Child support
Jeffrey S. Reed
ni...@my-deja.com
Wa...@webtv.net (Jeffrey S. Reed) wrote:
>
> --WebTV-Mail-32365-968
> Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
>
> Instead of a hundred notes from some asshole named pat ...
>
> Could anyone tell me what happens when a husband is in prison... where
> does support come from ... does social service provide support and the
> husband pays it back to them ... any info you have would be
appreciated
> .. E me direct if you could
When a parent is in prison, and children are involved, from my
experience as a child support worker, the other parent may go on
welfare, or as they now call it, temporary assistance (this also
includes food stamps and medical assistance). On temporary assistance,
the parent will be required to cooperate in setting a child support
order so that when the imprisoned parent is released, then the state
can re-coup the money it paid in his place. When the imprisoned parent
is released, he will then owe the state and will be court-ordered to
repay the money...The child support agency will use whatever
enforcement tools is necessary to collect the money. (Sometimes the
actual child support amount will not be set but held in reserve until
after the parent is released and the full $ amount of assistance is
known).
If the parents continue their separation after he is released, then the
child support agency will enforce both for current support due to the
custodial parent and also the back support due to the state during the
time that she was on temporary assistance. If the parents do not
separate after his release, he will still owe. I hope this helps....
Ninar
>
> --WebTV-Mail-32365-968
> Content-Description: signature
> Content-Disposition: Inline
> Content-Type: Text/HTML; Charset=US-ASCII
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
>
> <html>
> <bgsound src=
> "http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Frontrow/2990/zoo/majnew48.ram"
> </html>
> <html> <body bgcolor = "black" text = "lawngreen"> <html> <font
> size=6><font color="green"><marquee>Soylent Green is people ... 119
days
> left ...</marquee><BR><a
> href="http://community.webtv.net/Wasp/WelcometoJeffrey">Jeffrey Reed's
> Web Page</a><a
> href="http://www.wunderground.com/US/NY/Colonie.html"><img
>
src="http://banners.wunderground.com/banner/default/US/NY/Colonie.gif"al
t="Click
> for Colonie, New York Forecast" height=60 width=468></a>
>
> --WebTV-Mail-32365-968--
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
PAUL
support order, the child support debt builds for every month the man is in
jail. So when he comes out of prison, even a year or two later, he may owe
$5K - $10K in back child support, face arrest for felony failure to pay, and
then have his probation revoked and go back to jail.
If the spouse goes on public assistance while the husband is in jail the
state will charge him TANF arrears for every month she and kids get welfare.
So, he may come out of jail owing $3K - $7K in TANF arrears, face a criminal
penalty for failure to pay, have his probation revoked, and go right back to
jail. Paul Laird
--
The evil of tyranny is rarely seen by those who practice it, but always felt
by those against whom it is practiced.
Jeffrey S. Reed wrote in message
<6900-37...@newsd-152.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Charlie Kester
so the politicians and others can suggest that there's a crisis
in child support and more government intervention is needed.
charlie
------------------
PAUL <thel...@att.net> wrote in message news:7qsr68$le6$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
GJP
I have talked to these people on numerous occasions. What you don't
realize is that DHHS and CSE are the way government controls the people.
And I bet you all thought your participation in elections influenced what
your representatives did? Hahahahaha! They use benefits to destroy
families and women get in line for the cash and give up freedom and the
fathers of their children in order to participate. It would appear women
can't run fast enough to get the handouts and give up freedoms...including
those of their children.
Greg Palumbo
Charlie Kester <cke...@citylinq.com> wrote in message
news:tmsA3.114$IG5.1...@news-west.eli.net...
Paul Cantrell
In AL if a person is in prison for any length of time [over a year] the law
states that they are under a "legal disability". While the CS/TANF obviously
still build and draw interest, the person can not be re-jailed for failure to
pay in that period. Once released the person must seek work and begin to pay or
face violation of a civil order. It takes a long time here before the law will
take criminal sanctions on child support, but they press it with parolees. A
person in this situation could be required to surrender up to 60% of disposable
wages in order to meet CS/TANF obligations.
AMiller
Charlie Kester <cke...@citylinq.com> wrote in message
news:tmsA3.114$IG5.1...@news-west.eli.net...
> ... and while he's in prison, he's counted in the stats as a "deadbeat
dad",
> so the politicians and others can suggest that there's a crisis
> in child support and more government intervention is needed.
>
> charlie
>
Well, if the parent is in jail, isn't that pretty "deadbeat"? I think it's
safe to say that all of us responsible parents probably avoid actions that
could land us in jail. I know I do! Isn't being a good role model (obeying
laws) part of parenting? So what do you suggest they do to handle this? I
agree that an imprisoned parent cannot pay support, but they shouldn't be
patted on the head and told it's OK either.
> ------------------
>
> PAUL <thel...@att.net> wrote in message
news:7qsr68$le6$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
Charlie Kester
and not me personally. I understand your point very well, Greg.
I've said as much in other posts.
But if I've written something that you think demonstrates my
confusion or ignorance, I'd love to hear about it.
charlie
------------------
GJP <g.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:7qtsnm$k4e$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net...
> Those who make the laws and run the agencies know exactly what is going on.
> I have talked to these people on numerous occasions. What you don't
> realize is that DHHS and CSE are the way government controls the people.
> And I bet you all thought your participation in elections influenced what
> your representatives did? Hahahahaha! They use benefits to destroy
> families and women get in line for the cash and give up freedom and the
> fathers of their children in order to participate. It would appear women
> can't run fast enough to get the handouts and give up freedoms...including
> those of their children.
>
> Greg Palumbo
>
>
>
> Charlie Kester <cke...@citylinq.com> wrote in message
> news:tmsA3.114$IG5.1...@news-west.eli.net...
> > ... and while he's in prison, he's counted in the stats as a "deadbeat
> dad",
> > so the politicians and others can suggest that there's a crisis
> > in child support and more government intervention is needed.
> >
> > charlie
> >
Paul R
AMiller <annon...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<7qu10o$hjv$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>
> Well, if the parent is in jail, isn't that pretty "deadbeat"? I think
it's
> safe to say that all of us responsible parents probably avoid actions
that
> could land us in jail. I know I do! Isn't being a good role model
(obeying
> laws) part of parenting? So what do you suggest they do to handle this?
I
> agree that an imprisoned parent cannot pay support, but they shouldn't be
> patted on the head and told it's OK either.
>
I suppose he's a "deadbeat," which is all you're looking at, but the
circumstances are a bit different from someone who willfully refuses to
pay. A man who was held by the Iraqis as a POW was also arrested for
failing to pay CS. I guess he was just being irresponsible.
Jail is not an appropriate punishment for failure to pay a debt. In all
other areas of the law this is clearly recognized. The only remedy for
collecting CS should be civil in nature, as with other debts. Any efforts
beyond that amount to indentured servitude.
Paul R
Charlie Kester
because of some allegation of abuse his ex cooked up
to spite him, then no, he's not a deadbeat. If he's in jail
because some woman on welfare in another state
claims he's the father of her child and that state demands
he pay money he doesn't have, he's no deadbeat.
If he's in jail for failure to pay CS after he lost his job
through no fault of his own, he's no deadbeat,
no matter what they say.
Not everyone in jail is a low-life scum. Some are
victims of a system which is stacked against them.
Your comforting view of the world as one where only
the guilty are punished is, well, touchingly naive.
You need to educate yourself about the kind of reasons
the state uses to put people in jail, and learn a little more
about the judicial process and the way it is commonly abused.
charlie
--------------
AMiller <annon...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:7qu10o$hjv$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> Charlie Kester <cke...@citylinq.com> wrote in message
> news:tmsA3.114$IG5.1...@news-west.eli.net...
> > ... and while he's in prison, he's counted in the stats as a "deadbeat
> dad",
> > so the politicians and others can suggest that there's a crisis
> > in child support and more government intervention is needed.
> >
> > charlie
> >
>
> Well, if the parent is in jail, isn't that pretty "deadbeat"? I think it's
> safe to say that all of us responsible parents probably avoid actions that
> could land us in jail. I know I do! Isn't being a good role model (obeying
> laws) part of parenting? So what do you suggest they do to handle this? I
> agree that an imprisoned parent cannot pay support, but they shouldn't be
> patted on the head and told it's OK either.
>
>
Charlie Kester
Remember, this is a system that uses concepts like
"imputed income"...
charlie
----------
Amy Lynn <Pug_...@email.msn.com> wrote in message news:eolUHZ89#GA.260@cpmsnbbsa03...
> please try to remember, though.
> he's not in jail for not paying the child support.
>
> he's in jail for contempt of court, for not showing just cause as to why he
> didn't comply with the court's orders to pay child support.
>
> it's a subtle difference, but a difference none the less.
>
>
> Charlie Kester <cke...@citylinq.com> wrote in message
> news:XsxA3.125$IG5.1...@news-west.eli.net...
AMiller
law. Or that he's in jail for not obeying a law becuase he didn't think it
was fair? Aren't people allowed to post bail anymore? How long a period of
incarceration before posting bail? If you are out on bail, on "trumped up"
charges, you are allowed to work? Do these bogus charges ever go to court?
Edmund Esterbauer
fathers.
They sit at home and watch TV while the kids are at school and deny children the
right to see their fathers. These sf are the real criminals.
It is time that complete non-cooperation with the hooded scum at the CSA began
internationally.
The sf are the real criminals and are destroying basic democratic principles.
If in jail complain to Amnesty International for the violation of human rights.
These people are political prisoners in a stalinist state!
The sf gulag controllers are the real deadbeats!
Paul Cantrell wrote:
> Dear Paul:
> In AL if a person is in prison for any length of time [over a year] the law
> states that they are under a "legal disability". While the CS/TANF obviously
> still build and draw interest, the person can not be re-jailed for failure to
> pay in that period. Once released the person must seek work and begin to pay or
> face violation of a civil order. It takes a long time here before the law will
> take criminal sanctions on child support, but they press it with parolees. A
> person in this situation could be required to surrender up to 60% of disposable
> wages in order to meet CS/TANF obligations.
>
> PAUL wrote:
>
Edmund Esterbauer
She is the real criminal.
AMiller wrote:
> Charlie Kester <cke...@citylinq.com> wrote in message
> news:tmsA3.114$IG5.1...@news-west.eli.net...
> > ... and while he's in prison, he's counted in the stats as a "deadbeat
> dad",
> > so the politicians and others can suggest that there's a crisis
> > in child support and more government intervention is needed.
> >
> > charlie
> >
>
> Well, if the parent is in jail, isn't that pretty "deadbeat"? I think it's
> safe to say that all of us responsible parents probably avoid actions that
> could land us in jail. I know I do! Isn't being a good role model (obeying
> laws) part of parenting? So what do you suggest they do to handle this? I
> agree that an imprisoned parent cannot pay support, but they shouldn't be
> patted on the head and told it's OK either.
>
> > ------------------
> >
> > PAUL <thel...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:7qsr68$le6$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
AMiller
children.
Edmund Esterbauer <edm...@northnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:37D35E93...@northnet.com.au...
Charlie Kester
I think Ed's definition is acceptable as it stands. But whether
it applies to most or even a significant number of mothers
receiving CS is a eminently debatable question.
Defenders of the current system should have no problem
accepting Ed's definition --- if, as they assert, CS is truly
received and spent entirely or primarily for the benefit of the children.
charlie
------------------
AMiller <annon...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:7r0i3i$9j5$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Char
not even close to what he means.
--
Char McCarty
General Manager
http://www.techtrek.com
The original Char. Accept no Char-latans.
***********************************************************
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/5946/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Venue/9362/index.html
http://millennium.fortunecity.com/sweetvalley/133/
http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=BPQ552
http://www.tradehall.com/ Member #10446188
http://www.travelzoo.com/
***********************************************************
Charlie Kester
charlie
--------------
Amy Lynn <Pug_...@email.msn.com> wrote in message news:#QMo0r#9#GA.115@cpmsnbbsa03...
> well, if you show that you're unemployed, and actively seeking a new job, i
> suspect that would satisfy just cause.
>
> if you've been disabled, and can show something from the doctor, and that
> prevents you from working, i suspect that would satisfy just cause.
>
> saying you don't think you should have to pay it probably will NOT satisfy
> just cause
>
>
> Charlie Kester <cke...@citylinq.com> wrote in message
> news:zwBA3.138$IG5.1...@news-west.eli.net...
> > ...and what constitutes "just cause" for not complying?
> >
> > Remember, this is a system that uses concepts like
> > "imputed income"...
> >
> > charlie
> >
> > ----------
> >
> > Amy Lynn <Pug_...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> news:eolUHZ89#GA.260@cpmsnbbsa03...
> > > please try to remember, though.
> > > he's not in jail for not paying the child support.
> > >
> > > he's in jail for contempt of court, for not showing just cause as to why
> he
> > > didn't comply with the court's orders to pay child support.
> > >
> > > it's a subtle difference, but a difference none the less.
> > >
> > >
> > > Charlie Kester <cke...@citylinq.com> wrote in message
> > > news:XsxA3.125$IG5.1...@news-west.eli.net...
> > > > Depends on what he's in jail for. If he's in there
> > > > because of some allegation of abuse his ex cooked up
> > > > to spite him, then no, he's not a deadbeat. If he's in jail
> > > > because some woman on welfare in another state
> > > > claims he's the father of her child and that state demands
> > > > he pay money he doesn't have, he's no deadbeat.
> > > > If he's in jail for failure to pay CS after he lost his job
> > > > through no fault of his own, he's no deadbeat,
> > > > no matter what they say.
> > > >
> > > > Not everyone in jail is a low-life scum. Some are
> > > > victims of a system which is stacked against them.
> > > >
> > > > Your comforting view of the world as one where only
> > > > the guilty are punished is, well, touchingly naive.
> > > > You need to educate yourself about the kind of reasons
> > > > the state uses to put people in jail, and learn a little more
> > > > about the judicial process and the way it is commonly abused.
> > > >
> > > > charlie
> > > >
> > > > --------------
> > > >
> > > > AMiller <annon...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > news:7qu10o$hjv$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
DEADBEAT CHASER
without fully appreciating the consequences than that is his problem. He
can take the opportunity to reeducate himself and lead a productive
honorable life upon his release. If however he equates child support with
giving the other parent free money than he will probably end up back in
prison anyway.
If the point is not taking care of the children that argument is wrong. No
matter how many ways you put "wrong" it never becomes "right". Take care of
the children and then you can find release for the human emotion that comes
from two pwople making a mistake.
Wayne
Paul R
justification in other matters involving debt, but of course they don't.
It also does not hold for felony charges under federal law.
And, of course, they rarely jail mothers in contempt for violating
visitation.
Paul R
Amy Lynn <Pug_...@email.msn.com> wrote in article
<eolUHZ89#GA.260@cpmsnbbsa03>...
Charlie Kester
think *I'm* frothing at the mouth.
But taking his words literally, ignoring the context of
his previous posts, yields a definition of "deadbeat"
which is, as I said, perfectly acceptable.
My point was that defenders of CS needn't feel threatened by it
--- *if* their claim that it's all for the benefit of the children is true.
Because his definition turns on *motive*.
I happen to think that most CP Mom's have good intentions.
Hey, I think even my spendthrift ex has our children's interests
at heart. Please don't understand me as saying she's a bad Mom!
I think the problem is that they don't see the injustice that's been
built into the system by those who have socialistic axes to grind.
It's like Paul Laird says in his signature block:
"The evil of tyranny is rarely seen by those who practice it,
but always felt by those against whom it is practiced."
I would add that it isn't only its practitioners who are often
blind to injustice, but also its beneficiaries.
Some people equate the two, and say that anyone who benefits
from an unjust system is guilty of it. I don't. Where I draw the
line is with people who know full well what they are doing, and
do it anyway.
charlie
--------------------------
Char <CMcc...@techtrek.com> wrote in message news:37D3E2C7...@techtrek.com...
> Then you haven't read enough of Eddie's posts...because that is
> not even close to what he means.
>
> Charlie Kester wrote:
> >
> > Now now, don't get your back up!
> >
> > I think Ed's definition is acceptable as it stands. But whether
> > it applies to most or even a significant number of mothers
> > receiving CS is a eminently debatable question.
> >
> > Defenders of the current system should have no problem
> > accepting Ed's definition --- if, as they assert, CS is truly
> > received and spent entirely or primarily for the benefit of the children.
> >
> > charlie
> >
> > ------------------
> >
> > AMiller <annon...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:7r0i3i$9j5$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > No, the deadbeat is the PARENT that doesn't want to help support their
> > > children.
> > >
> > >
> > > Edmund Esterbauer <edm...@northnet.com.au> wrote in message
> > > news:37D35E93...@northnet.com.au...
> > > > The dead beat is the woman who wants to live off others earnings.
> > > > She is the real criminal.
> > > >
> > > > AMiller wrote:
> > > >
PaulOK
What is your issue with imputed income?
My Order of Child Support imputes my ex-wife's income at a level about
60% above the level she was reporting on her income tax forms at that
time.
She was working less than half time and I was able to obtain evidence in
discovery that showed this fairly conclusively. It's much easier to get an
income imputed in Washington State if an able bodied person is working
part time. The court of appeals has ruled that any 'gainful' full time employment
prevents imputation of income and one does not have to be working in
the highest earning profession in which one is qualified.
Most cases of imputed income are where the person refuses to cooperate
with the proceedings and provide any information on their true income. What
would you suggest the court do in this case?
PaulOK
Charlie Kester wrote:
> Please respond to my point about "imputed income".
>
> charlie
>
> --------------
>
> Amy Lynn <Pug_...@email.msn.com> wrote in message news:#QMo0r#9#GA.115@cpmsnbbsa03...
> > well, if you show that you're unemployed, and actively seeking a new job, i
> > suspect that would satisfy just cause.
> >
> > if you've been disabled, and can show something from the doctor, and that
> > prevents you from working, i suspect that would satisfy just cause.
> >
> > saying you don't think you should have to pay it probably will NOT satisfy
> > just cause
> >
> >
> > Charlie Kester <cke...@citylinq.com> wrote in message
> > news:zwBA3.138$IG5.1...@news-west.eli.net...
> > > ...and what constitutes "just cause" for not complying?
> > >
> > > Remember, this is a system that uses concepts like
> > > "imputed income"...
> > >
> > > charlie
> > >
...more deleted
Char
Charlie Kester wrote:
>
> No, I know exactly what *he* means, and I hope you don't
> think *I'm* frothing at the mouth.
No, I have no problem with the definition you gave, but with the
meaning Eddie, since he's the one posted, gives to his words.
>
> But taking his words literally, ignoring the context of
> his previous posts, yields a definition of "deadbeat"
> which is, as I said, perfectly acceptable.
However, one can only take words literally until they know the
intent of the poster from previous posts. After that, you take a
posters words for exactly what you know them to be stating.
>
> My point was that defenders of CS needn't feel threatened by it
> --- *if* their claim that it's all for the benefit of the children is true.
If enough people spout off that there should be no CS...without
taking into account those parents that won't support their
children otherwise...it is most definately a threat to those in
such situations.
>
> Because his definition turns on *motive*.
>
> I happen to think that most CP Mom's have good intentions.
> Hey, I think even my spendthrift ex has our children's interests
> at heart. Please don't understand me as saying she's a bad Mom!
>
> I think the problem is that they don't see the injustice that's been
> built into the system by those who have socialistic axes to grind.
>
> It's like Paul Laird says in his signature block:
> "The evil of tyranny is rarely seen by those who practice it,
> but always felt by those against whom it is practiced."
>
> I would add that it isn't only its practitioners who are often
> blind to injustice, but also its beneficiaries.
There is nothing wrong with pointing out injustices. There is
something wrong in pointing out that injustices only exist in one
narrow scope of the whole picture.
>
> Some people equate the two, and say that anyone who benefits
> from an unjust system is guilty of it. I don't. Where I draw the
> line is with people who know full well what they are doing, and
> do it anyway.
>
> charlie
That is how it should be viewed; however not everyone views it
that way. Many cannot see past their own situation and continue
believing that only what they've experienced has any merit.
Charlie Kester
My concern is a more general one. I often try to explain it
by talking about the hypothetical example of a corporate lawyer
who was earning six or seven figures before the (no-fault) divorce,
which his wife demanded so she could run off with her
hunky exercise instructor. Suppose further that he always
hated his job and the money-grubbing, ass-kissing things
it required him to do. He only stayed at it because it allowed
him to afford the things *she* wanted, and while he was married
he wanted more than anything in the world to make her happy.
For himself, he would have been immensely more content
operating a small charter fishing boat off the coast.
He's not going to make six or seven figures doing that, is he?
But "imputed income" says that because he has skills
which can get him that kind of income, that's what
will be used to calculate his obligation. If he pursues his dream,
he's likely to be judged "willfully under-employed", be ordered to pay
amounts he cannot afford, and eventually be added to the list of
"deadbeat dads".
So he goes on working at the job he hates. He no longer
cares about making her happy, because he knows she
betrayed him. His kids? He hardly ever sees them...she
and the exercise instructor took them along when they moved
to the other side of the country.
The irony and the injustice in all this is that *she* left him
to pursue her own happiness. She's given a freedom
which is denied to him.
Far-fetched? Not really.
charlie
----------------------
PaulOK <dav...@halcyon.com> wrote in message news:37D3FED8...@halcyon.com...
> Hello Charlie,
>
> What is your issue with imputed income?
>
> My Order of Child Support imputes my ex-wife's income at a level about
> 60% above the level she was reporting on her income tax forms at that
> time.
>
> She was working less than half time and I was able to obtain evidence in
> discovery that showed this fairly conclusively. It's much easier to get an
> income imputed in Washington State if an able bodied person is working
> part time. The court of appeals has ruled that any 'gainful' full time employment
> prevents imputation of income and one does not have to be working in
> the highest earning profession in which one is qualified.
>
> Most cases of imputed income are where the person refuses to cooperate
> with the proceedings and provide any information on their true income. What
> would you suggest the court do in this case?
>
> PaulOK
>
> Charlie Kester wrote:
>
> > Please respond to my point about "imputed income".
> >
> > charlie
> >
> > --------------
> >
> > Amy Lynn <Pug_...@email.msn.com> wrote in message news:#QMo0r#9#GA.115@cpmsnbbsa03...
> > > well, if you show that you're unemployed, and actively seeking a new job, i
> > > suspect that would satisfy just cause.
> > >
> > > if you've been disabled, and can show something from the doctor, and that
> > > prevents you from working, i suspect that would satisfy just cause.
> > >
> > > saying you don't think you should have to pay it probably will NOT satisfy
> > > just cause
> > >
> > >
> > > Charlie Kester <cke...@citylinq.com> wrote in message
> > > news:zwBA3.138$IG5.1...@news-west.eli.net...
> > > > ...and what constitutes "just cause" for not complying?
> > > >
> > > > Remember, this is a system that uses concepts like
> > > > "imputed income"...
> > > >
> > > > charlie
> > > >
>
> ...more deleted
>
Charlie Kester
allowed fathers OR mothers to neglect their children.
When I say I support joint custody, I mean that I want
both parents to be actively involved in parenting decisions
and appropriately sharing the financial burdens.
I'm not proposing *no* CS, but a different *kind* of CS.
You and I have talked about this before, Char,
and I have no quarrel with you. I hope you have none with me.
Perhaps some of my political rhetoric makes you uncomfortable,
but it seems to me we're on the same side on this one.
charlie
------------
Char <CMcc...@techtrek.com> wrote in message news:37D40BA5...@techtrek.com...
Char
here. Just pointing out that Eddie does not have nearly the same
views. In fact, I wonder if Eddie has any views at all. A well
thought out reply from him on occasion would dispel the belief
that he only knows how to cut & paste. ;-)
Charlie Kester
*can* earn more than they are, therefore they *must*.
A related notion is "willfully under-employed".
What it amounts to is a way of stripping a person of their right to
choose whatever job suits them and their own need for
self-actualization. An NCP no longer has the same right
to choose a lower-paying job that the CP has.
It doesn't matter whether the NCP finds that work fulfilling or not,
whether it is conducive to *his* happiness or not. He has to go
on doing it, or something paying even more, because she
"deserves" as much money as possible.
He may have a brilliant entrepreneurial idea, but needs to
cut his income back for a year or so while his new business
gets off the ground. Nope, not allowed! They'll say he's only
doing it to cheat his ex-wife out of the "child support" she is due,
and they'll expect him to continue ponying up the same amount
which was based on his previous income as someone else's
laborer. Not, mind you, on what it costs to provide for the
children's basic needs. The effect is that he won't be able to
afford trying something new, even when it has the potential
to make him (and his children) wealthier in the long run.
charlie
----------------
Amy Lynn <Pug_...@email.msn.com> wrote in message news:#6$MgjI##GA.145@cpmsnbbsa02...
> imputed income requires showing a SOURCE of the income, doesn't it?
> if the person is unemployed, and can show good faith efforts to find new
> work, or a damned good reason why not (like a disability), there's nothing
> to impute.
>
> Charlie Kester <cke...@citylinq.com> wrote in message
> news:3VRA3.195$IG5.1...@news-west.eli.net...
Edmund Esterbauer
They than abuse their children by denying the children the right to be with
their fathers merely to avoid work and gain child support.
These are the deadbeats and these are the real criminals!
AMiller wrote:
> No, the deadbeat is the PARENT that doesn't want to help support their
> children.
>
> Edmund Esterbauer <edm...@northnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:37D35E93...@northnet.com.au...
> > The dead beat is the woman who wants to live off others earnings.
> > She is the real criminal.
> >
> > AMiller wrote:
> >
GJP
Greg Palumbo
Amy Lynn <Pug_...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:eolUHZ89#GA.260@cpmsnbbsa03...
> please try to remember, though.
> he's not in jail for not paying the child support.
>
> he's in jail for contempt of court, for not showing just cause as to why
he
> didn't comply with the court's orders to pay child support.
>
> it's a subtle difference, but a difference none the less.
>
>
> Charlie Kester <cke...@citylinq.com> wrote in message
> news:XsxA3.125$IG5.1...@news-west.eli.net...
> > Depends on what he's in jail for. If he's in there
> > because of some allegation of abuse his ex cooked up
> > to spite him, then no, he's not a deadbeat. If he's in jail
> > because some woman on welfare in another state
> > claims he's the father of her child and that state demands
> > he pay money he doesn't have, he's no deadbeat.
> > If he's in jail for failure to pay CS after he lost his job
> > through no fault of his own, he's no deadbeat,
> > no matter what they say.
> >
> > Not everyone in jail is a low-life scum. Some are
> > victims of a system which is stacked against them.
> >
> > Your comforting view of the world as one where only
> > the guilty are punished is, well, touchingly naive.
> > You need to educate yourself about the kind of reasons
> > the state uses to put people in jail, and learn a little more
> > about the judicial process and the way it is commonly abused.
> >
> > charlie
> >
> > --------------
> >
> > AMiller <annon...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:7qu10o$hjv$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > >
Edmund Esterbauer
These sf are the child abusers of the 90s and are supported by the hooded scum
at the CSA.
GJP
small feat........be ordered by a judge to get another job that had a more
steady and had easily documented income. He now works for a company where
they can garnish his wages and all income is listed on a W-2. But it was
about the kids......<sarcasm>........
Greg Palumbo
Charlie Kester <cke...@citylinq.com> wrote in message
news:ye_A3.251$IG5.2...@news-west.eli.net...
AMiller
Edmund Esterbauer <edm...@northnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:37D4FE73...@northnet.com.au...
> I.E. All those women who won't work!
> They than abuse their children by denying the children the right to be
with
> their fathers merely to avoid work and gain child support.
> These are the deadbeats and these are the real criminals!
>
> AMiller wrote:
>
> > No, the deadbeat is the PARENT that doesn't want to help support their
> > children.
> >
> > Edmund Esterbauer <edm...@northnet.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:37D35E93...@northnet.com.au...
> > > The dead beat is the woman who wants to live off others earnings.
> > > She is the real criminal.
> > >
> > > AMiller wrote:
> > >
GudGye11
"It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is."
In article <7r338f$l8b$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>, "GJP"
Edmund Esterbauer
they the children live with them or not.
It is discrimination- get it!
Char
"don't" pay whether the children live with them or not. Nor is
all CS paid by men, or you refuse to believe what is patently
obvious in that some women are CPs. This is of course unless
you're only talking about some men...but then again, you didn't
state that.
--
AMiller
false.
Edmund Esterbauer <edm...@northnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:37D6290...@northnet.com.au...
Kandle
Edmund Esterbauer wrote in message <37D6290...@northnet.com.au>...
>The facts are that women get the CS whether they work or not,
Gee, Eddie...then where's mine?
>men pay whether
>they the children live with them or not.
Again, where's mine?
>It is discrimination- get it!
That's the BC v. Viagra thread...
Kandle
Char
Edmund Esterbauer (proving once again that illiteracy isn't just
another household word) wrote:
>
> Char's distortion of the facts. The facts are:
>
> 1. A man's labour is his own and only evil creatures believe in slavery.
> 2. Women receive CP not men.
Women receive custodial parent???? LOLOL When will you learn that
C'S' = child support?
And again you lie in that no man ever receives CS? Riiiight.
Gotcha.
As for the rest of your drivel...you STILL didn't respond to what
was stated. Proving once again that you cannot read.
> 3. There is no presumption of joint custody.
> 4. Women have the presumption of custody.
> 5. They use this presumption to maximise child support to the detriment of the
> children of the relationship.
> 6. They are driven by evil sf and their politics of patricide and laziness.
> 7. They are the real child abusers of the 90s.
> 8. They use the hooded scum from the CSA to hound men for their last dollar with
> draconian laws that even murdurers have more rights e.g. access to tax file numbers,
> bank accounts, forced slavery.
> 9. These women often use these ill gotton gains to support their habits and
> vices.
> 10. It's time they got a job and accepted their responsibilty.
>
> Char wrote:
>
> > The "facts" are that not "all" CS is paid...therefore, no, men
> > "don't" pay whether the children live with them or not. Nor is
> > all CS paid by men, or you refuse to believe what is patently
> > obvious in that some women are CPs. This is of course unless
> > you're only talking about some men...but then again, you didn't
> > state that.
> >
> > Edmund Esterbauer wrote:
> > >
> > > The facts are that women get the CS whether they work or not, men pay whether
> > > they the children live with them or not.
> > > It is discrimination- get it!
> > >
Edmund Esterbauer
1. A man's labour is his own and only evil creatures believe in slavery.
2. Women receive CP not men.