Conference quokka::non_custodial_parents

    Why did this situation come about?  Because so many non-custodial
    parents (generally fathers) neglected their duties to their children,
    not making court-ordered support payments and essentially "washing
    their hands" of any responsibility.  And they got away with it for a
    long time (we're talking centuries here, folks)!
    
    So the pendulum has swung the other direction now.  Non-custodial
    parents are getting the shaft.  Because that's only fair after all those
    years of things going the other way?  No, because our legislative
    bodies and court officials can't seem to do anything half-way right (a
    little editorial opinion of the author creeps in there).
    
    How did it happen?  Custodial parents (generally mothers) got sick and
    tired of having to provide the total support for offspring that were
    conceived by two (count 'em, two) nominal adults.  So they found
    their voices and their votes and raised h*ll until legislators and
    courts heard them.  (Only coincidently, I'm sure, did the drag that
    welfare payments to mothers of dependent children make on public funds
    enter into any elected official's consideration.)  Viola, non-custodial
    parents were determined to be the appropriate source of support
    payments, and the social machinery ponderously moved in that direction.
    
    Are you saying it's moved too far?  Then I suggest you find your voices
    and your votes and raise h*ll until legislators and courts hear you. 
    But this time let's see if we can't stop the machinery about half-way
    so that we can achieve true "justice for all," including the innocent
    children who are the bystanders and the victims of BOTH extremes.
    
    Karen                                               

     re 45.1
    
     I believe you're correct about present non-custodials paying for the
    sins of previous generations. I am not specifically against child
    support, however it should be equitable and it's patently not fair as
    legislated and court ordered presently. What strikes me is how judges
    and legislators can conscionably hand down decisions that they must know
    are absolutely unjustified. I believe in fairness and equity not 'social
    payback', why is this society always redistributing money and abusing 
    peoples basic rights as punishment for a previous generations' wrongdoings. 
    What 'justice' social or otherwise is served by putting presentday
    non-custodials thru financial and emotional hell because 20 years ago
    they were not properly held accountable? The pendulum theory operates
    constantly in this society, and it always punishes those who are not
    originally responsible. It merely embitters and disillusions another gene-
    ration who then push against the system for thier own agenda. Why are
    social issues responded to by an overweighted correction? I can't answer 
    these questions as yet but I have a deep sense of cyncism with regards to 
    this country's laws which look to overpenalize people and make them suffer 
    or worse yet create a criminal where none existed previously. "Some people 
    break laws and others are broken by them"-anon
     The government(s) and courts are using expediant and vindictive policies
    on this social issue and others and the payback cycle will continue. 
    Many men I know who are socially aware and have been divorced or know
    of others in this situation are passing the word that marriage is pure
    downside risk, this will ultimatly affect society. The laws are being
    designed so that merely representing yourself as married by implication,
    ( i.e. registering in a hotel ) or cohabiting however briefly result in
    legal commonlaw marriage status. This kind of legislation is turning 
    relationships into perilous territory. We truly need massive judicial
    reform for both men and women to be able to enjoy and appreciate each
    other without victimizing one another. 
    
    
                                        Julius
    
    
                                           Julius
       

    I wonder if it's gone too far.  I pay a pretty fair-sized chunk of my
    gross income in child support.  Nearly $200 per week, now.  My ex tells
    me that her income in more than mine...and it's tax free... and I
    believe her.
    
    But, those kids are MY kids, and I have not once regretted paying child
    support.  In fact, if I could do more, I think I'd be inclined to do
    it.  
    
    I agree that the apparent current bias of courts against men is
    undoubtedly a knee-jerk reaction to so many men abandoning their
    responsibility towards their kids, and with a bit of luck, the pendulum
    may swing back to a more normal position.  
    
    What bothers me is the "your guilty of your brother's sins" attitude we
    all face.  I STRONGLY resent being treated as if *I* were guilty of
    neglect and/or other atrocities against my kids...and that is exactly
    how I interpret the judicial system's attitude towards me.  I take it
    very, very personally that they ASSUME I will be a bad-boy unless they
    shackle me with legislation and threats!
    
    It makes me understand, on a very personal basis, what many black people 
    suffered in the days of segregation...being judged for WHAT you are (a
    non-custodial father) rather than WHO you are (a person who loves his
    kids very much).
    
    tony	who_just_might_get_his_dander_up!

    I believe that child support is warranted but that one should not
    be penalized because one has been successful.  I think that most
    of the laws were written to help the legal profession.  If you note
    the bitterness and the contentiousness is primarily brought about
    due to the intervention of attorneys at the time of settlement
    when a divorce is indicated.  Lawyers come up with some of the most
    weird requests for no other reason than to engender hostility and
    create greater conflict.  This results in long drawn out cases in
    court and a continuing pattern of ajudication after the divorce.
    The judges, the social workers, the legislature all have a stake
    in a continuing pattern of turmoil and the engineer child support
    to guarantee a steady stream of business.
    
    As for paying for the sins of the past, that is a bag of worms that
    I will no care to open.  I do think that accountability is needed
    from the person receiving the child support.  In one of the earlier
    notes it was stated that child support was presently designed to
    pay for the sins of the past; Well maybe so, but that does not excuse
    todays non- custodials from their responsibility.  The ____Problem
    as I see it is the laws are written to enforce against those of
    us who are paying and living by the judgements.  There is no
    consideration for the non-custodial parent should the custodial
    parent not fulfill their duty or move beyond the boundary of reasonable
    distance, or sell the house out from under the kids after taking
    the share of the non-custodian for little or no compensation ect.
    If you withhold support payments then it is practically a foregone
    conclusion that your wages are garnished and you are held in contempt
    of court.  Additionally there is a presumption in the laws that
    grant "approval" for anything that the custodial parent choses to
    do without any consideration of the non-custodial parent.

Given the backlogs in the courts, I think the "formula" approach to child
support was supposed to speed things up.  Rather than the couple fighting over
what got counted and how much was "needed" to support the kids, it's just a 
plug-and-crank formula that no one can argue over.  Fair, well, that's a 
different issue.... :-}   

But aren't separate "child support" awards a relatively new concept?  

I thought that it used to be just "alimony", which included money for support of
the child(ren, typically :-).  Now there's separate amounts for "alimony" and 
for "child support".  And in some cases, the alimony amount only has a limited
duration, usually to support the ex until they can support themselves
(especially if they initially had few or no "marketable skills"), whereas 
child support usually continues until the child is 18 or so.  The *intent* was
to distinguish between supporting the ex-spouse and supporting the kids: the
spouse was expected to eventually start contributing something to their own 
support, but the kids continue to be the responsibility of both.  [Note: I'm 
talking intention; please don't flame me about ex's who are living comfortably
on child support payments while the payer is left impoverished]

		Helen

    
    
    	 The note before this said something thats been a sore spot
    for me for years. Talking about support as something that comes
    from BOTH parents. I think that in todays world that everyone
    has a marketable skill. And that there is no reason why a person
    can't contribute to thier's or thier kids welfare in
    some degree. I really think that the courts should monitor where
    this support money is being spent to make sure that the kids are
    recieving the benifets of this money. Examples: A good place to
    live, good meals, cloths, etc. I also think that there should be
    some guidelines about the custodial parent contributing to these
    needs of the child. I don't think that its fare to the kids that
    thier custodial parent can do what ever they please with money
    that is intended for them. 
    
    	JK 
    

Could someone please take the time to lay out the standard calculation for
NH support payments (for 2 children). Which numbers on the pay stub are
used ?

thanks

    re -1.
    
    I recall seeing sometin in Mennotes on this once.  I'll see if I
    can look it up when I get a chance.  If anyone beats me to it, feel
    free.
    
    fred();

   I just went through this in NH.  They had just introduced new support
guidelines.  I only have one child so I am not sure of percent of income
to use for more children.  I will check the forms tonight.  Anyways, it goes
something like this:

1. Calculate the monthly gross income of each parent.

2. Subtract from the responsible parents gross income:
      100% of Daycare expenses
      50% of Medical/Dental Insurance expenses

   There may be more "deductions" but these are the ones that applied to me.
   This will give you "net" income for the purpose of figuring support.

3. Add both parents "net" income together and multiply by .25 (for 1 child).
   This gives you income available for support of the child.

4. Figure out what percent of the total "net" income is produced by each
   parent.

5. Multiply the result of Step # 3 by the percents calculated in
   Step # 4 to determine the amount of support each parent will provide.

   Gary

    This looks like the formula for Mass.  I guess I don't have the one
    for NH.
    
            <<< QUARK::NOTES_DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MENNOTES.NOTE;1 >>>
                         -< Topics Pertaining to Men >-
================================================================================
Note 379.10                   Tapped out AGAIN !!!                      10 of 12
AISVAX::HALVERSON "Rogger Rabbit for President"      59 lines  11-OCT-1989 15:08
                 -< It Its based on a % of your weekly GROSS >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Well it depends on how many children you have but here is the basic
    worksheet:
    
    
    Basic order
    
    1.		a) Non custodial gross weekly income
    		   (less any prior support obligation)     ____________
    
    		b) % of gross/number of children
    		   From chart 111a  FOR 1 child its                 27%
    
		c) Basic order   (a) x (b)		   (A)__________
    
    2. Adjustment for ages of children
    
    		a) Age of oldest child				________
    
    		b) % increase for age  (chart 111b)               _________%
    
    		c) Age add on  (2b) x (a)                   __________

    		d) Adjusted order  (a) + (2c)               (B) _________
    
    3. Custodial parent income adjustment
    
    		a) Custodial parent gross income             _____________
    
    		b) Less $15,000
    
    		c) Less annual day care cost
    
    		d) Custodial adjusted gross                _____________
    
    		e) Non custodial gross Annual		    _____________
    
    		f) Total avail gross (d) + (e)              ____________
    
    		g) Line 3(d)_______   Line 3(f)__________

    		h) 3(d) divideded by 3(f)  _________%
    
    		i) Adj for custodial income (line 3h% ) x (B)   (C)_____

    
    4. Calculation of final order
    
    		a) Adjusted order (b) above			(B)_____
    
    		b) Less adjustment for income (C)		(C)-_____
    
    		c) Less weekley cost of family group
    		   health insurance			          -_____
    
    Weekly support order  (B) - (C) - 4(c)             $___________
    
    See a lawyer for a copy of the guidelines the state uses...
    
    Hope this helps....
    
    **********************************************************
    
    fred();

    
      From the NH Support Worksheet:
    
         25% - 1 child
         33% - 2 children
         40% - 3 children
         45% - 4 or more children

   The following appeared in a local newspaper on April 13, 1990
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Ann Landers,

   Something is wrong with the divorce laws in Massachusetts and probably
in a great many other states as well.

   Something is wrong when a woman tells the judge that her spouse was
"a good husband and an excellent father," admits her own infidelity and
still gets custody of the child, ownership of the house and a generous 
portion of her husbands salary.

   Something is wrong when the adulterous wife makes $1,000 a month more
than the childs father, but the court says she is entitled to nearly 1/3
of his salary.

   Something is wrong when the husband is forced to give up 25% of a $200
a week take-home pay, with no regard for his basic expenses including rent,
food and transportation.  Something is wrong when the "excellent father"
is forced to become nothing more than a visitor in his child's life.

   I'm sure that part of the problem is that divorced fathers aren't as
well organized as divorced women, nor do they have the political clout.
No one is happy about the high divorce rate, and everyone agrees that the
children are the big losers, but exsisting laws make it so easy and so
profitable to women and their lawyers that divorce has become a most 
attractive alterative.  No wonder so many men abandon their responsibilites
and disappear.

   I am, as you probably suspected - A Victim of the System, Worcester, 
Mass. 


   Dear Victim,

      It's a matter of record that the vast majority of women end up
much poorer after divorce, while their ex-husbands standard of living
improves.

      I am printing your letter, because it represents a point of view 
that deserves to be heard.  I must say, however, when a man comes out as
poorly as you did, I'm inclined to suspect that he had an incompetent
lawyer, or the judge was bonkers.

    Damn, beat me to it.
    
    AL

    
    
    Re: lawyers.
    
    My ex and I agreed to do something differently than the court order
    stated.  When she mentioned it to her lawyer, he just about turned
    inside out telling her that we could not do that and that he wanted to
    bring me back to court for contempt.  She was wise enough to see that
    he had $ signs in front of his eyes and told him firmly, "No!"  That
    was the end of that.  My lawyer, also a friend of mine, said basically
    that if me ex and I agreed to do something different then the court
    could not care less.
    
    Re: New Hampshire (I was divorced in New Hampshire just 5 months ago).
    
    New Hampshire has done away with the simple formula.  They now use a
    matrix.  Along the left side of the matrix is a gross income amount.
    Along the top is one child, two children, etc.  You read down to the
    gross amount (yours and your exs combined), read across to the number
    of children in question, and then read down to the amount that should
    be available for support.  For example (these are NOT the actual
    figures!  Just an example too show how it works.  The actual table is
    a full 8.5x11 page)
    
    		1	2	3	4
    	$2000  $300	$400	$500	$600
    	$3000  $800	$900	$1000	$1200
    	$4000  $1000	$1300	$1500	$1700
    
    If you and your ex combined earned gross $3000 a month and had
    2 kids then the amount available for support is $900.  Then they
    figure what percent of the gross is earned by you and what is earned
    by your ex and you each become responsible for that amount.  So to
    finish my example, if your gross is $2000, your ex's gross is $1000
    and your ex has custody then you pay 66% of the $900, or $600, to the
    ex.
    
    The table is developed to take into account federal withholding, FICA,
    etc.  In most cases, it works out to just about the 25% for one, 33%
    for two etc. shown in a former reply, but this way it is very cut and
    dry and easy for the court to apply and THAT as they say is the real
    agenda.
    
    Steve
    

    re:  14
    
    That works out great IF BOTH ARE WORKING.  What about the ex who
    refuses to work, and would rather have "Daddy" support the children
    AND THE EX.  I know of such a person.  I speak from experience.
    She lives in Worcester, Mass., has a 4-year degree in Early Childhood
    Education, and hasn't worked a full 12 months in all of her 42 years
    of life.
    
    By your formula, the ex-husband would have to pay the FULL amount of
    support for the child because the ex-wife refuses to work.  Oh, by
    the way, we're not talking about an "infant child" here - this CHILD
    IS 19 YEARS OLD.  Day care is not required.
    

    
    Re: .15
    
    I don't know what the court does in the situation that you
    described.  My lawyer, however, said that in cases where no
    day care is needed that the courts in NH tend to be 
    unsympathetic to a spouse that doesn't have a job where there
    is no clear evidence of inability to work.
    
    Steve
    

    re .15
    
    The "child" is 19 years old? I thought child support ended when the
    kids turn 18.  ??
    
    Also, from what I know about salaries for people (mostly women) in
    Early Childhood, I wonder if this would put her much above the
    $15,000 "exemption" or whatever that earned amount is called.
    
    Beth

    
    Re: .17
    
    Not necessarily.  Both of my children will won't graduate from
    high school until they are 19.  Also it is assumed that children
    usually go on to school and remain at least partially dependent
    while they are students.  If a parent with custody requests 
    support until the children complete college and the non-custodial
    parent agrees to it then the court will be happy to grant it.
    
    I drew the line at that and said that after high school graduation
    that payment of support or college expenses is between me and 
    the two children not the ex.  She fought it a bit, but I held out
    and I only have to pay until they graduate from high school or
    move out of the house whichever comes first.
    
    Steve
    

    The standardized Child Support Guidelines were enacted under pressuer
    from the feds.  They were the result of a number of studies that showed
    a large increase in the number of mothers and children living at or
    below the poverty level.  That increase seemed to have a direct
    correlation to the advent of "no-fault" divorce laws.  For every really
    egreiously large child support order, there were numerous orders which
    just weren't enough to support the basic needs of the children.  
    
    The problem stemmed from a lack of standards upon which to base support
    orders.  Interestingly, here in Mass. and I imagine in a lot of states,
    there's  a list of something like 19 factors that jusge is to
    consider when determining alimony and has been for a long time.  But,
    the child support was left totally to someone's discretion.
    
    I'm not arguing that the guidelines are the right ones or that they're
    always fair.  I do think there was a need for them.
    
    Not all courts will allow a custodial parent to sit home and not work
    or only be marginally employed forever.  I had one client who's wife
    only worked parttime and the court mediator told her straight out that
    her children were in school and she needed to work more hours and
    contribute more to the support of the family.  I'd like to see more
    courts take this approach.
    
    Here in Massachusetts most judges do care if you agree to a support
    arrangement that is substantially different than the guidline figure.
    You can do it, but, if you want it to stand, you'd better be able to
    justify it.
    
    I think that the real result of the nonpaying parents in the past is
    the tendency of courts to prefer support to be paid through payroll
    deductions (aka wage assignments).  Personally, I recommend to a lot
    of my clients that they voluntarily choose this method of payment. It
    eliminates the support as a reason to fight.
     

    Polly...
    I agree that the courts had to take some action to try to rectify the
    situation you described (many below-poverty level families) resulting
    from non-payment of child support.  
    
    What I'd like to know:
    a.	To what extent did this problem REALLY exist?  
    b.	Are the guidelines (usually some percentage of wage, or computed
    from a table established by legislative action) really considered fair
    and adequate?
    c.	Is there any evidence that the policy of using guidelines is
    resolving the problems they were designed to address?
    d.	In your experience in court, do you generally perceive that the
    court tries to BALANCE responsibilities between parents?
    
    Also, why do you feel wage deduction (really garnishment) of a
    non-custodial parent is best?  
    
    In my case, with as many kids as I was paying for, wouldn't wage
    garnishment be cumbersome?  Wouldn't DEC require a court order to
    change the AMOUNT of child support for the children (as each child grew
    older, for example), and wouldn't that cause ME a lot of problem
    (expense) to employ a lawyer, petition some court, acquire the order
    and THEN pass it on to DEC to effect the change in support deduction?
    
    (nice to see ya in here!)
    
    tony

I don't have any fancy DEC SAVE plan going, but I assume that I'll have some
pension coming someday (I've been here 7 years). Does the Judge give her some
part of that pension, even though nothing gets taken out of my paycheck towards
it ?
 Again, this refers to a standard non-custodial father of two children, mother
employable. In NH.

thanks

    I received my divorce in N>H> and the issue of pensions rights was
    certainly a item for discussion.  Judges tend to expect "ex"s to
    work  and therefore earn their own pensions.  However if the "ex"
    has never been employed and you are stuck with life long alimony
    watch out.  I think you should have your lawyer look at this one.
    I know that any "ex" of a marriage is entitled to receive social
    security under your earnings if the marriage lasted ten years or
    more.  Other pensions rights are up to the
    discretion of the judge like all other assets should you let the
    court set up your dissolution of assets.  "Negotiate" don't leave
    it to the judge.

       RE: .21
       Yes, sort of.   The explanation I got from my lawyer was that
       the court would do one of two things;
           a) Give her half of the "net present value" of my pension
           b) Allow her to file a form with DEC that takes half of the
              current money set aside for my pension and put it in her
              name. DEC would continue to contribute to mine, but not
              hers.

       What the judge did in the final decree was "gave me" my pension
       and gave her a higher percentage of the equity in the house.

       Richard

    I was divorced in Texas...but, I'd be surprized if it were different
    here (or anywhere, since federal statutes apply)....
    
    I "negotiated" the pension issue with my ex:  I was fully vested in
    another computer company that I worked at prior to DEC.  Also fully
    vested in DEC.  The law states that the ex was entitled to 1/2 of *ALL*
    pensions and annuities and retirement programs that I was vested in up
    to the date the divorce was final.  
    
    So, what I did was offer to her my half of our property settlement, a
    fairly large amount (my half of the equity we'd built up in two
    homes...our residence and a rental).  In exchange, I got ALL my IRA and
    SAVE accounts, plus she relenquished ALL RIGHTS to my retirement
    programs...from Burroughs and DEC.  Her lawyer advised her to jump on
    this offer QUICK...since it was a hedge on whether I ever GOT to
    retirement age!  Anyway, it's all in my decree.
    
    Unless you negotiate something, your ex is entitled to 1/2 of
    EVERYTHING that is not separate property.  That includes benefites
    acrued, but not yet received by you.
    
    tony

    ooops... forgot to mention in -1
    
    you will not be able to negotiate Social Security benefits.  She will
    get her due there regardless.  And it will not effect YOUR benefits, so
    it is a moot issue.
    
    tony

    
    In NH, I got my pension free and clear and my ex got a more than 
    50% share of the house equity, BUT that had to be negotiated.  By law
    she has an automatic right to 50% of it unless otherwise determined by
    the court or a mutual agreement.  
    
    Re: Social Security
    
    Re: .25
    > you will not be able to negotiate Social Security benefits.  She will
    > get her due there regardless.  And it will not effect YOUR benefits, so
    > it is a moot issue.
    
    This does not make sense to me.  Why would the Social Security
    pamphlets clearly say that an ex-spouse can claim part of your
    benefits, if it was moot?  Why even bring it up.  To me it says
    that the ex-spouse gets a share of what is coming to YOU.
    
    Also, an ex-spouse is entitled to part of your Social Security benefits
    only if she remains single.  If she remarries, then she loses that
    right.
    
    Steve
    

    My mother was employed for over 30 years by the Social Security Admin.
    The ex-spouse is entitled to wife's benefits ONLY if the marriage
    lasted a minimum of 10 years.  Also, I think the person has to be
    over 62 or 65 - something like that.  As you said, it doesn't affect
    YOUR benefits.
    

    when i went to the SSA to check on this, what i was told is:
    
    a.  IF your you and your ex were married 10 years (or more) she is
    entitled.
    
    b.  You cannot negotiate it
    
    c.  whether she is elegible or not, or whether she receives benefits or
    not (from your SS contributions)...HAS NO IMPACT ON YOUR BENEFITS.
    
    therefore, i say questions are moot.
    
    of course, the person at the SSA might have been wrong........
    
    
    tony

    Hmmm... Ok.  Take a case I heard first hand from an elderly couple
    I know.
    
    His first marriage lasted over 10 years.  He remarried and is still
    married to her (30+ years).  His ex went to SSA and got his present
    wife's SS.  Why doesn't his present wife get any?
    
    The scarey part is that he didn't know about this until his present
    wife's benifits were cut off one day, out of the blue.
    
    Any takers on this?  It makes me nervous if I remarry.
    
    
    			   John

    wow!  it would me, too!!!
    
    i sure hope there are some other "extenuating" circumstances!
    
    tony

    
    Re: .29
    
    How does this square with the information in .28?  It sure sounds
    like a conflict to me?  This is the scenario that I was led to be wary
    of by the SSI information that I have heard.
    
    Steve
    

    I just called the Social Security Administration (800)234-5772 and this
    is what they said.
    
    my ex wife (married to me for more than 10 yrs) has ZERO impact on MY
    SS benefits ***AND*** has ZERO impact on my new wife's SS benefits.
    
    my ex wife, due to the time we were married, IS entitled to benefits
    based on MY contributions...but, whether she receives those benefits or
    not has ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT on MY or my present WIFE's benefits.
    
    so there....
    
    tony  

    
    Re: .32  "so there ..."
    
    Tony, no one is doubting what the Social Security Administration told
    you, but that does not explain the case in .29.
    
    Steve
    

    re.33
    
    .29 sounds suspiciously like *another* SSA screw up.
    
    The real looser in this case may be the first wife.  If SSA overpaid
    her, they will be trying to recover the overpayment, and it may well
    not have been the first wife's fault that she was over paid in the
    first place.
    
    fred();

    guess i shoulda put a "smiley" face...  i was grinning when i wrote "so
    there" a couple back....
    
    tony
    
    8*)

    I am hopeing someone can answer these questions for me.
    I was married for 2 years, Had 2 children, divorced in 86 and
    my x and I came up with a figure for support. I have paid
    this faithfully ever since. My ex has been remarried now for
    about 2 years, has another child by him and another in the 
    basket. Now all of a sudden she wants to take me back to court
    for more money. Am I going to get slapped with 33% of my pay
    every week? How does her being remarried effect this situation?
    Is it my fault she is spitting out kids left and right and can't 
    afford them?
    Any Lawyers or anyone else with some advice out there?
    
    Jerry

Jerry,

In many states the fact that she is married, or has other children, does not
really enter into the equation regarding YOUR children.  What matters is
your income.  Many states have a forumula (x children get y% of your income)
and do not consider other factors.  Some, however, have an interval (for
x children, you pay somewhere between y% and z%), and will use other factors
(your personal situation, your ex's, or the children's) to determine where
in that range you should fit.

Good luck - it's no fun!

Kristen

    Just a point.  --->
    
    My eldest daughter works part time and is a senior in High School.
    Since she has money of her "OWN" her mother makes her pay for her own
    lunches at school or go hungry.  I continue to pay support and her mom
    makes 50K+.  That is just an example of the stupid stuff that has fired
    my anger for lo these many years.

    I being a custodial parent am on the other side of this one.  I am
    being taken to court by my ex and his new wife (who has three children
    of her own & receives support which I realize is a non-issue --
    apparently they're worth more) for reduction of child support.  These
    are two people who own a beautiful house in Bedford, NH, went on a
    cruise in March, wife quit work for the summer while my ex has only
    worked part-time for the past six months, ran their credit cards to the
    max and went out an bought a family van at $460. per month.   They are
    crying poor mouth but could afford to buy my half of the house they
    live in out last year -- and have bills coming in that are more than
    their combined income.  These are two people who on their own reduced
    my child support to half of what the courts awarded in our Permanent
    Divorce stipulation, let their insurance benefits run out (leaving my
    daughter without insurance - thank god for Digital allowing me to add
    her to my dental -- she was already covered by me medically) -- carry
    no life insurance on my daughter -- I take care of that -- changed the
    benefiary on his life insurance to his new wife (when he was told by
    the courts to carry a certain amount for his daughter -- I did this on
    my own) -- My ex only sees his daughter if I agree to half of the
    support otherwise, forget it -- it's too hard on HIM.  Never calls his
    daughter to hear her voice -- never has known any of her daycare
    providers (she's four years old now).  I'm sorry I'm rambling, but
    here I am trying my hardest to provide a decent life for my daughter
    and this man I once loved could care less.  The child support awarded
    by the courts barely covered daycare, nothing more.  I have used my
    entire savings to try to keep my daughter in the daycare she was in for
    2 1/2 years and had to just recently place her elsewhere due to my
    financial situation.  I will be going to court the end of the month
    on the reduction and would like to know if I'm way off base here.  If
    I made more money I would be willing to work with these people,
    however, in working with them in the past, I agreed for the time-being
    to only so much per week until the court date, and they keep yanking me
    around (once again they're two weeks late - new wife called to tell me
    she overdrew their checkbook by $300).  I guess what I'm trying to get
    at is -- I guess it's people like this that the courts are trying to
    watch out for.  I certainly hope I didn't open a can of worms here.
    I can only say that in reading this file, I want to say "hats off" to
    all you non-cutodial parents out there who do care and don't put a
    price tag on their children.  I am just venting I guess and need some
    advice and feedback.
    
    

    
    Re: .39
    
    No, you're not opening a can of worms.  If things are just as
    you describe them then you're right, these are the people that
    the courts are looking out for.  There is no doubt that there
    are NCP who don't live up to their responsibilities to their
    children.
    
    I think some of what you see here, though, is the justifiable
    anger that NCP have who are lumped in with the ones that you
    describe.
    
    Steve
    

    I thank you for your response.  I have since my separation and divorce
    tried to be more than fair when it came to my ex.  Sometimes so much so
    that it may be my daughter who suffers the most because I have tried so
    hard to keep things o.k.  As I've seen with friends (NCP's) and through
    this notesfile how difficult it is financially for the NCP when there
    is child support concerned, I have always tried to be fair with my ex. 
    It seems however, that the more I try the more they push me and I can
    only take so much before I break.  In my mind, I have to keep my
    priorities straight and remember that what I have to do in court the
    end of the month is for my daughter and her benefit as well as her
    future.  When I divorced I had hoped that we could keep things amicable
    as I knew we would never be best friends.  I guess I'm just venting and
    want to say "Why Me".  -- Better still -- "Why my daughter".  She
    didn't ask for this -- once again -- another victim.  My daughter is
    the one who will suffer for this, not me and now matter how many times
    I tell my ex, he only sees it as he's giving ME money.  It's not my
    money to spend or otherwise other than for my daughter's care. 
    Whatever money I didn't use for any particular week, I would invest for
    her so that in the future there would be something for her, no matter
    how little it was.  My ex had the nerve to say "I want proof".  The
    worst case in all of this is honesty doesn't tend to get you anywhere. 
    This all stems from the fact that I was the one who left and he feels I
    (meaning me only) don't deserve a cent.  I'm beating a dead horse here
    I know -- there's no way to make someone like that understand.  I just
    wish they'd go on their happy way and leave my daughter and I alone,
    cause I know down the road that I won't be their financial down fall.
    They will.  I apologize for venting from the other side, just thanks
    for listening.
    

    I know I'm going to get flamed on for this, but I'm somewhat confused
    over what you mean by "fair".
    
    IMHO
    
    You are entitled to child support based on what *HE* makes.  Not
    on what *THEY* make.  If he is indeed (through circumstance) only
    able to work part time then that's that.  If he is deliberatly
    not working to his potential in order to avoid paying support, then
    he should *imho* and probably will be denied a reduction in support.
    The way that the courts go, he will likely be denied reduction
    even if the work reduction is through no fault of his own.
    
    fred( a custodial parent who receives *no* support from his ex );

    re:.42
    
    Fred,
    
    You are so very right as far the child support is concerned.  I am in
    no way interested in what the other side makes, however, it does bother
    me to no end when a statement of earnings is put together for the
    courts and it shows "Children's hot lunches" under his responsibility
    to pay when it's not his child he's supplying the hot lunches for. 
    Isn't that what the other side's child support is for????  I do
    however, get extremely upset by this as the reason for his request for
    reduction is not only that his hours have been cut, but that he "has a
    new family to support".  I agree that he and his wife should work
    together as a family to provide for their family, but isn't his
    daughter his first responsibility?  My x-husband's hours have been
    substantially reduced as of late, however, that changes on a week to
    week basis being a truck-driver.  He is one of those individuals who
    waits for the work to come to him -- he's not very self-motivated to
    find work.  The other reasons for the reduction is the fact that they
    took out a large second mortgage to buy my half of the house out (and
    now can't afford that either).  Once again, they live beyond their
    means.  Prior to his marriage, there was never a problem receiving the
    support.  He knew he had to support his house and his child.  He is now
    married and no longer handles the bills -- as his new wife put it to
    me.  "My kids come first and if there's a difference between putting
    food on the table and paying you -- I'll feed them first".  Guess she
    should never have taken the summer of huh?  (Sorry -- I flamed!).

    I'm going to stick a small $.02 worth in here on the subject of
    "proving that the support money went to the kid" - and how to
    accomplish that.  When I separated from my son's father, one of
    my early actions was to open a separate bank account, with the name
    being [my son's name] Support, me as the signature authority and
    owner of the account.  All support checks went in that account.
    Any bills paid from that account were solely for the benefit of
    my son - things like day care, babysitting, day camp fees, shoes
    and clothing, sports fees, etc.  Any bill that couldn't be tracked
    solely to his benefit, like food and rent, got paid out of my personal
    account - the one my paychecks went into.  For me, it worked well,
    although it might not be the best answer for everyone.
    
    Alison

    Doreen,
    
    If things are indeed the way you explain them in .43.  I wouldn't be
    surprosed if the court sees it the same way.  The court will probably
    not allow "childrens lunches" et.al. to be counted.  The way the courts
    operate, *her* income will likely get counted in anyway ( big :*( on
    the ncp's part ).
    
    fred();

    I do certainly hope they count her income when it comes to their income
    to debt.  When we filled out paperwork for the courts, he filled out
    his paperwork showing every bill, every minimum payment and every debt
    that came out of the household as his.  Of course it's going to look
    to the courts like this guys sinking with a very large hole in his
    boat.  With a family of five (new wife and three children) it's obvious
    he's going to have more debt.  But I thought his wife was responsible
    for half the debt as well as all of the children's debt (meaning her
    children).  All I am looking for is help for my child and
    not have to beg for it, and not look like a bloodthirsty ex-wife, because
    I'm not.  My ex went to court recently on some other issues such as
    visitation, insurance, arrearage, etc.  I agreed to drop contempt
    charges provided he provided me with necessary dental forms (I carry
    her medical), which he promised -- and also stay current on his support
    -- which he promised the courts as well.  Guess what?  Three days later
    his new wife called and said their insurance had been cancelled and I
    was responsible for half my daughter's dental bill.  Thank you very
    much.  On top of that my lawyer sent their lawyer a letter stating they
    were once again in comtempt because they didn't listen to the courts
    and only sent "what they could afford".  Their lawyers response was
    "They're doing the best they can."  That's hard to believe when you
    find out they have $$$ to go to dinner and drinking, but no money for
    food on the table????  I'm sorry, I'm just venting and trying to get
    this all off my chest.  If I'm way off base, just holler, I'll put a
    muzzle on.  Thanks.  I realize this is geared toward the NCP and here I
    am screaming about my daughter's.  At least here I feel I'm getting
    honest feedback from those who have been there and I hope you'll let me
    know if I'm way off base.
    

    
    
    I agree with you on one matter.  If he is presenting ALL the bills
    that come into their house as his expenses then he should also be
    presenting ALL the income that comes into the house as well.
    If he is presenting only the portion of expenses that he is responsible
    for then his income is the only one that should be considered.
    
    Steve
    

    Thanks.  I needed to hear that.  That's exactly how I thought it was,
    but I wanted to be sure.  I also could understand it if he were only
    presenting his portion of the expenses -- but couldn't understand it
    the way he had it written.

    
    Re: .48
    
    Just to caution you a bit.  What I wrote in .47 is just my
    opinion.  I can't say whether a court would see it that way,
    but if concerned me it I'd be sure to suggest that to them.
    
    Steve
    

    .46> But I thought his wife was responsible for half the debt as
    .46> well as all of the children's debt (meaning her children).
       
           A point of interest from someone who just went through the
       "support for step-children" situation.  My divorce was in NH last
       May.  My step-daughter was 3 years old when I married her mother.
       At the time I filed for divorce, my ex's lawyer started talking
       about child support for both my son AND my step-daughter.  My
       lawyer said it was a "possibility" that the judge could make me
       pay it even though my ex's first husband was still paying
       ($30/wk) support.

           By the time of the final hearing (over 18 months later), my
       step-daughter was 18+ and had moved out of the house, so it was a
       mute point.

           I think it is reasonable to assume, that in a two parent
       family, both adults are responsible for all of the children
       living in that household.  If your ex was working and his new
       wife lost her job, you won't expect the children to go hungry,
       right?

           As for what an NCP should pay when times are tough; in the
       traditional two parent family, all you get is the money
       available.  So (IMO) the NCP should pay the CP n% of his income.
       If he loses half of his income, due to reduced hours, she should
       get half of what she got before.  If he gets laid off.  His income
       is zero, and his support should be zero.


       Richard

    
    
    re -1
    
    If a source of support is laid off, why should the child suffer?
    In my situation, my boyfriend was laid off and subsequently unemployed
    for 9 months.  He still was required to pay that same amount of support
    as when  he was working.  He was on umemployment and that money was
    counted as a source of income so he had to pay support.  Now if he
    did not go on unemployment, he would have had to go into court to
    get the support stopped until he found a job.  
    
    In a way this really bothered me that he was still required to pay
    even though he was not working and the amount of unemployment did
    not even cover his cost of support.  But on the other hand, I  did
    not think it was fair to his daughter to just stop sending her mother
    support.  She was afterall still alive,and still in need of the
    support money.  His ex did agree to take less than the amount she was
    supposed to get to try to help him out.  But she used that every time
    she could as an excuse not to let him see his daughter.  She lives
    out of state and he has no vehicle.  So she is supposed to deliver
    the child on the visitaion periods.  Well she claimed she never had
    enough money for gas due to the fact that she was not getting the 
    entire amount of support.
    
    
    The children must be made a first priority in these situations.  
    Luckily, both mother and child lived with her parents, and were
    not dependant on his support for food and shelter.  The child support
    was being used to solely pay for the child's daycare.  Luckily she
    was not forced to move the child to another less costly daycare and
    subsequently upset what little stability the child had at the time.
    
    Michele

    
    Doreen,
    
    After reading your notes, I get the impression that your ex husband
    is a very irresponsible person and his wife is doing all of his dirty
    work for him.   I feel for you and your daughter.  You are correct in
    the fact that she will be the one who suffers for her father's
    ignorance.  It would be nice if they would just go away and leave you
    alone, but your daughter needs his support.  There is going to come
    a time when she is going to be old enough to deal with him on a
    one to one basis.  There are going to be times when she will probably
    want him around.
    
    I think what has happened to you is intolerable.  It appears as though
    he just wants to completely absolve himself of his responsibility.  I
    can understand his thinking that all he is to you is a check. 
    Sometimes we don't get to see John's daughter for a couple of months,
    but each and every week he has to send out the support check.  His 
    feelings at times are that he is paying for something he does not get
    to benifit from as much as he would like to.  
    
    If I were you I would find a new lawyer.  This man should not be
    allowed to get away with much of what you are saying he is.  It doesn't
    make any sense.  But then again, contempt of court is hard to enforce
    on any issue.  I always thought that it was easier to enforce when it
    came to support, but maybe I am wrong.
    
    Hang in there!!  Your daughter is counting on you.
    
    Michele

 
    .51> If a source of support is laid off, why should the child suffer?

       The child suffers, because the parent(s) have very little or no
       money to help them.  No one can be forced to produce something
       out of nothing!

    .51> He still was required to pay that same amount of support as
    .51> when he was working.  He was on unemployment and that money
    .51> was counted as a source of income so he had to pay support.

       IMO, half of this is as it should be.  If he was paying n% of
       his income for support, it sounds reasonable that he would pay
       that same n% of his unemployment check for support.
     
     .51> The children must be made a first priority in these
     .51> situations.

       I agree, but please, first doesn't mean ONLY.

       I can understand the logic of viewing child support like rent. 
       You owe it, whether you are working or not.  However, when you
       are out of work, you can mitigate the financial damage by moving
       to a cheaper place, or living in you car.  It seems truly
       unrealistic to bill an NCP, when you know s/he has no money. 
       And for those NCP's paying 30% - 50% of their net income in
       support, adding 3 - 6 months worth of back payments to the
       marital debt handed to them at the final hearing, is how you
       push the NCP over the financial edge.



       Richard   (who_is_just_trying_to_be_fair_AND_survive)

       PS - Way off the subject, but, I was just thinking.  When I look
	    at the homeless, I see far more adults then children, and
	    far more men then women.  Does this reflect a social and
	    judicial priority system that says, if you have to make a
	    choice, take care of children first, women second, and then
            men?  I wonder how many bankruptcies are culturally induced?

    re:-1 (Richard)
    
    Not to go further down the rathole or anything, but I was wondering
    where you got your information about the majority of homeless being
    men.  I've always heard that it's families (single mothers and their
    children) that make up the largest number of homeless.
    
    - Kathryn
    

    
    Re: last
    
    I think Richard means the homeless that are actually on the street.
    There are shelters etc. for women and their children that have
    a higher priority than do the ones for homeless men.  As it should be.
    
    Steve
    

       Kathryn,
       
       Yes, I meant "end of thier rope", "out in the street" people.

       The PS in .53 was a personal observation from frequent visits to
       the streets of Boston and New York.  I don't know the actual
       statistics.


       Richard

    re 53
    
    The amount of support was not n% of his umemployment check.  It was
    the same amount which was court ordered.  Which left him with a
    grand total of 20 dollars for two weeks to live on.

    .57> The amount of support [...] was the same amount which was court
    .57> ordered.  Which left him with a grand total of 20 dollars for two
    .57> weeks to live on.

       This is exactly the problem I was trying to address.  I
       believe that the court, the lawyers, and even the ex-wife
       understand, that leaving a person with $20, to last two weeks is
       ludicrous.  No one can survive that, without begging from friends
       and relatives or living in the street.

       By allowing it to be difficult for the NCP (man) to go into court
       and get a temporary change in the support order, the system is
       just deciding in advance, who will be the one "out on the limb". 
       I think the process ought to mirror the "traditional family"
       situation, everybody shares the burden by doing with less.
       
       
       Richard

    It seems rather sad that there are no shelters for men. I have met a
    few lately who have/had lived in their cars, tents, and on park benches
    for there were no safty nets for them. They could not get the courts to
    work as fast for them as they do for the women. Its far to easy to put
    men into the streets these days. Go down to the police get a
    restraining order on a trumped up domestic violence charge, file for a
    divorce and move in the new boyfriend. Out with the old in with the
    new. 

    
    -1
    
    ... as someone who spent 3 months living in a '73 Pinto, I can 
    attest to the truth of your remarks....
    
    

    I have a Massachusetts support question.  
    
    When does the support obligation end.  Age 18, out of high school, not
    until the child is independent?  I have heard that in MA a NCP has to
    pay until the child is 24 or out of school which includes college.  If
    this is the case, things just got much much better for me.  
    
    You may have seen some of my notes posted here and in blended families.
    I will post an update as soon as we find out what is really happening.
    Just let me say, that it looks as if greed may be deadlier than I
    thought it would be (how's that for tantalizing 8-)).

    Re. .61 (BENONI::JIMC)
    
    According to my current attorney, it depends on the divorce decree.  
    In the absence of any wording there that stipulates otherwise, 18 is 
    generally seen as the cutoff.
    
    Now, to contradict that, according to my attorney at the time of the
    divorce, Mass. law provides for a parent (custodial or non-custodial)
    to support a child through schooling, including the basic
    undergraduate college years.  Regardless of the wording of the decree,
    she told me, my ex could come back at me "someday" and force me to
    continue paying child support through the undergraduate college years. 
    So far he hasn't (though I am still paying, but to my daughter, not to
    him).
    
    I hope this helps.
    Karen  

re:.59
    
 >> It seems rather sad that there are no shelters for men. I have met a
 >> few lately who have/had lived in their cars, tents, and on park benches
 >> for there were no safty nets for them. They could not get the courts to
 >> work as fast for them as they do for the women. Its far to easy to put
 >> men into the streets these days.
    
    Again, I don't want to go down a rathole, but I do want to point out
    that there *are* shelters for men although not as many as there are
    for families.  The Pine Street Inn in Boston is specifically for men
    to name one, and I know of others in Boston, Worcester, and Lowell
    but their names escape me.  Not all shelters are just for women and
    children.  Many of the shelters are for *entire* families and that
    includes mom, the kids, *and* dad.  Sure, we have a tremendous homeless
    problem and I don't feel that anybody should be out on the streets,
    but when it comes down to a shortage, I think the children should be
    given space in the shelters first.
    
    - Kathryn
     

    
    I recently saw on channel 5 news (thursday 1/31/91) at 6 pm a segment
    on child support concerning the % of delinquent fathers who either
    refuse to pay support or won't pay support, (I guess these are one and
    the same) An interview was conducted with a CP (mother) who said she
    has not recieved support ($200.00/week) from her daughter's father.
    T.V. , radio, and news papers from time to time report these situations
    as if ALL fathers fit this description. I FOR ONE DO NOT.......... I
    NEVER hear or read the other side (probably because the media would be
    surprised to find out) that many CP mothers do not spend the support on
    the children but buy things mostly for themselves with " THEIR" support
    check... I find it out right sickening that my ex has a new car, new
    house, new clothes, new etc etc. and my sons , when I'm not denied
    visitation , has holes in their clothes big enough to stick your head 
    into, that I see a report that "custodial mothers" are having a tough
    go at it.  To survive (yes survive) I have to work 3 jobs and provide
    additional clothing, food and shelter for my sons on top of the out
    ragious support I send the ex.. When will the courts start forcing the
    CP who recieves the support, to show where it goes. I think all will
    see as the courts will also, that it doesn't take 200,300,450, 600/
    week support for 1 , 2 or 3 children.  I also think that it is
    appauling that fathers do renege on their responsibilities but that is
    no reason to report only the " one side ". I have further things to add
    but I'd like to hear some feed back from the rest of you out there.
    
    
    Doug

    Another thing that the media doesn't bother looking at is the number
    of NCP's who just flat CAN'T pay support and are hounded into poverty
    and desperation by the system.  There is a lot of hubub going on
    about the number of blacks in the Persian Gulf right now because of
    the financial opportunities.  I wonder how many of the men that are
    there are there because they joined the military, National Guard, or
    Reserves in order to be able to pay "child support".  I don't have
    any documentation, but I'll bet there is a *large* number.  I went
    to a going away party for my next door neighbor's son Saturday.
    He just joined the Army even this week for just that reason.
    
    I know there are a *lot* of dead-beats out there, but I just wish
    that they'd also give some credit where credit is due.
    fred();

    Doug,
    
    I really feel for you and others like my husband who pay the ex
    outrageous amounts of support each week, never miss a week and
    always pay on time.  My husband's ex drives a brand new $20,000
    car, always goes off to N.Y. for the weekends shopping and never
    seems to have enough money for food.  She's always crying poor-mouth!
    This is definately a case where the dead-beats who don't pay ruin
    it for the rest of you who follow the rules (backwards as some of
    them may be.)  My sister gets $1000 a month for ONE CHILD and is
    always telling her daughter to "ask you daddy to buy it for you".
    I get so steamed when she tells me how "strapped" she is all the
    time.  She, herself, makes $35,000 a year at her own job and if you
    add the yearly $12,000 that her ex pays her, that's a tidy little
    sum there to maintain herself and her 10 year old daughter without
    being broke all the time.  She has very few bills (a lot less than
    my husband and I do), she doesn't have to pay for daycare, her kid
    goes to a public school and certainly doesn't eat much, so where
    is her money going?  I have a feeling she was switched at birth
    because she certainly doesn't behave like other members of my family.
    Maybe she's a long-lost sister to my husband's ex...
    
    I know how you feel, but unfortunately I don't have any answers for
    you.  Perhaps there's a whole lot of dead-beats out there.  Perhaps
    there are only a few and the media is to blame for the bad rap men
    get about this whole issue.  I really don't know, but it sure does
    s*ck.
    
    - Kathryn
    

    
    kathryn,
    
    Thanks for the words. However, I'm not looking for anyone to "feel" for
    me. (thanks anyway- I do appreciate it). BUT, both my sons , age 8 and
    5 are still having problems. I am wotking them but with little help
    from their mother. She wants to put the 8 year old on medication. I say
    NO,NO, NO!! My youngest last nite took out frustrations on me
    physically because the other kids at the daycare laugh at him and make
    fun of him because of the way he's dressed. You don't think that hurts
    me ??? I can tell you it does.................. I have not missed a
    support payment in 3 years, but I have been denied visitation more
    times than we can count (documented) and live with this new boyfriend/
    now husband beating on my sons to the point they cry to me. She does
    nothing about it. I approached her awhile ago and she stated " it was
    none of your business"  !!! 
    
    I have NO problem supporting and being responsible for my sons, NONE at
    all. I am not happy in the way they are forced to live. The ex and I
    still can not communicate and that's the BIG problem...  I love my sons
    very much and have always been there when scheduled, ALWAYS. What is
    disturbing is when she and now her husband interfere with my
    visitation. She makes approx. 30k, him approx 40k, and 12k from me. 
    One would think "OUR" sons could be better dressed than they are. I
    have numerous times bought clothes in addition to support. I have my
    sons 5 out of 7 days, but I have to pay support to her, plus feed them
    those 5 days, clothes them, provide shelter etc etc... I am close to a 
    street person myself, BUT I will never , NEVER, not go get my sons...
    This is a deposit you can take to the bank...................
    
    
    
    Doug 

    Doug,
    
    One thing that I would ask of you, (and every other NCP for that
    matter) is that you write you're Congressmen, Legislators, Governor,
    etc. and *demand* that laws be passed to make the CP accountable 
    for child support.  Most likely won't change *your* particular 
    situation, but most likely also that the situation will not change
    unless some political pressure is brought to bare on those who
    *can* do something about it.  Also it will give you a chance to vent
    your frustrations on someone who *can* do something (that generally
    makes me feel better even if it dosn't change things much :^, ),
    
    fred();

    
    Fred,
    
    I have done the letter writing bit to my reps. I have even met with one
    3 different times of which one time was at and in her own house. She
    has even provided one of her aids to appear in court with me to see
    first hand the " bias" in the court. I have written several letters to
    newspapers and had my letter printed, I have written to T.V. and radio
    in Boston, Mass and had responses. What I can't let go of is the
    constant crap that continues to go on. On that note, I am taking
    measures to reverse some of this burden placed on my sons. My goal is
    to have my sons by june of 1991. At the present, I have significant
    changes in circumstances. In the last 14 weeks my 8 year old has gotten
    11 - 100%, 1 - 90% and 2 - 80% on his spelling tests in school. I have
    been working with him with homework to see to it he is ready for the
    test on fridays. He tells me his mother NEVER helps him, doesn't pay
    any attention to him (or very limited) and for 18 months now he keeps
    telling me he wants to come live with me. I don't pump him, promise
    him things etc. I teach,show, give him attention etc. . I think their
    mother does love them but I think she loves the "big check" more....
    Believe me, no matter hard things are or get , AND THEY DO, I will
    NEVER,EVER give up on my sons. 
    
    I have spoken to women who are in similiar situations so I'm not
    pointing the finger at all women/mothers. I know they have some
    horror stories too and look at the father (in their cases) as real
    dead-beats. But I'm tired of turning around and hearing only the
    story where fathers are the deadbeats. I never hear the stories where
    this mother took off on her kids, or this mother didn't want her kids
    etc. etc. , and yes fred, I know of these cases and in some respects
    know the person/(s) first hand.   
    
    I guess I've said enough... didn't mean to start flaming !!!!
    
    p.s. Both of my sons have been in the hospital. Care to guess how/why
    ???  Accusing her ?????   Nope !!!!  But she had a major part. She
    could have prevented it, this I'm sure of...................
    
    
    doug

    re:  .69
    
    Doug,
    
    I am really pleased to hear of the fathers who want it known how they
    feel about their children and the situations they have been placed
    in due to the court systems.  It is unfortunate that there are those
    fathers (or better, NCP's) who wash their hands of their
    responsibilities as parents and give those NCP's a bad name that they
    don't deserve at all.  You are right that there should be another side
    heard rather than just the CP or mother's side.  This file has given
    me as a CP another side to look at to help me in determining what is
    best for all involved in my particular situation.   Not sure if what
    I am doing is right or going to work, but step by step I am hoping to
    give my daughter the best I can.  It's father's like you and those
    others I have read about in here that give me hope that my ex will
    someday realize that he has someone he should be proud of and who's
    life he should someday play a large part in.  If that does not happen,
    I can only say that with help, encouragement, trying to see both sides,
    and a tremendous amount of support from others our children will get
    through this all o.k.
    
    An eternal optimist at heart

    As a new CP who has been a NCP for years, let me try to offer something
    from both sides.  
    
    It indeed drove me crazy to see the children dressed in rags.  They
    even said that they knew their mother could afford to do better for
    them because even though she clained never to have enough to  by them
    what they thought they needed or wanted, she regularly bought herself
    expensive clothes.  They say she has more clothes than Imelda Marcos.
    
    NOW, my youngest daughter lives with me.  Her mother is fighting the
    support issue (thinks it should be $0.00).  When I do get support, I
    will use it for my daughter.  What does that mean?  Within the best of
    my abilities, I will provide her with food, shelter, clothing, AND a
    decent life.  I do not really want to have to be accountable for how I
    spend every cent of that money.  Her care and upkeep will definitely
    cost me more than the suport (whatever it is), BUT, I will probably
    have an easier time with my finances than if I did not get the support.
    I will never get rich over this, but I really do not want the gummint
    telling me how to provide for my child.  
    
    I guess what it boils down to is this:  There are plenty of parents out
    there (CP & NCP) who do not do the right thing by their child(ren).  We
    need to try to find ways to make sure these children are properly cared
    for without penalizing those parents who act responsibly.  I'm just not
    sure how to balance that.
    
    regards
    jimc

    re .69 doug
    
    >>    I guess I've said enough... didn't mean to start flaming !!!!
    
    No offense taken.  Might wan to check out note 62 if you haven't 
    alredy.  I documented my change of custody battle there.  I also
    entered the Court Order for the change of custody.  It is based 
    on Colorado Law but I think the support/custody laws are more 
    uniform now days than not.  The court order explains the basis and
    reasons that a court will grant a change.  Improved circumstances
    on your part may not be enough.  My lawyer didn't tell me that when
    I went in for change of custody the first time.  I pitched a no-hitter
    --and lost (the first time).
    
    Thanks for trying.  We need more like you.
    fred();

    
    fred, all,
    
    Thanks for your comments. 
    
    Last July I went to court. I am in the process of putting the "new 
    shared custody law" to test at the least. I have spoken to many people
    including lawyers. Even in Mass. , It appears that "they" (lawyers)
    don't even know, or aren't sure what it means. I have several areas
    going for me, which I plan on using. 
    
    I live less then 2 miles from my sons, hence NO change in school
    system, I have provided suitable ( not want I want for ever) home for
    my sons, I have kept up many meetings at school on my sons education
    progress, 9 meetings last year alone of which I called 7, the list goes
    on. According to my attorney (and in progress) WE both see " changes in
    circumstance", which I know it would take. There has been 4 cases filed
    with DSS here in Mass. (but they do nothing), there is a strong support
    of the children issue (lack of), abuse(?) by the new husband, neglect
    by the ex. My sons are in an awful situation that " I have to do what I
    have to do" , and that is GET THEM OUT OF IT IF POSSIBLE. For once even
    my attorney feels a decent chance but it is taking this long to put all
    the pieces together and build a case. One thing's for sure, It appears
    that my support will decrease some based in part that in the last 2
    years, I have had my sons 14 out of 24 months full time, Yes this is
    correct, not a typo, but she has recieved over $25,000.00 from me in 
    support, and has spent less then 400.00 on both sons from what I can
    see. Isn't this a real shocker ???? I have documented everything. Oh,
    I may also add that in the last 24 months, I've been denied visitation
    13 times. Now , you tell me based on this, just where are the kids and
    who should have custody or at least shared custody ????  I'm in hock
    up to my eyeballs even working 3 jobs, but I will continue to be there
    for my boys.  
    
    We shall see...................
    
    
    doug

    Doug,
    
    It about the same situation, I did the same thing that you're doing.
    It took met 9 1/2 years and three tries to get the job done, but I
    finally got there.
    
    You have to do what you think is right.  If what your saying is
    indeed what is happening (and I'm not trying to say that it isn't)
    then in my opinion, it's time to roll out the artillery.
    
    In my opinion denial of visitation it itself is "impeding the
    emotional development of the child", which is grounds for change 
    of custody.  Let alone physical abuse, neglect, and abandonment
    (leaving the children with you for a large portion of time).
    
    fred();

    
    fred,
    
    Roll out the Artilliary ???  Understatement !!!!!!! As you are well
    aware, once one is backed up against the wall, there is only one way
    to go,   off..... All I need is "MY" time in court and to be heard.
    If that happens and judgement is based on what I have to present, I
    will get/have the job done.. I only want to be "heard". I haven't had
    my time in over 3 years. I have taken alot of lumps, been down the
    crooked road (so to speak), and lived thru/in h*ll. I now know where
    h*ll is and refuse to stay there... But, my sons will not live there,
    even if I have to , again....
    
    Maybe if more fathers fought like I want to , eyes just might open in
    our court system across the nation. This bias situation is not
    restricted to Mass. (where I live). I can not understand how several
    lawyers can say " Oh yeah, you are entitled to 1/2 .... This looks to
    be bull when you get into court.. She got about 93-97% , guess what I
    got ??    --------------------   the shaft  !!!!! Start a new life now
    Doug, I got. You'll have to start all over, Doug , I got... O K. How
    does one do it with 50% of one's pay ???  
    
    I am going for it...
    
    
    doug

    I guess it's time to update all on what has happened recently in my
    "situation".  My Ex and I were able to talk civilly prior to going to
    court and I agreed for the time being to allow the reduction of child
    support to help him and his "new family" out.  Well a week and a half
    down the road I had to call my ex to ask where my child support was --
    oooppppsss I forgot it.  I'll send it to you with next weeks check. 
    Gee, thanks.  This is after he promised to make the payments on a
    regular basis as I needed the support check to pay my daughter's
    daycare.  Otherwise, the courts would have attached his pay which my
    lawyer said would have been a given if we had gone to court.  My ex has
    seen his daughter once in the last two months -- his agreement is to
    see her every other weekend, but has called and said he has plans.....
    I had given my ex the option of taking his daughter for 10  days while
    I was away.  Said he didn't have to pay support for that time as he
    would be caring for her during that time.  He was so excited.  Well,
    I got a call the other nite from him stating he isn't taking his
    daughter.  His new wife has a problem with my calling the house.  Mind
    you it's only to ask him for an insurance form.  Confirm his plans with
    his daughter.  An update on his daughter's health, etc.  She will not
    accept taking Kelly in for that period of time, because "if we do it
    once, we'll be expected to do it again!"  He called me looking for
    advice.  His wife said that when they wouldn't see his daughter
    anymore, everything was fine in their relationship!  He takes her boys
    to their dentist, skiiing (kelly wasn't invited along 'cause it's just
    too much on them!), softball, etc.  His wife has made plans on the
    weekends he's supposed to have his daughter so that he has to call and
    say he can't make it.
    
    I guess what I'm trying to say here is.  I told my ex that if he
    allowed his new wife to continue controlling his relationship with his
    daughter, then his daughter eventually will no longer have an interest
    in him as she gets older.  If he didn't stand up for his daughter's
    rights in his household (she sleeps on the floor when she gets to stay
    over their house) then he would be the one to lose out.  Sad situation
    isn't it?  Guess his daughter really doesn't mean as much to him and
    that I have finally come to the conclusion that I will no longer work
    on trying to strengthen that relationship.  I gave my all and in return
    Kelly will go on without the fatherly relationship that I thought could
    someday come about.
    
    I know this note is all mixed up and confused, but I have to say that I
    can't stand that woman for being so jealous of my daughter and I can't
    stand that man for allowing it to happen.  (A 32 year old woman jealous
    of a four year olds love for her dad!  Yikes!)  As long as I'm there
    for my little girl she'll be smilin'!  Dad or no dad!
    

    Sounds like you've done all that you could.   Never say never. It
    doesn't sound like his current marriage is that great so someday he
    could be out of that realizing that he daughter does mean more to him.
    
    In the meantime, good luck to you and your daughter.  
    
    Susan
    

    Re: .77
    
    Thanks much for your words.  You're right, I should never say never and
    sometimes it's hard to look at the whole picture.  You are also right
    in the respect that obviously his current marriage is not very good
    which I am sorry to hear.  I wouldn't wish that on him or anyone and I
    can only hope that someday he is re-evaluating his life a little bit
    and wondering what it is he's missing and I do hope that Kelly can find
    it in her heart to forgive him for not being there to watch her grow
    up.  When and if she asks questions I will do my best to answer those
    questions and hope I DON'T SOUND LIKE I WANT TO RIP THE MAN'S FACE OFF
    (sorry, just had to get it off my chest!)  I don't wish him any harm
    just knock some sense into him before he misses some of the most
    important days of his daughter's life.
    
    Thanks for listening,
    
    Doe
    

  re: .76

  Doe,

  I'm so sorry to see your ex is showing a non-caring anmd loving attitude 
  toward your daughter.  Unfortunately, problably by the time he wakes up 
  and realizes what he has done, it *will* be to late.  The nurturing your
  daughter will need from a fatherly figure will play a major role in
  her future, especially in her early years.

  I wish I could talk with your ex and let him know, but he is a grown 
  man who sounds like he has not grown up.  It also sounds like he did
  not discuss his situation with his daughter with his new wife, therefore
  you and your daughter will be an outcast from them.

  He should discuss the matter with her at once, *if* he does care.  And
  if he doesn't, don't let that deter you any.  You have opened the door
  to him but he doesn't want to come through it.  Go on with life and
  enjoy the time you can with your daughter.  Children grow up quite fast 
  when living in a divorced family environment.

  Even though your ex does not visit often, reassure your daughter that
  daddy does love her.  It will tough if she asks why he doesn't come to
  visit her more often.  That is an question I have not had to answer.  
  Maybe others here will be able to share their experience with you.

  Keep your head up high and keep telling yourself, "I have done what I 
  can within my control, and I am proud to say so!"

  Hugs to you and your daughter!

  Kenn

    Kenn is right on the money.  I had the experience of being your
    daughter.  My dad did not see me (due to lots of circumstances, not the
    least of which was my mothers constant harassment of him) and when I
    asked why he didn't visit me her reply was "Because he's a no good son
    of a b*tch who doesn't care about you and furthermore you're just like
    him". 
    
    Today, there is no love or communication with my mother.  I had an
    address for my father and did write but never received a reply.  
    
    Moral of the story:  As tough as it is, keep yourself and your comments
    impartial.  Don't even take the chance to let her overhear you saying
    anything negative about her father.  Your reward will be when she is
    grown and respects you for your stand.  
    
    Good luck to you.  I know, I've been there.
    
    Susan
    

    
    
    I am somewhat on the otherside of the fence. I have NEVER , EVER ,
    missed my "scheduled" visitation with my 2 sons in 3 years. However,
    I have been denied some 17 times, been called the *sshole by the "ex"
    to my sons , among other names. I'm guilty of being a dad, one who has
    always paid support, maintained the visitation except when denied,
    took a very active (VERY ACTIVE) role in my sons school work/homework 
    and have done quite alot of child raising (teaching things etc.) My
    sons are denied phoning this dad by their mother, my sons are
    denied/neglected proper clothing by their mother, but my sons are still
    there and going thru the pain. 
    
    The reason for this is, not all dads or moms are bad, BUT , the ones
    who are, really are. I hope this makes sense. I don't like to kids
    having to live thru this kind of pain. I know I don't want my sons to
    live this way and hopfully soon I can change it.
    
    
    doug -  a FATHER who cares and loves his sons  (8,5) !!!!!!
    
    

    Doe,
    
    After reading your note, all I can say is that woman is definately
    the "step-mother from hell".  How can your ex be so blind and not
    catch on to her act?  This is utterly horrendous behavior on both
    their parts.  I can only wish you my best to get through this and
    hopefully someday, like others have already mentioned, she will no
    longer be in the picture.  I have learned a lot about myself from
    reading your note and that's that I'm a good person, a loving
    step-mother, and my husband's ex is lucky that her ex chose to marry
    me instead of the woman that your ex married.  Whew!
    
    Good luck to both you and your daughter.  What you're both going
    through certainly doesn't sound easy.
    
    - Kathryn
    

    Well, its been three years since the divorce and it finally happened! 
    As I arrived from the airport at my ex's house to pick up my two kids,
    a process server hit me with the papers for an increase in child
    support.  If my near-psychic SO hadn't warned me to prepare myself for
    this, it could have ruined my visit!  I only see them once every three
    months for a weekend or a holiday week as they live in Dallas and I live in
    New Jersey.
    
    I've got until April 8th to respond, and I wanted to record my
    experiences with this situation because my situation involves issues
    not previously discussed.  I'm also hoping that you Texas noters can
    share your experiences with me.
    
    The primary issue is: Is there an upper limit to child support when
    the parents have a very combined income, especially now that courts are
    using percentage tables, and to what extent should CP income be
    considered in determining that upper limit?
    
    At the time of my divorce, I agreed to pay 24% of my after-tax & SS
    income as child support for my two children (girl-8, boy-4).  This was
    the lower end of the "Texas table" rate and did not take into
    consideration my ex's income at all.  The result was $710/mo based on
    my income at the time of approx. $50k.  My ex's income at the time was
    approx. $100k!
    
    She is the V.P. Finance/Admin. of $500M subsidiary of a F500 corp. with
    250 people below her.  We relocated twice during our marriage, and each
    time I was the "trailing spouse" who had to start over in the new city. 
    It was my willingness to leave a Controllership of a $20M company in
    Miami that allowed her to relocate to Dallas to get the V.P slot of her
    dreams (we are both MBA/CPA).  Unfortunately, I arrived in Dallas
    looking for a job in the middle of 1986 when the magnitude of the "big
    plunge" in the Dallas economy was getting up steam.
    
    I ended up going back to Miami to find work and she filed for divorce
    when I refused to send her $1100/mo. for her to maintain a level of lifestyle
    (and non-savings) that I had never approved of, and. which contributed
    greatly to our divorce.  The divorce ended up being a fight over who
    would eat the debts.  Our house dropped to $160k from the $190k we paid
    for it in 18 mos. preceeding the divorce thus wiping out our $20k
    equity (you people in MA can relate to this, right?).
    
    Back to **the issue**!  She makes more than twice as much as I do.  If
    you add our current income together (like in the NH formula) and apply the new
    Texas rate of 25% after-tax for two children, you get a figure between
    $20k/yr and $25k/yr that would be for child support.  Since my share of
    the total income of the parents is 1/3, my share of the child support
    would be approx $560-$690/mo.  My question is "Should child support
    orders be used to support an after tax lifestyle for two children
    costing $25k/yr?."
    
    There is no doubt in my mind that my ex can, and in fact probably does,
    spend $25k on the kids.  Shouldn't there be a cap of $15k or may the
    rate for two children could drop gradually from 25% of income to a
    lower percentage as combined parental income goes over $100k.
    
    Granted, its going to my kids, and I am grateful to have this "issue"
    rather than the real problems of others in this note.  My problem is
    that this request for an increase is hitting me at the worst time. 
    Ever since the divorce I have been borrowing money to patent and
    develop a new product that I am trying to bring to market via
    mail-order.  I am subcontracting everything so I can still handle my
    responsibilities to DEC (until I clear my first $million).  I owe $40k
    on nine credit cards.  I own nothing but the clothes in my closet and
    my injection molds for the product.  I rent a one bedroom apt. with my
    SO for $600/mo. in the NJ boonies.  Company car.  And my product won't
    go on sale in volume for at least three months and is very risky.
    
    So now I have to give a Texas attorney $2500 retainer (with at least
    another $2500 to follow)?  I'm running out of credit cards!!!  My ex is
    aware of all this and wants me to panic and settle out of court on
    terms that she dictates, probably at least $900/mo.
    
    I drove into downtown Newark (aaarrgghh!!!) to the Rutgers Law Library
    to bone up on recent court cases in Texas and it looks like i've got a
    good case.  My next big decision will be whether or not to represent
    myself since I'm broke and I can do the research.  I'm just scared I'll
    screw up and blow it on a technicality.  I'll be back in Newark all day
    Saturday.
    
    I'll keep you posted.
    
    What do you folks think about this?
    
    Carter 
    
     

    re: 45.83
    
Carter...
The following is excerpted from my copy of the CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES by 
ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS.

RULE 1.  AUTHORITY.

These rules are adopted pursuant to Texas Constitution Artical 5, Section 31,
Texas Family Code Section 14.05(a), and Texas Government Code Section 22.004.

RULE 2. PURPOSE.

	The guidelines contained in these rules are intended to guide the
courts of this state in determining equitable amounts of child support in all
Suits Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship, including, without limitation,
actions involving divorce, modification, paternity, and legitimation, and in
any proceeding brought under a reciprocal support action.  In determinging the
amound of child support, the court shall consider all appropriate factors,
including, but not limited to:

	(a) these guidelines;
	(b) the needs of the child;
	(c) the ability of the parents to contribute to the child support;
	(d) any financial resources available for the support of the child; and
	(e) the amound of possession of and access to a child.

RULE 3. ESTABLISHING ANY ORDER OF CHILD SUPPORT.

<here is a long dialog which describes the establishment of the original
order.

It defines "net resources".  It defines the obligor - the provider of the
support, and the obligee - the custodial parent (recipient of support).  It
discusses insurance obligations, and additional factors:

It states:

(f)  The court shall require the parties to furnish sufficient information to
enable it to accurately identify the parties' net resources and their abilities
to provide child support.  Whenever feasible, gross income should first be
computed on an annual basis, and then recalculated to determine average monthly
gross income.  The court should request copies of the last two years' tax
returns, accompanied by financial statements of the parties, and current wage
stubs.

(g) The court may, but is not required to apply these guidelines to temporary
child support.

RULE 4.
  In applying the principles set forth in Rules 2 and 3, the court may set the
amount of child support either within or outside the range recommended in Rule
5.  In making its determination, the court shall consider all relevant factors,
including, but not limited to:

	(a) the amount of the obligee's net resources when such net resources
exceed $1,600 per month;
	(b) the age and needs of the child;
	(c) child care expenses incurred by either party in order to maintain
gainful employment;
	(d) whether either party has the managing conservatorship of actual
physical custody of another child;
	(e) the amount od child support acutally and currently being paid by
the obligor under another child support order;
	(f) whether the obligor or obligee has an automobile, housing or other
benefits furnished by his or her employer, another person, or a business
entity;
	(g) the amount of other deductions from the wages or salary income and
from other compensation for personal services of the parties;
	(h) provision for health care insurance and payment of uninsured
medical expenses;
	(i) extraordinary health care or other expenses of the parties or of
the child; and
	(j) any other reason or reasons consistent with the best interest of
the child, taking into consideration the circumstances of the parents.

RULE 5. GUIDELINES:  AMOUNT ORDERED

here are the percentages...

for two children	24% - 28% of Obligor's Net Resources

it further states... In situations in which the obligor's net resources exceed
$4000 per month, the court should apply the percentage guidelines contained
(above) to the first $4000 of the obligor's net resources, and without further
references to the percentage recommended by these guidelines, may order
additional amounts of child support as are appropriate, depending on the
lifesiyle of the family, the income of the parties, and the needs of the child.

RULE 6.  MODIFICATION OF PRIOR ORDERS.

(a) The court may consider these guidelines to determine whether there has been
a material and substantial change in circumstances under Texas Family Code
#14.08(c)(2) that warrants a modification of and existing child support order.
(b) In addition to the factors listed in these guidelines, a court may consider
other relavant factors in determining whether to modify an existing child
support order, including, but not limited to:
	(1) the net resources of a NEW SPOUSE of either the obligor or the
obligee; and
	(2) the support obligation owed to a subsequently born or adopted
child.

RULE 7.  FINDINGS IN CHILD SUPPORT ORDER.

On written request made no later than 10 days after the signing of the child
support order, the court shall state the following:

< and follows here is a worksheet to compute child support payments, which
shows that the acutal child support is based on the net resources from both
obligor and obligee, and is divided between them on a percentage basis.>

    Thank you very, very much Tony!  Now I know exactly which documents to
    look for in the Rutgers Law Library!  So, Texas, too, takes the incomes
    of both spouses into effect.
    
    Also, I now know why my ex has been sniffing around as to whether and
    when my SO and I will be getting married!  Ex wants a piece of SO's
    income, too!

    After intensive research in the Rutgers Law Library in "beautiful
    downtown Newark, NJ" I have found that the Texas Legislature has, in
    1989, overridden some key parts of the Texas Supreme Court Guidelines. 
    If you were divorced in Texas before then, like me, the rules under
    which future modifications to child support will be judged have
    changed.
    
    Among other things, income/expenses of subsequent spouses and their 
    children are excluded from future child support calculations.
    
    Regarding my situation, where my ex is making twice as much as I am and
    is after me for an increase, I have talked to two Texas lawyers and
    gotten totally opposite opinions on the firmness of the new guidelines. 
    It seems that the new law hasn't been on the books long enough for
    appeals cases to be decided that would provide guidance.  The old "Rule
    5" allowed CP's income over $1600/mo. to be taken into consideration
    while the new legislative guidelines don't specify a level of CP income
    to consider.