Deadbeat dad (and singer) Sean Levert died of natural causes

38 views
Skip to first unread message

Kenneth J.

unread,
May 29, 2008, 9:23:11 PM5/29/08
to
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080529/ap_en_mu/levert_death;_ylt=Aj0V7pldw41XP2G62FRodXNxFb8C

Coroner: Singer Sean Levert died of natural causes By JOE MILICIA,
Associated Press Writer

CLEVELAND - A coroner ruled Thursday that R&B singer Sean Levert died
of natural causes after falling ill in jail, and his family reacted by
saying his death possibly could have been prevented.

Levert suffered from various ailments, the Cuyahoga County coroner's
ruling said. Attorneys for Levert's widow say sheriff's department
records they reviewed show he wasn't given his anti-anxiety medication
while in jail or seen by a doctor, which might have prevented his
death.

Levert, a member of the 1980s R&B trio LeVert and son of lead O'Jays
singer Eddie Levert, died at age 39 at 11:57 p.m. March 30 at a
hospital, about an hour after he was taken from the Cuyahoga County
jail. He was serving a 22-month sentence for failure to pay child
support.

Levert's family had questioned officials' account that Levert had been
acting strangely and was restrained before he fell ill. In his ruling,
county Coroner Frank Miller ruled out foul play or trauma.

Miller said Levert died from complications of sarcoidosis, an
inflammatory lung disease that produces tiny lumps of cells in the
body's organs. The coroner said Levert also suffered from other
conditions, including heart disease, high blood sugar and withdrawal
from alprazolam, a drug used to treat anxiety disorders and panic
attacks that is better known under the trade name Xanax.

After Levert died, jail warden Kevin McDonough said he had been sick
and guards were watching him because he had been acting strangely.
When he started pounding on his cell door, guards strapped him in a
restraint chair, McDonough said. Levert's breathing became shallow and
he was taken to the hospital.

"He was exhibiting classic signs of Xanax withdrawal," attorney Daryl
Dennie said. "A doctor would have been able to recognize these
problems. Had he been able to see one in that week's time things could
have been different."

Dennie and lawyer David Malik, who represent Levert's widow, Angela
Lowe, said they reviewed documents in the coroner's office showing
that Levert brought a bottle of Xanax with him to the jail.

"They inventoried it and they never gave it to him," Malik said. "He
requested it during the time he was in jail."

The coroner's office would not release the documents publicly on
Thursday.

The office of county Prosecutor Bill Mason declined to comment. A
message seeking comment from Chief Deputy Douglas Burkhart at the
sheriff's department was not immediately returned.

Malik and Dennie would not comment on possible legal action until they
complete their investigation. Malik said the family may ask the FBI to
investigate.

FBI spokesman Scott Wilson said in April that agents were willing to
meet with Levert's family. Wilson said Thursday that the FBI was never
contacted by the family.

Levert and his brother Gerald formed LeVert in the 1980s with
childhood friend Marc Gordon. Their hits included "Baby I'm Ready,"
"(Pop, Pop, Pop, Pop) Goes My Mind" and "Casanova."

His brother died in 2006 at age 40 of an accidental mix of
prescription and over-the-counter drugs.

Sean Levert, who was trying to start the group LeVert again, had
pleaded guilty in March to six counts of failure to pay child support.
He was accused of failure to pay $89,025 to children ages 11, 15 and
17.

He had pleaded guilty in 1995 to drug abuse and was placed on
probation and required to get treatment.

Levert's widow released a written statement Thursday saying: "Sean was
loved by many and both his family and fans are saddened beyond
comprehension. Sean Levert did not die as a result of illegal drug
usage."


Taylor

unread,
May 29, 2008, 10:07:25 PM5/29/08
to

DVD

unread,
May 29, 2008, 10:18:56 PM5/29/08
to
Taylor wrote:
> On May 29, 9:23 pm, kenneth...@aol.com (Kenneth J.) wrote:
>
>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080529/ap_en_mu/levert_death;_ylt=Aj0V7p...
>>
>>Coroner: Singer Sean Levert died of natural causes By JOE MILICIA,
>>Associated Press Writer
>>

Sounds like he died from bad lawyers and an absolute cunt of an ex.

Kenneth J.

unread,
May 30, 2008, 1:12:13 AM5/30/08
to


Yeah, how dare she sue him for child support payments!

STRATEGY

unread,
May 30, 2008, 2:24:02 AM5/30/08
to

He was Just Coolin'


STRATEGY

DVD

unread,
May 30, 2008, 4:15:16 AM5/30/08
to

You are so stupid and so well indoctrinated that you will probably never
understand reality. No guy will go to jail for 22 months rather than pay
what he owes, a lawyer who negotiates a child support settlement that
his client can't afford is a bad one, and no woman will see this
situation and send her ex to jail for 22 months unless she is a cunt
with no common sense. Do you think she will be getting any money from
him while he is in jail? Do you think she really cares about her kids'
support or is she just being a vindictive cunt? She got what she
deserved though, no money and her kids will grow up knowing that she
killed their dad.

"So You Diane I"

unread,
May 30, 2008, 6:19:29 AM5/30/08
to

"Kenneth J." <kenne...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:483f8ca2....@news.easynews.com...

he was only $90,000 behind.. he would have paid it.


"So You Diane I"

unread,
May 30, 2008, 6:22:02 AM5/30/08
to

"DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
news:483fb77a$0$5154$4c36...@roadrunner.com...

how far behind are you in your child support!


LJ

unread,
May 30, 2008, 8:57:11 AM5/30/08
to

"DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
news:483f63f5$0$12889$4c36...@roadrunner.com...

Exactly why would the ex be labeled a cunt?? Because she and society as a
whole,not to mention common decency and good sense, dictates that children
should be supported by their parents??

LJ

unread,
May 30, 2008, 8:59:40 AM5/30/08
to

"DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
news:483fb77a$0$5154$4c36...@roadrunner.com...

I'd bet you dont pay support for your kids??? Just a guess!! But I would
bet money on it!!

Your comments speak more about YOU & your lack of character than about
anything else!


teachrmama

unread,
May 30, 2008, 9:19:59 AM5/30/08
to

"LJ" <lj...@lsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ePS%j.61670$7a....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...

Do you feel that children deserve to have their needs met by their parents?
Or do you feel that children are owed a certain lifestyle?


Phil

unread,
May 30, 2008, 9:46:32 AM5/30/08
to

""So You Diane I"" <sy...@borat.com> wrote in message
news:Fd2dnYF1KpTTSaLV...@giganews.com...

Shooting the messenger because they cannot address the point is a
hallmark of feminist "debate".
1) How do you know the poster even has children, 2) owes child support
or 3) is behind?
The point remains unchallenged.
Phil #3


LJ

unread,
May 30, 2008, 10:09:58 AM5/30/08
to

"teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:g1ov1...@news3.newsguy.com...


Needs: food, shelter, medical/dental care.......which is what support
means...support does not and is not intended for lifestyle, in my
estimation, it is provided for the needs of a child.


Phil

unread,
May 30, 2008, 10:22:08 AM5/30/08
to

"LJ" <lj...@lsouth.net> wrote in message
news:zRS%j.61672$7a.1...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...

Las Vegas would LOVE for you to come visit. They built the city on
people like you.

>
> Your comments speak more about YOU & your lack of character than about
> anything else!

Shooting the messenger does not address the point.
The problem is NOT in addressing the fallacy of the system as the OP did
but failing to acknowledge that the whole system is wrong, as you did.
Phil #3


Message has been deleted

Phil

unread,
May 30, 2008, 10:26:25 AM5/30/08
to

"LJ" <lj...@lsouth.net> wrote in message
news:FTT%j.29540$hv2....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

Do you realize that "child support" is based, not on needs but on
parent's incomes?
In case you missed it, that equates to lifestyle, not need.
If C$ were based on needs, all money orders in child support for any
given area would be identical, regardless the income of the parents
because the needs of children does not fluctuate according to their
parent's incomes.
Phil #3


DVD

unread,
May 30, 2008, 2:59:49 PM5/30/08
to
LJ wrote:
>>
>>You are so stupid and so well indoctrinated that you will probably never
>>understand reality. No guy will go to jail for 22 months rather than pay
>>what he owes, a lawyer who negotiates a child support settlement that his
>>client can't afford is a bad one, and no woman will see this situation and
>>send her ex to jail for 22 months unless she is a cunt with no common
>>sense. Do you think she will be getting any money from him while he is in
>>jail? Do you think she really cares about her kids' support or is she
>>just being a vindictive cunt? She got what she deserved though, no money
>>and her kids will grow up knowing that she killed their dad.
>
>
> I'd bet you dont pay support for your kids??? Just a guess!! But I would
> bet money on it!!
>
> Your comments speak more about YOU & your lack of character than about
> anything else!
>
>

And yours come from ignorance, all of my kids live with me. So just as
much as you were wrong in that assumption, you are probably wrong about
most things common sense related. I see how you were unable to address
what I wrote though, are you one of those cunts who use child support as
a way to get even with your ex for dumping you?

DVD

unread,
May 30, 2008, 3:04:31 PM5/30/08
to
LJ wrote:

I think the father should pay the same % towards his kids after a
divorce as he did before, if his salary changes the amount changes with
it. Anyone who thinks this guy went to jail because he just didn't want
to pay is crazy. Does anyone really think his ex made a smart move or
did this for any reason other than to be a vindictive cunt?

LJ

unread,
May 30, 2008, 5:45:25 PM5/30/08
to

"DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
news:48404e8a$0$7077$4c36...@roadrunner.com...


You are wrong. No child support here!


Janice

unread,
May 30, 2008, 5:55:44 PM5/30/08
to
In article <483f56d9....@news.easynews.com>,
kenne...@aol.com (Kenneth J.) wrote:

> He had pleaded guilty in 1995 to drug abuse and was placed on
> probation and required to get treatment.

"we havent caught you using coke or in posession of COke, but you are
obviously a coke abuser so we will charge you with being a coke abuser".

Janice

unread,
May 30, 2008, 5:58:06 PM5/30/08
to
In article <g1ov1...@news3.newsguy.com>,
"teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote:

> Do you feel that children deserve to have their needs met by their parents?
> Or do you feel that children are owed a certain lifestyle?

Their lifestyle met????? Their is no criterian that there lifestyle be
met, if the wife wants to meet their needs and use the rest for herself
that is perfectly legit.

Shadow36

unread,
May 30, 2008, 6:17:57 PM5/30/08
to

"Janice" <Not...@you.com> wrote in message
news:Nothank-9A8834...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...

It me be legit legally, but morally it's not.


Message has been deleted

DVD

unread,
May 30, 2008, 8:16:23 PM5/30/08
to

I merely asked you a question ... start with the word "are" and finish
with the question mark if you don't understand this. I see you are still
avoiding any discussion about my opinion. I guess my work is done here.

teachrmama

unread,
May 30, 2008, 9:19:02 PM5/30/08
to

"LJ" <lj...@lsouth.net> wrote in message
news:bz_%j.115$UF5...@bignews8.bellsouth.net...

You don't receive child support? Do you pay child support? Do you know a
lot about the system, or do you just assume that the system is fair and
based on the best interests of the children? (Real questions, trying to
find out where you are coming from. Please don't look at them as an attack,
because they aren't)


teachrmama

unread,
May 30, 2008, 9:22:21 PM5/30/08
to

"LJ" <lj...@lsouth.net> wrote in message
news:FTT%j.29540$hv2....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

Hmmmm....you do realize that the children's needs are not the basis for
child support, right? They say that "the childen should be supported at the
same level after a divorce that they were before." How does one use the
same amount of money to support 2 households that used to be used to support
one?


teachrmama

unread,
May 30, 2008, 9:24:37 PM5/30/08
to

"Janice" <Not...@you.com> wrote in message
news:Nothank-9A8834...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...

I am very aware of that. My personal opinion is that 50/50 joint custody
with no money changing hands should be the default choice. If that is not
possible, then the children's **needs** should be met with child support. No
"lifestyle" is owed.


LJ

unread,
May 31, 2008, 5:10:22 AM5/31/08
to

"teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:g1q92...@news5.newsguy.com...

Nope--I dont pay or receive.

I know CS is based on income. I know the system as my cousin's wife pays him
(or actually is supposed to pay) and we have helped him alot with his child.
I just do not understand how a parent cannot provide for their child
regardless of how they feel about their ex.


Phil

unread,
May 31, 2008, 10:01:15 AM5/31/08
to

"DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
news:48404fa4$0$7077$4c36...@roadrunner.com...

If any parents are forced to spend a percentage of their income on their
children, ALL parents should be so ordered with the same penalties for
failing to do so and this should apply to all parents and those in an
intact family as well as non-custodial parents. (In other words, this is
a silly idea).
Also, does the basic *necessities* increase as the parent's income
increases or just the desire for more and more expensive toys?
Phil #3


Dusty

unread,
May 31, 2008, 12:15:42 PM5/31/08
to
"Phil" <fa...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:7PCdnU7iZJGxx9zV...@earthlink.com...

Unless I miss my guess, that particular subject was raised in court before
(if anyone has the sitation or a site where this can be found, please post
it).

And, just like fox guarding the hen house, the judge(s) shot the case down.
Seems that the Feds are very well aware of the house of cards they've built
out of fleecing NCP's of their hard earned cash so parents can pay to see
their own children 6-8 days a month.

Fun, eh?

LJ

unread,
May 31, 2008, 2:14:40 PM5/31/08
to

"DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
news:484098bb$0$12962$4c36...@roadrunner.com...

Are you *that* dense??I said "You are wrong. No child support here!" But,
since you cannot understand simple implication, the answer is No. I do not
receive child support. I do not have an ex that I have tried get back at
through child support! Geez, you are thick headed!


DVD

unread,
May 31, 2008, 2:39:53 PM5/31/08
to

Exactly, proving once again that you can't understand common sense. I
ASKED you a question, it is pretty hard for me to be wrong when I am
asking you a question a question about you.

> But,
> since you cannot understand simple implication, the answer is No. I do not
> receive child support. I do not have an ex that I have tried get back at
> through child support! Geez, you are thick headed!
>
>

And that would be an answer, get it now, stupid? You still seem to have
completely avoided any discussion of my opinion though, why is that?
(see ... another question)

DVD

unread,
May 31, 2008, 2:45:59 PM5/31/08
to
Phil wrote:
>
>
> If any parents are forced to spend a percentage of their income on their
> children, ALL parents should be so ordered with the same penalties for
> failing to do so and this should apply to all parents and those in an
> intact family as well as non-custodial parents. (In other words, this is
> a silly idea).

Divorce is more of an arbitrated agreement, people can negotiate and
should stick to their negotiated settlement. If that is not possible
they need to renegotiate based on the parent's new situation. Parents in
intact families are also required by law to provide for the basic needs
of their children, I'm not sure that 22 months in jail for failing to do
that would make sense.

> Also, does the basic *necessities* increase as the parent's income
> increases or just the desire for more and more expensive toys?
> Phil #3
>
>

If your kid was in private school and taking music lessons those costs
can be negotiated just like everything else. A divorce settlement can
insure that the kids' lives are not stripped to the bare neccessities
just because the parents get divorced.

Gini

unread,
May 31, 2008, 3:15:46 PM5/31/08
to
"DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote
........................

>
> If your kid was in private school and taking music lessons those costs can
> be negotiated just like everything else. A divorce settlement can insure
> that the kids' lives are not stripped to the bare neccessities just
> because the parents get divorced.
===
But--the "bare necessities" are OK for intact families and the courts should
have no jurisdiction over the financial/child rearing decisions in intact
families? Children of divorced families should be viewed as more worthy than
children in intact families?


Bob Whiteside

unread,
May 31, 2008, 3:53:09 PM5/31/08
to

"DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
news:48419ccc$0$12900$4c36...@roadrunner.com...

> Phil wrote:
>>
>>
>> If any parents are forced to spend a percentage of their income on their
>> children, ALL parents should be so ordered with the same penalties for
>> failing to do so and this should apply to all parents and those in an
>> intact family as well as non-custodial parents. (In other words, this is
>> a silly idea).
>
> Divorce is more of an arbitrated agreement, people can negotiate and
> should stick to their negotiated settlement. If that is not possible they
> need to renegotiate based on the parent's new situation. Parents in intact
> families are also required by law to provide for the basic needs of their
> children, I'm not sure that 22 months in jail for failing to do that would
> make sense.

This process is called "negotiating in the shadow of the court" and it is
far from being in the children's best interest.

Why would any divorcing wife negotiate fairly if her attorney has already
filled her head with what he/she can get for her?

Even with mandatory mediation a woman can renege on her negotiated agreement
after the fact if her attorney tells her she didn't have to give up so much.

teachrmama

unread,
May 31, 2008, 6:09:59 PM5/31/08
to

"DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
news:48419ccc$0$12900$4c36...@roadrunner.com...

As nice as it sounds for you to say that things can be "negotiated," it
doesn't really work out that way. Shy bother to negotiate if you know that
the judge is going to find in your favor anyway? As for private school and
music lessons, are they more important than the CP having enough money to
live on? Should Dad live in a hut in order to keep Junior at the same
lifestyle that existed pre-divorce? An intact family uses income to support
*one* household. A divorced family uses the exact same income to support
*two* households. Something is going to have to be cut from the budget to
manage that. Unfortunately, this obvious fact seems to escape those setting
CS levels.


DVD

unread,
May 31, 2008, 7:49:18 PM5/31/08
to

Listen you maniac, re-read what I wrote and forget your agenda. Bare
neccessities are legally okay for everyone, everything else is
negotiated. The difference between married couples and divorced people
is that they don't have to go to court before they cut the piano lessons
and private school, they negotiate at home.

Gini

unread,
May 31, 2008, 7:53:00 PM5/31/08
to
"DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
news:4841e3e3$0$5174$4c36...@roadrunner.com...

> Gini wrote:
>> "DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote
>> ........................
>>
>>>
>>> If your kid was in private school and taking music lessons those costs
>>> can be negotiated just like everything else. A divorce settlement can
>>> insure that the kids' lives are not stripped to the bare neccessities
>>> just because the parents get divorced.
>>
>> ===
>> But--the "bare necessities" are OK for intact families and the courts
>> should have no jurisdiction over the financial/child rearing decisions in
>> intact families? Children of divorced families should be viewed as more
>> worthy than children in intact families?
>>
>>
>
> Listen you maniac, re-read what I wrote and forget your agenda.
==
So much for your capacity to carry on an intelligent conversation...Sheesh
==


DVD

unread,
May 31, 2008, 7:55:00 PM5/31/08
to
Bob Whiteside wrote:

>
> "DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
> news:48419ccc$0$12900$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
>> Phil wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If any parents are forced to spend a percentage of their income on
>>> their children, ALL parents should be so ordered with the same
>>> penalties for failing to do so and this should apply to all parents
>>> and those in an intact family as well as non-custodial parents. (In
>>> other words, this is a silly idea).
>>
>>
>> Divorce is more of an arbitrated agreement, people can negotiate and
>> should stick to their negotiated settlement. If that is not possible
>> they need to renegotiate based on the parent's new situation. Parents
>> in intact families are also required by law to provide for the basic
>> needs of their children, I'm not sure that 22 months in jail for
>> failing to do that would make sense.
>
>
> This process is called "negotiating in the shadow of the court" and it
> is far from being in the children's best interest.
>

Lets start with the thing that started this thread, what would be better
for the dead guy's children? A dead or incarcerated father or a
renegotiation to establish what the father really could afford?

> Why would any divorcing wife negotiate fairly if her attorney has
> already filled her head with what he/she can get for her?
>

Sometimes men have lawyers too, sometimes these lawyers tell their
stories to judges and sometimes judges decide who gets what.

> Even with mandatory mediation a woman can renege on her negotiated
> agreement after the fact if her attorney tells her she didn't have to
> give up so much.

She can back out of receiving child support? Good for her. On the other
hand if she can prove the mediation was unfair then it would be up to
her to prove it.

DVD

unread,
May 31, 2008, 8:03:49 PM5/31/08
to
teachrmama wrote:
>
>
> As nice as it sounds for you to say that things can be "negotiated," it
> doesn't really work out that way. Shy bother to negotiate if you know that
> the judge is going to find in your favor anyway?

Do you have a problem with adressing the things I actually wrote here?
When did anyone say anything about knowing what the judges will say? Do
you think that music lessons and private school CAN'T be negotiated in a
divorce settlement? If that is your argument tell me why.

> As for private school and
> music lessons, are they more important than the CP having enough money to
> live on? Should Dad live in a hut in order to keep Junior at the same
> lifestyle that existed pre-divorce? An intact family uses income to support
> *one* household. A divorced family uses the exact same income to support
> *two* households. Something is going to have to be cut from the budget to
> manage that. Unfortunately, this obvious fact seems to escape those setting
> CS levels.
>

Jesus this is getting stupid, do you even know what a negotiation is? I
have an intact family and I maintain 3 households, what the fuck does
that have to do with negotiating? Again, are you arguing that extras
above and beyond basic living expenses CAN'T be negotiated? If that is
your argument, make it. Stop adding dimwitted strawmen and red herrings
to every post.

DVD

unread,
May 31, 2008, 8:07:42 PM5/31/08
to
Gini wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Listen you maniac, re-read what I wrote and forget your agenda.
>
> ==
> So much for your capacity to carry on an intelligent conversation...Sheesh
> ==
>
>
>
>

So you have no argument, no comment on of substance at all? Why bother
posting? Did you cut out everything I said that you couldn't debate?

teachrmama

unread,
May 31, 2008, 8:20:57 PM5/31/08
to

"DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
news:4841e3e3$0$5174$4c36...@roadrunner.com...

But you are wrong--that's the point. Things aren't as easy as
"negotiation." We are not talking about a starting point of "bare
necessities." We are talking about a starting point of 20% of Dad's gross
salary for one child--and Mom can ask the judge to continue piano lessons
and private school *on top of that*! She does ^not* have to negotiate with
dad--she can just ask the judge and, chances are, she will get it.


teachrmama

unread,
May 31, 2008, 8:29:05 PM5/31/08
to

"DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
news:4841e74a$0$5106$4c36...@roadrunner.com...

> teachrmama wrote:
>>
>>
>> As nice as it sounds for you to say that things can be "negotiated," it
>> doesn't really work out that way. Shy bother to negotiate if you know
>> that the judge is going to find in your favor anyway?
>
> Do you have a problem with adressing the things I actually wrote here?
> When did anyone say anything about knowing what the judges will say? Do
> you think that music lessons and private school CAN'T be negotiated in a
> divorce settlement? If that is your argument tell me why.

OK, I'll tell you why. There is a formula used to award child support. It
is a percentage of Dad's salary--and it is waaaaaay more than "Bare
necessities." If Mom wants music lessons and private school to continue,
she can ask for that ***on top of the child support award*** and will
probably get that, too.
Where is the negotiation in that? Dad can say "I can't afford that." But
if the judge decides that he can--then he has to pay.


>
> > As for private school and
>> music lessons, are they more important than the CP having enough money to
>> live on? Should Dad live in a hut in order to keep Junior at the same
>> lifestyle that existed pre-divorce? An intact family uses income to
>> support *one* household. A divorced family uses the exact same income to
>> support *two* households. Something is going to have to be cut from the
>> budget to manage that. Unfortunately, this obvious fact seems to escape
>> those setting CS levels.
>
> Jesus this is getting stupid, do you even know what a negotiation is? I
> have an intact family and I maintain 3 households, what the fuck does that
> have to do with negotiating?

Then you must make enough money to do that, and are very arrogant in
deciding that everyone else must be able to do the same thing. I'm pretty
sure your salary is above mnimum wage or blue collar salary. YOU don't
understand that, even when negotiations take place, the judge is under
******NO OBLIGATION*** to accept the negotiations. And, if the custodial
parent decides after agreeing to the negotiations, that she doesn't like the
result, she can merely tell the judge that she does not want to go by the
negotiations after all. She is under ***NO OBLIGATION*** to go with what
she originally agreed to.

Again, are you arguing that extras
> above and beyond basic living expenses CAN'T be negotiated?

Not at all. I'm arguing that, even if the father does not agree, and
negotiations break down, the mother can still get what she wants,
negotiations or not.

If that is
> your argument, make it. Stop adding dimwitted strawmen and red herrings to
> every post.

Huh? Takes one to know one, I guess.


Bob Whiteside

unread,
May 31, 2008, 8:30:10 PM5/31/08
to

"DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
news:4841e53a$0$5108$4c36...@roadrunner.com...

> Bob Whiteside wrote:
>
>>
>> "DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
>> news:48419ccc$0$12900$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>
>>> Phil wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If any parents are forced to spend a percentage of their income on
>>>> their children, ALL parents should be so ordered with the same
>>>> penalties for failing to do so and this should apply to all parents and
>>>> those in an intact family as well as non-custodial parents. (In other
>>>> words, this is a silly idea).
>>>
>>>
>>> Divorce is more of an arbitrated agreement, people can negotiate and
>>> should stick to their negotiated settlement. If that is not possible
>>> they need to renegotiate based on the parent's new situation. Parents in
>>> intact families are also required by law to provide for the basic needs
>>> of their children, I'm not sure that 22 months in jail for failing to do
>>> that would make sense.
>>
>>
>> This process is called "negotiating in the shadow of the court" and it is
>> far from being in the children's best interest.
>>
>
> Lets start with the thing that started this thread, what would be better
> for the dead guy's children? A dead or incarcerated father or a
> renegotiation to establish what the father really could afford?

I would definitely come down on the side of renegotitation to establish what
the father could pay. However, the Bradley Amendment prevents previously
accrued CS from being forgiven. And when a father has had a history of a
certain level of income, the courts impute that income to him and set CS at
an artificially high amount. Judges rarely grant a reduction for future
payments and downward modifications of previous orders are only allowed 4-5%
of the time.

>
>> Why would any divorcing wife negotiate fairly if her attorney has already
>> filled her head with what he/she can get for her?
>>
>
> Sometimes men have lawyers too, sometimes these lawyers tell their stories
> to judges and sometimes judges decide who gets what.

Of course. But if a mother knows she will get custody by default 85% of the
time, and a predetermined amount of her husband's income, why would she
negotiate for something different?

>
>> Even with mandatory mediation a woman can renege on her negotiated
>> agreement after the fact if her attorney tells her she didn't have to
>> give up so much.
>
> She can back out of receiving child support? Good for her. On the other
> hand if she can prove the mediation was unfair then it would be up to her
> to prove it.

It works the other way around. The mothers know the predetermined amount of
the basic CS award and they negotiate for add-ons, i.e. things like private
schooling, special needs like music lessons, etc.

Here is reality - Men negotiate to reduce their loses and women negotiate to
increase their wins.

teachrmama

unread,
May 31, 2008, 8:39:10 PM5/31/08
to

"LJ" <lj...@lsouth.net> wrote in message
news:eA80k.84769$%15.3...@bignews7.bellsouth.net...

I think that a lot of the problem is about the amount of the
award--sometimes it is just mindboggling. And when a person gets behind, it
can be very scarey--facing loss of drivers and professional licenses as well
as contempt of court and jail time. It is so easy to say "they should just
pay," as if everyone who falls behind is a deadbeat. Also, nobody wants to
be forced to be only a visitor in their child's life, but that is what our
current system does to so many parents (mostly fathers). Until we can start
looking at everyone involved as individuals, instead of items in a formula,
there are going to continue to be massive unfairnesses. "Provide for on's
child" is such a relative thing. Is giving $$$ for the care of the child
really "providing"? Or is being there to put a bandaid on a skinned knee or
tell a bedtime story providing, too? To me, it is very sad that one parent
gets to be the caretaker, and the other is only $$$. Children need both
parents--not just $$$$.

>
>


DVD

unread,
May 31, 2008, 9:10:51 PM5/31/08
to

17 or 20% is a reasonable child support payment for a guy who isn't on
welfare. When she asks for the extra $1000 a month and the father offers
$0 a month, THAT is the beginning of a negotiation. If the mother asks
for a video game budget the father can refuse and that too can be
negotiated. Apparently you don't understand what negotiation is. In a
divorce the lawyers are just doing the bidding of the negotiators and
the judge (or mediator) makes a decision.

DVD

unread,
May 31, 2008, 9:23:41 PM5/31/08
to
Bob Whiteside wrote:
>>
>> Lets start with the thing that started this thread, what would be
>> better for the dead guy's children? A dead or incarcerated father or a
>> renegotiation to establish what the father really could afford?
>
>
> I would definitely come down on the side of renegotitation to establish
> what the father could pay. However, the Bradley Amendment prevents
> previously accrued CS from being forgiven. And when a father has had a
> history of a certain level of income, the courts impute that income to
> him and set CS at an artificially high amount. Judges rarely grant a
> reduction for future payments and downward modifications of previous
> orders are only allowed 4-5% of the time.
>

Regardless, the wife had to press charges and get her ex locked up, was
that in the children's best interest? She could have worked SOMETHING
out rather than get nothing but a dead ex.

>
>
> Of course. But if a mother knows she will get custody by default 85% of
> the time, and a predetermined amount of her husband's income, why would
> she negotiate for something different?
>

She doesn't need to negotiate for something different, she can ask for a
zillion dollars and the father can offer $10. If the father has no money
she isn't getting the zillion. The point is, rather than work with her
ex she locked him up and he died. This made sure that she would never
get anything for her kids ever again. Do you think she would have done
better if she negotiated with him?

>>
>>> Even with mandatory mediation a woman can renege on her negotiated
>>> agreement after the fact if her attorney tells her she didn't have to
>>> give up so much.
>>
>>
>> She can back out of receiving child support? Good for her. On the
>> other hand if she can prove the mediation was unfair then it would be
>> up to her to prove it.
>
>
> It works the other way around. The mothers know the predetermined
> amount of the basic CS award and they negotiate for add-ons, i.e. things
> like private schooling, special needs like music lessons, etc.
>
> Here is reality - Men negotiate to reduce their loses and women
> negotiate to increase their wins.

Getting a father to pay for his kids doesn't count as a win. Paying
extra for your kid's education is not a loss. Are you saying that no men
care at all about their kids' lives? They just want to make sure they
don't starve to death. That is a miserable way to look at things. I'm
sure that there are a few horrible guys out there who refuse to buy
their kids christmas presents because they already paid their court
ordered stipend but there can't be many.

DVD

unread,
May 31, 2008, 9:37:16 PM5/31/08
to
teachrmama wrote:

> "DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
> news:4841e74a$0$5106$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
>>teachrmama wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>As nice as it sounds for you to say that things can be "negotiated," it
>>>doesn't really work out that way. Shy bother to negotiate if you know
>>>that the judge is going to find in your favor anyway?
>>
>>Do you have a problem with adressing the things I actually wrote here?
>>When did anyone say anything about knowing what the judges will say? Do
>>you think that music lessons and private school CAN'T be negotiated in a
>>divorce settlement? If that is your argument tell me why.
>
>
> OK, I'll tell you why. There is a formula used to award child support. It
> is a percentage of Dad's salary--and it is waaaaaay more than "Bare
> necessities." If Mom wants music lessons and private school to continue,
> she can ask for that ***on top of the child support award*** and will
> probably get that, too.
> Where is the negotiation in that? Dad can say "I can't afford that." But
> if the judge decides that he can--then he has to pay.
>

If the dad can prove he can't afford it, she won't get it. His lawyer
has to negotiate. If it gets to a judge and he decides that the guy can
afford it, he orders it. If he decides the father can't afford it, he
denies it. In most cases the money spent on lawyers by bickering idiots
is a lot more than the amounts they are bickering over. Still, it is
just a negotiation.

>>
>>Jesus this is getting stupid, do you even know what a negotiation is? I
>>have an intact family and I maintain 3 households, what the fuck does that
>>have to do with negotiating?
>
>
> Then you must make enough money to do that, and are very arrogant in
> deciding that everyone else must be able to do the same thing.

I didn't say anyone else can do anything, I merely made a statement that
had nothing to do with the argument to show you how stupid it looks when
you do it.

I'm pretty
> sure your salary is above mnimum wage or blue collar salary. YOU don't
> understand that, even when negotiations take place, the judge is under
> ******NO OBLIGATION*** to accept the negotiations.

Why would he force people to fight more? If an amount is negotiated
there is no need for a judge anyway. No matter what the salary, kids
cost money and both parents need to negotiate to figure out how much
they need and what things are important to the kids (and presumably the
parents) If those things include vacations and private school then they
should be negotiated.

And, if the custodial
> parent decides after agreeing to the negotiations, that she doesn't like the
> result, she can merely tell the judge that she does not want to go by the
> negotiations after all. She is under ***NO OBLIGATION*** to go with what
> she originally agreed to.
>
> Again, are you arguing that extras

And so can the father, they can negotiate everything and fight it out in
court until the kids are 25, uneducated and bitter.

>
>>above and beyond basic living expenses CAN'T be negotiated?
>
>
> Not at all. I'm arguing that, even if the father does not agree, and
> negotiations break down, the mother can still get what she wants,
> negotiations or not.
>

She can get what she proves to the court that the father can afford.
Hence the reason I call it a negotiation. A minimum wage earning father
will not be ordered to pay 10 grand a year for private schools just
because his ex wife asks for it. All of these things are negotiated
between the 2 parents at home or in the court.


Gini

unread,
May 31, 2008, 9:59:07 PM5/31/08
to
"DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
news:4841e833$0$5106$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
===
:). Hardly. Let me explain--When you preface a comment with a statement such
as you did above, it makes anything else you say have zero credibility and
makes you appear totally foolish. Why would anyone waste time even trying to
debate you? My questions were entirely valid. You respond with nonsense and
ask if "I" can't come up with anything of substance? Now, if you would like
to start over by addressing the questions, I may reconsider my decision to
blow you off.


teachrmama

unread,
May 31, 2008, 10:21:18 PM5/31/08
to

"DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
news:4841f700$0$5176$4c36...@roadrunner.com...

Perhaps--but he has every right to say no. Anything above the guideline
amount should be voluntary. If they can work it out by negotiation, fine.
But if he says no, then that no must be accepted, because the guideline
amount is all that is **required**. Why should a lawyer, a judge, or anyone
else be able to say $$xx is all that the law requires, but YOU must pay $$xx
PLUS $$yy??? If the NCP does not want to negotiate, that should be the end
of it.


teachrmama

unread,
May 31, 2008, 10:27:28 PM5/31/08
to

"DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
news:4841fa01$0$5145$4c36...@roadrunner.com...

It is if it forces the man into a life where all he does it work--2 or maybe
3 jobs--to pay the amount he is ordered to pay. This also prevents him from
spending any time with his children. Every person in this equation deserves
a decent life. It is unfair to expect one person to live a life of peverty
in order to give another a life of ease.

Are you saying that no men
> care at all about their kids' lives? They just want to make sure they
> don't starve to death.

I think it is more like "the children are getting an education in public
school--why do they need an expensive private school?" That is a luxury,
and should not be a required part of child support.

That is a miserable way to look at things. I'm
> sure that there are a few horrible guys out there who refuse to buy their
> kids christmas presents because they already paid their court ordered
> stipend but there can't be many.

I'm sure there probably are, but the vast majority of fathers want to be
PART of their children's day-to-day lives--not just walking wallets and
occasional visitors. Close relationship with the children will solve a lot
more of these issues than forced negotiations ever will.


teachrmama

unread,
May 31, 2008, 10:40:42 PM5/31/08
to

"DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
news:4841fd31$0$5103$4c36...@roadrunner.com...

> teachrmama wrote:
>
>> "DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
>> news:4841e74a$0$5106$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>
>>>teachrmama wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>As nice as it sounds for you to say that things can be "negotiated," it
>>>>doesn't really work out that way. Shy bother to negotiate if you know
>>>>that the judge is going to find in your favor anyway?
>>>
>>>Do you have a problem with adressing the things I actually wrote here?
>>>When did anyone say anything about knowing what the judges will say? Do
>>>you think that music lessons and private school CAN'T be negotiated in a
>>>divorce settlement? If that is your argument tell me why.
>>
>>
>> OK, I'll tell you why. There is a formula used to award child support.
>> It is a percentage of Dad's salary--and it is waaaaaay more than "Bare
>> necessities." If Mom wants music lessons and private school to continue,
>> she can ask for that ***on top of the child support award*** and will
>> probably get that, too.
>> Where is the negotiation in that? Dad can say "I can't afford that."
>> But if the judge decides that he can--then he has to pay.
>>
>
> If the dad can prove he can't afford it, she won't get it.

We all wish that were true. Unfortunately it is not. Anyway, would you
like to go to a restaurant and select a $25 steak meal--then be told by the
waitress at the end of the meal that they are charging you $50 because they
think you can afford it. That would be terrible unfair, wouldn't it? Then
why do you feel it is ok for the guidelines to say that a man must pay 20%
of his gross salary for child support--but if the judge decides he can
afford more, he can be forced to pay more. Why is that ok?


His lawyer
> has to negotiate. If it gets to a judge and he decides that the guy can
> afford it, he orders it. If he decides the father can't afford it, he
> denies it. In most cases the money spent on lawyers by bickering idiots is
> a lot more than the amounts they are bickering over. Still, it is just a
> negotiation.

I definitely agree about the lawyers!!

>
>>>
>>>Jesus this is getting stupid, do you even know what a negotiation is? I
>>>have an intact family and I maintain 3 households, what the fuck does
>>>that have to do with negotiating?
>>
>>
>> Then you must make enough money to do that, and are very arrogant in
>> deciding that everyone else must be able to do the same thing.
>
> I didn't say anyone else can do anything, I merely made a statement that
> had nothing to do with the argument to show you how stupid it looks when
> you do it.
>
> I'm pretty
>> sure your salary is above mnimum wage or blue collar salary. YOU don't
>> understand that, even when negotiations take place, the judge is under
>> ******NO OBLIGATION*** to accept the negotiations.
>
> Why would he force people to fight more? If an amount is negotiated there
> is no need for a judge anyway.

This is where you are dead wrong! The judge can set aside whatever
negotiations he chooses to. Negotiations are not binding on the judge. Why
would you think they are?


No matter what the salary, kids
> cost money and both parents need to negotiate to figure out how much they
> need and what things are important to the kids (and presumably the
> parents) If those things include vacations and private school then they
> should be negotiated.

What if mom feels that expensive private schools and vacations are
important, but dad feels that the children will do fine without such
luxuries?

>
> And, if the custodial
>> parent decides after agreeing to the negotiations, that she doesn't like
>> the result, she can merely tell the judge that she does not want to go by
>> the negotiations after all. She is under ***NO OBLIGATION*** to go with
>> what she originally agreed to.
>>
>> Again, are you arguing that extras
>
> And so can the father, they can negotiate everything and fight it out in
> court until the kids are 25, uneducated and bitter.

Not so. And mom knowa it. All she has to do is get it in front of the
judge, and she will win the vast majority of the time. She does not need to
cooperate in negotiations, because she is almost assured to get her way in
court.

>
>>
>>>above and beyond basic living expenses CAN'T be negotiated?
>>
>>
>> Not at all. I'm arguing that, even if the father does not agree, and
>> negotiations break down, the mother can still get what she wants,
>> negotiations or not.
>>
>
> She can get what she proves to the court that the father can afford. Hence
> the reason I call it a negotiation. A minimum wage earning father will not
> be ordered to pay 10 grand a year for private schools just because his ex
> wife asks for it. All of these things are negotiated between the 2 parents
> at home or in the court.

What if the children went to private school during the marriage becaue dad's
salary could afford it, but it is a stretch to expect him to pay for private
school now that he has to pay for his own living accomodations, plus his
share of his children's accomodations with their mother. Is it fair to
expect him to continue paying for private school now that there are 2
households to support? What if he was downsized out of his high-paying job,
and had to take a job for less pay. Is it fair for the judge to impute to
him his previous income, because "you earned it once, so you can earn it
again"? What if mom quits her job to be a "stay at home mom to her kids"
after the divorce. Is it fair to expect dad to support all of them, because
mom chooses not to work? How would handle these things in negotiations?
Can dad force mom to work? Can he force his boss to pay him what the judge
says he is worth? How do negotiations fix any of these problems, if mom
digs in her heels, and the judge backs her up?
>
>


DVD

unread,
Jun 1, 2008, 12:31:26 AM6/1/08
to
Gini wrote:
> "DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
> news:4841e833$0$5106$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
>> Gini wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Listen you maniac, re-read what I wrote and forget your agenda.
>>>
>>>
>>> ==
>>> So much for your capacity to carry on an intelligent
>>> conversation...Sheesh
>>> ==
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So you have no argument, no comment on of substance at all? Why bother
>> posting? Did you cut out everything I said that you couldn't debate?
>
> ===
> :). Hardly. Let me explain--When you preface a comment with a statement
> such as you did above, it makes anything else you say have zero
> credibility and makes you appear totally foolish.

You are a liar, you read my post, realized you had no answer and posted
an empty vapid post because you couldn't respond intelligently. If you
wanted to make me look foolish, you would have proven 1 thing I said to
be wrong, you couldn't so you put your ignorance on display.

> Why would anyone waste
> time even trying to debate you?

Why would you ask me? Are you so stupid that you think I am considering
debating myself (like you are wasting time doing right now)

> My questions were entirely valid. You
> respond with nonsense and ask if "I" can't come up with anything of
> substance?

Why did you cut 90% of my post then? Show me how the rest of my post was
nonsense now that you have gotten through the first line.

> Now, if you would like to start over by addressing the
> questions, I may reconsider my decision to blow you off.
>
>

I addressed the subject of the 1st post and the points brought up to me
by others, you on the other hand cut the entire post and respond like a
vapid nitwit who feels the need to butt into a conversation you don't
seem to understand. Lying that you are blowing me off (in your second
vapid response to me) makes you seem foolish.

DVD

unread,
Jun 1, 2008, 12:49:44 AM6/1/08
to
teachrmama wrote:

17% isn't much, it is probably equal to or less than what the kids would
cost him if he stayed in the marriage. The last person a decent father
thinks about is himself, btw. A decent guy isn't whining about spending
17% of his income on his kids.

>
> I think it is more like "the children are getting an education in public
> school--why do they need an expensive private school?"

Why would the kids need a private school when the father was there? If
they had it before the divorce it must have been important to the father
at one point. What changed? It became unimportant when he divorced?
Again, the wife has every right to ask for the father to pay and if the
father can prove he can't afford it then the judge can reject it. Just
one other thing they can negotiate. If the judge awards the mother
everything she asks for based on the family's financial situation then
the kids benefit and the guy has to suck it up and pay what he owes.


> That is a luxury,
> and should not be a required part of child support.
>
> That is a miserable way to look at things. I'm
>
>>sure that there are a few horrible guys out there who refuse to buy their
>>kids christmas presents because they already paid their court ordered
>>stipend but there can't be many.
>
>
> I'm sure there probably are, but the vast majority of fathers want to be
> PART of their children's day-to-day lives--not just walking wallets and
> occasional visitors. Close relationship with the children will solve a lot
> more of these issues than forced negotiations ever will.
>
>

If they wanted to be part of the kid's lives they can negotiate better
visitation in exchange for private schooling and music lessons. If they
say "The school I've been paying for all these years is just a luxury
now" then they really don't care as much about seeing the kids as they
do about saving a few bucks. I really hope you don't think you are
speaking for the vast majority of fathers, the majority of fathers I
know would give every cent they have to their kids.

DVD

unread,
Jun 1, 2008, 1:07:09 AM6/1/08
to
teachrmama wrote:

You are out of your mind. Raising your own children and a steak dinner?
In your mind these 2 things compare somehow? In most cases the father
knows how much he has and how much his wife can prove. He also knows
what he has been spending on private schools and activities, it is very
likely more than the 17% ordered by the court. The wife asking for those
things to continue (on behalf of her kids) is the only normal thing to do.

What about if a kid gets hit by a car? Should the father not pay the
hospital bill because it is unfair? Are you going to complain that your
kid pulled a bait and switch on you because hospital bills are not in
the settlement?

Then
> why do you feel it is ok for the guidelines to say that a man must pay 20%
> of his gross salary for child support--but if the judge decides he can
> afford more, he can be forced to pay more. Why is that ok?
>

Because it is fair, his kids are entitled to a life similar to the one
they had when he was there. The mother's job is to negotiate for the
kids' best interests. The father's job is to pay until it hurts to make
sure the kids have everything they "need"

>
> His lawyer
>
>>has to negotiate. If it gets to a judge and he decides that the guy can
>>afford it, he orders it. If he decides the father can't afford it, he
>>denies it. In most cases the money spent on lawyers by bickering idiots is
>>a lot more than the amounts they are bickering over. Still, it is just a
>>negotiation.
>
>
> I definitely agree about the lawyers!!
>
>

>>Why would he force people to fight more? If an amount is negotiated there

>>is no need for a judge anyway.
>
>
> This is where you are dead wrong! The judge can set aside whatever
> negotiations he chooses to. Negotiations are not binding on the judge. Why
> would you think they are?
>

If a settlement is negotiated there would be no need for a judge.
Do you know a case where the mother got more than she asked for? I don't
believe it would happen.

>
>
>
> What if mom feels that expensive private schools and vacations are
> important, but dad feels that the children will do fine without such
> luxuries?
>

It depends on what the father felt before the divorce. If the "luxuries"
were necessities while they were married, then they are neccesities now.

>
>
> What if the children went to private school during the marriage becaue dad's
> salary could afford it, but it is a stretch to expect him to pay for private
> school now that he has to pay for his own living accomodations, plus his
> share of his children's accomodations with their mother.

Then he should live more cheaply and negotiate a cheaper private school.

> Is it fair to
> expect him to continue paying for private school now that there are 2
> households to support?

Yes

> What if he was downsized out of his high-paying job,
> and had to take a job for less pay.

This gets back to the original post, the guy who died in jail. In that
case I would side with the father and his wife would be a complete
animal if she tried to force him to pay the original amount.

> again"? What if mom quits her job to be a "stay at home mom to her kids"
> after the divorce. Is it fair to expect dad to support all of them, because
> mom chooses not to work?

The situation during the marriage is how things should be decided. If
the mom worked and contributed then, she should work and contribute now.
Just like if the father paid for private school then, he should pay for
it now.

How would handle these things in negotiations?
> Can dad force mom to work? Can he force his boss to pay him what the judge
> says he is worth? How do negotiations fix any of these problems, if mom
> digs in her heels, and the judge backs her up?
>

Then the judge is probably right, but I doubt you'll see a judge back up
a woman who quits her job just to milk her ex.

teachrmama

unread,
Jun 1, 2008, 1:27:51 AM6/1/08
to

"DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
news:48422a4c$0$7074$4c36...@roadrunner.com...

If it is 17% of what he is actually earing--not imputed income. "You made
that once, so you can do it again." I know a man who worked overtime for
about 6 months because the company he worked for was going through a
transition--when he was taken to court, the judge used his pay during the
overtime period as his base salary, despite the fact that he had affidavits
from his employer and his direct boss stating that he would not be working
overtime any more because the transition was complete, and overtime was no
longer available. 17% of 40 hours per week (or 20 where we live) would not
have been too bad. 20% of 40 hours per week + 15 hours overtime was
crippling. Supporting the children is not the complaint.

>
>>
>> I think it is more like "the children are getting an education in public
>> school--why do they need an expensive private school?"
>
> Why would the kids need a private school when the father was there? If
> they had it before the divorce it must have been important to the father
> at one point. What changed?

The fact that another household now has to be funded, too. No matter how
you slice it, there are expenses that did not exist before--rent, utilities,
and upkeep on a completely separate household. A household, btw. that must
be large enough for the children to spend time there, too, so it can't be
the cheapest bachelor apartment in town.

It became unimportant when he divorced?

No--it became financially impossible to do everything that was done before
the divorce because of the added expense of another household. Why is that
so difficult to understand?

> Again, the wife has every right to ask for the father to pay and if the
> father can prove he can't afford it then the judge can reject it.

Why does the judge have **any** say in it? Why does the judge have to abide
by the guidelines as far as the amount paid **except** if he wants to
**increase** the amount? Why does the **judge** have the power to tell
people what to spend their money on? If a judge came into my intact
household and told me that I was required to spend money on my children for
x, y, or z, I would go ballistic!


Just
> one other thing they can negotiate. If the judge awards the mother
> everything she asks for based on the family's financial situation then the
> kids benefit and the guy has to suck it up and pay what he owes.

But WHY do you think he OWES that? Is the judge omniscient? Is the judge
so GOOD that he has God's blessing in telling people how to spend their
money? And, if judges are THAT wise, why don't they tell ALL of us how to
spend each and every dollar we earn?

BTW, do you think the judges actually check to see if the money is spent on
what it is claimed the money will be spent on? Do you think they have a
right to go back and check? Ifthey find out that the kids are in public
school and mom is using the private school money for vacations and trips to
the salon, do you think the judge has a right to penalize mom?

>
>
>> That is a luxury, and should not be a required part of child support.
>>
>> That is a miserable way to look at things. I'm
>>
>>>sure that there are a few horrible guys out there who refuse to buy their
>>>kids christmas presents because they already paid their court ordered
>>>stipend but there can't be many.
>>
>>
>> I'm sure there probably are, but the vast majority of fathers want to be
>> PART of their children's day-to-day lives--not just walking wallets and
>> occasional visitors. Close relationship with the children will solve a
>> lot more of these issues than forced negotiations ever will.
>
> If they wanted to be part of the kid's lives they can negotiate better
> visitation in exchange for private schooling and music lessons.

Oh--like *pay* to see their kids? Hmmmm.....exactly waht I think parenting
should be, too. Maybe the judges can take all of our children away and let
us pay to see them. The more we want to see them, the more we can pay.
That would wipe out the deficit in our lifetimes, I'm sure.

If they
> say "The school I've been paying for all these years is just a luxury now"
> then they really don't care as much about seeing the kids as they do about
> saving a few bucks.

How about "When we had just one household, we could squeeze out the tuition
for priate school. But now that dad has to pay for a place to live, we can
no longer squeeze out the money for the tuition. Unless you want dad to
live under a bridge."


I really hope you don't think you are
> speaking for the vast majority of fathers, the majority of fathers I know
> would give every cent they have to their kids.

And the majority of fathers I know would die for their kids. But it is
unreasonable to expect them to live in poverty so their kids can live in
luxury. There needs to be a bit more balance there.


teachrmama

unread,
Jun 1, 2008, 1:51:49 AM6/1/08
to

"DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
news:48422e62$0$7067$4c36...@roadrunner.com...

I think YOU are the one who is out of YOUR mind. Where will the money to
support a whole new household come from? Some things will have to be cut in
order to meet these new expenses. WHAT do you think should be cut, if not
the items that are least necessary? Luxuries get cour out first, so that
everyone can have necessities.

>
> What about if a kid gets hit by a car? Should the father not pay the
> hospital bill because it is unfair?

Uh, medical issues are included in child support arrangements. Generally
the father (NCP) provides the insurance, and the parents split all
unreimbursed medical. Just how familiar are you with the child support
system?

Are you going to complain that your
> kid pulled a bait and switch on you because hospital bills are not in the
> settlement?

See above.


>
> Then
>> why do you feel it is ok for the guidelines to say that a man must pay
>> 20% of his gross salary for child support--but if the judge decides he
>> can afford more, he can be forced to pay more. Why is that ok?
>>
>
> Because it is fair, his kids are entitled to a life similar to the one
> they had when he was there.

WHY????? Children are *entitled* to the basics. Food, clothing, shelter,
education--they are NOT entitled to a lifestyle!! If dad lost his job
during the marriage, do you think a judge would be calling him into court,
saying "I don't care if you lost your job. Your children are *entitled* to
the lifestyle you were providing while you were working!!" Of course not!
Everyone would tighten their belts, and the luxuries would be the first to
go. WHY are children of divorce entitled to MORE than children in intact
homes?

The mother's job is to negotiate for the
> kids' best interests. The father's job is to pay until it hurts to make
> sure the kids have everything they "need"

Why is thefather's job not to be a part of his children's lives? Why is a
father's job not to take them to ball games and teach them to change a tire?
Why is the father's job not to read bedtime stories and have pillow fights?
That's what he did before the divorce. Aren't the children entitled to
continue that lifestyle? Or is the only thing they are really entitled to
the things that money can buy? Is that the main value of a father?
$$$$$$$$$$?? How very, very sad!!

>
>>
>> His lawyer
>>>has to negotiate. If it gets to a judge and he decides that the guy can
>>>afford it, he orders it. If he decides the father can't afford it, he
>>>denies it. In most cases the money spent on lawyers by bickering idiots
>>>is a lot more than the amounts they are bickering over. Still, it is just
>>>a negotiation.
>>
>>
>> I definitely agree about the lawyers!!
>>
>>
>
>>>Why would he force people to fight more? If an amount is negotiated there
>>>is no need for a judge anyway.
>>
>>
>> This is where you are dead wrong! The judge can set aside whatever
>> negotiations he chooses to. Negotiations are not binding on the judge.
>> Why would you think they are?
>>
>
> If a settlement is negotiated there would be no need for a judge.
> Do you know a case where the mother got more than she asked for? I don't
> believe it would happen.

Yep. If they decide on an amount below the guideline amounts, because the
children will be spending time with both parents, the judge can say "You
cannot agree to less than guideline amounts. You have no right to deprive
the children of child support." And, yes, I know a couple it happened to.

>
>>
>>
>>
>> What if mom feels that expensive private schools and vacations are
>> important, but dad feels that the children will do fine without such
>> luxuries?
>>
> It depends on what the father felt before the divorce. If the "luxuries"
> were necessities while they were married, then they are neccesities now.

What if the luxuries were luxuries when they were married. Why do they
become necessities now? Have you ever been involved in the child support
system? Or are you going by what you think the system does, without any
real experience with it?

>
>>
>>
>> What if the children went to private school during the marriage becaue
>> dad's salary could afford it, but it is a stretch to expect him to pay
>> for private school now that he has to pay for his own living
>> accomodations, plus his share of his children's accomodations with their
>> mother.
>
> Then he should live more cheaply and negotiate a cheaper private school.

But HE does not get to choose which school, does he? And how can he live
more cheaply if he has to have a home that will accomodate his children when
they visit. You don't think the children should sleep on the couch at dad's
place, do you?

>
>> Is it fair to expect him to continue paying for private school now that
>> there are 2 households to support?
>
> Yes

Please justify this answer. WHY is it fair to expect him to multiply his
salary as Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes?

>
>> What if he was downsized out of his high-paying job, and had to take a
>> job for less pay.
>
> This gets back to the original post, the guy who died in jail. In that
> case I would side with the father and his wife would be a complete animal
> if she tried to force him to pay the original amount.

But judges do that all the time. They tell the man "You made that before,
so you can make that again." And they do NOT grant a downward modification
on the CS order. Arrearages accrue to the point that they become a felony.
Pretty easy to do these days. Do you really think that downward
modifications will automatically be granted with proof of income? You need
to dig a little deeper into the system.

>
>> again"? What if mom quits her job to be a "stay at home mom to her kids"
>> after the divorce. Is it fair to expect dad to support all of them,
>> because mom chooses not to work?
>
> The situation during the marriage is how things should be decided. If the
> mom worked and contributed then, she should work and contribute now. Just
> like if the father paid for private school then, he should pay for it now.

But that does not always work. If they lived paycheck to paycheck to
provide private school, then there will NOT beenough money now that the
expense of another household is added to the same paychecks.

>
> How would handle these things in negotiations?
>> Can dad force mom to work? Can he force his boss to pay him what the
>> judge says he is worth? How do negotiations fix any of these problems,
>> if mom digs in her heels, and the judge backs her up?
>>
>
> Then the judge is probably right, but I doubt you'll see a judge back up a
> woman who quits her job just to milk her ex.

<chuckle> I really do not think you have had a lot of experience with the
system. You should ask some of the people here what there experiences have
been. There are a couple of nutjobs here, but most are loving, caring
parents who have fought to have ongoing relationships with their children,
and have been financially harmed by the very judges that you seem to think
are always fair. Just be open enough to ask for people to share their
experiences with you, and see if you don't learn a bit more about the system
that you really believe is all about the best interests of the children. It
doesn't hurt to ask. BTW, I think you should start with Gini--she is not
the know-nothing you consider her to be.


Gini

unread,
Jun 1, 2008, 2:52:27 AM6/1/08
to
"DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
news:48422603$0$7039$4c36...@roadrunner.com...

> Gini wrote:
>> "DVD" <D...@DVD.COM> wrote in message
>> news:4841e833$0$5106$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>
>>> Gini wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Listen you maniac, re-read what I wrote and forget your agenda.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ==
>>>> So much for your capacity to carry on an intelligent
>>>> conversation...Sheesh
>>>> ==
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you have no argument, no comment on of substance at all? Why bother
>>> posting? Did you cut out everything I said that you couldn't debate?
>>
>> ===
>> :). Hardly. Let me explain--When you preface a comment with a statement
>> such as you did above, it makes anything else you say have zero
>> credibility and makes you appear totally foolish.
>
> You are a liar, you read my post, realized you had no answer and posted an
> empty vapid post because you couldn't respond intelligently. If you wanted
> to make me look foolish, you would have proven 1 thing I said to be wrong,
> you couldn't so you put your ignorance on display.
===
Yeah, you got me.
===

>
>> Why would anyone waste time even trying to debate you?
>
> Why would you ask me? Are you so stupid that you think I am considering
> debating myself (like you are wasting time doing right now)
>
>> My questions were entirely valid. You respond with nonsense and ask if
>> "I" can't come up with anything of substance?
>
> Why did you cut 90% of my post then?
===
It was a waste of bandwidth and cluttered the page.
===

Show me how the rest of my post was
> nonsense now that you have gotten through the first line.
===
You wouldn't get it.
===

>
>> Now, if you would like to start over by addressing the questions, I may
>> reconsider my decision to blow you off.
>>
>>
>
> I addressed the subject of the 1st post and the points brought up to me by
> others, you on the other hand cut the entire post and respond like a vapid
> nitwit who feels the need to butt into a conversation you don't seem to
> understand. Lying that you are blowing me off (in your second vapid
> response to me) makes you seem foolish.
===
Well then, I'll just kick back and enjoy your profound brilliance as spoken
to others.
===


Gini

unread,
Jun 1, 2008, 3:03:29 AM6/1/08
to
"teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote
............

> <chuckle> I really do not think you have had a lot of experience with the
> system. You should ask some of the people here what there experiences
> have been. There are a couple of nutjobs here, but most are loving,
> caring parents who have fought to have ongoing relationships with their
> children, and have been financially harmed by the very judges that you
> seem to think are always fair. Just be open enough to ask for people to
> share their experiences with you, and see if you don't learn a bit more
> about the system that you really believe is all about the best interests
> of the children. It doesn't hurt to ask. BTW, I think you should start
> with Gini--she is not the know-nothing you consider her to be.
==
Maybe not, but I sure don't have your patience when it comes to deal with
some of these idiots. Must be your teacher gene :-)
===
===


Dusty

unread,
Jun 1, 2008, 4:07:44 AM6/1/08