"lifestyle" is owed.
LJ
Nope--I dont pay or receive.
I know CS is based on income. I know the system as my cousin's wife pays him
(or actually is supposed to pay) and we have helped him alot with his child.
I just do not understand how a parent cannot provide for their child
regardless of how they feel about their ex.
Phil
If any parents are forced to spend a percentage of their income on their
children, ALL parents should be so ordered with the same penalties for
failing to do so and this should apply to all parents and those in an
intact family as well as non-custodial parents. (In other words, this is
a silly idea).
Also, does the basic *necessities* increase as the parent's income
increases or just the desire for more and more expensive toys?
Phil #3
Dusty
news:7PCdnU7iZJGxx9zV...@earthlink.com...
Unless I miss my guess, that particular subject was raised in court before
(if anyone has the sitation or a site where this can be found, please post
it).
And, just like fox guarding the hen house, the judge(s) shot the case down.
Seems that the Feds are very well aware of the house of cards they've built
out of fleecing NCP's of their hard earned cash so parents can pay to see
their own children 6-8 days a month.
Fun, eh?
LJ
Are you *that* dense??I said "You are wrong. No child support here!" But,
since you cannot understand simple implication, the answer is No. I do not
receive child support. I do not have an ex that I have tried get back at
through child support! Geez, you are thick headed!
DVD
Exactly, proving once again that you can't understand common sense. I
ASKED you a question, it is pretty hard for me to be wrong when I am
asking you a question a question about you.
> But,
> since you cannot understand simple implication, the answer is No. I do not
> receive child support. I do not have an ex that I have tried get back at
> through child support! Geez, you are thick headed!
>
>
And that would be an answer, get it now, stupid? You still seem to have
completely avoided any discussion of my opinion though, why is that?
(see ... another question)
DVD
>
>
> If any parents are forced to spend a percentage of their income on their
> children, ALL parents should be so ordered with the same penalties for
> failing to do so and this should apply to all parents and those in an
> intact family as well as non-custodial parents. (In other words, this is
> a silly idea).
Divorce is more of an arbitrated agreement, people can negotiate and
should stick to their negotiated settlement. If that is not possible
they need to renegotiate based on the parent's new situation. Parents in
intact families are also required by law to provide for the basic needs
of their children, I'm not sure that 22 months in jail for failing to do
that would make sense.
> Also, does the basic *necessities* increase as the parent's income
> increases or just the desire for more and more expensive toys?
> Phil #3
>
>
If your kid was in private school and taking music lessons those costs
can be negotiated just like everything else. A divorce settlement can
insure that the kids' lives are not stripped to the bare neccessities
just because the parents get divorced.
Gini
........................
>
> If your kid was in private school and taking music lessons those costs can
> be negotiated just like everything else. A divorce settlement can insure
> that the kids' lives are not stripped to the bare neccessities just
> because the parents get divorced.
But--the "bare necessities" are OK for intact families and the courts should
have no jurisdiction over the financial/child rearing decisions in intact
families? Children of divorced families should be viewed as more worthy than
children in intact families?
Bob Whiteside
> Phil wrote:
>>
>>
>> If any parents are forced to spend a percentage of their income on their
>> children, ALL parents should be so ordered with the same penalties for
>> failing to do so and this should apply to all parents and those in an
>> intact family as well as non-custodial parents. (In other words, this is
>> a silly idea).
>
> Divorce is more of an arbitrated agreement, people can negotiate and
> should stick to their negotiated settlement. If that is not possible they
> need to renegotiate based on the parent's new situation. Parents in intact
> families are also required by law to provide for the basic needs of their
> children, I'm not sure that 22 months in jail for failing to do that would
> make sense.
This process is called "negotiating in the shadow of the court" and it is
far from being in the children's best interest.
Why would any divorcing wife negotiate fairly if her attorney has already
filled her head with what he/she can get for her?
Even with mandatory mediation a woman can renege on her negotiated agreement
after the fact if her attorney tells her she didn't have to give up so much.
teachrmama
As nice as it sounds for you to say that things can be "negotiated," it
doesn't really work out that way. Shy bother to negotiate if you know that
the judge is going to find in your favor anyway? As for private school and
music lessons, are they more important than the CP having enough money to
live on? Should Dad live in a hut in order to keep Junior at the same
lifestyle that existed pre-divorce? An intact family uses income to support
*one* household. A divorced family uses the exact same income to support
*two* households. Something is going to have to be cut from the budget to
manage that. Unfortunately, this obvious fact seems to escape those setting
CS levels.
DVD
Listen you maniac, re-read what I wrote and forget your agenda. Bare
neccessities are legally okay for everyone, everything else is
negotiated. The difference between married couples and divorced people
is that they don't have to go to court before they cut the piano lessons
and private school, they negotiate at home.
Gini
> Gini wrote:
>> "DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote
>> ........................
>>
>>>
>>> If your kid was in private school and taking music lessons those costs
>>> can be negotiated just like everything else. A divorce settlement can
>>> insure that the kids' lives are not stripped to the bare neccessities
>>> just because the parents get divorced.
>>
>> ===
>> But--the "bare necessities" are OK for intact families and the courts
>> should have no jurisdiction over the financial/child rearing decisions in
>> intact families? Children of divorced families should be viewed as more
>> worthy than children in intact families?
>>
>>
>
> Listen you maniac, re-read what I wrote and forget your agenda.
So much for your capacity to carry on an intelligent conversation...Sheesh
==
DVD
>
> "DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
> news:48419ccc$0$12900$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
>> Phil wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If any parents are forced to spend a percentage of their income on
>>> their children, ALL parents should be so ordered with the same
>>> penalties for failing to do so and this should apply to all parents
>>> and those in an intact family as well as non-custodial parents. (In
>>> other words, this is a silly idea).
>>
>>
>> Divorce is more of an arbitrated agreement, people can negotiate and
>> should stick to their negotiated settlement. If that is not possible
>> they need to renegotiate based on the parent's new situation. Parents
>> in intact families are also required by law to provide for the basic
>> needs of their children, I'm not sure that 22 months in jail for
>> failing to do that would make sense.
>
>
> This process is called "negotiating in the shadow of the court" and it
> is far from being in the children's best interest.
>
Lets start with the thing that started this thread, what would be better
for the dead guy's children? A dead or incarcerated father or a
renegotiation to establish what the father really could afford?
> Why would any divorcing wife negotiate fairly if her attorney has
> already filled her head with what he/she can get for her?
>
Sometimes men have lawyers too, sometimes these lawyers tell their
stories to judges and sometimes judges decide who gets what.
> Even with mandatory mediation a woman can renege on her negotiated
> agreement after the fact if her attorney tells her she didn't have to
> give up so much.
She can back out of receiving child support? Good for her. On the other
hand if she can prove the mediation was unfair then it would be up to
her to prove it.
DVD
>
>
> As nice as it sounds for you to say that things can be "negotiated," it
> doesn't really work out that way. Shy bother to negotiate if you know that
> the judge is going to find in your favor anyway?
Do you have a problem with adressing the things I actually wrote here?
When did anyone say anything about knowing what the judges will say? Do
you think that music lessons and private school CAN'T be negotiated in a
divorce settlement? If that is your argument tell me why.
> As for private school and
> music lessons, are they more important than the CP having enough money to
> live on? Should Dad live in a hut in order to keep Junior at the same
> lifestyle that existed pre-divorce? An intact family uses income to support
> *one* household. A divorced family uses the exact same income to support
> *two* households. Something is going to have to be cut from the budget to
> manage that. Unfortunately, this obvious fact seems to escape those setting
> CS levels.
>
Jesus this is getting stupid, do you even know what a negotiation is? I
have an intact family and I maintain 3 households, what the fuck does
that have to do with negotiating? Again, are you arguing that extras
above and beyond basic living expenses CAN'T be negotiated? If that is
your argument, make it. Stop adding dimwitted strawmen and red herrings
to every post.
DVD
>>>
>>
>> Listen you maniac, re-read what I wrote and forget your agenda.
>
> ==
> So much for your capacity to carry on an intelligent conversation...Sheesh
> ==
>
>
>
>
So you have no argument, no comment on of substance at all? Why bother
posting? Did you cut out everything I said that you couldn't debate?
teachrmama
But you are wrong--that's the point. Things aren't as easy as
"negotiation." We are not talking about a starting point of "bare
necessities." We are talking about a starting point of 20% of Dad's gross
salary for one child--and Mom can ask the judge to continue piano lessons
and private school *on top of that*! She does ^not* have to negotiate with
dad--she can just ask the judge and, chances are, she will get it.
teachrmama
> teachrmama wrote:
>>
>>
>> As nice as it sounds for you to say that things can be "negotiated," it
>> doesn't really work out that way. Shy bother to negotiate if you know
>> that the judge is going to find in your favor anyway?
>
> Do you have a problem with adressing the things I actually wrote here?
> When did anyone say anything about knowing what the judges will say? Do
> you think that music lessons and private school CAN'T be negotiated in a
> divorce settlement? If that is your argument tell me why.
OK, I'll tell you why. There is a formula used to award child support. It
is a percentage of Dad's salary--and it is waaaaaay more than "Bare
necessities." If Mom wants music lessons and private school to continue,
she can ask for that ***on top of the child support award*** and will
probably get that, too.
Where is the negotiation in that? Dad can say "I can't afford that." But
if the judge decides that he can--then he has to pay.
>
> > As for private school and
>> music lessons, are they more important than the CP having enough money to
>> live on? Should Dad live in a hut in order to keep Junior at the same
>> lifestyle that existed pre-divorce? An intact family uses income to
>> support *one* household. A divorced family uses the exact same income to
>> support *two* households. Something is going to have to be cut from the
>> budget to manage that. Unfortunately, this obvious fact seems to escape
>> those setting CS levels.
>
> Jesus this is getting stupid, do you even know what a negotiation is? I
> have an intact family and I maintain 3 households, what the fuck does that
> have to do with negotiating?
Then you must make enough money to do that, and are very arrogant in
deciding that everyone else must be able to do the same thing. I'm pretty
sure your salary is above mnimum wage or blue collar salary. YOU don't
understand that, even when negotiations take place, the judge is under
******NO OBLIGATION*** to accept the negotiations. And, if the custodial
parent decides after agreeing to the negotiations, that she doesn't like the
result, she can merely tell the judge that she does not want to go by the
negotiations after all. She is under ***NO OBLIGATION*** to go with what
she originally agreed to.
Again, are you arguing that extras
> above and beyond basic living expenses CAN'T be negotiated?
Not at all. I'm arguing that, even if the father does not agree, and
negotiations break down, the mother can still get what she wants,
negotiations or not.
If that is
> your argument, make it. Stop adding dimwitted strawmen and red herrings to
> every post.
Huh? Takes one to know one, I guess.
Bob Whiteside
> Bob Whiteside wrote:
>
>>
>> "DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
>> news:48419ccc$0$12900$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>
>>> Phil wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If any parents are forced to spend a percentage of their income on
>>>> their children, ALL parents should be so ordered with the same
>>>> penalties for failing to do so and this should apply to all parents and
>>>> those in an intact family as well as non-custodial parents. (In other
>>>> words, this is a silly idea).
>>>
>>>
>>> Divorce is more of an arbitrated agreement, people can negotiate and
>>> should stick to their negotiated settlement. If that is not possible
>>> they need to renegotiate based on the parent's new situation. Parents in
>>> intact families are also required by law to provide for the basic needs
>>> of their children, I'm not sure that 22 months in jail for failing to do
>>> that would make sense.
>>
>>
>> This process is called "negotiating in the shadow of the court" and it is
>> far from being in the children's best interest.
>>
>
> Lets start with the thing that started this thread, what would be better
> for the dead guy's children? A dead or incarcerated father or a
> renegotiation to establish what the father really could afford?
I would definitely come down on the side of renegotitation to establish what
the father could pay. However, the Bradley Amendment prevents previously
accrued CS from being forgiven. And when a father has had a history of a
certain level of income, the courts impute that income to him and set CS at
an artificially high amount. Judges rarely grant a reduction for future
payments and downward modifications of previous orders are only allowed 4-5%
of the time.
>
>> Why would any divorcing wife negotiate fairly if her attorney has already
>> filled her head with what he/she can get for her?
>>
>
> Sometimes men have lawyers too, sometimes these lawyers tell their stories
> to judges and sometimes judges decide who gets what.
Of course. But if a mother knows she will get custody by default 85% of the
time, and a predetermined amount of her husband's income, why would she
negotiate for something different?
>
>> Even with mandatory mediation a woman can renege on her negotiated
>> agreement after the fact if her attorney tells her she didn't have to
>> give up so much.
>
> She can back out of receiving child support? Good for her. On the other
> hand if she can prove the mediation was unfair then it would be up to her
> to prove it.
It works the other way around. The mothers know the predetermined amount of
the basic CS award and they negotiate for add-ons, i.e. things like private
schooling, special needs like music lessons, etc.
Here is reality - Men negotiate to reduce their loses and women negotiate to
increase their wins.
teachrmama
I think that a lot of the problem is about the amount of the
award--sometimes it is just mindboggling. And when a person gets behind, it
can be very scarey--facing loss of drivers and professional licenses as well
as contempt of court and jail time. It is so easy to say "they should just
pay," as if everyone who falls behind is a deadbeat. Also, nobody wants to
be forced to be only a visitor in their child's life, but that is what our
current system does to so many parents (mostly fathers). Until we can start
looking at everyone involved as individuals, instead of items in a formula,
there are going to continue to be massive unfairnesses. "Provide for on's
child" is such a relative thing. Is giving $$$ for the care of the child
really "providing"? Or is being there to put a bandaid on a skinned knee or
tell a bedtime story providing, too? To me, it is very sad that one parent
gets to be the caretaker, and the other is only $$$. Children need both
parents--not just $$$$.
>
>
DVD
17 or 20% is a reasonable child support payment for a guy who isn't on
welfare. When she asks for the extra $1000 a month and the father offers
$0 a month, THAT is the beginning of a negotiation. If the mother asks
for a video game budget the father can refuse and that too can be
negotiated. Apparently you don't understand what negotiation is. In a
divorce the lawyers are just doing the bidding of the negotiators and
the judge (or mediator) makes a decision.
DVD
>>
>> Lets start with the thing that started this thread, what would be
>> better for the dead guy's children? A dead or incarcerated father or a
>> renegotiation to establish what the father really could afford?
>
>
> I would definitely come down on the side of renegotitation to establish
> what the father could pay. However, the Bradley Amendment prevents
> previously accrued CS from being forgiven. And when a father has had a
> history of a certain level of income, the courts impute that income to
> him and set CS at an artificially high amount. Judges rarely grant a
> reduction for future payments and downward modifications of previous
> orders are only allowed 4-5% of the time.
>
Regardless, the wife had to press charges and get her ex locked up, was
that in the children's best interest? She could have worked SOMETHING
out rather than get nothing but a dead ex.
>
>
> Of course. But if a mother knows she will get custody by default 85% of
> the time, and a predetermined amount of her husband's income, why would
> she negotiate for something different?
>
She doesn't need to negotiate for something different, she can ask for a
zillion dollars and the father can offer $10. If the father has no money
she isn't getting the zillion. The point is, rather than work with her
ex she locked him up and he died. This made sure that she would never
get anything for her kids ever again. Do you think she would have done
better if she negotiated with him?
>>
>>> Even with mandatory mediation a woman can renege on her negotiated
>>> agreement after the fact if her attorney tells her she didn't have to
>>> give up so much.
>>
>>
>> She can back out of receiving child support? Good for her. On the
>> other hand if she can prove the mediation was unfair then it would be
>> up to her to prove it.
>
>
> It works the other way around. The mothers know the predetermined
> amount of the basic CS award and they negotiate for add-ons, i.e. things
> like private schooling, special needs like music lessons, etc.
>
> Here is reality - Men negotiate to reduce their loses and women
> negotiate to increase their wins.
Getting a father to pay for his kids doesn't count as a win. Paying
extra for your kid's education is not a loss. Are you saying that no men
care at all about their kids' lives? They just want to make sure they
don't starve to death. That is a miserable way to look at things. I'm
sure that there are a few horrible guys out there who refuse to buy
their kids christmas presents because they already paid their court
ordered stipend but there can't be many.
DVD
> "DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
> news:4841e74a$0$5106$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
>>teachrmama wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>As nice as it sounds for you to say that things can be "negotiated," it
>>>doesn't really work out that way. Shy bother to negotiate if you know
>>>that the judge is going to find in your favor anyway?
>>
>>Do you have a problem with adressing the things I actually wrote here?
>>When did anyone say anything about knowing what the judges will say? Do
>>you think that music lessons and private school CAN'T be negotiated in a
>>divorce settlement? If that is your argument tell me why.
>
>
> OK, I'll tell you why. There is a formula used to award child support. It
> is a percentage of Dad's salary--and it is waaaaaay more than "Bare
> necessities." If Mom wants music lessons and private school to continue,
> she can ask for that ***on top of the child support award*** and will
> probably get that, too.
> Where is the negotiation in that? Dad can say "I can't afford that." But
> if the judge decides that he can--then he has to pay.
>
If the dad can prove he can't afford it, she won't get it. His lawyer
has to negotiate. If it gets to a judge and he decides that the guy can
afford it, he orders it. If he decides the father can't afford it, he
denies it. In most cases the money spent on lawyers by bickering idiots
is a lot more than the amounts they are bickering over. Still, it is
just a negotiation.
>>
>>Jesus this is getting stupid, do you even know what a negotiation is? I
>>have an intact family and I maintain 3 households, what the fuck does that
>>have to do with negotiating?
>
>
> Then you must make enough money to do that, and are very arrogant in
> deciding that everyone else must be able to do the same thing.
I didn't say anyone else can do anything, I merely made a statement that
had nothing to do with the argument to show you how stupid it looks when
you do it.
I'm pretty
> sure your salary is above mnimum wage or blue collar salary. YOU don't
> understand that, even when negotiations take place, the judge is under
> ******NO OBLIGATION*** to accept the negotiations.
Why would he force people to fight more? If an amount is negotiated
there is no need for a judge anyway. No matter what the salary, kids
cost money and both parents need to negotiate to figure out how much
they need and what things are important to the kids (and presumably the
parents) If those things include vacations and private school then they
should be negotiated.
And, if the custodial
> parent decides after agreeing to the negotiations, that she doesn't like the
> result, she can merely tell the judge that she does not want to go by the
> negotiations after all. She is under ***NO OBLIGATION*** to go with what
> she originally agreed to.
>
> Again, are you arguing that extras
And so can the father, they can negotiate everything and fight it out in
court until the kids are 25, uneducated and bitter.
>
>>above and beyond basic living expenses CAN'T be negotiated?
>
>
> Not at all. I'm arguing that, even if the father does not agree, and
> negotiations break down, the mother can still get what she wants,
> negotiations or not.
>
She can get what she proves to the court that the father can afford.
Hence the reason I call it a negotiation. A minimum wage earning father
will not be ordered to pay 10 grand a year for private schools just
because his ex wife asks for it. All of these things are negotiated
between the 2 parents at home or in the court.
Gini
:). Hardly. Let me explain--When you preface a comment with a statement such
as you did above, it makes anything else you say have zero credibility and
makes you appear totally foolish. Why would anyone waste time even trying to
debate you? My questions were entirely valid. You respond with nonsense and
ask if "I" can't come up with anything of substance? Now, if you would like
to start over by addressing the questions, I may reconsider my decision to
blow you off.
teachrmama
Perhaps--but he has every right to say no. Anything above the guideline
amount should be voluntary. If they can work it out by negotiation, fine.
But if he says no, then that no must be accepted, because the guideline
amount is all that is **required**. Why should a lawyer, a judge, or anyone
else be able to say $$xx is all that the law requires, but YOU must pay $$xx
PLUS $$yy??? If the NCP does not want to negotiate, that should be the end
of it.
teachrmama
It is if it forces the man into a life where all he does it work--2 or maybe
3 jobs--to pay the amount he is ordered to pay. This also prevents him from
spending any time with his children. Every person in this equation deserves
a decent life. It is unfair to expect one person to live a life of peverty
in order to give another a life of ease.
Are you saying that no men
> care at all about their kids' lives? They just want to make sure they
> don't starve to death.
I think it is more like "the children are getting an education in public
school--why do they need an expensive private school?" That is a luxury,
and should not be a required part of child support.
That is a miserable way to look at things. I'm
> sure that there are a few horrible guys out there who refuse to buy their
> kids christmas presents because they already paid their court ordered
> stipend but there can't be many.
I'm sure there probably are, but the vast majority of fathers want to be
PART of their children's day-to-day lives--not just walking wallets and
occasional visitors. Close relationship with the children will solve a lot
more of these issues than forced negotiations ever will.
teachrmama
> teachrmama wrote:
>
>> "DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
>> news:4841e74a$0$5106$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>
>>>teachrmama wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>As nice as it sounds for you to say that things can be "negotiated," it
>>>>doesn't really work out that way. Shy bother to negotiate if you know
>>>>that the judge is going to find in your favor anyway?
>>>
>>>Do you have a problem with adressing the things I actually wrote here?
>>>When did anyone say anything about knowing what the judges will say? Do
>>>you think that music lessons and private school CAN'T be negotiated in a
>>>divorce settlement? If that is your argument tell me why.
>>
>>
>> OK, I'll tell you why. There is a formula used to award child support.
>> It is a percentage of Dad's salary--and it is waaaaaay more than "Bare
>> necessities." If Mom wants music lessons and private school to continue,
>> she can ask for that ***on top of the child support award*** and will
>> probably get that, too.
>> Where is the negotiation in that? Dad can say "I can't afford that."
>> But if the judge decides that he can--then he has to pay.
>>
>
> If the dad can prove he can't afford it, she won't get it.
We all wish that were true. Unfortunately it is not. Anyway, would you
like to go to a restaurant and select a $25 steak meal--then be told by the
waitress at the end of the meal that they are charging you $50 because they
think you can afford it. That would be terrible unfair, wouldn't it? Then
why do you feel it is ok for the guidelines to say that a man must pay 20%
of his gross salary for child support--but if the judge decides he can
afford more, he can be forced to pay more. Why is that ok?
His lawyer
> has to negotiate. If it gets to a judge and he decides that the guy can
> afford it, he orders it. If he decides the father can't afford it, he
> denies it. In most cases the money spent on lawyers by bickering idiots is
> a lot more than the amounts they are bickering over. Still, it is just a
> negotiation.
I definitely agree about the lawyers!!
>
>>>
>>>Jesus this is getting stupid, do you even know what a negotiation is? I
>>>have an intact family and I maintain 3 households, what the fuck does
>>>that have to do with negotiating?
>>
>>
>> Then you must make enough money to do that, and are very arrogant in
>> deciding that everyone else must be able to do the same thing.
>
> I didn't say anyone else can do anything, I merely made a statement that
> had nothing to do with the argument to show you how stupid it looks when
> you do it.
>
> I'm pretty
>> sure your salary is above mnimum wage or blue collar salary. YOU don't
>> understand that, even when negotiations take place, the judge is under
>> ******NO OBLIGATION*** to accept the negotiations.
>
> Why would he force people to fight more? If an amount is negotiated there
> is no need for a judge anyway.
This is where you are dead wrong! The judge can set aside whatever
negotiations he chooses to. Negotiations are not binding on the judge. Why
would you think they are?
No matter what the salary, kids
> cost money and both parents need to negotiate to figure out how much they
> need and what things are important to the kids (and presumably the
> parents) If those things include vacations and private school then they
> should be negotiated.
What if mom feels that expensive private schools and vacations are
important, but dad feels that the children will do fine without such
luxuries?
>
> And, if the custodial
>> parent decides after agreeing to the negotiations, that she doesn't like
>> the result, she can merely tell the judge that she does not want to go by
>> the negotiations after all. She is under ***NO OBLIGATION*** to go with
>> what she originally agreed to.
>>
>> Again, are you arguing that extras
>
> And so can the father, they can negotiate everything and fight it out in
> court until the kids are 25, uneducated and bitter.
Not so. And mom knowa it. All she has to do is get it in front of the
judge, and she will win the vast majority of the time. She does not need to
cooperate in negotiations, because she is almost assured to get her way in
court.
>
>>
>>>above and beyond basic living expenses CAN'T be negotiated?
>>
>>
>> Not at all. I'm arguing that, even if the father does not agree, and
>> negotiations break down, the mother can still get what she wants,
>> negotiations or not.
>>
>
> She can get what she proves to the court that the father can afford. Hence
> the reason I call it a negotiation. A minimum wage earning father will not
> be ordered to pay 10 grand a year for private schools just because his ex
> wife asks for it. All of these things are negotiated between the 2 parents
> at home or in the court.
What if the children went to private school during the marriage becaue dad's
salary could afford it, but it is a stretch to expect him to pay for private
school now that he has to pay for his own living accomodations, plus his
share of his children's accomodations with their mother. Is it fair to
expect him to continue paying for private school now that there are 2
households to support? What if he was downsized out of his high-paying job,
and had to take a job for less pay. Is it fair for the judge to impute to
him his previous income, because "you earned it once, so you can earn it
again"? What if mom quits her job to be a "stay at home mom to her kids"
after the divorce. Is it fair to expect dad to support all of them, because
mom chooses not to work? How would handle these things in negotiations?
Can dad force mom to work? Can he force his boss to pay him what the judge
says he is worth? How do negotiations fix any of these problems, if mom
digs in her heels, and the judge backs her up?
>
>
DVD
> "DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
> news:4841e833$0$5106$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
>> Gini wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Listen you maniac, re-read what I wrote and forget your agenda.
>>>
>>>
>>> ==
>>> So much for your capacity to carry on an intelligent
>>> conversation...Sheesh
>>> ==
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So you have no argument, no comment on of substance at all? Why bother
>> posting? Did you cut out everything I said that you couldn't debate?
>
> ===
> :). Hardly. Let me explain--When you preface a comment with a statement
> such as you did above, it makes anything else you say have zero
> credibility and makes you appear totally foolish.
You are a liar, you read my post, realized you had no answer and posted
an empty vapid post because you couldn't respond intelligently. If you
wanted to make me look foolish, you would have proven 1 thing I said to
be wrong, you couldn't so you put your ignorance on display.
> Why would anyone waste
> time even trying to debate you?
Why would you ask me? Are you so stupid that you think I am considering
debating myself (like you are wasting time doing right now)
> My questions were entirely valid. You
> respond with nonsense and ask if "I" can't come up with anything of
> substance?
Why did you cut 90% of my post then? Show me how the rest of my post was
nonsense now that you have gotten through the first line.
> Now, if you would like to start over by addressing the
> questions, I may reconsider my decision to blow you off.
>
>
I addressed the subject of the 1st post and the points brought up to me
by others, you on the other hand cut the entire post and respond like a
vapid nitwit who feels the need to butt into a conversation you don't
seem to understand. Lying that you are blowing me off (in your second
vapid response to me) makes you seem foolish.
DVD
17% isn't much, it is probably equal to or less than what the kids would
cost him if he stayed in the marriage. The last person a decent father
thinks about is himself, btw. A decent guy isn't whining about spending
17% of his income on his kids.
>
> I think it is more like "the children are getting an education in public
> school--why do they need an expensive private school?"
Why would the kids need a private school when the father was there? If
they had it before the divorce it must have been important to the father
at one point. What changed? It became unimportant when he divorced?
Again, the wife has every right to ask for the father to pay and if the
father can prove he can't afford it then the judge can reject it. Just
one other thing they can negotiate. If the judge awards the mother
everything she asks for based on the family's financial situation then
the kids benefit and the guy has to suck it up and pay what he owes.
> That is a luxury,
> and should not be a required part of child support.
>
> That is a miserable way to look at things. I'm
>
>>sure that there are a few horrible guys out there who refuse to buy their
>>kids christmas presents because they already paid their court ordered
>>stipend but there can't be many.
>
>
> I'm sure there probably are, but the vast majority of fathers want to be
> PART of their children's day-to-day lives--not just walking wallets and
> occasional visitors. Close relationship with the children will solve a lot
> more of these issues than forced negotiations ever will.
>
>
If they wanted to be part of the kid's lives they can negotiate better
visitation in exchange for private schooling and music lessons. If they
say "The school I've been paying for all these years is just a luxury
now" then they really don't care as much about seeing the kids as they
do about saving a few bucks. I really hope you don't think you are
speaking for the vast majority of fathers, the majority of fathers I
know would give every cent they have to their kids.
DVD
You are out of your mind. Raising your own children and a steak dinner?
In your mind these 2 things compare somehow? In most cases the father
knows how much he has and how much his wife can prove. He also knows
what he has been spending on private schools and activities, it is very
likely more than the 17% ordered by the court. The wife asking for those
things to continue (on behalf of her kids) is the only normal thing to do.
What about if a kid gets hit by a car? Should the father not pay the
hospital bill because it is unfair? Are you going to complain that your
kid pulled a bait and switch on you because hospital bills are not in
the settlement?
Then
> why do you feel it is ok for the guidelines to say that a man must pay 20%
> of his gross salary for child support--but if the judge decides he can
> afford more, he can be forced to pay more. Why is that ok?
>
Because it is fair, his kids are entitled to a life similar to the one
they had when he was there. The mother's job is to negotiate for the
kids' best interests. The father's job is to pay until it hurts to make
sure the kids have everything they "need"
>
> His lawyer
>
>>has to negotiate. If it gets to a judge and he decides that the guy can
>>afford it, he orders it. If he decides the father can't afford it, he
>>denies it. In most cases the money spent on lawyers by bickering idiots is
>>a lot more than the amounts they are bickering over. Still, it is just a
>>negotiation.
>
>
> I definitely agree about the lawyers!!
>
>
>>Why would he force people to fight more? If an amount is negotiated there
>>is no need for a judge anyway.
>
>
> This is where you are dead wrong! The judge can set aside whatever
> negotiations he chooses to. Negotiations are not binding on the judge. Why
> would you think they are?
>
If a settlement is negotiated there would be no need for a judge.
Do you know a case where the mother got more than she asked for? I don't
believe it would happen.
>
>
>
> What if mom feels that expensive private schools and vacations are
> important, but dad feels that the children will do fine without such
> luxuries?
>
It depends on what the father felt before the divorce. If the "luxuries"
were necessities while they were married, then they are neccesities now.
>
>
> What if the children went to private school during the marriage becaue dad's
> salary could afford it, but it is a stretch to expect him to pay for private
> school now that he has to pay for his own living accomodations, plus his
> share of his children's accomodations with their mother.
Then he should live more cheaply and negotiate a cheaper private school.
> Is it fair to
> expect him to continue paying for private school now that there are 2
> households to support?
Yes
> What if he was downsized out of his high-paying job,
> and had to take a job for less pay.
This gets back to the original post, the guy who died in jail. In that
case I would side with the father and his wife would be a complete
animal if she tried to force him to pay the original amount.
> again"? What if mom quits her job to be a "stay at home mom to her kids"
> after the divorce. Is it fair to expect dad to support all of them, because
> mom chooses not to work?
The situation during the marriage is how things should be decided. If
the mom worked and contributed then, she should work and contribute now.
Just like if the father paid for private school then, he should pay for
it now.
How would handle these things in negotiations?
> Can dad force mom to work? Can he force his boss to pay him what the judge
> says he is worth? How do negotiations fix any of these problems, if mom
> digs in her heels, and the judge backs her up?
>
Then the judge is probably right, but I doubt you'll see a judge back up
a woman who quits her job just to milk her ex.
teachrmama
If it is 17% of what he is actually earing--not imputed income. "You made
that once, so you can do it again." I know a man who worked overtime for
about 6 months because the company he worked for was going through a
transition--when he was taken to court, the judge used his pay during the
overtime period as his base salary, despite the fact that he had affidavits
from his employer and his direct boss stating that he would not be working
overtime any more because the transition was complete, and overtime was no
longer available. 17% of 40 hours per week (or 20 where we live) would not
have been too bad. 20% of 40 hours per week + 15 hours overtime was
crippling. Supporting the children is not the complaint.
>
>>
>> I think it is more like "the children are getting an education in public
>> school--why do they need an expensive private school?"
>
> Why would the kids need a private school when the father was there? If
> they had it before the divorce it must have been important to the father
> at one point. What changed?
The fact that another household now has to be funded, too. No matter how
you slice it, there are expenses that did not exist before--rent, utilities,
and upkeep on a completely separate household. A household, btw. that must
be large enough for the children to spend time there, too, so it can't be
the cheapest bachelor apartment in town.
It became unimportant when he divorced?
No--it became financially impossible to do everything that was done before
the divorce because of the added expense of another household. Why is that
so difficult to understand?
> Again, the wife has every right to ask for the father to pay and if the
> father can prove he can't afford it then the judge can reject it.
Why does the judge have **any** say in it? Why does the judge have to abide
by the guidelines as far as the amount paid **except** if he wants to
**increase** the amount? Why does the **judge** have the power to tell
people what to spend their money on? If a judge came into my intact
household and told me that I was required to spend money on my children for
x, y, or z, I would go ballistic!
Just
> one other thing they can negotiate. If the judge awards the mother
> everything she asks for based on the family's financial situation then the
> kids benefit and the guy has to suck it up and pay what he owes.
But WHY do you think he OWES that? Is the judge omniscient? Is the judge
so GOOD that he has God's blessing in telling people how to spend their
money? And, if judges are THAT wise, why don't they tell ALL of us how to
spend each and every dollar we earn?
BTW, do you think the judges actually check to see if the money is spent on
what it is claimed the money will be spent on? Do you think they have a
right to go back and check? Ifthey find out that the kids are in public
school and mom is using the private school money for vacations and trips to
the salon, do you think the judge has a right to penalize mom?
>
>
>> That is a luxury, and should not be a required part of child support.
>>
>> That is a miserable way to look at things. I'm
>>
>>>sure that there are a few horrible guys out there who refuse to buy their
>>>kids christmas presents because they already paid their court ordered
>>>stipend but there can't be many.
>>
>>
>> I'm sure there probably are, but the vast majority of fathers want to be
>> PART of their children's day-to-day lives--not just walking wallets and
>> occasional visitors. Close relationship with the children will solve a
>> lot more of these issues than forced negotiations ever will.
>
> If they wanted to be part of the kid's lives they can negotiate better
> visitation in exchange for private schooling and music lessons.
Oh--like *pay* to see their kids? Hmmmm.....exactly waht I think parenting
should be, too. Maybe the judges can take all of our children away and let
us pay to see them. The more we want to see them, the more we can pay.
That would wipe out the deficit in our lifetimes, I'm sure.
If they
> say "The school I've been paying for all these years is just a luxury now"
> then they really don't care as much about seeing the kids as they do about
> saving a few bucks.
How about "When we had just one household, we could squeeze out the tuition
for priate school. But now that dad has to pay for a place to live, we can
no longer squeeze out the money for the tuition. Unless you want dad to
live under a bridge."
I really hope you don't think you are
> speaking for the vast majority of fathers, the majority of fathers I know
> would give every cent they have to their kids.
And the majority of fathers I know would die for their kids. But it is
unreasonable to expect them to live in poverty so their kids can live in
luxury. There needs to be a bit more balance there.
teachrmama
I think YOU are the one who is out of YOUR mind. Where will the money to
support a whole new household come from? Some things will have to be cut in
order to meet these new expenses. WHAT do you think should be cut, if not
the items that are least necessary? Luxuries get cour out first, so that
everyone can have necessities.
>
> What about if a kid gets hit by a car? Should the father not pay the
> hospital bill because it is unfair?
Uh, medical issues are included in child support arrangements. Generally
the father (NCP) provides the insurance, and the parents split all
unreimbursed medical. Just how familiar are you with the child support
system?
Are you going to complain that your
> kid pulled a bait and switch on you because hospital bills are not in the
> settlement?
See above.
>
> Then
>> why do you feel it is ok for the guidelines to say that a man must pay
>> 20% of his gross salary for child support--but if the judge decides he
>> can afford more, he can be forced to pay more. Why is that ok?
>>
>
> Because it is fair, his kids are entitled to a life similar to the one
> they had when he was there.
WHY????? Children are *entitled* to the basics. Food, clothing, shelter,
education--they are NOT entitled to a lifestyle!! If dad lost his job
during the marriage, do you think a judge would be calling him into court,
saying "I don't care if you lost your job. Your children are *entitled* to
the lifestyle you were providing while you were working!!" Of course not!
Everyone would tighten their belts, and the luxuries would be the first to
go. WHY are children of divorce entitled to MORE than children in intact
homes?
The mother's job is to negotiate for the
> kids' best interests. The father's job is to pay until it hurts to make
> sure the kids have everything they "need"
Why is thefather's job not to be a part of his children's lives? Why is a
father's job not to take them to ball games and teach them to change a tire?
Why is the father's job not to read bedtime stories and have pillow fights?
That's what he did before the divorce. Aren't the children entitled to
continue that lifestyle? Or is the only thing they are really entitled to
the things that money can buy? Is that the main value of a father?
$$$$$$$$$$?? How very, very sad!!
>
>>
>> His lawyer
>>>has to negotiate. If it gets to a judge and he decides that the guy can
>>>afford it, he orders it. If he decides the father can't afford it, he
>>>denies it. In most cases the money spent on lawyers by bickering idiots
>>>is a lot more than the amounts they are bickering over. Still, it is just
>>>a negotiation.
>>
>>
>> I definitely agree about the lawyers!!
>>
>>
>
>>>Why would he force people to fight more? If an amount is negotiated there
>>>is no need for a judge anyway.
>>
>>
>> This is where you are dead wrong! The judge can set aside whatever
>> negotiations he chooses to. Negotiations are not binding on the judge.
>> Why would you think they are?
>>
>
> If a settlement is negotiated there would be no need for a judge.
> Do you know a case where the mother got more than she asked for? I don't
> believe it would happen.
Yep. If they decide on an amount below the guideline amounts, because the
children will be spending time with both parents, the judge can say "You
cannot agree to less than guideline amounts. You have no right to deprive
the children of child support." And, yes, I know a couple it happened to.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> What if mom feels that expensive private schools and vacations are
>> important, but dad feels that the children will do fine without such
>> luxuries?
>>
> It depends on what the father felt before the divorce. If the "luxuries"
> were necessities while they were married, then they are neccesities now.
What if the luxuries were luxuries when they were married. Why do they
become necessities now? Have you ever been involved in the child support
system? Or are you going by what you think the system does, without any
real experience with it?
>
>>
>>
>> What if the children went to private school during the marriage becaue
>> dad's salary could afford it, but it is a stretch to expect him to pay
>> for private school now that he has to pay for his own living
>> accomodations, plus his share of his children's accomodations with their
>> mother.
>
> Then he should live more cheaply and negotiate a cheaper private school.
But HE does not get to choose which school, does he? And how can he live
more cheaply if he has to have a home that will accomodate his children when
they visit. You don't think the children should sleep on the couch at dad's
place, do you?
>
>> Is it fair to expect him to continue paying for private school now that
>> there are 2 households to support?
>
> Yes
Please justify this answer. WHY is it fair to expect him to multiply his
salary as Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes?
>
>> What if he was downsized out of his high-paying job, and had to take a
>> job for less pay.
>
> This gets back to the original post, the guy who died in jail. In that
> case I would side with the father and his wife would be a complete animal
> if she tried to force him to pay the original amount.
But judges do that all the time. They tell the man "You made that before,
so you can make that again." And they do NOT grant a downward modification
on the CS order. Arrearages accrue to the point that they become a felony.
Pretty easy to do these days. Do you really think that downward
modifications will automatically be granted with proof of income? You need
to dig a little deeper into the system.
>
>> again"? What if mom quits her job to be a "stay at home mom to her kids"
>> after the divorce. Is it fair to expect dad to support all of them,
>> because mom chooses not to work?
>
> The situation during the marriage is how things should be decided. If the
> mom worked and contributed then, she should work and contribute now. Just
> like if the father paid for private school then, he should pay for it now.
But that does not always work. If they lived paycheck to paycheck to
provide private school, then there will NOT beenough money now that the
expense of another household is added to the same paychecks.
>
> How would handle these things in negotiations?
>> Can dad force mom to work? Can he force his boss to pay him what the
>> judge says he is worth? How do negotiations fix any of these problems,
>> if mom digs in her heels, and the judge backs her up?
>>
>
> Then the judge is probably right, but I doubt you'll see a judge back up a
> woman who quits her job just to milk her ex.
<chuckle> I really do not think you have had a lot of experience with the
system. You should ask some of the people here what there experiences have
been. There are a couple of nutjobs here, but most are loving, caring
parents who have fought to have ongoing relationships with their children,
and have been financially harmed by the very judges that you seem to think
are always fair. Just be open enough to ask for people to share their
experiences with you, and see if you don't learn a bit more about the system
that you really believe is all about the best interests of the children. It
doesn't hurt to ask. BTW, I think you should start with Gini--she is not
the know-nothing you consider her to be.
Gini
> Gini wrote:
>> "DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
>> news:4841e833$0$5106$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>
>>> Gini wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Listen you maniac, re-read what I wrote and forget your agenda.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ==
>>>> So much for your capacity to carry on an intelligent
>>>> conversation...Sheesh
>>>> ==
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you have no argument, no comment on of substance at all? Why bother
>>> posting? Did you cut out everything I said that you couldn't debate?
>>
>> ===
>> :). Hardly. Let me explain--When you preface a comment with a statement
>> such as you did above, it makes anything else you say have zero
>> credibility and makes you appear totally foolish.
>
> You are a liar, you read my post, realized you had no answer and posted an
> empty vapid post because you couldn't respond intelligently. If you wanted
> to make me look foolish, you would have proven 1 thing I said to be wrong,
> you couldn't so you put your ignorance on display.
Yeah, you got me.
===
>
>> Why would anyone waste time even trying to debate you?
>
> Why would you ask me? Are you so stupid that you think I am considering
> debating myself (like you are wasting time doing right now)
>
>> My questions were entirely valid. You respond with nonsense and ask if
>> "I" can't come up with anything of substance?
>
> Why did you cut 90% of my post then?
It was a waste of bandwidth and cluttered the page.
===
Show me how the rest of my post was
> nonsense now that you have gotten through the first line.
You wouldn't get it.
===
>
>> Now, if you would like to start over by addressing the questions, I may
>> reconsider my decision to blow you off.
>>
>>
>
> I addressed the subject of the 1st post and the points brought up to me by
> others, you on the other hand cut the entire post and respond like a vapid
> nitwit who feels the need to butt into a conversation you don't seem to
> understand. Lying that you are blowing me off (in your second vapid
> response to me) makes you seem foolish.
Well then, I'll just kick back and enjoy your profound brilliance as spoken
to others.
===
Gini
............
> <chuckle> I really do not think you have had a lot of experience with the
> system. You should ask some of the people here what there experiences
> have been. There are a couple of nutjobs here, but most are loving,
> caring parents who have fought to have ongoing relationships with their
> children, and have been financially harmed by the very judges that you
> seem to think are always fair. Just be open enough to ask for people to
> share their experiences with you, and see if you don't learn a bit more
> about the system that you really believe is all about the best interests
> of the children. It doesn't hurt to ask. BTW, I think you should start
> with Gini--she is not the know-nothing you consider her to be.
Maybe not, but I sure don't have your patience when it comes to deal with
some of these idiots. Must be your teacher gene :-)
===
===
Dusty
news:5Rr0k.796$pK.731@trndny06...
Must be! I'd have staked DVD over the top of a really big ant hill, poured
honey all over the insolent, arrogant twit and let nature take it's course.
Of course there'd be a grenade involved, too... :D
DVD
The reality is; the people who bitch the most about child support are
not the men paying it, but the next wife/girlfriend who doesn't get
vacations, nice cars etc because her boyfriend has to "spend all his
money" on the old family. Most guys I've spoken to got a reasonable
deal in their divorces and gladly kick in extra for non essential
things. From construction workers to lawyers, 4 out of 5 have no problem
sacrificing their own lifestyle to pay for their kids. I'm guessing most
of them lie to the new girlfriend so they don't have to waste money on
her though.
>
> Oh--like *pay* to see their kids? Hmmmm.....exactly waht I think parenting
> should be, too. Maybe the judges can take all of our children away and let
> us pay to see them. The more we want to see them, the more we can pay.
> That would wipe out the deficit in our lifetimes, I'm sure.
>
No, negotiate, this is how negotiation works. You negotiate for what you
want with what you have. While he's so busy negotiating to stiff his
kids he could be getting more time with them (if he really wants that)
> And the majority of fathers I know would die for their kids. But it is
> unreasonable to expect them to live in poverty so their kids can live in
> luxury. There needs to be a bit more balance there.
>
>
No it isn't he should live according to his means after he pays for his
kids. Although that doesn't really happen.
Gini
news:g1tlcg$d2k$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
She's tossed a grenade or two over the years but...only after she's really,
really, really, really tried not to. I don't think I've ever been that
tolerant. Hah, guess it's because I've got four boys.
Phil
> Phil wrote:
>>
>>
>> If any parents are forced to spend a percentage of their income on
>> their children, ALL parents should be so ordered with the same
>> penalties for failing to do so and this should apply to all parents
>> and those in an intact family as well as non-custodial parents. (In
>> other words, this is a silly idea).
>
> Divorce is more of an arbitrated agreement, people can negotiate and
> should stick to their negotiated settlement. If that is not possible
> they need to renegotiate based on the parent's new situation. Parents
> in intact families are also required by law to provide for the basic
> needs of their children, I'm not sure that 22 months in jail for
> failing to do that would make sense.
Divorce is one thing, custody is another matter wherein the value of the
parent is primarily based on their sex. Mothers are considered a parent
automatically when seeking divorce and custody where the fathers
involved in those cases must spend upward of $50,000 to find that they
had little to no chance of gaining custody in the first place.
Actually, divorced or never-married NCPs (non-custodial parents, fathers
primarily) have to endure a *much* higher and much more restrictive
standard than parents in intact families, that of paying the mother of
their child a set and unwavering amount of money that may be, and often
is, much higher than the cost of the children's basic needs and being
told when and under what conditions they may visit their children while
the money provided can be used for anything whatsoever as long as the
children's care meets the barest minimum allowed by law.
>
>> Also, does the basic *necessities* increase as the parent's income
>> increases or just the desire for more and more expensive toys?
>> Phil #3
>>
>>
>
> If your kid was in private school and taking music lessons those costs
> can be negotiated just like everything else. A divorce settlement can
> insure that the kids' lives are not stripped to the bare neccessities
> just because the parents get divorced.
But parents in an intact family can decide to cut their children's lives
to the barest necessities at any time without explanation as long as
they meet the state's skimpy standard. Why are children of divorced or
never-married parents deserving of more than children of an intact
family?
Phil #3
DVD
>
> I think YOU are the one who is out of YOUR mind. Where will the money to
> support a whole new household come from?
In my case I would cut the steak dinners, although steak dinners and
children seem to rank equally in your mind.
> Some things will have to be cut in
> order to meet these new expenses. WHAT do you think should be cut, if not
> the items that are least necessary?
Everything that he can't afford after paying for his kids should be cut.
>
>>What about if a kid gets hit by a car? Should the father not pay the
>>hospital bill because it is unfair?
>
>
> Uh, medical issues are included in child support arrangements. Generally
> the father (NCP) provides the insurance, and the parents split all
> unreimbursed medical. Just how familiar are you with the child support
> system?
>
Since you don't seem to understand examples, what if the kid gets early
admission into Harvard, should the kid lose that opportunity because the
father doesn't want to pay any more than is court ordered?
>
>
> WHY????? Children are *entitled* to the basics. Food, clothing, shelter,
> education--they are NOT entitled to a lifestyle!! If dad lost his job
> during the marriage, do you think a judge would be calling him into court,
> saying "I don't care if you lost your job. Your children are *entitled* to
> the lifestyle you were providing while you were working!!" Of course not!
> Everyone would tighten their belts, and the luxuries would be the first to
> go. WHY are children of divorce entitled to MORE than children in intact
> homes?
>
They are entitled to what they had when they had an intact home, not
what other children in other homes have. The rest of your post is a
strawman, since I started in this thread by posting about the guy who
was obviously not making the money his settlement was based on.
>
> Why is thefather's job not to be a part of his children's lives? Why is a
> father's job not to take them to ball games and teach them to change a tire?
> Why is the father's job not to read bedtime stories and have pillow fights?
3 strawmen, good job.
> That's what he did before the divorce. Aren't the children entitled to
> continue that lifestyle? Or is the only thing they are really entitled to
> the things that money can buy? Is that the main value of a father?
> $$$$$$$$$$?? How very, very sad!!
>
>
If the father is trying to get out of paying for the kids needs do you
really think he wants more custody?
>
>
> Yep. If they decide on an amount below the guideline amounts, because the
> children will be spending time with both parents, the judge can say "You
> cannot agree to less than guideline amounts. You have no right to deprive
> the children of child support." And, yes, I know a couple it happened to.
>
If "they decided" why were they in front of a judge? If "they decided"
then the wife could stick with the number on which "they decided"
>>
>>This gets back to the original post, the guy who died in jail. In that
>>case I would side with the father and his wife would be a complete animal
>>if she tried to force him to pay the original amount.
>
>
> But judges do that all the time. They tell the man "You made that before,
> so you can make that again." And they do NOT grant a downward modification
> on the CS order. Arrearages accrue to the point that they become a felony.
> Pretty easy to do these days. Do you really think that downward
> modifications will automatically be granted with proof of income? You need
> to dig a little deeper into the system.
>
I didn't say anything about your strawman here, I simply referred back
to the original post in this thread. If the wife knows the guy can't pay
and has him locked up or ruined, she is an animal.
>
>>
>>The situation during the marriage is how things should be decided. If the
>>mom worked and contributed then, she should work and contribute now. Just
>>like if the father paid for private school then, he should pay for it now.
>
>
> But that does not always work. If they lived paycheck to paycheck to
> provide private school, then there will NOT beenough money now that the
> expense of another household is added to the same paychecks.
>
Then the mother will know this and so will the judge.
>
>>
>>Then the judge is probably right, but I doubt you'll see a judge back up a
>>woman who quits her job just to milk her ex.
>
>
> <chuckle> I really do not think you have had a lot of experience with the
> system. You should ask some of the people here what there experiences have
> been.
If by here you mean alt.child support, I've seen enough to know that you
seem to be a bitter bunch who don't know very much about fathers or
human interaction outside of courtrooms. If you want to wallow in your
child support bitterness, stop cross posting threads elsewhere.
My most recent experience was a judge who forced a stay at home mom to
go get a job before the next hearing. I would agree with the judge in
that case, why let a woman stay home and plead poverty when she has
enough free time to work. Again, the people complaining about child
support are usually the next wife or girlfriend of the guy paying it. He
tells her how badly he is getting screwed and refuses to pay for
anything. I know at least 10 guys right now who do this, none of them
really have a complaint about paying for their kids, they just refuse to
pay for the new woman and claim they can't afford to have kids with her.
The fights that end up ruining the new relationship are fights over how
much money he spends on his ex and how little is spent on her. Most of
these guys are construction workers making under 100 grand a year. They
don't consider themselves screwed because they need to pay 17 or 40% of
their income to their kids. Some of them laugh about the stories they
tell their new girlfriends to get out of paying for things though.
> There are a couple of nutjobs here, but most are loving, caring
> parents who have fought to have ongoing relationships with their children,
> and have been financially harmed by the very judges that you seem to think
> are always fair. Just be open enough to ask for people to share their
> experiences with you, and see if you don't learn a bit more about the system
> that you really believe is all about the best interests of the children. It
> doesn't hurt to ask. BTW, I think you should start with Gini--she is not
> the know-nothing you consider her to be.
>
>
So be financially harmed, they aren't the first people to be broke for
awhile. Money flies out the window when you have kids, get used to the
idea before you have them. I trust 90% of the judges' decisions more
than the opinions of disgruntled fathers and their new wives. The judges
aren't the ones who are lying.
DVD
You'd do all of that yet you are too lazy or stupid to reply to the
content of the post? I understand that you can't understand normal
thinking, but why not just butt out then? Should we just trade insults
because you have no ideas to share?
Phil
I think you are making the common mistake of assuming that "child
support" must be or is commonly used only for the support of children.
Child support, regardless the name is simply a transfer of wealth from
one parent to the other. Ostensibly for the children, it can be used to
buy the CPs new lover's drugs without penalty for misuse, as long as the
children receive the barest and most basic care.
Phil #3
Dusty
I wasn't talking to you, wing-nut.
DVD
>
> Divorce is one thing, custody is another matter wherein the value of the
> parent is primarily based on their sex. Mothers are considered a parent
> automatically when seeking divorce and custody where the fathers
> involved in those cases must spend upward of $50,000 to find that they
> had little to no chance of gaining custody in the first place.
Okay, I agree it is not fair. I think judges risk being unfair rather
than risk the welfare of the kids. This is probably why I would agree
with the judges' decisions more often than not. They take that risk
because historically of the 85% of cases where the guy seeks custody,
83% of the time the kids would be better off with the mother.
> Actually, divorced or never-married NCPs (non-custodial parents, fathers
> primarily) have to endure a *much* higher and much more restrictive
> standard than parents in intact families, that of paying the mother of
> their child a set and unwavering amount of money that may be, and often
> is, much higher than the cost of the children's basic needs and being
> told when and under what conditions they may visit their children while
> the money provided can be used for anything whatsoever as long as the
> children's care meets the barest minimum allowed by law.
>
It is tough for a judge to determine what a happy medium is when both
sides are in court trying to destroy each other. Again, most judges
weigh the welfare of the kids over the needs of the battling parents.
Mothers obviously have the advantage in these cases because they are
arguing for the needs of their children while the father is arguing to
cut his payments.
>
>
> But parents in an intact family can decide to cut their children's lives
> to the barest necessities at any time without explanation as long as
> they meet the state's skimpy standard. Why are children of divorced or
> never-married parents deserving of more than children of an intact
> family?
> Phil #3
>
>
True, when you keep your family intact you have a lot more freedom to
make those choices. When a family breaks up and you can't settle things
amongst yourselves you are stuck with what an arbitrator decides. Not
always fair, I agree, but certainly the error is usually on the side of
the welfare of the kids. Unfortunately his decision isn't based on the
weekend camping trips or family vacations, it is based on the fighting
and nastiness he sees in court.
DVD
It can be that way, or it can be decided based on the amounts needed for
the extras petitioned for in court. I don't claim that the court system
is infallible, but if it comes to the point where you are asking a judge
to decide the future of your family, you need to abide by the court's
decision. In the case you describe as well as the case described in the
initial post re-negotiation is needed and decisions should be made based
on the new circumstances. If the mother gets an extra 10 grand to put
the kids in private school, it won't be difficult for the father to
prove the money isn't being spent on private school.
DVD
I wasn't responding to you, stupid. Learn how to follow a thread and see
who is responding to whom.
Techguy
>
> - Show quoted text -
The entire system is flawed. Why is only the NCP's income taken into
consideration when determining CS? Arent both parents EQUALLY
responsible for providing for a childs financial well being?
And formulas for child support? These formulas may work for those of
us lucky enough to be making 6 figure salaries but for those making
50, 60 or 70 thousand a year, it makes it impossible to be able to
maintain 2 households. The rate of depression and suicide among
divorced fathers is STAGGERING
20 percent of your income? Where are you from? Most states formulas
are almost one third of a NCP's GROSS income. And because the NCP is
paying child support it also negatively impacts your credit rating
while enhansing the CP's credit. All this current system does is
effective remove NCP's (mostly Dad's) from childrens live and reduce
any quality time a father might have with his children.
Until courts start looking at divorce cases on an individual basis as
opposed to the blacket "rack em and stack em" system it has now,
children will NEVER be properly looked after in divorcing families.
Dad's play just as an important role in childrens lives as moms do and
when you turn fathers into "wage slaves" you are completely dismissing
the role of fatherhood in a child's life.
Oh and do you even think for a second that the Feds and States
changed child support laws because they were"worried about our
children"? ( any time you hear a politician say anything like "its for
the children" get out the vasaline and cover your ass with both hands
because you know whats coming next) These changes were made because
they realized that CS is a HUGE source of income for them. However
until NCP's can get together and become a political force to be
reconned with (i.e...donate enough cash to our elected officials)
nothing will ever change.
Phil
> teachrmama wrote:
>
> The reality is; the people who bitch the most about child support are
> not the men paying it, but the next wife/girlfriend who doesn't get
> vacations, nice cars etc because her boyfriend has to "spend all his
> money" on the old family.
On what do you base this "reality"?
>Most guys I've spoken to got a reasonable deal in their divorces and
>gladly kick in extra for non essential things. From construction
>workers to lawyers, 4 out of 5 have no problem sacrificing their own
>lifestyle to pay for their kids. I'm guessing most of them lie to the
>new girlfriend so they don't have to waste money on her though.
My guess is that you haven't spoken to all that many divorced dads but
nevertheless, if they got a "reasonable deal in their divorces", why
WOULD they not be able to kick in a little extra? Most of us divorced
dads didn't get a "reasonable deal". Many wind up back home with their
parents for lack of funds to provide for their own lifestyle because
they are forced to provide a lifestyle to their children which is shared
with the other parent.
The pitiful part is that you seem to fail to recognize that many CP
mothers are embezzling the funds sent for their children's benefit for
personal use.
>
>>
>> Oh--like *pay* to see their kids? Hmmmm.....exactly waht I think
>> parenting should be, too. Maybe the judges can take all of our
>> children away and let us pay to see them. The more we want to see
>> them, the more we can pay. That would wipe out the deficit in our
>> lifetimes, I'm sure.
>>
>
> No, negotiate, this is how negotiation works. You negotiate for what
> you want with what you have. While he's so busy negotiating to stiff
> his kids he could be getting more time with them (if he really wants
> that)
One can negotiate all they wish but the fact is, judges most often
decide in favor of the custodial parent, which due to the sexism of
"family law" is virtually always the mother. The amount of C$ is not a
matter of negotiation due to legislated procedures. All states have
guidelines for C$ amounts.
You seem to feel that a father who wants to pay the mother less is a
deadbeat when the fact is, if he can get a lower C$ amount, he can then
spend the money directly on the children without having to filter it
through the mother which is the only way a man can insure the C$ he pays
is in fact, C$.
>
>> And the majority of fathers I know would die for their kids. But it
>> is unreasonable to expect them to live in poverty so their kids can
>> live in luxury. There needs to be a bit more balance there.
>
> No it isn't he should live according to his means after he pays for
> his kids. Although that doesn't really happen.
Again, paying C$ is not necessarily supporting children. It is paying
the CP in the hopes that it will trickle down to the children
And what doesn't really happen?
Phil #3
Gini
===
Ummm...I wasn't talking to you or about you. Try to keep up.
DVD
So what are you proposing? How does it relate to the original post?
Those who are truly being screwed (like the guy who died in jail) are a
small minority. Everyone claims they are paying too much, it just isn't
true 99% of the time. Just like nearly every negotiation or lawsuit, one
person lies about how much then need and the other lies about how much
they can afford. No matter what the system, it will come down to a judge
deciding who is the bigger liar.
DVD
> "DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
> news:48428a48$0$3381$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
>>teachrmama wrote:
>>
>>The reality is; the people who bitch the most about child support are
>>not the men paying it, but the next wife/girlfriend who doesn't get
>>vacations, nice cars etc because her boyfriend has to "spend all his
>>money" on the old family.
>
>
> On what do you base this "reality"?
>
Speaking to over 50 construction workers a day, friends who are lawyers,
2 friends who were family court judges and a few friends who are
divorced with children, one friend with 3 exes and 5 kids. Not to
mention growing up and seeing my friends with divorced parents get
screwed by deadbeat dads once or twice a year.
>
>>Most guys I've spoken to got a reasonable deal in their divorces and
>>gladly kick in extra for non essential things. From construction
>>workers to lawyers, 4 out of 5 have no problem sacrificing their own
>>lifestyle to pay for their kids. I'm guessing most of them lie to the
>>new girlfriend so they don't have to waste money on her though.
>
>
> My guess is that you haven't spoken to all that many divorced dads but
> nevertheless, if they got a "reasonable deal in their divorces", why
> WOULD they not be able to kick in a little extra? Most of us divorced
> dads didn't get a "reasonable deal". Many wind up back home with their
> parents for lack of funds to provide for their own lifestyle because
> they are forced to provide a lifestyle to their children which is shared
> with the other parent.
So? go back with your parents and pay your obligations until you can
afford to have another go at independent life. I would side with your
kids if the choice was continue private school or dad having his own
place. As an adult you aren't owed any lifestyle, on the other hand your
children are owed your continued support. Just like everything else,
first you take care of your obligations, then you get what you want.
> The pitiful part is that you seem to fail to recognize that many CP
> mothers are embezzling the funds sent for their children's benefit for
> personal use.
>
I don't fail to recognize it, it just has nothing to do with this
thread. If you are ordered to pay support you are obligated to pay it.
If your ex is spending it on herself then you and your children are
paying for your poor choices. If you can prove the kids are not getting
the support they need you can go another round in court. What is way
more common is fathers who don't pay at all and hide their earnings to
get away with it. Most women give up after awhile.
>
> One can negotiate all they wish but the fact is, judges most often
> decide in favor of the custodial parent, which due to the sexism of
> "family law" is virtually always the mother. The amount of C$ is not a
> matter of negotiation due to legislated procedures. All states have
> guidelines for C$ amounts.
If you fail to negotiate an agreement you leave the choice up to a
stranger. 83% of the time the mother should have the kids and the father
should support them. The courts decide this way 85% of the time. I'm
guessing every one of the 50% who complains about their settlement is
part of that 2%.
> You seem to feel that a father who wants to pay the mother less is a
> deadbeat when the fact is, if he can get a lower C$ amount, he can then
> spend the money directly on the children without having to filter it
> through the mother which is the only way a man can insure the C$ he pays
> is in fact, C$.
>
That is exactly my point, if he can get a lower amount he will. How he
spends his money after that is up to him. Since deadbeat dads are a
bigger problem than overpaid child support, most judges err on the side
of common sense.
>
>
> Again, paying C$ is not necessarily supporting children. It is paying
> the CP in the hopes that it will trickle down to the children
> And what doesn't really happen?
> Phil #3
>
>
Around again. Someone is paying the rent and electric, right? The court
decides how much, the father pays and the mother is responsible for the
kids. If the mother embezzles the money she still has to pay the bills.
DVD
>>>>> ==
>>>>> Maybe not, but I sure don't have your patience when it comes to
>>>>> deal with some of these idiots. Must be your teacher gene :-)
>>>>> ===
>>>
>>> She's tossed a grenade or two over the years but...only after she's
>>> really, really, really, really tried not to. I don't think I've ever
>>> been that tolerant. Hah, guess it's because I've got four boys.
>>>
>
> Ummm...I wasn't talking to you or about you. Try to keep up.
Show me where anything you have posted in this thread has anything to do
with the content of this thread and I might give it a shot. Otherwise I
will not get the lobotomy necessary to keep up with you.
teachrmama
> teachrmama wrote:
>>
>> I think YOU are the one who is out of YOUR mind. Where will the money to
>> support a whole new household come from?
>
> In my case I would cut the steak dinners, although steak dinners and
> children seem to rank equally in your mind.
I'm not talking aboutsteak dinners. I am talking about thefather having the
ability to pay for a place to live where he can have the children come and
spend time. I am talking about him having enough money for basics such as
food (even mac&cheese or peanutbutter), utilities, gas for the car, etc.
I'm talking about him having enough to pay the children's travel expenses if
mom decides to move out of state with them, so he will at least be able to
see them once or twice a year. You *do* feel that it is important for a
father to be able to parent his children, right?
>
>> Some things will have to be cut in order to meet these new expenses.
>> WHAT do you think should be cut, if not the items that are least
>> necessary?
I am only talking necessities. The ability to have a **life** and not live
in poverty. Do you think dad should go home ant night and go straight to
bed because he does not have a tv, can't afford an occasional movie? Do you
think that, perhaps, he should walk to work so he does not need a car?
Maybe if he live 10 miles from work, the daily walk each direction will be
his entertainment, since he can't afford anything else due to the extras you
feel the judge has the right to assign him to pay. Maybe this would be
easier if *you* tell me what you think the dad can live without, and what
you think he still needs post divorce.
>
> Everything that he can't afford after paying for his kids should be cut.
Electricity? Gas for the car? Telephone? A visit to his dying mother?
What else?
>
>>
>>>What about if a kid gets hit by a car? Should the father not pay the
>>>hospital bill because it is unfair?
>>
>>
>> Uh, medical issues are included in child support arrangements. Generally
>> the father (NCP) provides the insurance, and the parents split all
>> unreimbursed medical. Just how familiar are you with the child support
>> system?
>>
>
> Since you don't seem to understand examples, what if the kid gets early
> admission into Harvard, should the kid lose that opportunity because the
> father doesn't want to pay any more than is court ordered?
Uh, questions of college are usually included in child support arrangements.
You really are not very familiar with the child support system, are you?
>
>>
>>
>> WHY????? Children are *entitled* to the basics. Food, clothing,
>> shelter, education--they are NOT entitled to a lifestyle!! If dad lost
>> his job during the marriage, do you think a judge would be calling him
>> into court, saying "I don't care if you lost your job. Your children are
>> *entitled* to the lifestyle you were providing while you were working!!"
>> Of course not! Everyone would tighten their belts, and the luxuries would
>> be the first to go. WHY are children of divorce entitled to MORE than
>> children in intact homes?
>>
>
> They are entitled to what they had when they had an intact home, not what
> other children in other homes have.
And the children in intact homes are NOT entitled to the lifestyle they
have? WHY? That is what I am trying to get you to express. WHY do
children in intact homes have to tighten their belts at a financial
downturn, but the children divorce do not have to do so. WHY should the
courts not equally intervene on behalf of the children in intact homes, if
the **lifestyle** is what is owed to the children? WHY?
The rest of your post is a
> strawman, since I started in this thread by posting about the guy who was
> obviously not making the money his settlement was based on.
Ohm no, it is NOT. It is a very important question! If the children of
divorce are entitled to what they had before that divorce, then why is only
the money important. All the studies are showing the importance of a father
in the lives of children--yet a father's ability to parent his children is
taken away by the same court that decides the money matters. What is better
for children--having the luxuries, or having a father in their day to day
lives? Not a strawman--a real question.
>
>>
>> Why is thefather's job not to be a part of his children's lives? Why is
>> a father's job not to take them to ball games and teach them to change a
>> tire? Why is the father's job not to read bedtime stories and have pillow
>> fights?
>
> 3 strawmen, good job.
Then you do not understand the value of a father in a child's life.
>
>> That's what he did before the divorce. Aren't the children entitled to
>> continue that lifestyle? Or is the only thing they are really entitled
>> to the things that money can buy? Is that the main value of a father?
>> $$$$$$$$$$?? How very, very sad!!
>>
>>
>
> If the father is trying to get out of paying for the kids needs do you
> really think he wants more custody?
Oh--I'll have to go back an reread--I don't remember a placwe where we were
talking about him trying to get out of paying for the children's neds. It
was the luxuries we were discussing.
As for wanting custody--YES, I think they want more custody!! OF COURSE
they do! Most divorces are initiated by the mother, over the objections of
the father. MOST fathers would like 50/50 joint custody, so they can still
parent their children. Does this surprise you?
>>
>>
>> Yep. If they decide on an amount below the guideline amounts, because
>> the children will be spending time with both parents, the judge can say
>> "You cannot agree to less than guideline amounts. You have no right to
>> deprive the children of child support." And, yes, I know a couple it
>> happened to.
>>
>
> If "they decided" why were they in front of a judge? If "they decided"
> then the wife could stick with the number on which "they decided"
That is why I said that, if it comes to a judge deciding about the
negotiations, the wife really does not need to negotiate at allm because she
will get her own way anyway. I know people whohave never set foot into
court with their child support issues--they worked them out between
themselves. But they are the rarity. When divorce comes up, the majority
feel that they are obligated to go the legal route. Oh, and did you know
that if John and Mary divorce in 1998, and split custody 55/45 (not court
involved), and agree on a CS amount, which is paid faithfully--Mary can go
back to court in 06, asking for full custody and child support, she can get
not only full custody and support from that point on, but the full amount of
support from 1998 to 2006--because anything paid outside a court order does
not count as child support. It is considered to be a gift? Interesting,
huh?
>
>>>
>>>This gets back to the original post, the guy who died in jail. In that
>>>case I would side with the father and his wife would be a complete animal
>>>if she tried to force him to pay the original amount.
>>
>>
>> But judges do that all the time. They tell the man "You made that
>> before, so you can make that again." And they do NOT grant a downward
>> modification on the CS order. Arrearages accrue to the point that they
>> become a felony. Pretty easy to do these days. Do you really think that
>> downward modifications will automatically be granted with proof of
>> income? You need to dig a little deeper into the system.
>>
>
> I didn't say anything about your strawman here, I simply referred back to
> the original post in this thread. If the wife knows the guy can't pay and
> has him locked up or ruined, she is an animal.
I agree. Is the judge that insists he pay anyway an animal, too?
>>
>>>
>>>The situation during the marriage is how things should be decided. If the
>>>mom worked and contributed then, she should work and contribute now. Just
>>>like if the father paid for private school then, he should pay for it
>>>now.
>>
>>
>> But that does not always work. If they lived paycheck to paycheck to
>> provide private school, then there will NOT beenough money now that the
>> expense of another household is added to the same paychecks.
>>
>
> Then the mother will know this and so will the judge.
<chuckle> You really do not know much about this system, do you? You are
so sure that it is fair.
>
>>
>>>
>>>Then the judge is probably right, but I doubt you'll see a judge back up
>>>a woman who quits her job just to milk her ex.
>>
>>
>> <chuckle> I really do not think you have had a lot of experience with
>> the system. You should ask some of the people here what there
>> experiences have been.
>
> If by here you mean alt.child support, I've seen enough to know that you
> seem to be a bitter bunch who don't know very much about fathers or human
> interaction outside of courtrooms. If you want to wallow in your child
> support bitterness, stop cross posting threads elsewhere.
<sigh> The majority of the fathers here have fought bitterly to retain
access to their children. They *want* to parent their children. But the
same court that will enforce child support to the last penny will not lift a
finger to enforce visitation. Would you not feel at least a twinge of
bitterness if you were denied access to your children? There are a couple
of people here that would like all responsibility lifted from men in regards
to children that they father, but most here disagree with them. There are
several people here who are no longer involved in child support issues
because their children have "aged out" of the system. But they share their
knowledge of the system to help those who find themselves entangled in it.
NOT to help them get out of paying, btw, but to give them the knowledge they
need to have at kleast a fighting chance of remaining in their children's
lives as more than a walking wallet.
>
> My most recent experience was a judge who forced a stay at home mom to go
> get a job before the next hearing. I would agree with the judge in that
> case, why let a woman stay home and plead poverty when she has enough free
> time to work.
Things are beginning to change for the better, but the pendulum is a long
way from swinging back to fairness yet. I do hope the woman got a job. No
adult has the right to feel that they should be supported by another just
because they breathe air.
Again, the people complaining about child
> support are usually the next wife or girlfriend of the guy paying it. He
> tells her how badly he is getting screwed and refuses to pay for anything.
> I know at least 10 guys right now who do this, none of them really have a
> complaint about paying for their kids, they just refuse to pay for the new
> woman and claim they can't afford to have kids with her. The fights that
> end up ruining the new relationship are fights over how much money he
> spends on his ex and how little is spent on her.
People entering into a relationship need to be honest with each other. If
the guy tells new-gal that he has very little disposable income due to child
support obligations, and she takes up with him anyway, then she has nothing
to complain about. But what would you say about this scenario: Man and
woman meet and marry, both knowing what his child support obligations are to
exwife. Their budget is based on this. Dad and new wife start a family.
Exwife decides she wants more money. NOTHING has changed, income wise.
Guidelines + extras are being paid for at the court ordered rate. But she
decides she wants more. So she goes to court and presents a poverty
scenario--and the judge *doubles* the child support. Which leaves the new
family in poverty. Do you think the new wife has a right to complain?
Most of
> these guys are construction workers making under 100 grand a year. They
> don't consider themselves screwed because they need to pay 17 or 40% of
> their income to their kids. Some of them laugh about the stories they tell
> their new girlfriends to get out of paying for things though.
Hopefully they are being honest with their new girlfirends, and not just
stringing them along.
>
>> There are a couple of nutjobs here, but most are loving, caring parents
>> who have fought to have ongoing relationships with their children, and
>> have been financially harmed by the very judges that you seem to think
>> are always fair. Just be open enough to ask for people to share their
>> experiences with you, and see if you don't learn a bit more about the
>> system that you really believe is all about the best interests of the
>> children. It doesn't hurt to ask. BTW, I think you should start with
>> Gini--she is not the know-nothing you consider her to be.
>
> So be financially harmed, they aren't the first people to be broke for
> awhile. Money flies out the window when you have kids, get used to the
> idea before you have them. I trust 90% of the judges' decisions more than
> the opinions of disgruntled fathers and their new wives. The judges aren't
> the ones who are lying.
Geesh! You do NOT seem to understand at all!! It is NOT all about the
money!! The vast majority would open their veins to provide for their
children! It is about their **relationships** with their children, which
are taken away by the same court you are defending!! Would YOU want to be
told that the $$$$$ the courts decide you can provide is more important to
your children than ***YOU*** are?
Bob Whiteside
> teachrmama wrote:
>
> The reality is; the people who bitch the most about child support are not
> the men paying it, but the next wife/girlfriend who doesn't get vacations,
> nice cars etc because her boyfriend has to "spend all his money" on the
> old family. Most guys I've spoken to got a reasonable deal in their
> divorces and gladly kick in extra for non essential things. From
> construction workers to lawyers, 4 out of 5 have no problem sacrificing
> their own lifestyle to pay for their kids. I'm guessing most of them lie
> to the new girlfriend so they don't have to waste money on her though.
>
>>
>> Oh--like *pay* to see their kids? Hmmmm.....exactly waht I think
>> parenting should be, too. Maybe the judges can take all of our children
>> away and let us pay to see them. The more we want to see them, the more
>> we can pay. That would wipe out the deficit in our lifetimes, I'm sure.
>>
>
> No, negotiate, this is how negotiation works. You negotiate for what you
> want with what you have. While he's so busy negotiating to stiff his kids
> he could be getting more time with them (if he really wants that)
So let's test your negotiation theory.
You are a NCP. The CS you pay is based on child rearing expenditure data
for intact families which means the CP is assumed to have the children 100%
of the time. About 28% of the costs of rearing children travel with the
children. You have to pay for your own home, provide a place for your
children when they visit, child visitation expenses like food and
entertainment, travel to/from your children, and other extras. You are
required to provide in addition to CS healthcare insurance, a portion of
uninsured healthcare expenses, life insurance, and a pro-rata share of child
care so the CP can work.
How do you negotiate to get a more favorable situation for you as a NCP?
DVD
By acting like a parent and putting the needs of your kid before the
needs of your lifestyle. One person here actually complained that he had
to move back in with his parents in order to support his kids. None of
what you mention seems unreasonable, and as long as the amounts were
based on your salary there would be nothing to negotiate. If you lost
your job however it would be time to work out a new agreement based on
the new income.
An outsider looking at a settlement would see a mother lying about how
much money she needs, a father lying about how much he can afford and a
judge's decision. The only one with no motive to lie is the judge.
Hypothetically, if you maintain 2 houses and claim you can't afford to
support your kids because of that expense yet moving back in with your
parents would enable you to afford it, the only excuse for not moving
back with your parents is that your lifestyle is more important to you
than your child support.
You act as if judges don't know any of this stuff btw, both judges I
know have been divorced, remarried, divorced again and remarried to each
other, there are kids from both sides and every one of them got good
schools, colleges and post graduate educations, not to mention more
attention from their parents than they wanted. When judges settle a case
I will trust their judgement over a father who whines about paying too
much or a wife who claims she can't make it on the settlement amount.
The judges see both arguments and decide, the bias "towards women" is
actually a bias towards the children who will need the support.
Bob Whiteside
> teachrmama wrote:
>>
>> I think YOU are the one who is out of YOUR mind. Where will the money to
>> support a whole new household come from?
>
> In my case I would cut the steak dinners, although steak dinners and
> children seem to rank equally in your mind.
>
>> Some things will have to be cut in order to meet these new expenses.
>> WHAT do you think should be cut, if not the items that are least
>> necessary?
>
> Everything that he can't afford after paying for his kids should be cut.
Do mothers have to cut out everything they can't afford after paying for
their kids?
Should mothers be scrutinized by the state to ensure they are providing
their pro-rata share of the total CS obligation?
Should mothers be required to account for how they spent the father and
mother shares of the total CS order?
Or should mothers have the freedom to adjust child expenditures at their own
discretion?
DVD
>
>
>
> I'm not talking aboutsteak dinners.
Yes you were, go back and see where you compared steak dinners with
child support. You even said "steak dinner" while you were talking about
steak dinners so it should be easy to find.
>
>
> I am only talking necessities. The ability to have a **life** and not live
> in poverty. Do you think dad should go home ant night and go straight to
> bed because he does not have a tv, can't afford an occasional movie?
If that turns out to be the case after a settlement, then yes he should
do exactly that. It never is the case though even in the worst settlements.
> Do you
> think that, perhaps, he should walk to work so he does not need a car?
If it helps him meet his court ordered obligations, yes. He should take
care of every parental obligation without questions and not spend a dime
on himself until those obligations are met.
> Maybe if he live 10 miles from work, the daily walk each direction will be
> his entertainment, since he can't afford anything else due to the extras you
> feel the judge has the right to assign him to pay. Maybe this would be
> easier if *you* tell me what you think the dad can live without, and what
> you think he still needs post divorce.
>
He can live on nothing if that is what it comes down to, the truth is
that most guys don't need to cut everything in order to meet their
responsibilities. The courts are more reasonable than you are
pretending. I know a guy who asked me to put his boat in my name so his
ex wife and current girlfriend wouldn't know he bought a boat.
Kids are expensive, it was no secret to anyone when they decided to have
them and it is no surprise to anyone after the divorce.
>
>>Everything that he can't afford after paying for his kids should be cut.
>
>
> Electricity? Gas for the car? Telephone? A visit to his dying mother?
> What else?
>
Everything was pretty self explanatory, no?
>
>
> Uh, questions of college are usually included in child support arrangements.
> You really are not very familiar with the child support system, are you?
>
Very often they are not and very often they do not include schools with
such high tuition. You are not very familiar with child support are you?
SO what would happen? What about if the kid had a shot at figure skating
in the olympics? Should the father stop paying for training etc because
the court didn't order it?
I'n addition the fact that the father makes 50 grand and the mother
makes 50 grand puts financial aid out of reach, especially if they both
own homes
>
>
> And the children in intact homes are NOT entitled to the lifestyle they
> have? WHY?
Do you know what a strawman is?
> That is what I am trying to get you to express. WHY do
> children in intact homes have to tighten their belts at a financial
> downturn, but the children divorce do not have to do so. WHY should the
> courts not equally intervene on behalf of the children in intact homes, if
> the **lifestyle** is what is owed to the children? WHY?
>
>
>
> Ohm no, it is NOT. It is a very important question! If the children of
> divorce are entitled to what they had before that divorce, then why is only
> the money important. All the studies are showing the importance of a father
> in the lives of children--yet a father's ability to parent his children is
> taken away by the same court that decides the money matters. What is better
> for children--having the luxuries, or having a father in their day to day
> lives? Not a strawman--a real question.
>
Its a strawman. You are claiming that to be my position even though I
stated in the first few posts of this ridiculous threat that my position
is exactly the opposite.
>>
>>3 strawmen, good job.
>
>
> Then you do not understand the value of a father in a child's life.
>
Apparently you do not understand what a strawman is.
>
>
> Oh--I'll have to go back an reread--I don't remember a placwe where we were
> talking about him trying to get out of paying for the children's neds. It
> was the luxuries we were discussing.
>
> As for wanting custody--YES, I think they want more custody!! OF COURSE
> they do! Most divorces are initiated by the mother, over the objections of
> the father. MOST fathers would like 50/50 joint custody, so they can still
> parent their children. Does this surprise you?
>
No, it doesn't surprise me that some guys say that, I know for a fact
that most don't want 50% of the child raising workload.
>
>
> That is why I said that, if it comes to a judge deciding about the
> negotiations, the wife really does not need to negotiate at allm because she
> will get her own way anyway.
Not at all true, there are more cases where mothers get much less than
the 20 or 30%. there are probably more cases where mothers get nothing
than cases where the father is overpaying.
> that if John and Mary divorce in 1998, and split custody 55/45 (not court
> involved), and agree on a CS amount, which is paid faithfully--Mary can go
> back to court in 06, asking for full custody and child support, she can get
> not only full custody and support from that point on, but the full amount of
> support from 1998 to 2006--because anything paid outside a court order does
> not count as child support. It is considered to be a gift? Interesting,
> huh?
>
Do you know that without cause she wouldn't get it? Do you also know
that John could do the same thing if he had a reason? Interesting huh?
>
> I agree. Is the judge that insists he pay anyway an animal, too?
>
He is enforcing the court order which he is obligated to do. It is like
you are on a roller coaster with your ideas.
>
> <chuckle> You really do not know much about this system, do you? You are
> so sure that it is fair.
>
It is not completely fair, as I have said 5 times already, it is biased
towards the welfare of the children which is the mother's side in 85% of
the cases. It is a hell of a lot more fair than allowing fathers to hide
their income and pay much lower child support payments. That scenario is
a lot more common btw.
>
> <sigh> The majority of the fathers here have fought bitterly to retain
> access to their children.
The majority? You don't get out much, do you. Maybe the majority of the
ones who post bitter diatribes in your newsgroup have, maybe a majority
of the guys who are lying to you for sympathy say they have but the
reality is that a small minority of men fight for custody while a
majority of men fight to keep their child support payments down.
> They *want* to parent their children. But the
> same court that will enforce child support to the last penny will not lift a
> finger to enforce visitation. Would you not feel at least a twinge of
> bitterness if you were denied access to your children?
Bitterness has nothing to do with common sense. In all cases it takes 2
people to carry on a fight.
There are a couple
> of people here that would like all responsibility lifted from men in regards
> to children that they father, but most here disagree with them. There are
> several people here who are no longer involved in child support issues
> because their children have "aged out" of the system. But they share their
> knowledge of the system to help those who find themselves entangled in it.
> NOT to help them get out of paying, btw, but to give them the knowledge they
> need to have at kleast a fighting chance of remaining in their children's
> lives as more than a walking wallet.
>
I can match you anecdote for anecdote, it doesn't mean judges are
unfair. The whole system is bloated and out of control due to the fact
that almost everyone involved in these cases is lying and miserable.
>
>>My most recent experience was a judge who forced a stay at home mom to go
>>get a job before the next hearing. I would agree with the judge in that
>>case, why let a woman stay home and plead poverty when she has enough free
>>time to work.
>
>
> Things are beginning to change for the better, but the pendulum is a long
> way from swinging back to fairness yet. I do hope the woman got a job. No
> adult has the right to feel that they should be supported by another just
> because they breathe air.
>
This was 10 years ago, the father was ordered to pay full support and
the mother was ordered to get a job. Since they got past the bitterness
they have both moved on and lead new lives. This is a typical case,
cases like this are more common than cases where the guy has to eat
cheese out of his friend's mousetrap just to survive.
>
> People entering into a relationship need to be honest with each other. If
> the guy tells new-gal that he has very little disposable income due to child
> support obligations, and she takes up with him anyway, then she has nothing
> to complain about. But what would you say about this scenario: Man and
> woman meet and marry, both knowing what his child support obligations are to
> exwife. Their budget is based on this. Dad and new wife start a family.
> Exwife decides she wants more money. NOTHING has changed, income wise.
> Guidelines + extras are being paid for at the court ordered rate. But she
> decides she wants more. So she goes to court and presents a poverty
> scenario--and the judge *doubles* the child support. Which leaves the new
> family in poverty. Do you think the new wife has a right to complain?
In the unlikely event that this happens, she can complain all she wants,
she can also skydive naked for all the good it will do.
teachrmama
And the judge would impute your income as being the income of the job you
just lost. Downward modifications are rarely granted. Judges have the
power to say "You made that much before, so make it again." Or don't you
believe that?
>
> An outsider looking at a settlement would see a mother lying about how
> much money she needs, a father lying about how much he can afford and a
> judge's decision. The only one with no motive to lie is the judge.
Both parties are supposed to bring in proof of their financials. It is hard
to understate your income when you are required to bring in pay stubs and
tax documents. It is easy, however, to inflate expenses.
>
> Hypothetically, if you maintain 2 houses and claim you can't afford to
> support your kids because of that expense yet moving back in with your
> parents would enable you to afford it, the only excuse for not moving back
> with your parents is that your lifestyle is more important to you than
> your child support.
Or, perhaps, that your children live in california and your parents live in
Ohio. So tell me, DVD, should a dad move to Ohio and lose his visitation
times with his children in order to live with his paernts, just so his
children can attend private school> Which is more important? Being able to
spend time with their father, or attending private school?
>
> You act as if judges don't know any of this stuff btw, both judges I know
> have been divorced, remarried, divorced again and remarried to each other,
> there are kids from both sides and every one of them got good schools,
> colleges and post graduate educations, not to mention more attention from
> their parents than they wanted. When judges settle a case I will trust
> their judgement over a father who whines about paying too much or a wife
> who claims she can't make it on the settlement amount.
Uh--judges tend to make slightly higher salaries than most of us poor dumb
working folks. Their income might make all of this just a bit easier, don't
you think?
>
> The judges see both arguments and decide, the bias "towards women" is
> actually a bias towards the children who will need the support.
<chuckle> You see nothing wrong with gender bias?
DVD
>> Everything that he can't afford after paying for his kids should be cut.
>
>
> Do mothers have to cut out everything they can't afford after paying for
> their kids?
>
Yes, if they can't afford it, they have to cut it out just like every
other human on the planet.
> Should mothers be scrutinized by the state to ensure they are providing
> their pro-rata share of the total CS obligation?
>
In a perfect world, maybe, who would foot the bill for the new Mom Squad?
> Should mothers be required to account for how they spent the father and
> mother shares of the total CS order?
>
Not if they are busy raising the children. An amount is established
based on the kids' needs in the beginning and that should be paid.
The parent who spends more time with the children should have more
freedom to make decisions about everything, not just money.
Gini
> teachrmama wrote:
......................
>
>> Do you
>> think that, perhaps, he should walk to work so he does not need a car?
>
> If it helps him meet his court ordered obligations, yes. He should take
> care of every parental obligation without questions and not spend a dime
> on himself until those obligations are met.
And of course, this applies to the custodial parent as well?
Bob Whiteside
For some reason you decided to ignore the list of things I wrote. Each of
those items are regularly ordered in a court order and each of those items
has a real cost associated with them. My point is - Just narrowly talking
about CS is simplistic when there are other costs fathers are required to
pay in addition to the basic CS amount. Another factor is the significant
tax advantages given to mothers and taken from fathers. In my case I
finally realized I was struggling not from the CS ordered but from the CS
ordered plus the $450 per month additional tax burden in my new tax status.
>
> An outsider looking at a settlement would see a mother lying about how
> much money she needs, a father lying about how much he can afford and a
> judge's decision. The only one with no motive to lie is the judge.
I got this same "insight" from my attorney. He told me the judges assume
everyone who appears before them is lying so the judges just do what they
want to do and ignore the parties testimony. Pretty freakin' cynical if you
ask me.
>
> Hypothetically, if you maintain 2 houses and claim you can't afford to
> support your kids because of that expense yet moving back in with your
> parents would enable you to afford it, the only excuse for not moving back
> with your parents is that your lifestyle is more important to you than
> your child support.
What if your parents are deceased?
>
> You act as if judges don't know any of this stuff btw, both judges I know
> have been divorced, remarried, divorced again and remarried to each other,
> there are kids from both sides and every one of them got good schools,
> colleges and post graduate educations, not to mention more attention from
> their parents than they wanted. When judges settle a case I will trust
> their judgement over a father who whines about paying too much or a wife
> who claims she can't make it on the settlement amount.
You must live in a protective bubble. Judges have slush funds they can play
with at their discretion. They are called campaign contributions. The
attorneys who appear before them give the judges money in an effort to gain
favorable treatment from the judge. Campaigh contributions are not counted
as income when CS orders are set.
>
> The judges see both arguments and decide, the bias "towards women" is
> actually a bias towards the children who will need the support.
You need to rethink this statement. There have been several researchers
(Brinig and Braver to name two) that did studies that show predictability of
child custody (emotional motivation) and predetermined CS amounts (financial
motivation) favor women and are the central motivators for women to initiate
relationship breakups. If the judges were really unbiased then they would
decide each case on its own merit rather than relying on what many attorneys
refer to as their tendencies.
DVD
>
> And the judge would impute your income as being the income of the job you
> just lost. Downward modifications are rarely granted. Judges have the
> power to say "You made that much before, so make it again." Or don't you
> believe that?
>
Go back to the first 2 posts of this thread.
>
>>An outsider looking at a settlement would see a mother lying about how
>>much money she needs, a father lying about how much he can afford and a
>>judge's decision. The only one with no motive to lie is the judge.
>
>
> Both parties are supposed to bring in proof of their financials. It is hard
> to understate your income when you are required to bring in pay stubs and
> tax documents. It is easy, however, to inflate expenses.
>
It is easy to do both.
>
>
> Uh--judges tend to make slightly higher salaries than most of us poor dumb
> working folks. Their income might make all of this just a bit easier, don't
> you think?
>
It is all relative, they also have more expensive homes more expensive
schools etc.
>
>>The judges see both arguments and decide, the bias "towards women" is
>>actually a bias towards the children who will need the support.
>
>
> <chuckle> You see nothing wrong with gender bias?
>
>
Not when it isn't really gender bias <giggle ... hee hee> it is bias
towards the welfare of the children. If the mother claims she can't feed
her kids and the father claims he can't afford a new boat .... I'd go
with the mother even though I know they are both lying.
DVD
>
>
> For some reason you decided to ignore the list of things I wrote. Each
> of those items are regularly ordered in a court order and each of those
> items has a real cost associated with them. My point is - Just narrowly
> talking about CS is simplistic when there are other costs fathers are
> required to pay in addition to the basic CS amount. Another factor is
> the significant tax advantages given to mothers and taken from fathers.
> In my case I finally realized I was struggling not from the CS ordered
> but from the CS ordered plus the $450 per month additional tax burden in
> my new tax status.
>
They are all reasonable things to expect a father to pay.
>
> I got this same "insight" from my attorney. He told me the judges
> assume everyone who appears before them is lying so the judges just do
> what they want to do and ignore the parties testimony. Pretty freakin'
> cynical if you ask me.
>
As cynical as everyone else involved. What would you expect a guy to
think after dealing with liars all day.
>>
>> Hypothetically, if you maintain 2 houses and claim you can't afford to
>> support your kids because of that expense yet moving back in with your
>> parents would enable you to afford it, the only excuse for not moving
>> back with your parents is that your lifestyle is more important to you
>> than your child support.
>
>
> What if your parents are deceased?
>
>
Then the guy who complained about going to live with his parents will
need a lot of lysol.
>
> You must live in a protective bubble. Judges have slush funds they can
> play with at their discretion. They are called campaign contributions.
> The attorneys who appear before them give the judges money in an effort
> to gain favorable treatment from the judge. Campaigh contributions are
> not counted as income when CS orders are set.
>
Last time they tried that in Brooklyn, 1 judge and 2 lawyers went to
jail. It is called bribery.
>>
>> The judges see both arguments and decide, the bias "towards women" is
>> actually a bias towards the children who will need the support.
>
>
> You need to rethink this statement. There have been several researchers
> (Brinig and Braver to name two) that did studies that show
> predictability of child custody (emotional motivation) and predetermined
> CS amounts (financial motivation) favor women and are the central
> motivators for women to initiate relationship breakups. If the judges
> were really unbiased then they would decide each case on its own merit
> rather than relying on what many attorneys refer to as their tendencies.
I never said they were unbiased. Read the statement I made about bias
right above your response.
DVD
It usually does by default.
Janice
"explorer" <No...@ubidnis.com> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
> "Janice" <Not...@you.com> wrote in message
> news:Nothank-2937D1...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
> > In article <483f56d9....@news.easynews.com>,
> > kenne...@aol.com (Kenneth J.) wrote:
> >
> >> He had pleaded guilty in 1995 to drug abuse and was placed on
> >> probation and required to get treatment.
> >
> > "we havent caught you using coke or in posession of COke, but you are
> > obviously a coke abuser so we will charge you with being a coke abuser".
>
>
> I don't suppose you could be bothered to tell anyone who or what you are
> talking about.....
You are not very bright are you? The article clearly states a person,
in 1995, pleaded guilty to the crime of "drug abuse". Not possesion,
not drug dealing, but abuse.
teachrmama
> teachrmama wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not talking aboutsteak dinners.
>
> Yes you were, go back and see where you compared steak dinners with child
> support. You even said "steak dinner" while you were talking about steak
> dinners so it should be easy to find.
I did not compare taking care on one's children to steak dinners. I asked
if you would think it was fair if a place of business charged you what they
thought you could pay rather than the agreed-upon posted price of an item.
Just a little bit different.
>
>>
>>
>> I am only talking necessities. The ability to have a **life** and not
>> live in poverty. Do you think dad should go home ant night and go
>> straight to bed because he does not have a tv, can't afford an occasional
>> movie?
>
> If that turns out to be the case after a settlement, then yes he should do
> exactly that. It never is the case though even in the worst settlements.
That is where you are so very, very wrong.
>
>> Do you think that, perhaps, he should walk to work so he does not need a
>> car?
>
> If it helps him meet his court ordered obligations, yes. He should take
> care of every parental obligation without questions and not spend a dime
> on himself until those obligations are met.
So living withiout electricity is ok with you?
>
>> Maybe if he live 10 miles from work, the daily walk each direction will
>> be his entertainment, since he can't afford anything else due to the
>> extras you feel the judge has the right to assign him to pay. Maybe this
>> would be easier if *you* tell me what you think the dad can live without,
>> and what you think he still needs post divorce.
>>
>
> He can live on nothing if that is what it comes down to, the truth is that
> most guys don't need to cut everything in order to meet their
> responsibilities. The courts are more reasonable than you are pretending.
> I know a guy who asked me to put his boat in my name so his ex wife and
> current girlfriend wouldn't know he bought a boat.
And I certainly hope you did not do that!!
Most people are reasonable, and scarecely need the court's help, DVD. We
are not talking about those people. We are talking about the people who are
being taken to the cleaners by the system. Don't you think those people
need help? Don't you think the system should be fair and accessible to
everyone?
>
> Kids are expensive, it was no secret to anyone when they decided to have
> them and it is no surprise to anyone after the divorce.
Except that they become far more expensive after divorce for some people.
Kids should not be a for-profit business for mtohers.
>>
>>>Everything that he can't afford after paying for his kids should be cut.
>>
>>
>> Electricity? Gas for the car? Telephone? A visit to his dying mother?
>> What else?
>>
>
> Everything was pretty self explanatory, no?
Oh, so visiting his dying mother for the last time is less important than
his son getting $150 shoes that he will outgrow in 3 months?
Interesting.......
>
>>
>>
>> Uh, questions of college are usually included in child support
>> arrangements. You really are not very familiar with the child support
>> system, are you?
>>
>
> Very often they are not and very often they do not include schools with
> such high tuition. You are not very familiar with child support are you?
I am very familiar with it. College expenses are spelled out in divorce
orders. If not, then mom better make sure she maintains a cordial
relationship with dad, and gives the child a relationsip with dad, too.
Relationship solves more problems than court ever does.
> SO what would happen? What about if the kid had a shot at figure skating
> in the olympics? Should the father stop paying for training etc because
> the court didn't order it?
Actually, DVD, yes--he should have that right. He absolutely should have
theright to say no. Just as I have the right to tell my children no to
things that I can't afford. Would you force an intact family to pay for
figure skating training if they did not want to?
>
> I'n addition the fact that the father makes 50 grand and the mother makes
> 50 grand puts financial aid out of reach, especially if they both own
> homes
Oh, well. So you are saying that mom gets to keep her home and dad has to
lose his so kid can go to Harvard?
>>
>>
>> And the children in intact homes are NOT entitled to the lifestyle they
>> have? WHY?
>
> Do you know what a strawman is?
Do you know what WHY means? I really want to know why you think a certain
class of children are entitled, and others are not. I know you are not
answeering because you really do not have an answer. So it is easier to cry
strawman than it is to think things through and come up with an answer.
What a cop-out!!
>
>> That is what I am trying to get you to express. WHY do children in
>> intact homes have to tighten their belts at a financial downturn, but the
>> children divorce do not have to do so. WHY should the courts not equally
>> intervene on behalf of the children in intact homes, if the **lifestyle**
>> is what is owed to the children? WHY?
>>
>>
>>
>> Ohm no, it is NOT. It is a very important question! If the children of
>> divorce are entitled to what they had before that divorce, then why is
>> only the money important. All the studies are showing the importance of
>> a father in the lives of children--yet a father's ability to parent his
>> children is taken away by the same court that decides the money matters.
>> What is better for children--having the luxuries, or having a father in
>> their day to day lives? Not a strawman--a real question.
>>
>
> Its a strawman. You are claiming that to be my position even though I
> stated in the first few posts of this ridiculous threat that my position
> is exactly the opposite.
No, I'm not. I am asking why the only "lifestyle" issue being considered is
money. Why is the father's role in the lives of his children not considered
to be important enough to legislate. Why only money?
>
>>>
>>>3 strawmen, good job.
>>
>>
>> Then you do not understand the value of a father in a child's life.
>>
>
> Apparently you do not understand what a strawman is.
I understand what a strawman is not--and the role of a father in the lives
of his children is not a strawman. (Don't worry. I know you have no real
answers to these questions. Mney is much easier to focus on. If you truly
have to think about the value of fathers, it might upset your applecart)
>>
>>
>> Oh--I'll have to go back an reread--I don't remember a placwe where we
>> were talking about him trying to get out of paying for the children's
>> neds. It was the luxuries we were discussing.
>>
>
>
>> As for wanting custody--YES, I think they want more custody!! OF COURSE
>> they do! Most divorces are initiated by the mother, over the objections
>> of the father. MOST fathers would like 50/50 joint custody, so they can
>> still parent their children. Does this surprise you?
>>
>
> No, it doesn't surprise me that some guys say that, I know for a fact that
> most don't want 50% of the child raising workload.
REALLY? What kind of jerks do you associate with? The vast majority of men
I know FIGHT for 50/50 custody!
>
>>
>>
>> That is why I said that, if it comes to a judge deciding about the
>> negotiations, the wife really does not need to negotiate at allm because
>> she will get her own way anyway.
>
> Not at all true, there are more cases where mothers get much less than the
> 20 or 30%. there are probably more cases where mothers get nothing than
> cases where the father is overpaying.
Please post some cites for these facts. I an eager to read them.
>
>> that if John and Mary divorce in 1998, and split custody 55/45 (not court
>> involved), and agree on a CS amount, which is paid faithfully--Mary can
>> go back to court in 06, asking for full custody and child support, she
>> can get not only full custody and support from that point on, but the
>> full amount of support from 1998 to 2006--because anything paid outside a
>> court order does not count as child support. It is considered to be a
>> gift? Interesting, huh?
>>
>
> Do you know that without cause she wouldn't get it? Do you also know that
> John could do the same thing if he had a reason? Interesting huh?
<chuckle> You are so wrong. You only think it couldn't happen.
So, tell me, if a woman gets pregnant, moves away and does not tell the
father until the child is say, 10 years old, can she take him to court to
get child support back to the birth of the child? Is it ok with you if she
does this?
>
>>
>> I agree. Is the judge that insists he pay anyway an animal, too?
>>
>
> He is enforcing the court order which he is obligated to do. It is like
> you are on a roller coaster with your ideas.
But is he an animal for jailing a guy that he ***knows** cannot pay? He
does not have to jail him, you know. That's just one of the options he has.
>>
>> <chuckle> You really do not know much about this system, do you? You
>> are so sure that it is fair.
>>
>
> It is not completely fair, as I have said 5 times already, it is biased
> towards the welfare of the children which is the mother's side in 85% of
> the cases.
You mean it is better to be raised by a mother alone, than by both parents?
It is a hell of a lot more fair than allowing fathers to hide
> their income and pay much lower child support payments. That scenario is a
> lot more common btw.
Cite, please. I want to read the studies where you got this information.
>>
>> <sigh> The majority of the fathers here have fought bitterly to retain
>> access to their children.
>
> The majority? You don't get out much, do you. Maybe the majority of the
> ones who post bitter diatribes in your newsgroup have, maybe a majority of
> the guys who are lying to you for sympathy say they have but the reality
> is that a small minority of men fight for custody while a majority of men
> fight to keep their child support payments down.
Cite, please. I want to read the studies where you got this information.
>
>> They *want* to parent their children. But the same court that will
>> enforce child support to the last penny will not lift a finger to enforce
>> visitation. Would you not feel at least a twinge of bitterness if you
>> were denied access to your children?
>
> Bitterness has nothing to do with common sense. In all cases it takes 2
> people to carry on a fight.
But courts do not enforce court-ordered visitation. Are you saying that
that is ok with you?
>
> There are a couple
>> of people here that would like all responsibility lifted from men in
>> regards to children that they father, but most here disagree with them.
>> There are several people here who are no longer involved in child support
>> issues because their children have "aged out" of the system. But they
>> share their knowledge of the system to help those who find themselves
>> entangled in it. NOT to help them get out of paying, btw, but to give
>> them the knowledge they need to have at kleast a fighting chance of
>> remaining in their children's lives as more than a walking wallet.
>>
>
> I can match you anecdote for anecdote, it doesn't mean judges are unfair.
> The whole system is bloated and out of control due to the fact that almost
> everyone involved in these cases is lying and miserable.
I keep asking you for cites--for the studies you have read that back up what
you are saying. Please do post them soon.
>
>>
>>>My most recent experience was a judge who forced a stay at home mom to go
>>>get a job before the next hearing. I would agree with the judge in that
>>>case, why let a woman stay home and plead poverty when she has enough
>>>free time to work.
>>
>>
>> Things are beginning to change for the better, but the pendulum is a long
>> way from swinging back to fairness yet. I do hope the woman got a job.
>> No adult has the right to feel that they should be supported by another
>> just because they breathe air.
>>
>
> This was 10 years ago, the father was ordered to pay full support and the
> mother was ordered to get a job. Since they got past the bitterness they
> have both moved on and lead new lives. This is a typical case, cases like
> this are more common than cases where the guy has to eat cheese out of his
> friend's mousetrap just to survive.
OK--one case--please provide cites for your other claims.
>>
>> People entering into a relationship need to be honest with each other.
>> If the guy tells new-gal that he has very little disposable income due to
>> child support obligations, and she takes up with him anyway, then she has
>> nothing to complain about. But what would you say about this scenario:
>> Man and woman meet and marry, both knowing what his child support
>> obligations are to exwife. Their budget is based on this. Dad and new
>> wife start a family. Exwife decides she wants more money. NOTHING has
>> changed, income wise. Guidelines + extras are being paid for at the court
>> ordered rate. But she decides she wants more. So she goes to court and
>> presents a poverty scenario--and the judge *doubles* the child support.
>> Which leaves the new family in poverty. Do you think the new wife has a
>> right to complain?
>
> In the unlikely event that this happens, she can complain all she wants,
> she can also skydive naked for all the good it will do.
And do you agree that it was ok to deprive the new family of the income in
order to give more to the old family?
Bob Whiteside
> Bob Whiteside wrote:
>
>>> Everything that he can't afford after paying for his kids should be cut.
>>
>>
>> Do mothers have to cut out everything they can't afford after paying for
>> their kids?
>>
>
> Yes, if they can't afford it, they have to cut it out just like every
> other human on the planet.
Not if there are no CS expendtiture accounting procedures, no one is paying
attention, and fathers are not allowed to raise these issues in court.
>
>> Should mothers be scrutinized by the state to ensure they are providing
>> their pro-rata share of the total CS obligation?
>>
>
> In a perfect world, maybe, who would foot the bill for the new Mom Squad?
The mothers who are found to be under-supporting their own children.
>
>> Should mothers be required to account for how they spent the father and
>> mother shares of the total CS order?
>>
>
> Not if they are busy raising the children. An amount is established based
> on the kids' needs in the beginning and that should be paid.
Have you considered that children are in daycare or school more hours per
day than they are with their mothers? Does the time with those outside
resources count towards a mother being "busy raising the children"?
>
> The parent who spends more time with the children should have more freedom
> to make decisions about everything, not just money.
You mean like daycare providers and teachers?
teachrmama
Did you get to this part of the post, Gini?:
TM: what would you say about this scenario: Man and
> woman meet and marry, both knowing what his child support
obligations are to
> exwife. Their budget is based on this. Dad and new wife start a
family.
> Exwife decides she wants more money. NOTHING has changed, income
wise.
> Guidelines + extras are being paid for at the court ordered rate.
But she
> decides she wants more. So she goes to court and presents a poverty
> scenario--and the judge *doubles* the child support. Which leaves
the new
> family in poverty. Do you think the new wife has a right to
complain?
DVD: In the unlikely event that this happens, she can complain all she
teachrmama
"DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
news:48430613$0$7059$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
teachrmama
You forgot to answer this part:
You: > Hypothetically, if you maintain 2 houses and claim you can't afford
to
> support your kids because of that expense yet moving back in with
your
> parents would enable you to afford it, the only excuse for not
moving back
> with your parents is that your lifestyle is more important to you
than
> your child support.
Me: Or, perhaps, that your children live in california and your parents
teachrmama
"Bob Whiteside" <rob...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:F7udne-DBpJFld7V...@giganews.com...
Wow, Bob, I kinda like that one. <G>
>
DVD
>>>
>>
>> Yes, if they can't afford it, they have to cut it out just like every
>> other human on the planet.
>
>
> Not if there are no CS expendtiture accounting procedures, no one is
> paying attention, and fathers are not allowed to raise these issues in
> court.
>
So where are they getting money for these things that they can't afford?
Do mothers have a secret bank that gives them money that is unaccounted
for? The fact is a simple one, everyone has to cut out expenses that
they can't afford.
>
> The mothers who are found to be under-supporting their own children.
>
That is done quite often. Men routinely drag their exes into court over
these things.
>>
>> Not if they are busy raising the children. An amount is established
>> based on the kids' needs in the beginning and that should be paid.
>
>
> Have you considered that children are in daycare or school more hours
> per day than they are with their mothers? Does the time with those
> outside resources count towards a mother being "busy raising the children"?
Yes. Using day care does not mean you are no longer busy raising
children. The amount is established the mother gets to spend it as she
sees fit.
>>
>> The parent who spends more time with the children should have more
>> freedom to make decisions about everything, not just money.
>
>
> You mean like daycare providers and teachers?
Do they have sleepover daycare now? Do they send the kids to their
teacher's house when they get sick?
Bob Whiteside
"teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:g1uqo...@news1.newsguy.com...
> And the children in intact homes are NOT entitled to the lifestyle they
> have? WHY? That is what I am trying to get you to express. WHY do
> children in intact homes have to tighten their belts at a financial
> downturn, but the children divorce do not have to do so. WHY should the
> courts not equally intervene on behalf of the children in intact homes, if
> the **lifestyle** is what is owed to the children? WHY?
I have always thought the concept of "lifestyle" should cut both ways.
I see nothing wrong with both parents being required to provide an ongoing
lifestyle for their children.
In fact, I believe CP mothers should be required by court order to clean the
NCP father's home, do his laundry, shop for groceries, etc. so the children
can experience the same lifestyle while visiting their fathers as they have
when living with their mothers.
DVD
>>>
>>>I'm not talking aboutsteak dinners.
>>
>>Yes you were, go back and see where you compared steak dinners with child
>>support. You even said "steak dinner" while you were talking about steak
>>dinners so it should be easy to find.
>
>
> I did not compare taking care on one's children to steak dinners. I asked
> if you would think it was fair if a place of business charged you what they
> thought you could pay rather than the agreed-upon posted price of an item.
> Just a little bit different.
>
It is exactly what you did, you compared a surprise cost of a steak
dinner to a surprise cost of child support. You did exactly that,
compared steak dinners to supporting children.
>
>
>
> That is where you are so very, very wrong.
>
You are probably being lied to by someone.
>
>>> Do you think that, perhaps, he should walk to work so he does not need a
>>>car?
>>
>>If it helps him meet his court ordered obligations, yes. He should take
>>care of every parental obligation without questions and not spend a dime
>>on himself until those obligations are met.
>
>
> So living withiout electricity is ok with you?
>
Not for me, I pay all of my bills, plus I have a bunch of kids running
around here, they need some lights. In the extreme circumstance that a
guy can't pay his electric bill then yes, he should live without
electricity.
>
>>>Maybe if he live 10 miles from work, the daily walk each direction will
>>>be his entertainment, since he can't afford anything else due to the
>>>extras you feel the judge has the right to assign him to pay. Maybe this
>>>would be easier if *you* tell me what you think the dad can live without,
>>>and what you think he still needs post divorce.
>>>
>>
>>He can live on nothing if that is what it comes down to, the truth is that
>>most guys don't need to cut everything in order to meet their
>>responsibilities. The courts are more reasonable than you are pretending.
>>I know a guy who asked me to put his boat in my name so his ex wife and
>>current girlfriend wouldn't know he bought a boat.
>
>
> And I certainly hope you did not do that!!
>
> Most people are reasonable, and scarecely need the court's help, DVD. We
> are not talking about those people. We are talking about the people who are
> being taken to the cleaners by the system. Don't you think those people
> need help? Don't you think the system should be fair and accessible to
> everyone?
>
It is accessible to everyone and just like every court proceeding in
this country it is unfair to those with less money. The alternative is
to let the bigger problem of unpaid child support continue to grow. I
would hate to see what the court system designed to accomodate deadbeat
dads and vindictive wives would look like. I am imagining a mess 10,000
times bigger than what we have.
>
>>Kids are expensive, it was no secret to anyone when they decided to have
>>them and it is no surprise to anyone after the divorce.
>
>
> Except that they become far more expensive after divorce for some people.
> Kids should not be a for-profit business for mtohers.
>
Except in a few extreme cases involving an ex beatle or a basketball
player it isn't.
>
>>>>Everything that he can't afford after paying for his kids should be cut.
>>>
>>>
>>>Electricity? Gas for the car? Telephone? A visit to his dying mother?
>>>What else?
>>>
>>
>>Everything was pretty self explanatory, no?
>
>
> Oh, so visiting his dying mother for the last time is less important than
> his son getting $150 shoes that he will outgrow in 3 months?
> Interesting.......
>
I didn't say that, I said he should pay his obligations first, it is a
monthly payment that he has to make whether his lights are off or his
mother is dying.
>
>
> I am very familiar with it. College expenses are spelled out in divorce
> orders.
Sometimes they are. Very often they aren't.
> If not, then mom better make sure she maintains a cordial
> relationship with dad, and gives the child a relationsip with dad, too.
> Relationship solves more problems than court ever does.
>
Even if they are spelled out, she should do that anyway.
>
> Actually, DVD, yes--he should have that right. He absolutely should have
> theright to say no. Just as I have the right to tell my children no to
> things that I can't afford. Would you force an intact family to pay for
> figure skating training if they did not want to?
>
>
He does have the right, again you love these strawmen. Should he deny
her an opportunity that he was providing for during the marriage? My
opinion is that he should live without electricity and a car, call his
mom before she dies and pay for the training.
>
> Oh, well. So you are saying that mom gets to keep her home and dad has to
> lose his so kid can go to Harvard?
>
He should want to, but again you make up a strawman argument. I didn't
say he had to lose his home, what I said was the 2 homes and 2 incomes
would hurt the kid's chances of getting any aid.
>>>
>>>And the children in intact homes are NOT entitled to the lifestyle they
>>>have? WHY?
>>
>>Do you know what a strawman is?
>
>
> Do you know what WHY means? I really want to know why you think a certain
> class of children are entitled, and others are not.
I never said anything remotely similar to the argument that you are
making up here.
I know you are not
> answeering because you really do not have an answer. So it is easier to cry
> strawman than it is to think things through and come up with an answer.
> What a cop-out!!
>
You are being dishonest, you are trying to put words in my mouth
(ridiculous words at that) rather than try to make a sensible argument.
Oddly enough you are not the first person to try this exact same
strawman about children in a divorce getting more rights so I am
guessing this is just a talking point among you that you trot out and
use when someone doesn't share your sense of victimhood.
DVD
> Do you have any children?
>
A lot of them.