Deadbeat Dad in Texas
bill s
were growing up.
The Texas AG's office tried to collect, but he always stayed one step
ahead of the law.
He was imprisoned on some other charge & spent about 6 yrs in prison.
When he was released, part of his parole included that he go to work &
make monthly payments to the kids for money that was owed. It amounted
to roughly $45,000
Since gettin out he has claimed disability from an injury in prison & is
getting disability & social security.
Needless to say, he hasn't been paying the kids & nothing is being done
about it.
Any ideas or suggestions on the subject or possible solution???
Bill S.
Ivyjade2
Ivyjade2
>I agree with your advice about moving on...nothing like hanging on to
>old anger and stuff to make you ill inside...but then again, letting it
>go and forgetting about it makes it seem as if it is alright to avoid
>supporting your kids. Like if a parent can avoid paying until after the
>kids turn 18, they are "off the hook" kind of thing. But if this dad
>hasn't paid in this long, I doubt if anything will force him to do so
>now.
Well, yeah, a guy is a jerk if he attempts to not pay anything towards his
kids.
But, should the state go after him after the fact, like some kind of punishment
for being such a jerk? I don't think so.
Child support should be for supporting children, not for punitive measures.
Ivy
Clark Simmons
I understand there's a statute of limitations here in Texas. Either 2
or 4 years after the child reaches 18 or quits school.
http://xld.com/public/campaign/cs.htm is a solution to abuses of child
custody and child support. It is accomplished by alternating the
custody arrangements on an annual basis.
Regards,
Clark, in Round Rock Texas USA
http://xld.com/public/campaign/home.htm
Candidate for the Texas House of Representatives
District 52
In article <20000821223507...@ng-fw1.aol.com>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
celery1
so the one stuck with all the work and bills of supporting children solo for
years
should just smile and suck up the loss ?
Sounds good... now tell me how I can dump my kids on my ex and his new wife,
if "moving on" and forgetting about thousands of dollars is so great let
them do it..
celery1
"Ivyjade2" <ivyj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000822030727...@ng-cc1.aol.com...
> >From: "Tazzles1"
>
> Child support should be for supporting children, not for punitive
measures.
what about the puntativeness of one parent having to struggle and go
without .sometimes extending over into their own retirement years because
they
got stuck carrying the other parent's 50% of the obligation ? Oh,.I keep
forgetting, that' okay with yopu,just as long as it's a 1st wife getting
stuck and not the father and his new honey
Edmund Esterbauer
I'm also convinced that if you did drop them at the exs, they would welcome
them with open arms.
You don't do this because you merely see children as chattel to be used to
avoid your responsibilities to support yourself.
Get a job and learn some independence.
"celery1" <cel...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:iaXo5.897$D4.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Juleelou
>forgetting, that' okay with yopu,just as long as it's a 1st wife getting
>stuck and not the father and his new honey
Thank you!
Pat Winstanley
<ivyj...@aol.com> writes
>>From: "Tazzles1"
>
>>I agree with your advice about moving on...nothing like hanging on to
>>old anger and stuff to make you ill inside...but then again, letting it
>>go and forgetting about it makes it seem as if it is alright to avoid
>>supporting your kids. Like if a parent can avoid paying until after the
>>kids turn 18, they are "off the hook" kind of thing. But if this dad
>>hasn't paid in this long, I doubt if anything will force him to do so
>>now.
>
>Well, yeah, a guy is a jerk if he attempts to not pay anything towards his
>kids.
>
>But, should the state go after him after the fact, like some kind of punishment
>for being such a jerk? I don't think so.
>
Who provided his share of the child support over the years (what he
should have been paying when he could have been paying)? Whether that's
the state or the mother (or a mixture) he is theoretically at least in
debt to them for what they paid on his behalf that he should have been
providing for his share of the support of the kids. The arrears still
exist even though ongoing support for the children is no longer needed.
I agree about moving on from the anger and stuff, but nevertheless there
is a debt owing to someone/thing who supported him over the years by
providing his share of the child's needs on his behalf - involuntarily.
The question in this case is, is it worth the expense and effort to try
to get him to repay that debt?
--
Pat Winstanley
Mel Gamble
>In article <20000822030727...@ng-cc1.aol.com>, Ivyjade2
><ivyj...@aol.com> writes
>>>From: "Tazzles1"
>>
>>>I agree with your advice about moving on...nothing like hanging on to
>>>old anger and stuff to make you ill inside...but then again, letting it
>>>go and forgetting about it makes it seem as if it is alright to avoid
>>>supporting your kids. Like if a parent can avoid paying until after the
>>>kids turn 18, they are "off the hook" kind of thing. But if this dad
>>>hasn't paid in this long, I doubt if anything will force him to do so
>>>now.
>>
>>Well, yeah, a guy is a jerk if he attempts to not pay anything towards his
>>kids.
>>
>>But, should the state go after him after the fact, like some kind of
>punishment
>>for being such a jerk? I don't think so.
>>
>>Child support should be for supporting children, not for punitive measures.
>
>
>Who provided his share of the child support over the years (what he
>should have been paying when he could have been paying)?
How much did she provide? How much could she provide? Would it have been
possible for her to provide the full amount of his plus hers from her own
earnings? Did she even have earnings or did the state provide the support???
Using my own case as an example, even assuming mom was earning the money coming
into her household instead of getting it from the state, it would be VERY
unlikely that if I were to quit paying she would be making up for my share. In
the beginning, when there were only 4 kids and mom, the total the state showed
as my portion plus hers was just over $525, while her TOTAL montly household
income WITH THE CS was just under $1050. Without the amount I was paying,
total household income would have dropped to about $710. With 4 children and 1
adult in the house, how likely do you think it would be that mom would see to
it that my daughter alone received over 2/3 of the value of the total household
income, leaving less than $200 per month for the other 3 kids and mom?????
? Whether that's
>the state or the mother (or a mixture) he is theoretically at least in
>debt to them for what they paid on his behalf that he should have been
>providing for his share of the support of the kids. The arrears still
>exist
As an amount on paper - yes. As an amount spent on the kids???? Possibly all
that's on the paper, possibly less, possibly MUCH less...
>even though ongoing support for the children is no longer needed.
>
>I agree about moving on from the anger and stuff, but nevertheless there
>is a debt owing to someone/thing who supported him over the years by
>providing his share of the child's needs on his behalf - involuntarily.
>
>The question in this case is, is it worth the expense and effort to try
>to get him to repay that debt?
If a debt is due, it could well be due - morally, though not legally - to the
children who had to do without because his full share (plus mom's) was NOT
spent on their behalf...
Mel Gamble
>Pat Winstanley
>
>
>
>
J. S.
> "Ivyjade2" <ivyj...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000822030727...@ng-cc1.aol.com...
>> >From: "Tazzles1"
>>
>> Child support should be for supporting children, not for punitive
> measures.
> what about the puntativeness of one parent having to struggle and go
> without .sometimes extending over into their own retirement years because
> they
> got stuck carrying the other parent's 50% of the obligation ? Oh,.I keep
> forgetting, that' okay with yopu,just as long as it's a 1st wife getting
> stuck and not the father and his new honey
What about it? Isn't child support meant to implement the obligation?
Put that crack pipe down.
J. S.
> I agree about moving on from the anger and stuff, but nevertheless there
> is a debt owing to someone/thing who supported him over the years by
> providing his share of the child's needs on his behalf - involuntarily.
> The question in this case is, is it worth the expense and effort to try
> to get him to repay that debt?
Looks like a lost cause, because the guy;s on disability/SS and the
kids are already too old for any effective legal leverage against him.
J. S.
> avoid your responsibilities to support yourself.
> Get a job and learn some independence.
Celery1 wants desperately to grow a penis. Ain't gonna happen.
celery1
"Edmund Esterbauer" <edm...@au.gateway.net> wrote in message
news:Q58p5.511$cr3....@ozemail.com.au...
> If you don't want to look after them , I'm sure you can always adopt them.
nobody wants,hulking,drooling,obese, bucktoothed retards who
headbang,bite,throw chairs etc, their Father doesn't find them worthwhile or
attractive,neither do adoptive parents or the state .
> I'm also convinced that if you did drop them at the exs, they would
welcome
> them with open arms.
Wrong again, I tried it more than once, my ex and his honey hid behind the
curtains yelling "go away " once" the second and third times the police were
called and I was told to take them back to my home or go to jail
> You don't do this because you merely see children as chattel to be used to
> avoid your responsibilities to support yourself.
Wrong again, I never received child support and have worked fulltime and
more since my teens
> Get a job and learn some independence.
I've worked at times 100 hour weeks not counting commute time how much more
"independence" do you want
celery1
only get one
" J. S." <j...@strangelove.bu.edu> wrote in message
news:8o5gcv$2lj$4...@news3.bu.edu...
> Edmund Esterbauer <edm...@au.gateway.net> wrote:
> > avoid your responsibilities to support yourself.
>
> > Get a job and learn some independence.
>
>
> Celery1 wants desperately to grow a penis. Ain't gonna happen.
>
>
Nobody
> Chuckling... I can "have" a different penis every hour
> if I so desire... you only get one
Tell that to a bisexual man sometime...<chuckling even louder>
Drew
J. S.
> "Edmund Esterbauer" <edm...@au.gateway.net> wrote in message
> news:Q58p5.511$cr3....@ozemail.com.au...
>> If you don't want to look after them , I'm sure you can always adopt them.
> nobody wants,hulking,drooling,obese, bucktoothed retards who
> headbang,bite,throw chairs etc, their Father doesn't find them worthwhile or
> attractive,neither do adoptive parents or the state .
If anything, it's the genes that should be blamed, and then the
parents who brought them up. Why I am not surprised.
J. S.
> Chuckling... I can "have" a different penis every hour if I so desire... you
> only get one
No, you don't. You are only renting or stealing one for a few
minutes, and you know it. Don't flatter yourself. You remind
me of those twisted extreme porn ("scat") movies in which the actors and
actresses rub shit all over one another and eat it too, washing
it down with piss. Except that they are realistic enough to not
imagine themselves in the same league as Anthony Hopkins or
Meryl Streep.
You are like an irritating 9 year old.
Considering that you are so twisted, I am not surprised again you presume
I am a man, or a woman stuck with one man.
Six2nabit
First. This guy sounds like he really IS a "Deadbeat Dad" - not to mention a
criminal, so my sympathies are with YOU.
Second. You need to wake up to the reality that he will NEVER, EVER, UNDER ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES pay that $45K+ that he owes you. If he had any intention of doing
so he would never have fallen that far behind.
Third : A small piece of "something" is worth more than a hundred percent of
"nothing".
Now for the suggestions :
(1) Contact him and acknowledge that you understand his situation and do not
expect full repayment. (Yeah, I know, he owes it to you fair and square - but
what do you think the chances are he will ever settle down and make an honest
effort to make things right? ... .......see?
(2) Tell him that if he makes some sort of regular payment for ...let's say a
year... that you will consider going to the courthouse and signing a "receipt"
for .... let's say 20%... of the $45K. And if he continues to make regular
payments you will go back each year and sign another "receipt".
Get the idea? The guy is trapped as it is. He has nothing to gain or loose by
not making payments. He knows it will take half the rest of his life to ever
get caught up and he sees himself as trapped and tortured by you and "The
System". As lomng as you insist on the entire "Pound of Flesh" he will just
stay on the run and YOU will never benefit one bit. (Plus, he's likely to get
desperate enough to start thinking that his only "way out" is to do something
drastic to you or the kids)
With my suggestion you at least have a hope of benefitting from SOME kind of
regular payments (while still holding the outstanding balance over his head)
and HE has a hope of getting out from under that huge debt in time to have some
kind of life of his own.
--------
Well. You DID ask for suggestions......
Ivyjade2
><ivyj...@aol.com> writes
>>>From: "Tazzles1"
>>
>>>I agree with your advice about moving on...nothing like hanging on to
>>>old anger and stuff to make you ill inside...but then again, letting it
>>>go and forgetting about it makes it seem as if it is alright to avoid
>>>supporting your kids. Like if a parent can avoid paying until after the
>>>kids turn 18, they are "off the hook" kind of thing. But if this dad
>>>hasn't paid in this long, I doubt if anything will force him to do so
>>>now.
>>
>>Well, yeah, a guy is a jerk if he attempts to not pay anything towards his
>>kids.
>>
>>But, should the state go after him after the fact, like some kind of
>punishment
>>for being such a jerk? I don't think so.
>>
>>Child support should be for supporting children, not for punitive measures.
>
Pat:
>Who provided his share of the child support over the years (what he
>should have been paying when he could have been paying)? Whether that's
>the state or the mother (or a mixture) he is theoretically at least in
>debt to them for what they paid on his behalf that he should have been
>providing for his share of the support of the kids. The arrears still
>exist even though ongoing support for the children is no longer needed.
If the mother paid what she paid to the support of the child, the money went to
the child. Although I don't agree with a parent not contributing to the cost
of raising a child, I also do not believe in the concept of "arrears". This
money only goes to the mother. And, yes, I know she put money out over time to
support the child. If she did not want to do this, she could have had the
child raised by someone else. And, I would hope that she would think it is
money well-spent.
Pat:
>I agree about moving on from the anger and stuff, but nevertheless there
>is a debt owing to someone/thing who supported him over the years by
>providing his share of the child's needs on his behalf - involuntarily.
This support is voluntary. She could have had someone else raise the child, if
supporting the child was such a burden.
>The question in this case is, is it worth the expense and effort to try
>to get him to repay that debt?
I don't believe there is a debt unless someone has contracted that they owe
money before the debt is incurred.
And, what about the millions of mothers on welfare?. The mother nerver has to
pay back any any of the "child support" she receives from the state. By your
standards, shouldn't she pay back at least her share of what she should be
contributing to the support of the children? But, not only does she never have
to pay the state back for supporting her children, but she never has to pay
back the support she received for herself while on welfare. Only the absent
father, if found, has to pay the state back for that. He has to pay all of the
kids' support and the deadbeat mom's support. She gets off scott free. Does
this offend your sense of justice?
Ivy
Ivyjade2
completely different set of values than I.
My family would have considered your attitude that of a "money grubber".
I was raised with the values that, yes, bad things are bound to happen to you
in life, both of your choosing and not of your choosing. Everyone should have
some time to complain about them, but after some time and after it is over, it
is time to move on. It is time to focus on what one is able to do in the
present and the future to make one's life better, and to do this in an
honorable fashion. Going after someone's check or bank account does not allow
this to occur. It may seem so at the time, but it has grave repercussions, if
not for the person doing it, for the children involved in the middle of it.
I believe in liberation.
I believe in the freedom to choose one's destiny, even if it entails some risk.
I believe in picking oneself up when on the ground, and taking the opportunity
to better oneself and one's situation yet again, by one's own steam. If
someone VOLUNTARILY wants to help you, and you can swallow your pride long
enough to accept that help, so be it. But, don't try to FORCE someone to help
you. I believe that is the responsible way to be.
I believe your counsel is destructive. I believe your advice causes women [and
children] who should be moving on in a productive fashion, to remain stuck in a
quagmire of regret, revenge and pettiness. This serves them no purpose, other
than reinforcing those very feelings and instant gratification that will not
last.
Lord knows, it takes a lot of energy to start anew, and this energy should not
be dissipated in focusing on "what if" or "what is due me" or "what can I get
from someone else." And, I don't think that this focus is healthy for the
children. I don't think it is in the best interest of the children. Even if
you don't explicitly discuss these views in front of your children {universal
"you"}, they will pick up on them by your actions and by your role modeling.
And, that is how you will have shaped their lives.
As I have stated previously, I think it is much better for my son to have
seen and experienced a mother going back to school, toughing it out, and
starting a new career rather than a mother hitting up the courts every couple
of years for assistance and hounding his father for some supposed pre-existing
debt based on my son's existence. At the least, I think it would have made my
son feel very guilty. And, I don't think he would as proud of me as he is
today, or be half the wonderful young man he is growing into -- a young man
with no bitterness or regret toward his father or toward me.
A phoenix must rise from the ashes. And, you can't get that phoenix by trying
to reconstruct the old bird out of the ashes -- by trying to somehow "glue" the
ashes together with revenge, bad feelings and dollars. It's an impossible task.
You can't be a life alchemist. You can't turn lead into gold.
It is up to you to mine your own gold, and I just don't mean in an economic
sense.
I'm glad I did not have your counsel when I was in the middle of my poverty and
despair. It would have given me an "out" at a time when I needed to grow up,
be responsible and make my own way. And, that took all the positive thinking
and productive behavior I could muster. Going after my ex did not figure in
that at all. It just would have taken away from myself and from my son, in
more ways than one. And, where would I be now??????? What would I have to be
proud of? What would my son have to be proud of?
No money in the world can buy that kind of pride, self-satisfaction and
guilt-free existence.
Ivy
Cement Hands
is the right one.
inop...@my-deja.com
and is on disability and SS I would imagine he'll do his best to stay
on SS forever if possible. I can't see him throwing in SS to get a
minimum wage job then having to pay CS. He'd probably end up with less
than if he was on SS. Why not ask the SS office to deduct a few bucks a
week from his SS check. At least you'll get something.
Also, he owes your wife (the kids mother) the $45K. As far as his kids
go, he owes them nothing.
Just-Pl...@webtv.net (bill s) wrote:
> Since gettin out he has claimed disability from an injury in prison &
is
> getting disability & social security.
>
> Needless to say, he hasn't been paying the kids & nothing is being
done
> about it.
>
> Any ideas or suggestions on the subject or possible solution???
>
> Bill S.
celery1
lol, yeap,it's my fault...sue me, there's nothing left to take
" J. S." <j...@strangelove.bu.edu> wrote in message
news:8o6ngg$s3p$6...@news3.bu.edu...
celery1
chuckling... Lol, burns you that I escaped from being saddled 24/7 doesn't
it ?
" J. S." <j...@strangelove.bu.edu> wrote in message
news:8o5g1b$2lj$2...@news3.bu.edu...
> celery1 <cel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "Ivyjade2" <ivyj...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20000822030727...@ng-cc1.aol.com...
> >> >From: "Tazzles1"
> >>
> >> Child support should be for supporting children, not for punitive
> > measures.
>
celery1
dollars of their obligatons is so great Ivy,then let's make it the law that
it's Daddie and his second wife should be the ones getting stuck stuck
supporting the kids 24/7 with ZERO assisatance or support from the mother
wqhile remaining obligated to move heaven and earth to facilitate
visitationb, even if it means you do all the driving and all schedule
rearranging ...let's see you stepmommie's reduced to wearing rags inspite of
working fullftime plus,cutting your own hair and having to let the teeth rot
out of your head to support HIS children
celery1
so then would you support a divorced mother's decision to abandon her
children on the state if she felt they were not worth the effort of
supporting solo ?
btw, I'm here to tell you that there's no longer any such thing as just
dumping kids on the state in hopes they'll be adopted out,they can and do
pursue you aggresively for plenty of child support,particularly once they've
been deemed unadoptable
"Ivyjade2" <ivyj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000825232508...@ng-fc1.aol.com...
celery1
"Six2nabit" <six2...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000825193251...@ng-fs1.aol.com...
and HE has a hope of getting out from under that huge debt in time to have
some
> kind of life of his own.
Gee... seems to me like he already had "a life of his own" all those years
she was stuck with 100 % of the work and bills associated with their
kids...also seems like he didn't give two shits about how horrible any of
their lives were then,why should she care now ?
Ivyjade2
>if rising to the challenge and allowing somebody to foist off thousands of
>dollars of their obligatons is so great Ivy,then let's make it the law that
>it's Daddie and his second wife should be the ones getting stuck stuck
>supporting the kids 24/7 with ZERO assisatance or support from the mother
>wqhile remaining obligated to move heaven and earth to facilitate
>visitation
I would raise my stepchildren with no problems and with no assistance from
their mother. They both know this. I would not consider it "getting stuck"
with these kids; I don't see children this way,. as a liability. I would see
it as a privilege to be that part of their lives.
And, this really is somewhat off-topic. Initial post was about a CP raising
one's own children, which I have done for several years with no assistance from
the father. I would not go after him for any of the money I spent in
supporting my son. I was raising and spending time with my son. I don't expect
to be paid for this by anyone.
Celery:
> even if it means you do all the driving and all schedule rearranging
Do you mean for visitation? Of for children's activities?
Celery
...let's see you stepmommie's reduced to wearing rags inspite of
>working fullftime plus,cutting your own hair and having to let the teeth rot
>out of your head to support HIS children
1. I don't quite get the "gist" of these statements. Perhaps you could
clarify?
2. For 10 years I did not buy myself one stitch of new clothing. That was
with my ex and subsequent to his leaving, when I was single mom.
3. My working fulltime allows all my kids, stepkids included, and me to have
dental, medical, etc. The mother is not providing this. I would much rather
be a SAHM, but can't afford this luxury.
Ivy
Ivyjade2
>Ivy, this was an excellent post. Thank you for reminding me that the path I
>am on is the right one.
You are very welcome. And, congratulations to you for doing all that you are
doing. I know it can be hard, and, at times I was struggling in the dark, but
my aim became clearer and clearer, and I have seen the positive effects in my
life and in my son's life. Thank goodness for my upbringing!
Ivy
Ivyjade2
>so then would you support a divorced mother's decision to abandon her
>children on the state if she felt they were not worth the effort of
>supporting solo ?
If a mother felt that her children were not "worth" the effort of supporting, I
would have doubts about her being the best person to be raising them in the
first place.
I don't champion abandonment. I champion what is best for the children. If
that means the children can not live with the biological parent(s) due to lack
of support, so be it.
Celery:
>btw, I'm here to tell you that there's no longer any such thing as just
>dumping kids on the state in hopes they'll be adopted out,they can and do
>pursue you aggresively for plenty of child support,particularly once they've
>been deemed unadoptable
I don't know what you mean by being "deemed unadoptable"...... I know plenty
of kids with disabilities and with behavior problems who are adopted and/or
live in foster homes, and the parents don't pay a dime toward support. That
does not mean that the State cannot pursue these matters if they so choose in
the case of foster care, but I don't see this being very stringently enforced,
and especially not with parents who are low income.
I know of at least three couples who would adopt a child RIGHT NOW and who
could more than adequately support them......
Do you have or know any kids who need this kind of assistance?
And, state adoption is not the only road. Sometimes families step in and care
for the children until the parent(s) can get back on their feet. There are
options out there if one is actively seeking them.
Ivy
Ivyjade2
"A basic goal of many therapeutic systems is enabling individuals to accept the
awesome freedom to act and the responsibility for their action. Existentialism
holds that there is no escape from freedom, in the sense that we can always be
held responsible. We can relinquish our freedom, however, which is the
ultimate inauthenticity. Existential therapy seeks to take [people] out of
their rigid grooves and to challenge their narrow and compulsive trends, which
are blocking their freedom. Although this process gives individuals a sense of
release and increased autonomy, the new freedom does bring about anxiety.
Freedom is a venture down new pathways, and there is no certainty about where
the paths will lead. The "dizziness" and dread of freedom must be confronted
if growth is to occur. Many fear the weight of being responsible for who they
are now and whom they are becoming. They must choose, for example, whether to
cling to the known and familiar or to risk opening themselves to a less certain
and more challenging life. The lack of guarantees in life is precisely what
generates anxiety. Thus, existential therapy helps [people] face the anxiety
of choosing for themselves and accepting the reality that they are more than
mere victims of deterministic forces outside themselves. The aim is to enable
[people] to engage in action that is based on the authentic purpose of creating
a worthy existence."
from "Theory and Practice of Counseling and Psychotherapy", by Gerald Corey
(1991), published by Brooks/Cole Publishing Company: California.
Ivy
Juleelou
stepparent, those children become a part of your life. And no matter how you
may think that is fair or unfair, those children, whether they live with you or
not are going to affect your standard of living.
Nothing infuriates me more than some stepparent (and these are usually
stepmothers) who b*tch and complain that there new husbands have to actually
spend money on their children. You knew the man had children before you
married him. He's got obligations that come before you.
My ex's new wife refuses to work and is angry that my ex has to send CS to me
rather than pay the mortgage on a house that she rents out! And she thinks
it's terribly unfair that he has to send support for his own children, when he
should, in her mind, be footing the bill for her daughter's college education.
He had the nerve to call me and say that he couldn't pay c.s. one month because
her horses were sick and they had to take them to the vet. Excuse me???
He calls and says, my credit bills are so high right now, I can't pay your
bills too. (Big hint, child support is not paying my bills. It's providing
for your children).
And another hint, I've worked my a** for five years paying off all the credit
card and other bills that he left me with. My car is paid for. Yet, I am
supposed to feel bad that he can't pay c.s. because he's bought himself a new
car, his new wife a new car, his stepdaughter a used car, his 28 year old
stepson a motorcycle, pays the stepdaughter's college bills, and has maxed out
his credit cards buying fancy wines (it's their hobby -- wine collecting). Oh
and they have four horses they care for. The man makes $70K a year and
complains about paying $600 a month in support for two kids???
In five years the man has not sent these children a single Christmas present.
He has sent a few birthday gifts, never spending more than $10 on them a piece.
He never sends them gifts just for the heck of it. She says they pay enough
and they don't need to buy gifts also.
He has never paid his half of the medical bills EVER.
Do I begrudge him his standard of living? Not at all. I am happy with my life
and my standard of living although it's no where near what his is. I really
don't care. If I had to be married to him to have his lifestyle, I'd rather
shoot myself.
But that does not eliminate his obligation to provide at least some semblance
of support to his children. And putting his wine collection, his cars, his new
wife and his stepchildren ahead of that is wrong.
Ivyjade2
>If you fall in love and marry a person who has children and you become a
>stepparent, those children become a part of your life.
They should, if the CP allows a relationship with the step to be established
and maintained....
Juleelou:
And no matter how
>you may think that is fair or unfair, those children, whether they live with
you
>or not are going to affect your standard of living.
Do you mean they are going to impact me financially? Of course. But, if they
are not living with me, the "support" we should be able to provide them should
not 1) be based on income instead of basic need 2)should not go through any
"middle men" (aka, CSA, FSD) 3) CP should be accountable to the courts who
grant her custody every month for every dime of CS she spends PLUS she should
show accounting for the portion she is supposed to provide.
Juleelou:
>Nothing infuriates me more than some stepparent (and these are usually
>stepmothers) who b*tch and complain that there new husbands have to actually
>spend money on their children.
Why are you so angry?
If your ex married a witch, it's his funeral, not yours. If she is abusive to
your children, you can go to court and curtail visitation. If your ex is not
paying his half of basic cost, you can go to court and ensure that he does.
Whatever she thinks should not concern you. It's their marriage -- not yours.
And, how do you know all this?
Juleelou:
You knew the man had children before you
>married him.
Yes, I did.
Juleelou:
> He's got obligations that come before you.
No. He has obligations concommitant to this obligations to me (and, his
obligations to me are not financial).
My husband and I sat down and figured out our prospective financial arrangement
regarding his child support payments before we decided to marry. It was AFTER
we married and had a child that guidelines radically changed, the ex got wind
of this, our CS obligation more than doubled, and the children's living
conditions did not improve one iota.
Juleelou
>My ex's new wife refuses to work and is angry that my ex has to send CS to me
>rather than pay the mortgage on a house that she rents out!
So what if she is angry? Is it anything she can take to court?
Juleelou:
And she thinks it's terribly unfair that he has to send support for his own
children, when he should, in her mind, be footing the bill for her daughter's
college
>education.
And, you have this firsthand from her?
And, is she against all CS being sent to your kids?
And, how often do they take care of the children?
And, how kind are YOU to the stepmom and how supportive are you of your ex's
new marital situation?
Juleelou:
>He had the nerve to call me and say that he couldn't pay c.s. one month
>because her horses were sick and they had to take them to the vet. Excuse
me???
If he has a CS order, it is enforceable.
If it is an unfair amount, then he may very well not have the money every month
to pay it off, nor should he attempt to if unfair amounts are forcibly
extracted from him.
Juleelou:
>He calls and says, my credit bills are so high right now, I can't pay your
>bills too. (Big hint, child support is not paying my bills. It's providing
>for your children).
Depends on how much CS you draw.
Juleelou:
>And another hint, I've worked my a** for five years paying off all the credit
>card and other bills that he left me with.
You incurred none of this debt? You have none of the things you paid for?
Juleelou:
My car is paid for. Yet, I am
>supposed to feel bad that he can't pay c.s. because he's bought himself a new
>car, his new wife a new car, his stepdaughter a used car, his 28 year old
>stepson a motorcycle, pays the stepdaughter's college bills, and has maxed out
his credit cards buying fancy wines (it's their hobby -- wine collecting).
So long as he provides his half of basic for your children, you have no
legitimate bitch about what he does with the rest of HIS or HERS or THEIR
money.
Maybe because he is free to VOLUNTARILY provide for his new family he feels
more inclined to do so.....
Maybe if you were not FORCING him to provide for you and your children, he may
feel more inclined to put out more.
Because, if he is such a rotten individual, why would he voluntarily support
his current family and buy them things?
Juleelou:
>Oh and they have four horses they care for. The man makes $70K a year and
>complains about paying $600 a month in support for two kids???
If he is paying $600.00 per month for 2 children, he is actually paying over
100% of the cost of basic support of your children, in addition to supporting 4
other people, including himself..
Juleelou:
>In five years the man has not sent these children a single Christmas present.
That is sad. However, that is the man with whom you had children.
My son, in 15 years, maybe received two presents altogether from his biological
father. However, he never felt cheated. He accepted his father for what he
was and did not let bad feelings sour his life. I retained no bitterness, and
so he did not become bitter.
Juleelou:
>He has sent a few birthday gifts, never spending more than $10 on them a
>piece. He never sends them gifts just for the heck of it. She says they pay
enough
>and they don't need to buy gifts also.
>
>He has never paid his half of the medical bills EVER.
Isn't medical costs part of his CS obligation?
Juleelou:
>Do I begrudge him his standard of living? Not at all. I am happy with my
>life
You certainly are complaining a lot about his standard of living to claim that
you don't "begrudge" him it.....
Juleelou:
>and my standard of living although it's no where near what his is. I really
>don't care. If I had to be married to him to have his lifestyle, I'd rather
>shoot myself.
>
>But that does not eliminate his obligation to provide at least some semblance
>of support to his children. And putting his wine collection, his cars, his
>new wife and his stepchildren ahead of that is wrong.
If he is paying at least his half of basic support, he is meeting minimum
standards of support -- as much as any intact parent is held to by law. If he
does not contribute any more than that, that is his decision. I'm sorry, but
that is the dad you saddled your kids with. They will take your lead in how to
move forward -- if you don't, they won't.
If he is paying what you say he is paying, then he is already paying over 100%
of basic support -- which means he is providing your portion of their basic
needs, too.
Ivy
Ivy
Anonymous
>If you fall in love and marry a person who has children and you become a
>stepparent, those children become a part of your life. And no matter how you
>may think that is fair or unfair, those children, whether they live with you or
>not are going to affect your standard of living.
>
>Nothing infuriates me more than some stepparent (and these are usually
>stepmothers) who b*tch and complain that there new husbands have to actually
>spend money on their children. You knew the man had children before you
>married him. He's got obligations that come before you.
>
>My ex's new wife refuses to work and is angry that my ex has to send CS to me
>rather than pay the mortgage on a house that she rents out! And she thinks
>it's terribly unfair that he has to send support for his own children, when he
>should, in her mind, be footing the bill for her daughter's college education.
>
>
>He had the nerve to call me and say that he couldn't pay c.s. one month because
>her horses were sick and they had to take them to the vet. Excuse me???
>
>He calls and says, my credit bills are so high right now, I can't pay your
>bills too. (Big hint, child support is not paying my bills. It's providing
>for your children).
I trust you have receipts which prove this? That the money is going
toward their food and clothing, and NOT for your house/rent payment?
>
>And another hint, I've worked my a** for five years paying off all the credit
>card and other bills that he left me with.
You mean, your half of the bills which you and he accumulated together?
My car is paid for. Yet, I am
>supposed to feel bad that he can't pay c.s. because he's bought himself a new
>car, his new wife a new car, his stepdaughter a used car, his 28 year old
>stepson a motorcycle, pays the stepdaughter's college bills, and has maxed out
>his credit cards buying fancy wines (it's their hobby -- wine collecting).
Heaven forbid he should be allowed to have a "hobby"--or anything which
might bring him any happiness at all. After all, he dared to divorce
you, didn't he?
Oh
>and they have four horses they care for. The man makes $70K a year and
>complains about paying $600 a month in support for two kids???
Why on earth should he pay $600 a month? What kid costs $600 a month
to raise?
>
>In five years the man has not sent these children a single Christmas present.
Maybe because you've bled him dry?
>He has sent a few birthday gifts, never spending more than $10 on them a piece.
> He never sends them gifts just for the heck of it. She says they pay enough
>and they don't need to buy gifts also.
>
>He has never paid his half of the medical bills EVER.
Sounds like he's paying more than enough child support to compensate.
>
>Do I begrudge him his standard of living? Not at all. I am happy with my life
>and my standard of living although it's no where near what his is. I really
>don't care. If I had to be married to him to have his lifestyle, I'd rather
>shoot myself.
>
>But that does not eliminate his obligation to provide at least some semblance
>of support to his children. And putting his wine collection, his cars, his new
>wife and his stepchildren ahead of that is wrong.
You are greedy.
bill s
with my original post.
If you have to "flame & lame" I would appreciate you doing it under
another subject.
Thanks to the ones that tried to give an honest answer!!!
bill s tyler tx usa
Juleelou
>>stepparent, those children become a part of your life.
>
>They should, if the CP allows a relationship with the step to be established
>and maintained....
Yep, been there and done that. Stepmom has done all she can to prevent a
working relationship between the children and the biological parents. In fact,
said father now refers to oldest daughter as the "slut" who takes after her
mother. Yes, the man calls his 15 yo daughter a slut.
>Juleelou:
> And no matter how
>>you may think that is fair or unfair, those children, whether they live with
>you
>>or not are going to affect your standard of living.
>
>Do you mean they are going to impact me financially? Of course. But, if
>they
>are not living with me, the "support" we should be able to provide them
>should
>not 1) be based on income instead of basic need 2)should not go through any
>"middle men" (aka, CSA, FSD) 3) CP should be accountable to the courts who
>grant her custody every month for every dime of CS she spends PLUS she should
>show accounting for the portion she is supposed to provide.
>
>Juleelou:
>>Nothing infuriates me more than some stepparent (and these are usually
>>stepmothers) who b*tch and complain that there new husbands have to actually
>>spend money on their children.
>
>Why are you so angry?
>If your ex married a witch, it's his funeral, not yours. If she is abusive
>to
>your children,
Actually she has been very abusive to my children and charges have been filed
against her. Plus the fact that she physically assaulted me.
> you can go to court and curtail visitation. If your ex is not
>paying his half of basic cost, you can go to court and ensure that he does.
It's already been done. Something I was not happy about doing as I always
encouraged a relationship with their father. But since he turns a blind eye to
the abuse as well as some of is felonious behavior (which is being pursued) I
had no choice.
>Whatever she thinks should not concern you. It's their marriage -- not
>yours.
>
>And, how do you know all this?
Because she has told me this. The kids have told me this. And he has told me
this. And I have witnessed it.
>Juleelou:
>You knew the man had children before you
>>married him.
>
>Yes, I did.
>
>Juleelou:
>> He's got obligations that come before you.
>
>No. He has obligations concommitant to this obligations to me (and, his
>obligations to me are not financial).
>
>My husband and I sat down and figured out our prospective financial
>arrangement
>regarding his child support payments before we decided to marry. It was
>AFTER
>we married and had a child that guidelines radically changed, the ex got wind
>of this, our CS obligation more than doubled, and the children's living
>conditions did not improve one iota.
Each situation is different. I am sorry you are suffering.
>Juleelou
>>My ex's new wife refuses to work and is angry that my ex has to send CS to
>me
>>rather than pay the mortgage on a house that she rents out!
>
>So what if she is angry? Is it anything she can take to court?
No, but they did abduct the children, took them from their home state, and hid
them for almost six months because he didn't want to pay child support and then
tried to go to court claiming I had abandoned them. The charming ex even told
the children, I'll return you to your mother when she agrees to changes in the
divorce decree lowering my financial obligations.
>Juleelou:
> And she thinks it's terribly unfair that he has to send support for his own
>children, when he should, in her mind, be footing the bill for her daughter's
>college
>>education.
No, he told me this. He has said he can't pay child support because he has to
pay his stepdaughter's college bills.
>And, you have this firsthand from her?
>And, is she against all CS being sent to your kids?
She thinks I should get nothing. She has told me this and told the kids this.
>And, how often do they take care of the children?
After being abducted and told they could come back home after I agreed to not
take c.s. any longer, they no longer wish to see him or visit him. Sad, isn't
it.
>And, how kind are YOU to the stepmom and how supportive are you of your ex's
>new marital situation?
I was very supportive of his relationship with her. I introduced them. In
fact, I loaned him money for his plane fare to go see her when they met the
first time. He met her online. I have been extremely supportive of him.
>Juleelou:
>>He had the nerve to call me and say that he couldn't pay c.s. one month
>>because her horses were sick and they had to take them to the vet. Excuse
>me???
>
>If he has a CS order, it is enforceable.
>If it is an unfair amount, then he may very well not have the money every
>month
>to pay it off, nor should he attempt to if unfair amounts are forcibly
>extracted from him.
>
>Juleelou:
>>He calls and says, my credit bills are so high right now, I can't pay your
>>bills too. (Big hint, child support is not paying my bills. It's providing
>>for your children).
>
>Depends on how much CS you draw.
>
>Juleelou:
>>And another hint, I've worked my a** for five years paying off all the
>credit
>>card and other bills that he left me with.
Yep. I paid them off 100% in full for bills we BOTH incurred. Read that
again. I paid the bills in full for both of us. He then went and married her,
got his name on her cards and ran them up again. When we got divorced, we
split our assets up with him getting a deed to a small piece of land. He tried
to take me to court this year because he had not bothered paying taxes on this
land for the past five years and the county was going to repo it. He actually
thought since we were married when we bought the property that he could force
me to pay the taxes on this property. My name was no longer on the deed.
>You incurred none of this debt? You have none of the things you paid for?
Yes, I have approximately 1/2 of the items we purchased. However, I paid the
bills off 100% after he left. He couldn't be bothered.
>Juleelou:
> My car is paid for. Yet, I am
>>supposed to feel bad that he can't pay c.s. because he's bought himself a
>new
>>car, his new wife a new car, his stepdaughter a used car, his 28 year old
>>stepson a motorcycle, pays the stepdaughter's college bills, and has maxed
>out
>his credit cards buying fancy wines (it's their hobby -- wine collecting).
>
>
>So long as he provides his half of basic for your children, you have no
>legitimate bitch about what he does with the rest of HIS or HERS or THEIR
>money.
You're right. I really don't care what he does with his money as long as he
sees that his children are taken care of first.
>Maybe because he is free to VOLUNTARILY provide for his new family he feels
>more inclined to do so.....
No, he puts them first. Not even on even keel. He puts them first. A classic
example, while he had the girls abducted, he would not even purchase a
toothbrush for my youngest daughter after hers had broken. They made the girls
wear handmedown underwear from their stepmom. There were rationed shampoo
(could shampoo once a week). This he has admitted to. He said they needed to
learn discipline. Yet he and his new wife and her children had new cars, new
clothes, motorcycles, etc. My oldest daughter lost 20 lbs with an intestinal
infection but was never taken to the doctor. They said she was faking it.
>Maybe if you were not FORCING him to provide for you and your children, he
>may
>feel more inclined to put out more.
He doesn't support me. He contributes half of care of his children. I'm not
going into an accounting, but it doesn't take long to go through 1200 a month
caring for two teenagers. Think orthodontia, dentists, food, clothing, and yes
shelter. He is obligated to pay half of the difference of a three bedroom
apartment versus a one-bedroom that I could live in without the children.
>Because, if he is such a rotten individual, why would he voluntarily support
>his current family and buy them things?
He's not so much as rotten individual as an individual with no backbone who
puts his own needs first. He loves this woman. I don't doubt that, and I'm
happy he's happy. But keeping her happy is more important to him than his
relationship with his children. And his and her overwhelming hatred toward me
is more important than his love for his children.
>Juleelou:
>>Oh and they have four horses they care for. The man makes $70K a year and
>>complains about paying $600 a month in support for two kids???
>
>If he is paying $600.00 per month for 2 children, he is actually paying over
>100% of the cost of basic support of your children, in addition to supporting
>4
>other people, including himself..
I covered this before.
>Juleelou:
>>In five years the man has not sent these children a single Christmas
>present.
>
>That is sad. However, that is the man with whom you had children.
>
>My son, in 15 years, maybe received two presents altogether from his
>biological
>father. However, he never felt cheated. He accepted his father for what he
>was and did not let bad feelings sour his life. I retained no bitterness,
>and
>so he did not become bitter.
So you are saying he's not bitter? You may be surprised. What a few years.
>Juleelou:
>>He has sent a few birthday gifts, never spending more than $10 on them a
>>piece. He never sends them gifts just for the heck of it. She says they
>pay
>enough
>>and they don't need to buy gifts also.
>>
>>He has never paid his half of the medical bills EVER.
>
>Isn't medical costs part of his CS obligation?
Yes, but as he tried to tell the judge, it was is money and he could do what he
wanted with it. The matter is being taken care of.
>Juleelou:
>>Do I begrudge him his standard of living? Not at all. I am happy with my
>>life
>
>You certainly are complaining a lot about his standard of living to claim
>that
>you don't "begrudge" him it.....
Actually no I don't. There are things that he wanted badly in his life and he
got them. There are things that I wanted badly in my life and I got them.
When we separated, we sat down and figured out exactly what was a fair
distribution of assets and support. He agreed to this willingly. We had an
amicable divorce. Then he got married and took on all sorts of other
responsibilities and decided to take the law into his own hands trying to
completely deny me my rights as a parent. He started the ugliness not me.
>Juleelou:
>>and my standard of living although it's no where near what his is. I really
>>don't care. If I had to be married to him to have his lifestyle, I'd rather
>>shoot myself.
>>
>>But that does not eliminate his obligation to provide at least some
>semblance
>>of support to his children. And putting his wine collection, his cars, his
>>new wife and his stepchildren ahead of that is wrong.
>
>If he is paying at least his half of basic support, he is meeting minimum
>standards of support -- as much as any intact parent is held to by law. If
>he
>does not contribute any more than that, that is his decision. I'm sorry, but
>that is the dad you saddled your kids with. They will take your lead in how
>to
>move forward -- if you don't, they won't.
No, he managed to do that quitely nicely himself.
>If he is paying what you say he is paying, then he is already paying over
>100%
>of basic support -- which means he is providing your portion of their basic
>needs, too.
Maybe where you live, but not where I live. And no matter how noble you may
think it is, my children are not going to eat a very unhealthy diet of lentil
beans so that he can afford to pay for his stepdaughter's college.
Edmund Esterbauer
and laziness.
The SF are the child abusers of the 90s.
The stolen generation of children will hold these criminals liable.
What the difference between a Child Support(sic) Agency gulag operator and
the KKK?
None. Both hooded murderous scum.
Try getting a job and letting the children live with the father half the
time.
Sorry for the three-letter swear word.
<inop...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8o8bq1$bd9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Juleelou
>until you learn to look at the whole picture. Lashing out at other's who
>have
>been wronged at the other end of divorce and custody does nothing to advance
>fathers rights.
>
That is probably though only sensible "fathers rights" comment I have ever
heard. I wish people would refer to them as parental rights though.
Edmund Esterbauer
A criminal is a criminal no matter what clothes they are put in.
The Stalinist feminazi are the child abusers of the 90s.
"Juleelou" <jule...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000827033203...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
J. S.
> chuckling... Lol, burns you that I escaped from being saddled 24/7 doesn't
> it ?
Answer the question, and don't flatter yourself.
> " J. S." <j...@strangelove.bu.edu> wrote in message
> news:8o5g1b$2lj$2...@news3.bu.edu...
>> celery1 <cel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> > "Ivyjade2" <ivyj...@aol.com> wrote in message
celery1
yes, child support is meant to implent the obligation... so let's make it
the law that Daddie and his new wife get stuck with 100 % of the kid's bills
and with direct care of the kid 24/7 along with being court ordered to
facilate access with the bio mother anytime she wants it with no excuses,
if getting stuck with 100 % of what is supposed to be a joint obligation is
so terrific NCP's should be clammoring for this solution.
celery1
I also get to lick quite a bit of pussy, have taken some really dazzling
co-eds right off the arms of divorced retreads like you... and boy do they
get made when I steal
their poon tang !
"Nobody" <drew_...@hotmail.REMOVE_THIS.com> wrote in message
news:39A676...@hotmail.REMOVE_THIS.com...
> celery1 wrote:
> > Chuckling... I can "have" a different penis every hour
> > if I so desire... you only get one
>
> Tell that to a bisexual man sometime...<chuckling even louder>
>
> Drew
>
Cement Hands
Juleelou wrote:
You're happy that the man you share children with abducted them and kept them from
you for 6 months is now happy??? I find this hard to believe. Sorry, but it
smacks of backtracking so you don't come off sounding bitter. Given the
circumstances as you posted them here, you are entitled to be bitter and angry at
your ex and his new wife...I don't know that I could ever get past that. But I
think I understand the anti NCP & new wife attitude that has been in some of your
other posts. I'm sorry you and your children went through that.
Nobody
> I also get to lick quite a bit of pussy, have taken
> some really dazzling co-eds right off the arms of
> divorced retreads like you... and boy do they
> get made when I steal their poon tang !
>>> if I so desire... you only get one
>> Tell that to a bisexual man sometime...<chuckling even louder>
<Chuckling louder still>
Have fun on your muff dives. But for the record,
I'm happily married to my first wife.
Drew
celery1
yeap... you're "happily married" which is why you are here in the usenet's
biggest misery pit...sure tell me another one
Here's hoping your wife wises up and dumps you,tens of thoysands of women
wuse up every year in this country,may this be her year :)
"Nobody" <drew_...@hotmail.REMOVE_THIS.com> wrote in message
news:39AA75...@hotmail.REMOVE_THIS.com...
Juleelou
>biggest misery pit...sure tell me another one
>
Yea, I wondered the same. Why on earth would someone be here who wasn't in
this situation. Unless they have nothing better to do but PREACH to people.
AAAAAHHHHH
Honesly I'm here because of my X she hates to see me and my new wife
be happy..Every time we do she gets my support raised again.
Catch 22 if I hire sombody to fight it, well that says I have extra
money and thats a no no with child support.. You can not better
yourself in any way..a 10% raise in pay= a 15% raise in support..
Don't let what others think dictate how you feel
about yourself or how you live your life...
"i'm the one who's gotta die when it's time for me
to die, so let me live my life the way i want to"
(jimi hendrix)
Juleelou
>money and thats a no no with child support.. You can not better
>yourself in any way..a 10% raise in pay= a 15% raise in support..
Bull hockey. You go to court for a raise in child support and YOU both have to
submit your financial records, tax records, paystubs, etc. If her income has
gone up and yours has gone up, usually the change is neglible if any. And
remember, she has to pay to take you to court also.
She probably doesn't give a fig that you are married. Just relieved it is not
to her any longer.
Weak and stupid argument.
Nobody
> yeap... you're "happily married" which is why you are
> here in the usenet's biggest misery pit...sure tell me
> another one
Well, apart from repeating that I'm happily married,
there's really nothing else for me to say. Its true,
whether you choose to believe me.
> Here's hoping your wife wises up and dumps you,tens of
> thoysands of women wuse up every year in this country,
> may this be her year :)
Yada yada yada. celery, do your posts *ever* have
added-value, or are they always ad hominem?
Drew
Nobody
> Yea, I wondered the same. Why on earth would someone be
> here who wasn't in this situation.
That's a fair enough question, Juleelou. The short
answer is that I perceive a great deal of injustice in
the current system, and I feel that I should do something
about it. The long answer is that becoming a father
had a profound effect on me, and I realize how instrumental
to the development of my children my presence as a husband and
a father really is. When I look at what the current system is doing
to fathers in divorce, I am deeply troubled by what I'm
seeing. Its a fatherhood genocide of sorts, it really is.
They are being financially flattened by unfairly high
CS awards and being forcibly excluded from their children's
lives. And there are reams of psychological studies showing that
these policies are causing all sorts of problems in the
children. Its got to change.
Drew
AAAAAHHHHH
payers income..unless welfare goes up she wont have any more income.
It isn't an argument at all..just the facts of my case...
Don't let what others think dictate how you feel
Jill
<drew_...@hotmail.REMOVE_THIS.com> sent the following thru the
ether:
And those problems surfacing in children raised only by mothers are
being seen to negatively affect all of society.
Sunny
jule...@aol.com (Juleelou) wrote:
> Yea, I wondered the same. Why on earth would someone be here who wasn't in
> this situation. Unless they have nothing better to do but PREACH to people.
I'm happy, but I see women like you messing up their kids heads and I
just want to shake you by the shoulders. GET A GRIP.
God forbid anyone in a healthy relationship give their opinion to a
miserable shrew of an ex-wife.
Sunny
jule...@aol.com (Juleelou) wrote:
(attribution snipped as always)
> >Catch 22 if I hire sombody to fight it, well that says I have extra
> >money and thats a no no with child support.. You can not better
> >yourself in any way..a 10% raise in pay= a 15% raise in support..
>
> Bull hockey.
My SO's ex went ballistic because he put some Armor-All on his car
tires, and they looked new to her. How dare he buy new tires, he must
be hiding assets from her! (Her exact words when she saw the clean
tires were "You better call your lawyer, asswipe. Either you're selling
drugs or you're lying on your income tax report.") Likewise, when he
bought his daughter a $6 Teletubbies CD, his ex-wife accused him of
being a "Disneyland Dad," charged him with hiding assets, and
threatened to take him to court for more child support. A lovely woman,
one that nice ladies like Juleelou would adore.
Simple fact is, unless a Dad is already a millionaire, if he pays
17-25% of his gross income on CS, plus possibly alimony as well, then
he won't even be ABLE to afford a lawyer.
>You go to court for a raise in child support and YOU both have to
> submit your financial records, tax records, paystubs, etc.
Have you done this?
>If her income has
> gone up and yours has gone up, usually the change is neglible if any. And
> remember, she has to pay to take you to court also.
Ha! Not always. More often that not, the dad ends up paying one way or
another, be it through court order, through the CS and alimony he pays
her, or by simple bribery on the part of the CP (i.e. sleep with the
lawyer and maybe he'll tear up the bill, which I have heard of
happening on more than one occasion)
> She probably doesn't give a fig that you are married. Just relieved it is not
> to her any longer.
Hatred has gotten you where you are today. No wonder you place such a
low value on the father/child relationship.
> Weak and stupid argument.
Weak and stupid woman. Yes, that's an ad hominem just for the halibut.
Sunny
"celery1" <cel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> yes, child support is meant to implent the obligation... so let's make it
> the law that Daddie and his new wife get stuck with 100 % of the kid's bills
> and with direct care of the kid 24/7 along with being court ordered to
> facilate access with the bio mother anytime she wants it with no excuses,
> if getting stuck with 100 % of what is supposed to be a joint obligation is
> so terrific NCP's should be clammoring for this solution.
(raising hand) We'll take it.
Sunny
<drew_...@hotmail.REMOVE_THIS.com> wrote:
> I'm happily married to my first wife.
I had a feeling you were. Keep up the good work and don't let the
bitter ex-wives here shoot you down out of spite.
Nobody
>> I'm happily married to my first wife.
> I had a feeling you were. Keep up the good work and don't let the
> bitter ex-wives here shoot you down out of spite.
Thanks.
Drew
J. S.
> yeap... you're "happily married" which is why you are here in the usenet's
> biggest misery pit...sure tell me another one
Some of us like to love the lovable women, and also kick the real
bitches like yourself. What's so wrong about that?
J. S.
>>yeap... you're "happily married" which is why you are here in the usenet's
>>biggest misery pit...sure tell me another one
>>
> Yea, I wondered the same. Why on earth would someone be here who wasn't in
> this situation. Unless they have nothing better to do but PREACH to people.
Or practise their skills on calling self-important morons (like
you) on their bullshit? Or any other reasons we like?
The reasons about preaching to people apply to you, don't extend them to
everyone.
Juleelou
>bitches like yourself. What's so wrong about that?
>
>
Yeah, those blowup dolls are sooooo.... cuddly.
J. S.
>>Catch 22 if I hire sombody to fight it, well that says I have extra
>>money and thats a no no with child support.. You can not better
>>yourself in any way..a 10% raise in pay= a 15% raise in support..
> Bull hockey. You go to court for a raise in child support and YOU both have to
> submit your financial records, tax records, paystubs, etc. If her income has
> gone up and yours has gone up, usually the change is neglible if any. And
> remember, she has to pay to take you to court also.
> She probably doesn't give a fig that you are married. Just relieved it is not
> to her any longer.
yeah, probably this. Probably that. Probably whatever floats your boat.
> Weak and stupid argument.
whine whine whine
Jill
following thru the ether:
>>Some of us like to love the lovable women, and also kick the real
>>bitches like yourself. What's so wrong about that?
>>
>>
>
>Yeah, those blowup dolls are sooooo.... cuddly.
Sounds like you're speaking from experience, Julee.... <g>
Bob Whiteside
Jill wrote:
> Piggybacking...
>
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 13:47:37 -0600, Sunny <mas...@facstaff.wisc.edu>
> sent the following thru the ether:
>
> >In article <20000828112934...@ng-md1.aol.com>,
> >jule...@aol.com (Juleelou) wrote:
> >
> >(attribution snipped as always)
> >
> >> >Catch 22 if I hire sombody to fight it, well that says I have extra
> >> >money and thats a no no with child support.. You can not better
> >> >yourself in any way..a 10% raise in pay= a 15% raise in support..
> >>
> >> Bull hockey.
> >
> >My SO's ex went ballistic because he put some Armor-All on his car
> >tires, and they looked new to her. How dare he buy new tires, he must
> >be hiding assets from her! (Her exact words when she saw the clean
> >tires were "You better call your lawyer, asswipe. Either you're selling
> >drugs or you're lying on your income tax report.") Likewise, when he
> >bought his daughter a $6 Teletubbies CD, his ex-wife accused him of
> >being a "Disneyland Dad," charged him with hiding assets, and
> >threatened to take him to court for more child support. A lovely woman,
> >one that nice ladies like Juleelou would adore.
> >
> >Simple fact is, unless a Dad is already a millionaire, if he pays
> >17-25% of his gross income on CS, plus possibly alimony as well, then
> >he won't even be ABLE to afford a lawyer.
> >
> >>You go to court for a raise in child support and YOU both have to
> >> submit your financial records, tax records, paystubs, etc.
>
> That's odd...in Wisconsin over 13 to 14 years, my husband has yet to
> see his ex produce ONE SINGLE financial document of hers in court or
> to the CSA. NOT ONE. All they want to see is my husband's forms.
> Then they didn't believe him so they petitioned his earning records
> from Social Security. Yes, guys they can do that without your OK or
> knowledge even.
>
> Women produce squat in the way of financial information and the courts
> and CSA wouldn't look at it if they did.
I agree with this statement 100%. I have been through two modifications where my ex
produced a payroll stub, but the court essentially ignored it. The first time my ex
told the judge she didn't make as much as the payroll stub showed and her payroll
department must have made a mistake. The judge actually went a long with that line
of bull shit! The second time she claimed all her benefit income like medical
accounts, vacation pay, pay for not taking personal time off, etc. were not real
income. I showed the judge these items were income for social security and medicare
taxes, but he still went along with her and set her income below the actual. She has
never produced anything to show she has income from savings or investments, but the
judges could care less about that income, an blow off my attempts to have her
disclose it.
Reality is the child support guideline calculation methodology is designed to give
the impression of fairness, not real fairness. It doesn't matter what income they
use for the CP. The NCP will always pay the same amount, or close to it. Go to your
state's guidelines and run the numbers. In Oregon, where I live, my support would
change on average $13 per month for every $10,000 annual increase or decrease in my
ex's income.
Bob
>
> >
> >Have you done this?
> >
> >>If her income has
> >> gone up and yours has gone up, usually the change is neglible if any. And
> >> remember, she has to pay to take you to court also.
>
> In what Universe would that be?
> >
> >Ha! Not always. More often that not, the dad ends up paying one way or
> >another, be it through court order, through the CS and alimony he pays
> >her, or by simple bribery on the part of the CP (i.e. sleep with the
> >lawyer and maybe he'll tear up the bill, which I have heard of
> >happening on more than one occasion)
> >
> Sunny, do you know my husband's ex? That's where we think #4 came
> from.
>
> >> She probably doesn't give a fig that you are married. Just relieved it is not
> >> to her any longer.
> >
> >Hatred has gotten you where you are today. No wonder you place such a
> >low value on the father/child relationship.
> >
> >> Weak and stupid argument.
> >
> >Weak and stupid woman. Yes, that's an ad hominem just for the halibut.
>
> Is that what I'm smelling in some of these posts? LOL!
Bob Whiteside
Anonymous wrote:
> On 26 Aug 2000 18:54:19 GMT jule...@aol.com (Juleelou) wrote:
>
> >If you fall in love and marry a person who has children and you become a
> >stepparent, those children become a part of your life. And no matter how you
> >may think that is fair or unfair, those children, whether they live with you or
> >not are going to affect your standard of living.
> >
> >Nothing infuriates me more than some stepparent (and these are usually
> >stepmothers) who b*tch and complain that there new husbands have to actually
> >spend money on their children. You knew the man had children before you
> >married him. He's got obligations that come before you.
> >
> >My ex's new wife refuses to work and is angry that my ex has to send CS to me
> >rather than pay the mortgage on a house that she rents out! And she thinks
> >it's terribly unfair that he has to send support for his own children, when he
> >should, in her mind, be footing the bill for her daughter's college education.
> >
> >
> >He had the nerve to call me and say that he couldn't pay c.s. one month because
> >her horses were sick and they had to take them to the vet. Excuse me???
> >
> >He calls and says, my credit bills are so high right now, I can't pay your
> >bills too. (Big hint, child support is not paying my bills. It's providing
> >for your children).
>
> I trust you have receipts which prove this? That the money is going
> toward their food and clothing, and NOT for your house/rent payment?
>
> >
> >And another hint, I've worked my a** for five years paying off all the credit
> >card and other bills that he left me with.
>
> You mean, your half of the bills which you and he accumulated together?
>
> My car is paid for. Yet, I am
> >supposed to feel bad that he can't pay c.s. because he's bought himself a new
> >car, his new wife a new car, his stepdaughter a used car, his 28 year old
> >stepson a motorcycle, pays the stepdaughter's college bills, and has maxed out
> >his credit cards buying fancy wines (it's their hobby -- wine collecting).
>
> Heaven forbid he should be allowed to have a "hobby"--or anything which
> might bring him any happiness at all. After all, he dared to divorce
> you, didn't he?
>
> Oh
> >and they have four horses they care for. The man makes $70K a year and
> >complains about paying $600 a month in support for two kids???
>
> Why on earth should he pay $600 a month? What kid costs $600 a month
> to raise?
The answers to your questions are: 1.) He pays $600 per month because there is a
"valid order" saying that is how much he has to pay and no other reason, and 2.)
The more you make the more it costs to raise your kid because the child's needs
change mysteriously as the NCP's income increases.
The guidelines say my daughter needs close to $1,000 per month from both parents
combined to survive plus $200 per month in medical coverage, plus $115 per month for
a sizable life insurance policy to guarantee my payments in case I die before they
can squeeze the last payment out of me. And remember, all of the child support
numbers are after taxes, so you can pretty much double the net numbers to determine
the gross dollar cost to the NCP.
Bob
>
>
> >
> >In five years the man has not sent these children a single Christmas present.
>
> Maybe because you've bled him dry?
>
> >He has sent a few birthday gifts, never spending more than $10 on them a piece.
> > He never sends them gifts just for the heck of it. She says they pay enough
> >and they don't need to buy gifts also.
> >
> >He has never paid his half of the medical bills EVER.
>
> Sounds like he's paying more than enough child support to compensate.
>
> >
> >Do I begrudge him his standard of living? Not at all. I am happy with my life
> >and my standard of living although it's no where near what his is. I really
> >don't care. If I had to be married to him to have his lifestyle, I'd rather
> >shoot myself.
> >
> >But that does not eliminate his obligation to provide at least some semblance
> >of support to his children. And putting his wine collection, his cars, his new
> >wife and his stepchildren ahead of that is wrong.
>
> You are greedy.
>
> http://www.anet.com/~freedom
Cement Hands
Jill wrote:
Hmmm, my SO has been paying 1/2 of the daycare costs for 3 years and has never seen a
receipt...in fact, he doesn't know where the childs daycare is. For all he knows,
his ex could have her mother watching the child and collecting 1/2 the cost of a
licensed facility. So what you stated above isn't hard for me to believe at all.
>
>
> Women produce squat in the way of financial information and the courts
> and CSA wouldn't look at it if they did.
> >
Ivyjade2
>Yea, I wondered the same. Why on earth would someone be here who wasn't in
>this situation. Unless they have nothing better to do but PREACH to people.
>
Maybe someone who is on here who is not necessarily in "this situation" is
posting because
1) someone they know is in "this situation"
2) they care about the rights and freedoms of others and care about injustice
Ivy
Spam Me Not
"Sunny" <mas...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:280820001347378459%mas...@facstaff.wisc.edu...
>
> My SO's ex went ballistic because he put some Armor-All on his car
> tires, and they looked new to her. How dare he buy new tires, he must
> be hiding assets from her! (Her exact words when she saw the clean
> tires were "You better call your lawyer, asswipe. Either you're selling
> drugs or you're lying on your income tax report.") Likewise, when he
> bought his daughter a $6 Teletubbies CD, his ex-wife accused him of
> being a "Disneyland Dad," charged him with hiding assets, and
> threatened to take him to court for more child support.
Sunny,
Which Teletubbie CD did you get? Yu'd think all these CPs who are SOOOO
concerned with the best interests of their children would be ecstatic to see
money being spent on them.
J. S.
>>Some of us like to love the lovable women, and also kick the real
>>bitches like yourself. What's so wrong about that?
> Yeah, those blowup dolls are sooooo.... cuddly.
if I had no other choice, I'd skip you for a blow-up doll.
Any day.
Nobody
>> Yeah, those blowup dolls are sooooo.... cuddly.
> if I had no other choice, I'd skip you for a blow-up doll.
A friend of mine and her husband are thinking about
buying one of these as a means of exploring
extramarital sex without risk. For the record,
its her idea, not her husband's(!). This isn't my
cup of tea by any measure, but on the other hand I can't
deny how impressive the technology is getting (wow!):
Drew
Cement Hands
for one never want to hear about another LaLa, Dipsy or Po again. It would be
interesting how the sort of CP would feel about those extras for their child
after providing 100% for a year or two...not that I want anyone to go thru it
but once you have, it puts a whole new light on it. I abhor any CP who bitches
about gifts to the child figuring that means "they" are entitled to more...oops,
I'm getting testy. Sorry.
Cement Hands
Bob Whiteside wrote:
Isn't that interesting how this happens...is it some kind of virus or what?:-)
>
>
> The guidelines say my daughter needs close to $1,000 per month from both parents
> combined to survive plus $200 per month in medical coverage, plus $115 per month for
> a sizable life insurance policy to guarantee my payments in case I die before they
> can squeeze the last payment out of me.
Don't you mean in cas they squeeze you to death in the process?
Bob Whiteside
Cement Hands wrote:
You got that right! They either squeeze the money out of me, or they squeeze me until I
croak! Dead or alive, the payments are covered! And they could care less whether I live
or not. Now for the irony . . . if I die with just one payment remaining, my children get
the equivalent of 200 payments to compensate them for the one lost payment.
Of course I want my assets to go to my children. I just get pissed that the state tells
me how to handle my estate. The decree says either buy the insurance and make the
children the beneficiaries at the specified amount or the state will step in and seize my
estate's assets for the children as irrevocable beneficiaries for the same amount of the
insurance should I decide not to buy it.
This is one of the many legal games that get played. The appeals court ruled they can't
require a father to buy an insurance policy to guarantee the support payments, but the
decree gets set up saying if you "chose to not buy the policy" then the state will
intercede on the children's behalf to seize an equivalent amount. And people wonder why
the fathers get upset with the child support system.
Bob
Cement Hands
Bob Whiteside wrote:
Eeek...lay low Bob.:-)
>
>
> Of course I want my assets to go to my children. I just get pissed that the state tells
> me how to handle my estate. The decree says either buy the insurance and make the
> children the beneficiaries at the specified amount or the state will step in and seize my
> estate's assets for the children as irrevocable beneficiaries for the same amount of the
> insurance should I decide not to buy it.
>
> This is one of the many legal games that get played. The appeals court ruled they can't
> require a father to buy an insurance policy to guarantee the support payments, but the
> decree gets set up saying if you "chose to not buy the policy" then the state will
> intercede on the children's behalf to seize an equivalent amount. And people wonder why
> the fathers get upset with the child support system.
Not this people.
Spam Me Not
"Cement Hands" <kidd....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:39ABEDD4...@sympatico.ca...
> Pleeeeze...NO MORE TELETUBBIES!!!!!! My youngest has recently outgrown it
and I
> for one never want to hear about another LaLa, Dipsy or Po again. It
would be
> interesting how the sort of CP would feel about those extras for their
child
> after providing 100% for a year or two...not that I want anyone to go thru
it
> but once you have, it puts a whole new light on it. I abhor any CP who
bitches
> about gifts to the child figuring that means "they" are entitled to
more...oops,
> I'm getting testy. Sorry.
Cement,
Well, soon your youngest will be into the Blues Clues stage....some CPs are
darlings, will complain on one hand that the CP NEVER buys the kid a thing,
yet the moment they do it becomes grounds for litigation and a support
increase. BTW, was it you earlier who asked about Napster? I've lost track
of all these posts, but I think it was...
Time for Tubbie bye-bye.....
>
Cement Hands
Spam Me Not wrote:
> "Cement Hands" <kidd....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:39ABEDD4...@sympatico.ca...
> > Pleeeeze...NO MORE TELETUBBIES!!!!!! My youngest has recently outgrown it
> and I
> > for one never want to hear about another LaLa, Dipsy or Po again. It
> would be
> > interesting how the sort of CP would feel about those extras for their
> child
> > after providing 100% for a year or two...not that I want anyone to go thru
> it
> > but once you have, it puts a whole new light on it. I abhor any CP who
> bitches
> > about gifts to the child figuring that means "they" are entitled to
> more...oops,
> > I'm getting testy. Sorry.
>
> Cement,
>
> Well, soon your youngest will be into the Blues Clues stage...
Oh pleezeeee............you would think it would be soon but she just refused
to give up TT til she got used to BC and ARTHUR. The kid knows how to
hedge her bets!
> .some CPs are
> darlings, will complain on one hand that the CP NEVER buys the kid a thing,
> yet the moment they do it becomes grounds for litigation and a support
> increase.
Yeah, I keep hoping "what goes around comes around" is true...some CPs
don't know just how good they have it. On the flip side, I wish NCPs like
my ex could hear some of the stories here to realize that they have it alot
better than it could be....
> BTW, was it you earlier who asked about Napster? I've lost track
> of all these posts, but I think it was...
Yes I did. I thought I had heard that a whole commotion but then I just got
distracted renovating and haven't been into the news as much. Do you know
the scoop?
>
>
> Time for Tubbie bye-bye.....
AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!
>
> >
Mel Gamble
>>money and thats a no no with child support.. You can not better
>>yourself in any way..a 10% raise in pay= a 15% raise in support..
>
>to
>submit your financial records, tax records, paystubs, etc. If her income has
>gone up and yours has gone up, usually the change is neglible if any. And
>remember, she has to pay to take you to court also.
>
>not
>to her any longer.
>
Juleelew should brush up on CS guidelines before shoving her head up her ass
like this.... : )
Don't know about weak, but talk about STUPID....: )
Mel Gamble
dick smothers
>
> When he was released, part of his parole included that he go to work &
> make monthly payments to the kids for money that was owed. It amounted
> to roughly $45,000
>
> Since gettin out he has claimed disability from an injury in prison & is
> getting disability & social security.
>
> Needless to say, he hasn't been paying the kids & nothing is being done
> about it.
>
> Any ideas or suggestions on the subject or possible solution???
Yah, why don't you just come right out and shoot the poor bastard
instead of the slow death he has been condemned to you prick.
peapod
> while the father got away scott free from any obligation
She could have chosen to have the father supply half or even all the support
by giving him the kids but did not do so. Should people be responsible for
their choices even when they are members of the politically preferred
gender or race, I guess we disagree.
Pat Winstanley
writes
>> learn to read... the MOTHER paid *ALL* of the kids support for years
>> while the father got away scott free from any obligation
>
>She could have chosen to have the father supply half or even all the support
>by giving him the kids
Only if the father was prepared (and in a position) to look after them.
--
Pat Winstanley
AAAAAHHHHH
In a position? what does that mean?
Don't let what others think dictate how you feel
about yourself or how you live your life...
"i'm the one who's gotta die when it's time for me
to die, so let me live my life the way i want to"
(jimi hendrix)
AAAAAHHHHH
wrote:
>X-No-Archive: YES
>
>AAAAAHHHHH <o...@topic.com> wrote in message
>news:nnshrs43np39fsht7...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 8 Sep 2000 10:33:01 +0100, Pat Winstanley
>> <Pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <39B86748...@hotmail.com>, peapod <pea...@hotmail.com>
>> >writes
>> >>> learn to read... the MOTHER paid *ALL* of the kids support for years
>> >>> while the father got away scott free from any obligation
>> >>
>> >>She could have chosen to have the father supply half or even all the
>support
>> >>by giving him the kids
>> >
>> >Only if the father was prepared (and in a position) to look after them.
>>
>> In a position? what does that mean?
>
>You know, actually =able= to raise the child?
>
>What you men don't seem to understand is that there is
>more involved in raising a child than sticking your dick
>somewhere.
>
>-- Julie.
>
Men understand that very well..Oral sex is not raising a child.
Dont talk with your mouth full...
What you dont understand is collection of childsupport is not the same
as raising a child.
jr
given a chance) of raising our children than women do.
On Fri, 8 Sep 2000 09:22:19 -0500, "Julie" <jock...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>
Pat Winstanley
<o...@topic.com> writes
>On Fri, 8 Sep 2000 10:33:01 +0100, Pat Winstanley
><Pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <39B86748...@hotmail.com>, peapod <pea...@hotmail.com>
>>writes
>>>> learn to read... the MOTHER paid *ALL* of the kids support for years
>>>> while the father got away scott free from any obligation
>>>
>>>She could have chosen to have the father supply half or even all the support
>>>by giving him the kids
>>
>>Only if the father was prepared (and in a position) to look after them.
>
>In a position? what does that mean?
What if the father's job entailed lengthy trips abroad, for instance?
In the forces, perhaps? A rep?
Or perhaps long-distance lorry driver regularly away for days and nights
at a stretch?
You need to both want to AND be able to care for the kids (in terms of
time). The more time you spend in paid work the less time the kids have
with you, but you earn more than if you spend more time with the kids
and less time in paid work.
And even if you spend more time earning then you will have to pay for
someone else to mind the children for you while you are at work, so what
you actually earn (have to spend) is your net minus the childcare
charges.
It's a juggling act.
--
Pat Winstanley
Ivyjade2
AAAAAHHHHH <o...@topic.com>
>> What you dont understand is collection of child support is not the same
>> as raising a child.
Julie:
>No, it isn't. But a judge decided that Mom was qualified and
>Dad wasn't. So Mom gets to collect (hopefully, some day ...)
>support and Dad, well, gets to pay it.
"Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny"
- E. Burke
"Injustice cannot reign if the community does not furnish a due supply of
unjust agents."
- Spencer
"If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you will always have the support of Paul"
- Someone
Ivy
Edmund Esterbauer
better off.
"peapod" <pea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39B86748...@hotmail.com...
Hunnysbunny53
17YRS.PLEASE RESPOND .
Hunnysbunny53
17YRS.PLEASE REPLY
LaN.
"Edmund Esterbauer" <edm...@au.gateway.net> wrote:
> What a load of rubbish.
> A criminal is a criminal no matter what clothes they are put in.
> The Stalinist feminazi are the child abusers of the 90s.
cue "Dangerous Mood" by Joe Cocker and B B King
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.