| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 719.1 | | RIPPLE::KENNEDY_KA | Strong and Determined | Tue Jan 14 1992 14:40 | 16 |
| Lenny,
One of the worst laws Washington state has passed is to consider the
new wifes income in figuring child support. It was my understanding
that our governor vetoed this law, but I'm still hearing that this it's
happening. It's been on my to do list to verify this. I completely
disagree with this. The 2nd wife is in no way responsible for the
financial support of the children from the first marriage.
As for getting remarried, who knows? A relationship is *NOT* on my to
do list at the moment and I'm not sure when one will be. It certainly
won't be until after my son is 18 years old, if then. I'm also not
sure I want to be involved with someone who is currently going through
a custody war. That's honest.
Karen
|
| 719.2 | watch out | SMURF::SMURF::BINDER | Magister dixit | Tue Jan 14 1992 14:45 | 6 |
| Lenny,
There are only a very few states that still recognize common-law
marriages. I don't believe Massachusetts is among them.
-dick
|
| 719.3 | Another fine example of legal stupidity | TROOA::AKERMANIS | ԥ� | Tue Jan 14 1992 18:08 | 26 |
| This kind of crappie just ticks me off. They will consider your new SO's
financial in the picture when he/she has absolutely no responsibility to
support that child. It does not seem to work the other way, which seems to say
the system is biased beyond all reasonable sanity.
Case in point: When my ex-spousal-unit and I separated, the child support amount
that I paid her was set. Over the next few month we both had new SO's we lived
with.
Ex-spousal-unit and I end up in court over child-support and judge wants my
financial statement and my SO's financial statement. On the other hand, judge
only wants the ex-spousal-unit financial statement and not her SO's.
If it good for one, it must be good for the other in my books. In reality, the
new SO's at both ends have no obligation what so ever for the child-support in
my book. Unfortunately, the system does not see it this way and again the NCP is
picked clean for more coin.
Also consider that now the NCP has been cleaned of more coin and new SO leaves
NCP over the whole issue (I personally do not blame the SO for doing so). NCP is
still left with paying revised amount and no hope and hell chance of getting it
reduced down to where it was.
Increasing the amount upwards at any time is another story and never as hard.
John
|
| 719.5 | | FSDB00::FEINSMITH | Politically Incorrect And Proud Of It | Wed Jan 15 1992 17:06 | 5 |
| The gov't's only concern seems to be that they can avoid having to have
it cost them anything. The courts seem to only view the NCP as an open
checkbook that they can pick clean at their whim.
Eric
|
| 719.6 | question | SIOG::LAWLOR | | Thu Jan 16 1992 11:45 | 1 |
| Excuse my ignorance but what is an "SO".....new to this
|
| 719.7 | | RIPPLE::KENNEDY_KA | pffffffftttt | Thu Jan 16 1992 12:01 | 1 |
| SO = significant other
|