| Tony,
I suspect that the reason why your wife is not helping your son to cope
with the situation is that she is using your son and his problems as a
weapon against you.
My ex has constantly used my kids to beat me. When the kids did poorly
in school she said it was because of what I had done to them. What I
had "done" to them was leaving my ex. When the kids acted up she said
that my phone calls upset them so she would hang up the phone when ever
I called and told the kids it was a wrong number. She also withheld
the kids and wouldn't let them come on my weekends and generally did
all she could to ruin my relationship with my kids. Thank God it
didn't work for her, I have a very good relationship with my son and,
although it could be better, a good relationship with my daughter.
Every night at bed time my ex would sit with the kids and either cry
and say I should come home, or tell the kids what a jerk I was and
they shouldn't want to have anything to do with me. This went on for
an hour or more every night for 2 years. This came out in a Familiy
services investigation.
I guess the bottom line is that some parents use thier kids to beat on
the other parent. The best thing you can do for your son is to love
him and let him know that you love him and care about him. The rest,
well....you can only do what you can do and Don't feel guilty about going
on with the rest of your life.
Bob
|
|
Tony,
That is kind of what my note was about, too. My ex, for sure,
somehow manipulated my daughter into calling me about saxophone
lessons. Just the fact that it is the kid and not the ex who
brings up the subject is in my mind abuse and manipulation. What
it is really all about is punishing us for all our "misdeeds."
It stinks but there's nothing that we can do about it except sound
off when we can to let off the pressure.
With regard to the kids, however, we all can find solace in knowing
that they are young, but are not stupid. They are caught up in it now
but the day will come when they will realize who was trying to be a
good parent and who was using them to beat up the other. The tough
part is going through the using times.
Steve
|
|
From usenet:
Article 16658
From: [email protected] (Laszlo Nobi)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Colorado CSC hearing notice
Date: 21 Mar 91 02:50:00 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
I'm posting this in several places (some probably inappropriate, sorry) but I
want to be sure to get the message out.
I want to inform anyone who is subject to Colorado's child support laws that
public hearings have been scheduled as a part of a review of the guidelines by
the Colorado Child Support Commission. This Commission was created by action
of the Colorado legislature and members are appointed by the Governor. The
purpose of the hearings is to obtain public input on whether the guidelines,
which have been in the state statutes since 1986, are still (as if they ever
were..) appropriate and equitable. Information gathered in these hearings
will be used in a report to the Governor and state legislature recommending
changes to the guidelines. I urge you to try to attend and spread the word to
others who may wish to testify or just attend and listen. They will also
accept written material at the hearing. Remember...you likely will be
affected by the legislation!
Two hearings are scheduled:
Thornton Colorado Springs
Thornton Civic Center Lon Chaney Theater
9500 Civic Center Drive 221 East Kiowa
April 4, 1991 April 10, 1991
5:30 - 8:30 p.m. 5:30 - 8:30 p.m.
The hearings will address issues that were identified in the 1990
investigation by the Commission. Some of those are listed below, along with
my own interpretation of what they mean based on information from the 1990
report that I received from Senator Bob Schaffer. ( I will offer my OWN
opinions on each of the issues in the post on alt.child-support to stimulate
discussion):
** Criteria for deviation from guidelines - The current guidelines provide for
deviation by the court if implementation would be inequitable. There are
no criteria defined as to when or how the court may deviate from those
guidelines.
** Use of net vs gross income - The current guidelines use the gross income of
the parents to calculate their respective proportions of child support.
There is a concern that this does not give fair apportionment of support
expenses after tax considerations.
** Linking the imputation of income and child care - When a parent is
voluntarily unemployed or under-employed, child support is ordered based on
imputed or potential income. The statute does not account for the child
care expenses of the custodian incurred to earn the imputed income. The
Commission will explore whether child care expenses should be imputed if
evidence suggests that it would be necessary to earn the imputed income.
** Treatment of maintenance - There is a question as to whether maintenance
(alimony) should be considered as a deduction from the payor's income and
an addition to the receiver's income BEFORE the child support is calculated
(current law) or whether child support calculations should come first.
** Effects of additional dependents - If a person has a previous child support
order, there is a question about how that affects the order in question,
and whether that order should be a deduction from income.
** Low income obligors - There is a concern that child support payments
ordered for low income obligors may be too high as a percentage of gross
income or discretionary income, and these cases need to be reviewed with
guidelines adjusted accordingly.
** Revision of guideline tables - The Commission is concerned that the current
tables used to find the "basic child support obligation" are outdated. The
data was taken from the percentage of income expended on child rearing in
the 1972-73 Consumer Expenditure Survey (intact families), that percentage
being applied to 1984 income levels, and adjusting to 1986 dollars. They
think that a new investigation may be warranted.
** Payment of child care costs - There is an issue relating to whether or not
reported child care expenditures are actually incurred by the custodian,
the amount of which is proportioned between the parents in the
calculations. Also, the current forms do not take into account the child
care expenses that may be incurred by the non-custodial parent.
** Adjustment for split custody - There is a question as to how to calculate
child support when there is split custody in the case of more than one
child, and how to make adjustments in cases when the children have
significant visitation with the other parent.
** Entitlement to tax exemption - The statute does not address the financial
impact of the allocation of tax exemptions.
** Age of majority - There is currently a bill in the senate that would lower
the age of majority from 21 to 18. According to the Commission, Colorado
is among only 9 states that is still at 21. The Commission has asked the
senate to delay consideration of the bill until they have time to study the
effects on child support. They are suggesting to extend child support
payments until age 21 if the "child" is disabled, has medical problems, or
is attending college, with college expenses paid in proportion to parents'
incomes.
** Accountability of custodian - There are some who have the opinion that the
custodial parent has a fiduciary responsibility (as in a trust) to account
for where and how child support payments are spent. One who receives funds
involuntarily paid by a third party is responsible to account for how those
funds are used.
** Health insurance - Health insurance expenses are currently treated as
deductions from gross income of the person paying them. Some argue that
this should be treated as an adjustment to the child support order instead
(as a credit towards support).
** Income above guideline levels - There seems to be a concern that those that
have incomes above the levels of the guidelines, or 10,000/month, pay too
small of a percentage of their income in child support (ONLY $1,000 per
month for 1 child). The Commission will investigate whether or not to
extend the tables to higher incomes.
Again, I urge you to please try to testify at one of the hearings. There are
a lot of inequities that I have discovered in the current laws, some of which
are not covered above. If you would like more information about the
Commissions report, recommendations by various groups, current support laws,
or Commission meetings, please call me at (303) 229-3596 or (303) 490-2750.
Laszlo Nobi
1717 Serramonte Dr.
Ft. Collins, Colo.
80524
|
| Sorry about not entering this sooner. We have been working on getting
a transcript of the proceedings, but are as yet unsuccessful.
Most of the concerns in the hearing were concernes about:
1) Accountability of the CP for the child support. Many were
concerned about the child support not actually going to
support the child(ren).
2) Requirement of the CP and NCP to provide college funding for
the children. Many felt this is discrimination against divorced
parents. If you are still married, there is no law/requirement
to provide *any* funding for your child's eductation. However,
the way things are, a child that you haven't been allowed to
see in several years can attend the college of his/her choice
and send you the bill. References were made to an Indiana case
that is currently in the court system, but I've been unable to
locate any information on what is happening with it ( Newdecker vs.
Newdecker or something like that).
3) Lower the age of majority from 21 to 18. Colorado is one of only
about 8 or 9 states that still maintains the age of majority at 21.
4) Restructuring the schedule. One reference was made to a man whose
support oblication was *raised* because his ex's income went up and
the way the schedule is structured.
5) Make Medical insurance a direct credit for child support instead
of a deduction from the NCP's gross income.
6) Using Net vs. Gross income for the schedule. Feelings were that
using Gross income was simply to make it easy on Lawyers and
Judges. One mans current wife has a mecidal condition that they
are having a very difficult time getting help for because child
support is not deducted when determining need for public assistance,
and the medical expenses aren't taken into account when determing
child support. Also medical expenses are not taken into account
in cases of split custody where one child requires expensive
medical treatment.
7) One woman who is the head of one of one of the women's shelters
surprisingly gave consideral testimony on how the state is
burdening NCP's to to point that they give up and not pay *any*
support rather than trying to maintain a reasonable amount of
support.
Even though the hearing officers stated several times that the
hearings were in regards to the determination of child support
obligations, much time was taken up by witnesses complaining about
how hard it is to collect thier payments.
One attorney (Jan Debois (sp)) from the D.A's office was present,
then only private attorney that bothered to show up was John
Ciccolella.
fred();
|