| Title: | Topics Pertaining to Men |
| Notice: | Archived V1 - Current file is QUARK::MENNOTES |
| Moderator: | QUARK::LIONEL |
| Created: | Fri Nov 07 1986 |
| Last Modified: | Tue Jan 26 1993 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 867 |
| Total number of notes: | 32923 |
Anybody familiar with Distant American Dads (D.A.D.) or FAIR? I read an article this weekend about D.A.D. so I called the number and got a recording which I expected. I just want to find out more about them. Same with FAIR, so any info would be appreciated. BTW, I'm assuming that someone out here was divorced in Illinois. If you were, could you send me your experiences with the courts there. I have been divorced for 8 years now and my ex is trying to get more support. Her lawyers reasoning, "The current laws governing child support were not present at the time of our divorce... therefore she is entitled to support under the current laws" B__L__IT!!!
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 293.1 | Fair's telephone # | CIMNET::LUISI | Thu Oct 20 1988 17:48 | 6 | |
F.A.I.R. 800-722-FAIR or 302-697-2373 You'll get a recording asking
for information and they'll send you literature.
If you want to know more about FAIR I'm a member. Send me mail
CIMNET::LUISI
| |||||
| 293.2 | In New Hampshire, it is LEGAL .. but practical ?? | WILKIE::EARLY | Bob_the_Hiker | Mon Oct 31 1988 12:03 | 25 |
RE: .0
I was told by both of my lawyers, that the "settlement" at the time of
divorce was based exclusively on the "current" financial state of the
parties at that time (This was in New Hampshire).
If a divorced PERSONs' (my emphasis) financial state changes (at any
time following the divorce); they CAN file a motion for (presumabley
additional) a change to the stipulation.
Also, the last spouse an individual HAD is legally entitled to a
portion of their (your ?) Social Security Benefit.
Presumabley, if I were to go Bankrupt, and my ex won a zillion dollars,
I could take her to court to collect 'just compensation'. The thinking
behind all this gibberish is (political), that is the states/counties
want to be sure that if someone appears on their welfare roles, and if
they can get someone else to pay the bills .. they'll do it.
I have no knowledge as to how practical such a suit would be, nore any
information on how successfule any have been; but I would guess (by the
current voghue of palimony suits), that one could get favorable reults
under the right circumstances.
| |||||