T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
21.1 | Fair? Hardly. | CSC32::T_PARMELEE | | Tue Mar 13 1990 15:21 | 15 |
| I myself think they are unfair. I have a little different situation.
A year before my divorce I adopted my ex-wifes son (my mistake). We
had a baby right before this and I thought our marriage was fine, how
wrong I was. Anyway, I have custody of the baby who just turned 3
years old. I have to pay child support to my ex for my son. I don't
think it's fair because I too have a child to support who probably
costs me more because I have to pay for daycare.
The only thing that makes paying it easier is that when my son leaves
home, he's 11 years old, I will be able to collect child support from
my ex for my daughter. By the way, my wages were garnished to pay for
the support.
Tom_who_thinks_our_judicial_system_stinks
|
21.2 | Ohio seems consistent | DYO780::EERENBERG | Thanks for the NEW start. | Wed Mar 14 1990 10:44 | 19 |
| Hmmm... Once I got over the "sticker shock" (I have 6 children),
I didn't worry about it anymore. I know the children are taken care
of and that's the main thing. Right now she's not working (much)
and her husband, from what I understand, makes around minimum wage.
So I feel like I'm supporting 8, not 6. That gripes me!
Well, she's in nursing school and when she graduates, my support
payment (theoretically) goes down. Ohio has a pre-defined schedule
of income==>support payments. My payments will change when she
starts work (I hope).
Oh ya. The reason I haven't complained bitterly about the support
payment is because it was predetermined. Neither of us negoiated.
Both lawyers just cranked through a formula and presto! The answer
is "65% of your take home pay!" Fair? Can't say it is. Consistent?
Yes.
Do other states have a "schedule"? Is it used? Does it work?
How are support payments determined if a schedule isn't used?
|
21.3 | need acounting | CSC32::HADDOCK | All Irk and No Pay | Thu Mar 15 1990 10:53 | 8 |
| One thing that definitely needs to be done is some sort of
acountability for the payments to make sure that the child
is the one benefiting from the $$. My ex sat on the witness
stand and admitted that her boyfriend was living off of the
afdc and child support and the court would/could do nothing
about it.
fred();
|
21.4 | | 42139::NASHD | Whatever happened to Capt. Beaky? | Thu Mar 15 1990 11:03 | 10 |
| I don't mind paying the child maintenance. I object to the amount
because my ex received �37,000 in 1988 from the sale of the house.
They all live with my ex-in-laws, receive �300 per month from me
and whatever the child allowance is over here for 2 children. My
ex also works. The house they live in is paid for.
Dave
PS: I received �15,000 and �5,000 (just over actually) worth of
domestic bills.
|
21.5 | I believe in it wholeheartedly | CSC32::K_JACKSON | Better living through alchemy! | Fri Mar 16 1990 09:13 | 26 |
|
I believe in supporting my children because they ARE my children. However,
I feel that my ex should be held accountable for what she does with the
support. I pay $133 a week for my children. I know she buys them clothes
and food, but if they want to go out and have fun she doesn't hardly give
them the money. My oldest babysit's and uses her monies for snacks, movies,
etc. My ex does take them to the movies but my daughters say she uses
the money more on herself.
Last year when I picked them up, I asked them if their mother had given them
any money to spend out here and they said no. Their mother said that if
they were going to be with me, then they could use my money. (This is
after all of the expenses I paid of bringing them out here and sending them
back.)
It's just like two summers ago, my ex was so bitter at me because she tried
to deny me visitation and the judge told her that she had better have the
girls on the plane or else, so she did put them on the plane without ANY
clothes or toiletries. When they got here I went to get their luggage
and they didn't have any. Since they were going to be here for 6 weeks
my wife immediately went and spent $230 on clothes, undergarments,
female toiletries. We only bought 4 outfits apeice for them. My wife
said that they were pretty excited because it had been quite sometime
since they had gone clothes shopping.
Oh well, as they say, what goes around comes around...
|
21.6 | why to people do that? | WHATIF::CROTEAU | jus'say NO to wedlok,Yes to dredlok | Fri Mar 16 1990 09:33 | 33 |
| my 2 cents (from a read only)
You Men got it bad, and there HAS to be something that can be done
to change the laws.
If my oldest daughters father was around, I would only ask him for
what I needed, and what he wanted to give, if he could.
Too many times I have seen friends of mine suffer because they had
the child support taken right out of their checks! That is sick.
One guy I used to see was paying 125 bucks a week for one kid. Well
thats all well and fine, but there is no WAY that kid is running
up 125/week BILLS!
I think the Fathers should pay for school cloths, some medical bills
whatever bills the kids run up in the course of their 18 years.
NOT this "Well, this includes the food and the rent and this and
that" PLEASE! Both of my kids TOGETHER dont cost me that much.
THEN there is the situation that a friend of mine was in. 3 kids
no job, no car. She isnt lazy but she was just a homie kind of mom.
supper was ready when the hubby came home, his clothes were pressed.
That Kind of mom. She was stuck! THAT is a case where I think the
dad should have to pay. NOT the mothers who are already situated,
have jobs and are perfectally capable of paying for their own stuff.
Ya know what I mean?
If ever me and by boyfriend were to split, he wouldnt be payin me
every week. He sould be paying me to Help out, not to support me.
peace
Mar
|
21.7 | title goes here | CSC32::K_JACKSON | Better living through alchemy! | Fri Mar 16 1990 09:36 | 5 |
|
Thanks Mar.. Didn't think to see you here but glad you made it!!!
Kenn
|
21.8 | | WHATIF::CROTEAU | jus'say NO to wedlok,Yes to dredlok | Fri Mar 16 1990 09:40 | 5 |
| Just had to see "the other side of the story"
glad I did!
Mar
|
21.9 | | FSTVAX::BEAN | Attila the Hun was a LIBERAL! | Mon Mar 19 1990 08:22 | 44 |
| Texas courts accept whatever the lawyers agreed on. as long as it was
deemed "equitable" and both parties agreed. they have a statute that
recommends the following:
they compute your NET pay by taking your GROSS (100% of all wages and
salary income and other compensation, including tips, etc.), subtracting
the amount you pay FICA, and FEDERAL WITHOLDING for a single person
claiming ONE dependant. Any union dues, medical insurance costs for
the children (not for oneself) is then subtracted to obtain a NET
FIGURE.
Then, the following scale is figured:
1 child 19% to 23% of NET
2 children 24% to 28% of NET
3 children 30% to 34% of NET
4 children 35% to 39% of NET
5+ children Not less than the total amount for 4 children.
I started out with 4 children on support, aged 10, 12, 17, and 18. So,
I offered my ex the minimum (35%) of my NET and a very fair property
settlement. On the advise of her attourney, she accepted it. Of
course, I also pay all insurance costs, and maintain the supported kids
in my estate (court ordered)...
I "gave" her my share of our seven bedroom house, and the rental
property, as well as four automobiles (the ones the kids were using
were in my name). She "gave up", in return, any rights or claim she
may have to any future retirement benefits, as well as the accrued
value in my IRA and 401K. It was fair...and I don't object.
In fact, like many others, I feel strongly about doing what is right
for the kids. I was required to pay $204.44 per week child support.
As soon as I got a raise, I volunteered to raise the child support by
the same percentage. Lots of folks said that was very generous...but,
I think it is what is "right".
But, what irks me...the ex always has her hand out for MORE! She makes
an excellent income...yet complains that she is always needing this or
that for the kids.
I have a life too!
tony
|
21.10 | getting stressed out for someone elts' cause | WHATIF::CROTEAU | Jus'say NO to wedlok,YES to dredlok | Mon Mar 19 1990 08:42 | 14 |
| Who is there to complain to? Is there NO ONE who one can change
this law?
I was talking to this guy who pays 325$$/week!!! THAT is MORE THAN
I MAKE WORKING!!!
The woman is perfectly capable of working, AT LEAST part time! the
kids are 7 and 8, its not like she has to pay for daycare or anything,
they are in school!
THIS is steep! I knew a guy who used to live out of his car, because
of his friggin child support, I DONT UNDERSTAND!!!
Mar
|
21.11 | You've hit it | CSC32::K_JACKSON | Better living through alchemy! | Mon Mar 19 1990 09:21 | 34 |
|
Mar,
That's what it's all about!! We have been trying for fairness in the
courts for many years. My father fought long and hard in court against
my mother, only to be screwed and tattooed to the wall. I have been
fighting for equality in system for 9 years. I have gone down to court
with other friends to help mentally because they knew they would get it
in the "end".
I have gone to public meetings and asked our wonderful representatives
were they stand, and they mumble, mumble but nothing comes out. So many
people are afraid of trying to change the system because of certain political
groups that have power in Congress. They don't want to do anything about
it until they are in the same situation, and by that time, it's too
late to try and change anything.
The way I feel, and I'm sure it shows in this conference, if a non-custodial
parent follows the law, to the "T", then why do we get raked over the
coals? Why are there so many laws AGAINST the non-custodial parent?
Why is it if we step one inch out of line, then we are held in contempt,
but if the custodial parent refuses us visitation or tries to deny us
vacation when the decree states, "6 weeks of un-interrupted visitation
with the minor children", they are not slapped with contempt?
I am after getting the laws changed to HELP all parties concerned. Sure
my ex is a b!tch and a verbal abuser, but if she was held in contempt
a couple of times, she would probably cool her jets. She is obviously
using the system and "our" children to her benefit, no matter what the
cost is mentally to me or "our" children.
Kenn
|
21.12 | | WHATIF::CROTEAU | Jus'say NO to wedlok,YES to dredlok | Mon Mar 19 1990 09:30 | 13 |
| I have a question for the non-custodial mothers
do YOU have to pay like the men do?
I dont think I know any mothers who dont have custody, so Im curious
as to if the ladies have to pay as much as the men.
EVEN if they do, it is still unconceivable to me why.
I wish there was something that I could do.
Mar_who_doesnt_even_KNOW_why_she_is_so_upset_but_thinks
everyone_should_be_treated_fairly
*8^} peace
|
21.13 | Non-custodial mother speaks... | CLOVE::GODIN | Hangin' loose while the tan lasts | Mon Mar 19 1990 10:45 | 57 |
| re. .12 (Crouteau) - "Do you have to pay like the men do?"
Wellllll, yes and no. I'm a non-custodial mother. I do pay child
support. I've considered entering my "feelings" about that here, but
after reading the situations some of the men are in, my concerns seem a
bit petty. And yet...
My situation is a bit different from that presented in most of the
replies. My divorce was granted nine years ago when the court
situation was a little bit different (at least I never heard of child
support guidelines until recently). Add to that the fact that as a
mother I wasn't seeking custody of my children, a very unusual
situation at the time, and I think the judge was thrown off balance
right from the beginning.
As noted in a previous response, my ex and I went in with an agreement
already worked out that we both felt we could live with. Our agreement
doesn't match any of the guidelines previously mentioned, but it seemed
fair to us at the time.
I really don't want to go public with all the details at this time, but
let me summarize by saying that our decree specifically stipulates we
will "share equally" the cost of child-related necessities -
specifically defined as food, clothing, medical care, and after-school
child care (when it was necessary). Shelter would have been included
except that both of us were maintining residences that provided room for
the children, so we must have considered that a wash. If I had
subsequently moved into a rented room with no facilities for the kids,
I'd guess shelter would have entered into the equation. You will note
that missing from the list are such non-necessities, but important
considerations, as summer camp, art lessons, dance lessons, trips to the
grandparents', hair cuts, college educations, etc. etc. etc.
Also by our decree we are supposed to provide each other with an "annual
accounting" of the money we each have spent for these "necessities,"
and adjust the support payments accordingly - that means upward _or_
downward.
There are other considerations that I'm sure the judge took into
account - I put my ex through college; we used the vested portion of my
retirement money from an early job to make a down payment on the house
my ex and the kids share with my ex's new wife; I was living within
four blocks of their home, and the kids were with me three nights a
week from after school until bed time plus a full day every weekend; I
took nothing (furniture, household goods, etc.) from the family home at
the time of the divorce, except for two chests that clearly belonged to
me; I received no portion of his retirement accounts; he retained the
family car free of any encumberances from me; we each claim one child
as a dependent for tax purposes.
It hasn't worked out quite as neatly in real life as it does on paper,
but that's what we've tried to live by for nine years now. I still
think it sounds more equitable than many of the situations I've seen
described here. I do live in fear of his dragging me back into court
to retroactively fit one of the support guidelines onto our situation.
Karen
|
21.14 | | PEKING::NASHD | Whatever happened to Capt. Beaky? | Tue Mar 20 1990 03:13 | 7 |
| re .12 IMHO, there is nothing petty about these situations.
re. 0
No suggestions Kenn, but I know what you are going through. Good
luck. The record "read" very nicely, thanks.
Dave
|
21.15 | to Karen | FSTTOO::BEAN | Attila the Hun was a LIBERAL! | Tue Mar 20 1990 06:04 | 30 |
| re: .13 (Karen)
thanks for sharing your perspective and experience. we men sometimes
get very vocal/angry with the circumstances we find ourselves in.
i suspect we even (sometimes) try to "out-do" the other guy (who has
the worst experience...who has to pay the most...stuff like that). we
also forget that there are a few WOMEN who are playing the same role we
are.
we also forget that much of the "grief" we pay is the direct result of
some jerk out there NOT living up to his responsibility to his kids,
and jumping ship; his ex has no recourse but the court; legislation
happens as a result (knee jerk mode); and we ALL suffer consequences
brought to us because of this one jerk.
my biggest problem with the divorce was resolving the guilt i felt
because statistics "prove" the woman's/children's standard of living
declines and the man's increases after a divorce...and i felt horrible
that that might happen to my own kids. that'd be a terrible price to
pay for my happiness.
but, having resolved that, and now seeing that it isn't happening,
makes me glad i did what i did.
i don't for a single moment regret or resent paying child support. i
DO resent the ex's constant "gimme" attitude...
Karen...don't stop contributing. thanks for participating.
tony
|
21.16 | *8^} | WHATIF::CROTEAU | Jus'say NO to wedlok,YES to dredlok | Tue Mar 20 1990 06:39 | 13 |
|
Thanks for sharin' that Karen, see, Ya only hear about the guys
side of the story, thats why I asked. Hope I didnt stir anything
up, Im just an over curious kinda person.
I wonder why, just because people get divorced, the non custodial
parent gets screwed so bad. I mean... SOMEONE has to have the kids,
so no matter which way the table turns, someone will end up kidless.
Seems like enough punishment to me, without the unfairness of the
child support payments that I have seen that people have to pay.
eh
Mar.
|
21.17 | | TERZA::ZANE | shadow juggler | Wed Mar 21 1990 13:36 | 23 |
| I pay my ex a lot of money every week. I'm deep into debt and I
occasionally deliver pizzas to make ends meet. I also split all medical
expenses as well as other activities (skiing, extracurricular activities,
etc.) I make payments every week and sometimes I have been late by one
week. I'm in a tough situation financially, but I also feel my kids
should have my financial support. I think we're in a very inequitable
situation right now, because I think my ex makes more money than I do.
He lives ten times better than I do and our divorce was supposed to be
equitable! Some of this was bad luck, some of it was that I had never
managed my money and learned a lot of things the hard way and some of it
is that he took advantage of my naivete when we got divorced.
On the other hand, when my kids spend a week or more with me, I don't
have to pay him during the time I have them.
My ex has never tried to deny me visitation or ask me for more money, so
I guess I'm luckier than most.
And no, my wages have never been garnished, thank goodness.
Terza
|
21.18 | We definitely know the pain | CSC32::K_JACKSON | Better living through alchemy! | Wed Mar 21 1990 15:06 | 55 |
|
Terza,
Glad to see your getting if off your chest. This file has become an
emotional outlet for me in various ways and I'm sure everyone else agrees.
Sorry I haven't been very active today but it's been hell here today plus
I'm trying to get things wrapped up before I take off next week for Chicago.
I'll update where I left off tonight, hopefully.
One of the REAL burdens of being in our position means that we have to
financially suffer. I have almost had to file bankruptcy twice, but I'm
not going to give my ex the satisfaction. To give you an example, if I
want to see my daughters for my six weeks of uninterrupt vacation, I have
to pay for all traveling expenses for them here and back. Now while the
girls are here, my ex is suppose to return 50% of child support that is
garnished out of my check. NEVER HAS HAPPENED!! I have been out here
for eight years and she has never returned any portion of the support.
It states in the divorce decree that I am allowed 50% abatement while the
girls are with me. The other 50% stays with her because "she still has to
maintain a domicile for the children to return to".
I have tried to get her held in contempt of court about this but the damn
lawyers say it's not worth it! Maybe not to them, but it sure is to me!
Well I'm also responsible for ALL extra-ordinary medical and dental bills.
My daughters needed braces so the ex (without any consultation with me)
ran up almost $6000 worth of dental bills for both the girls. She then
had her lawyer send me a nasty gram saying that they wanted it paid plus
her attorney fees, plus they wanted to seek an increase in support.
I told them to go to hell because I did not authorize any of the bills
and by Illinois law, if I don't authorize it then I don't have to pay.
I took HER to court for the second time and the judge ruled in my favor
on the dental bill so she got stuck with it. She was P_SSED bigtime.
However, I lost the abatement, both tax exemptions, and she got her
increase in support. So now, when the girls are out here, I still have
to pay full support to her. What's wrong with this picture??
I know the feeling of being in financial debt and I hope to someday be
out of it, but as long as I can still provide my children, I'll stay in debt.
It makes life real rough for my wife and she has learned to accept it,
but she has stated that she would do the same if she were in my shoes.
My wife's parents are very well off and it hurts them to see her like
this but they know the situation very well and have been very supportive
with their love for me and my daughters. The ex is a lonely person
so I feel pretty happy in that respect that I have alot of friends
and relatives who care....
Best of luck and keep your chin up. It's tough but if I can do it,
so can you!!!!
|
21.19 | A couple of sore points | CSC32::HADDOCK | All Irk and No Pay | Wed Mar 21 1990 15:26 | 10 |
|
1) I get my children for 8 weeks during the summer, sometimes
longer if she is in the mood, which is quite often since while
the children are with me, I STILL have to pay "child" support.
2) When the judge figured the amount of child support I have to
pay, they added in may CURRENT wife's income. Now that's
*really* fair to second wives.
fred();
|
21.20 | | MCIS1::DHAMEL | Is Nothing Sacred? | Thu Mar 22 1990 09:35 | 53 |
|
I also got caught with the dental bill thing. The divorce decree
states that I am responsible for the bills, but that I have to be
consulted first as to need and cost. The discussion I got was about
six months ago, when my ex said something to the effect "The kids
might need some braces later on, you know."
Now my kids are covered in part by my current spouse's dental plan,
and I was under the impression that it covered a lot more than it
actually did. Unfortunately, I did not have them double-covered
under the Digital plan.
The first I knew of any actual work done on my oldest was when I
got a bill from the dentist reading: Initial fee- placement of
retainers- $500 payable upon receipt. I had a go-round with the
receptionist that they had no right to send me any bills for work
done simply because my ex told them to send the bills to a third
party. I was furious (mostly with my ex) and when I apologized
for their being put in a situation that was really between my ex
and I, they softened somewhat. We even discussed having the retainers
removed and all work halted, simply because I couldn't afford it.
I called my ex and told her what I had discussed with the dentist,
and also told her they were to perform no other work until 1) I
could line up some more insurance (Digital open enrolement period)
and 2) the dentist could agree to some weekly payment, based on
what I could afford. I actually got my ex to agree to a whopping
$4.00 a week reduction in support, and believe me, I was shocked
because that woman would chase a rat through hell for a nickel,
especially if it were *my* nickel.
So now every Monday $10.00 goes to the dentist. If there are five
Mondays in a month they get $50.00 that month instead of $40.00.
I don't begrudge my kids having necessary work done. The additional
insurance is in place. Life goes on.
By the way, the dentist's receptionist has called me twice at work
because they didn't see my check by the end of the week. They always
get mailed, I assured her. (I hate to be made to feel like a deadbeat.)
One more call and I'll have to remind her that there are laws about
calling people at their place of employment for collection purposes.
By the way, my present wife has needed some bridge allignment work
since she was a teenager but it was never affordable---You guessed
it---she lived with her divorced father. With insurance only covering
so much, it looks like her own teeth will have to be put on hold
until my kids' teeth are done. God, the things she has to put up
with being married to me...but she's so loving and understanding.
Sorry 'bout the longwindedness,
-Dick
|
21.21 | common law marriage | CSC32::T_PARMELEE | | Thu Mar 22 1990 15:55 | 31 |
| If they can add in your current spouses income with regard to child
support, what if you are living together? I mean if you are living
with someone and have a joint checking account, isn't that considered a
common law marriage?
I'm interested because my ex is living with the man she had an affair
with (a whole other story) and has been since our divorce 2 years ago.
If a common law marriage is supported by the courts then when we
refigure the child support, I will ask the court to add his income into
hers when figuring the amount of child support I have to pay her. She
is currently living in Syracuse, New York.
Just so you don't think I'm a jerk and just trying to get out of paying
child support here's a little of my story.
We were divorced because my ex was having an affair. We have 2
children, son age 10 by her previous marriage (I adopted him) and
daughter age 3. My ex has physical custody of our son and I have
physical custody of our daughter.
I don't think it's fair that I pay any child support since I too have a
child to support and have to pay for childcare. I even have to pay to
send my daughter to New York to visit her mother. I hate sending her
any money and have grown appart from my son because of this. We have
to sacrafice alot so that they can live well. I only have one income,
I'm not married, and have to support 2 households. It sucks!!!
Tom
|
21.22 | On the winning side for a change. | SLUGER::KERSCH | | Thu Mar 22 1990 19:51 | 17 |
|
For the past 6 months my ex has been pulling me into court
for more support. She also tried to have my presant wifes salary
included when figuring the support. The judge told her out right
the my wife had nothing to do with bring the children into this
world and she had no legal right to ask her in effect to pay
childsupport. As far as the increase that too was denied, never
thought I would be glad we had a wage freeze this past summer. He
ruled that I was on the loosing side of inflation and that at this
time he could not grant an increase. She filed a motion to reconsider
after that and that was denied.
JK
P.S. Once in awhile the coin flips, even if it's not to often.
|
21.23 | It continues to work | CSC32::K_JACKSON | Better living through alchemy! | Thu Mar 22 1990 21:48 | 7 |
|
He would definitely get my vote because he looked at the situation of
both parties, and made a sound judgement.
Congrats!!!!
|
21.24 | A small reduction.... | MTADMS::RENDA | HAPPINESS IS A WAGGING TAIL | Fri Mar 23 1990 08:18 | 9 |
| .21
Tom,
My sister in laws child support award "was" reduced slightly in
Massachusetts because she has a live in.... Don't know if it
happens in all cases but, in this case it did.
Kim
|
21.25 | Good for you! | MTADMS::RENDA | HAPPINESS IS A WAGGING TAIL | Fri Mar 23 1990 08:19 | 6 |
| .22
Yeah!!!!! Good new is so great to read.... Congrats!!!
|
21.26 | | WHATIF::CROTEAU | Jus'say NO to wedlok,YES to dredlok | Fri Mar 23 1990 09:03 | 16 |
| .22 congrats! *8^)
heh heh (kinda makes ya wanna stick out your tongue and razberrie
her dont it?)
re: common law
The person who asked about common law marriages, Me and my ole man
have been together for 3 years, Its not a common law marriage until
the 7th year, and that has nothing to do with the children, say
my kids werent his, the kids' father would STILL have to pay support
until my husband adopted them.
get it?
Mar
|
21.27 | | FSTTOO::BEAN | Attila the Hun was a LIBERAL! | Fri Mar 23 1990 09:41 | 10 |
| re: common law marriages
in Texas, you don't even have to be LIVING together to be legally
considered common law married. all you have to do is "represent
yourself as married" and you ARE!
so, guys down there who sign the motel registry as "mr. and mrs." are
really sticking it out!
tony
|
21.28 | sorry, I couldn't pass it up! | CASDEV::SALOIS | One regret you'll never forget | Fri Mar 23 1990 10:27 | 7 |
|
"so, guys down there who sign the motel registry as "mr. and mrs." are
really sticking it out!"
... no pun intended, right?!?!
|
21.29 | Two more years, two .. | HBO::CALCAGNI | A.F.F.A | Fri Mar 23 1990 10:55 | 30 |
|
Stay out of Worcester County!
My Ex wife is one of the....!!
Every other year she brings me back to court for increased support.
She drives a new Trans Am.
Remarried and both make more than me.
She just built a 600k house.. all custom with three chandliers in the
Formal Dining room and so on.. I have a complete discription of the
house and options which I presented to the judge.
Her Grandmother, Aunt and Mother are all healthy wealthy.
So she took off her Diamonds and mink, left the 3 poodles and Macaw at
home and wore rags to court..
She actually kicked her husband out of the new house and filed for
divorce..
Well she got what she wanted, hubby and her made up and the kids can
even get lunch money from her.. she needed a new Cam Recorder!
This is just the tip of the iceburg..
Cal.
|
21.30 | Support Guidlines! | GIAMEM::HOVEY | | Tue Mar 27 1990 14:31 | 18 |
|
OK, after reading this entry I'm in a panic mode. Here's the
reason. I'm going to Court on April 6th for my divorce. My ex makes
27k a year and I make 45k. I have two daughters age 14 and 17.
Based on the new support laws what can I be expected to pay weekly.
I just read an article in the Sunday Globe, they inserted the new
guidelines and included the formula about subtracted 15k right off the
custodial parents income, then adding both gross incomes come up
with a number from which the payments are calculated.
This is an amicable divorce. My ex has agreed to an amount and has
signed the divorce papers. Question, Does the Judge rule by the
guidlelines at all times even if the ex has already agreed to a
specified amount. Currently she is left with 200.00 per week after
expenses and I'm left with 68.00. After reading all these articles I
feel like I could even be in a deeper hole.
thanks for any input!
|
21.31 | Based on my experience... | USEM::MCQUEENEY | Vast skill, half vast job. | Tue Mar 27 1990 15:02 | 34 |
|
The way it works is, your wife is allowed to make up to $15K
per year without even having that considered by the court. With
two children, your wife is entitled to up to 30% of your Gross for
child support, which at your salary range works out to something
a little less than half your takehome pay. In addition, the court
may order you to maintain any health and dental insurance you may
have in force, or may require that you get some if none is in force.
On top of that, you may be required to make up the difference for
anything that insurance doesn't cover, although some judges will
allow you and your wife to split these costs down the middle.
Since your wife makes more than the allowed $15K annually,
you may actually get a break on your support payments, but don't
count on it.
The judge is basically there to read over your agreement, and
decide whether or not it is fair and reasonable to the custodial
parent, usually the woman. If he feels your agreement is in fact
fair and reasonable, you're all set. If not, he can go to the
guidelines and enforce them instead.
These are all based on my own divorce and what I learned, and
should not be accepted as the letter of the law. Basically, though,
it is my firm belief that I could have come out better without an
attorney. In many cases the attorneys for the "battling" couple
just shake hands and go with the guidelines, and railroad the clients
into accepting it as quickly and painlessly as possible, so they
can get the most bucks for the least work.
I wish you a lot of luck!
McQ
|
21.32 | | SIVA::MACDONALD | | Tue Apr 17 1990 09:19 | 41 |
|
Re: .31
> The judge is basically there to read over your agreement,
> and decide whether or not it is fair and reasonable to the
> custodial parent, usually the woman. If he feels your agreement
> is in fact fair and reasonable, you're all set. If not, he can
> go to the guidelines and enforce them instead.
This is basically how it was explained to me as well, but I developed a
bit some insight of my own. The court's PRIMARY interest is NOT
fairness. I am not saying they are not interested in fairness, but it
is not the top priority. The top priority, imo, is to find the
resolution with the smallest possible chance of one party or the other
reneging on the deal. In other words the judge wants to ensure that the
state does not end up holding the financial bag and that s/he isn't
likely to see your faces in front of the court again.
If this perception is true, and I believe it is, then it can work
toward an equitable agreement for all. I pay $237 a week to my ex.
New Hampshire has "the formula" also. It works out to about a third
of my net. I also must keep medical insurance in force, pick up any
non-covered medical expenses, and 75% of non-covered orthodontic,
and on and on and on. I have been separated since September of 1985
and actually divorced since January 29th of this year. Before the
divorce I VOLUNTARILY paid an amount in excess of what a court would
have forced me to. I made it perfectly clear to my attorney who made
it clear to my ex's attorney that I would continue to pay any amount
mandated by state law etc. i.e. "the formula" and any other amounts
that we mutually negotiate. In other words if it's fair, or close to
that, I'll do it without a squabble, but if you try to screw me I will
fight to the last breath INCLUDING being willing to go to jail and let
the state worry about it all. Things got real easy to work out after
that was made clear. It's too bad that sometimes you have to be this
way, but the State does NOT want to chase you to the other coast or put
you up in "state accomodations" especially if you have a track record
of being reasonable and making good on your promises.
Steve
|
21.33 | way high, way unfair | RAVEN1::WITTMANN | | Tue Aug 07 1990 10:55 | 38 |
| HI, My name is Karl Wittmann, living in Greenville S.C.. I have been
separated for 10 months, have 2 children Adam 5 and Karli 7, I am the
Non Cust Parent. The amount of child support I pay is $965 per month,
which just floors me. I Also have the kids 2 times per week and every
other weekend. I love these kids dearly, however, the amount of child
support in addition to maintaining the marital debts is rather insane.
I also maintain the childrens dental and medical insurance, the life
insurance and pay the lions share of medical and dental (beyound
what the insurance covers).
The financial burdens are just that,,burdens which get worse each
month. My wife started seeing another man which was the straw which
broke the camels back. My main complaint is the lenght of time it takes
to get devorced in S.C. I chose not to go the adultry rout due to
what I consider mental instability on my wifes part. (Probably screwed
up there).
She lives in "our" old home and has not changed her life style (other
than going back to work as a R.N.) and has not accepted responsibility
for any of our joint outstanding debts. Since most all debts are in
my name, and don't want to loose my credit rating I have been trying
to pay the Child support (priority 1) along with all the rest.
I don't feel the system is the least bit fair. A marrage is a 50/50 set
up, the children are not 70% mine and 30% hers. Breaking the financials
down in relationship to income is absurd.
Here we have 2 professionals. One who has been working for 11 years to
get to this income level, the other has not, however had the opertunity
to be employed during that same 11 year time frame and build to a
very good financial point. I get taken to the cleaners because I
dedicated myself to building a good paying career. How about that?
P.S. Does anyone know the price of stock in the KY Jelly Company?
I
|
21.34 | it's a tough and long road | CSC32::K_JACKSON | Hedonist for hire-no job to easy | Tue Aug 07 1990 13:11 | 27 |
|
Karl,
Welcome to the NCPI notes conference. The situation that you are
in will be extremely emotional and a financial strain on your life.
This conference should be able to help guide you through some of your
roughest days and hopefully it will help you keep your sanity and
assist in guiding you on some of the toughest decisions you will have
to make.
As you can see, the judicial system is very unfair on how child support
should mandated. The laws in each state are very different in how
child support is determined. Hopefully you will find this conference
enlightening and that working with the system is better than fighting
it.
This conference as you can see from previous replies, has helped to
"just cope" with the situation. One thing to keep in mind and it's
mentioned over and over in here, and that is the children's rights are
the most important thing.
Feel free to let it go in this conference. After all, this is what it
is all about.
Kenn
|
21.35 | a suggestion | CSC32::HADDOCK | All Irk and No Pay | Tue Aug 07 1990 14:02 | 17 |
| re .33
You're in the age old trap that *many* men get into: Try to be a
nice guy and give her a break and--WHAM!!, and after the decree
is final, it can be tough getting it changed.
I would suggest that you go to your local public or college library
and ask for the reference section. Ask for help in locating the
Legal section and locate the laws on divorce for your state. Any
local public library that I have seen has a set of state statutes.
It's tough reading at first. Keep your dictionary handy. It may
be rather tough emotionally to get yourself to do this, but it's a
cheep way to pass the time (Yeah. I know. Bad joke). There may not
be a lot you can do after-the-fact, but there may be *something*, and
at least you will *know* what you can and can't do.
fred();
|
21.36 | I must be tooo nice! | WLDWST::KAPELLER | | Thu Aug 23 1990 02:56 | 18 |
| first, I am a custodial parent.
second, I can't believe what you all are paying in support! I've been
divorced 5 years, never had a raise in support(it did get lowered)(I'll
introduce myself in the intro file.)I recieve a grand total of........
$35.00 a week and I have to pay all medical, dental ect. plus 1/2 of
the travel costs to fly our daughter home(Indiana)at christmas(2weeks)
spring break(1week)and Summer vacation(all summer)I think I got ripped
off! He makes more money that I do and lives in a house that his father
owns so pays no rent, the cost of living in IN is considerably less
than here,San Jose, CA were I pay $1100 amonth so I can live in a
neighborhood were I don't have to be overly worried about crime and so
my daughter goes to a good school. And can you believe he complains
about paying that much even though he doesn't have to pay when he's got
her! Plus he gets her every other year on his taxes(which I found out
he claims her every year anyway)Well the rest of my frustration will be
vented in the intro. But surely there's some fair ground betwwen what I
get and what you all pay. It's people like him that make it hard for
the rest of you.
|
21.37 | | FSTTOO::BEAN | Attila the Hun was a LIBERAL! | Fri Aug 24 1990 23:14 | 3 |
| I think it's time for you to visit a GOOD lawyer!
tony
|
21.38 | Present guide lines are unfair | SMC006::LASLOCKY | | Tue Oct 09 1990 07:53 | 20 |
| I believe that I have the responsibility of paying for a fair share of
my kids support. The key words here are "fair share". My ex is a
registerd nurse who works part time so she only earns a little over
15K......on paper. She also works under the table for her boyfriend
at a rate of another 10 to 15K. Now add the 12K per year that I give
her in child suppoert and you've got a pretty good life style going for
you. I don't know about anyone else, but It almost killed me when they
set the support payments up. As someone said in an earlier note, 30%
of the gross income works out to almost 50% of the net. living on half
of your income is a reel problem. Especially when your also paying
the debts incurred during the marrage too. I understand that I need to
support my kids, but 50% of my take home is a little on the "steep"
side.
I have been divorced for 4 years and have found a wonderful woman who I
love very much and would love to marry. The problem here is that the
minute we said "I do" my ex would have us back in court to attach part
of her pay too. I can't afford to take a risk that she would win an
action based on this, nver mind the lawyers fees on top of everything
else.
|
21.39 | Just how far is one willing to be pushed? | SQM::MACDONALD | | Tue Oct 09 1990 13:35 | 18 |
|
Re: .38
> The problem here is that the minute we said "I do" my ex
> would have us back in court to attach part of her pay too.
Is there anyone who reads this file that has had first hand
experience with a court that has tried to do this? If so,
what happened?
I can't conceive of going along with something this outrageous.
There aren't many things that I would find worth defying the court,
but this would definitely be one of them.
Steve
|
21.40 | | AIMHI::RAUH | Home of The Cruel Spa | Tue Oct 09 1990 15:54 | 4 |
| If there is something illegal going on, there is the IRS here. And that
always makes life intesting when someone is working under the table has
to show up to find out where all this extra money comes from. Call your
local IRS and get info. It is a criminal offence.
|
21.41 | Justice?? no Just us. | BENONI::JIMC | illegitimi non insectus | Wed Dec 26 1990 09:05 | 26 |
| I agree with the genera attitude stated by many here, that support is
for the welfare of the children. I have always been proud of the fact
that I paid what and when I should. I know that she does not use it
for the kids completely, but the girls know that to so she really ends
up hurting her own relationship with the children.
My main effort is to make sure that my children know that I am part of
their lives and care for them (easier said than done considering the
obstructions their mother has tried to raise at times).
My present wife resents the loss of income but it would never occur to
me to try to do otherwise.
The situation is that I pay for airfare so they can visit me and full
support while they are here.
Now comes the BS part of the deal. She threw our 15 year old daughter
out of the house at the end of November and I helped this child find a
temporary situation until the Christmas break so she could tie up some
loose ends at school. I CONTINUED (had to) to pay full support as well
as spending several hundred for the temporary arrangements. Unless I
can get some kind of consent decree really soon (and my lawyers have
been working on it) I will have to pay in January also.
(AAAAAArrrRgggHHHH!!!!!!!) I still cannot understand how any parent
can use/abuse the children in the battles with the ex. It flabbergasts
me!
|
21.42 | How it's done in Co. | CSC32::HADDOCK | All Irk and No Pay | Wed Dec 26 1990 10:19 | 8 |
|
I have seen reference to a Colorado Supreem Court decision that says
"the child must be living with the parent in order for the parent to
collect child support". Don't know what it's like where you live
though.
fred();
|
21.43 | | BIGRED::GALE | Bring them home | Sun Feb 10 1991 15:30 | 29 |
| I'm wondering about the possibility of having the child support payments
raised. First of all, I'm the full custodial parent. He has unlimited
visitation, and when we were in the same state hardly ever saw them, and
since I have moved to Texas, he has not seen them at all, nor asked, or
attempted to (although he is saying he will see them in December of
this year, which will make it 18 months since he has last seen them).
I have 3 (now) teenaged girls, and am receiving $600 every two weeks
by garnished wages directly from his company. I was divorced in Mass,
and all I asked for at the time was that amount (that is what I figured
I needed to just make ends meet in extra housing/utilities cost).
Now that the girls are teenagers, they are eating more than ever, and
their clothing costs, medical costs, etc are building.
I am considering leaving my current job situation due to medical
problems, and will be making extremely less than what I do now, if I do
that.
Do I have a right to go to court and ask for more child support? I
have no idea what my ex makes (He is an assistant terminal manager
with Roadway trucking), and even if I asked, I doubt he would tell me.
I know he seems to have a lot of money for concerts, running back and
forth between Mass and New York, etc, but I don't know his finances at
all.
What would it take? How you ever been though your EX asking for more?
What happened? Am I being unfair in my thinking?
|
21.44 | not doing too bad already | CSC32::HADDOCK | All Irk and No Pay | Mon Feb 11 1991 10:54 | 12 |
| re .43 Gale
You have a right to go back for change in support payments for change
of circumstance. In Colorado that change would have to manke > 10%
change in support payments. The court *may* take into account whether
the change was voluntary or not. You also have to figure in the
legal expenses, and IMHO $1200/mo already buys a *lot* of twinkies.
Disclaimer:: I am not a lawyer and anything I say in this note or this
file is to be taken as legal advise. Just my experience and openion.
fred();
|
21.45 | It depends | CSC32::K_JACKSON | First Things First! | Mon Feb 11 1991 15:20 | 19 |
|
re: .43
Gale,
You do have the right to go back to court if the needs of the children
have changed and/or increased. I don't know what the laws are in Texas
but I would check it out.
$600 every 2 weeks for 3 children is a hefty sum. Try to remember that
the best interest of the children are what will be looked at. The
court and/or your attorney can/will find out how much your husband
makes and that will be the determining factor, along with your
income.
Take care...
Kenn
|
21.46 | | BIGRED::GALE | Bring them home | Fri Feb 15 1991 14:04 | 4 |
| Correction, that is $600.00 a month, with $300.00 recieved every two
weeks, for a total of $600.00 a month, not $1200.00 a month.
Gale
|