Conference quokka::non_custodial_parents

    Depends upon what marrital master will look upon it and how much of a
    destitute you are or she is. Best thing to do my friend is to see if 
    she is showing up to work at his place of business. Or see where she
    goes during the day and see if she is doing a no-no. Working under the
    table. This could be such a naughty thing with the IRS, they might ask
    her to visit the local womans hotel with the gray bars. Hint! Hint!
    Winki! Winki! 
    
    
    George

Fred,

   I cannot comment on the law in Colorado, but here in NH
there is a minumum amount of support ($50.00 per month)
regardless of income, circumstances etc...

  It appears as if she will get the reduction, so you might
want to try something like the following:

  Allow her to pay nothing for the moment, but request that
the amount she would be required to pay is put in arrears
and will be paid when she becomes gainfully employed.  I
would also request that the amount be based on her earning
potential versus her income and that she submit a weekly
report to the court showing her efforts to become employed.

Regards,
Gary

    
    
    Is she receiving unemployment benefits currently?  If she is working
    for the woodworking comp why is that not considered her salary?
    Is the business in her name as well as her husbands?
    
    I would tend to say that if the busn was not in her name then you
    will not be able to count that as half hers.  If it is only in
    his name I would guess that it would be considered marital property,
    and you may be able to get the half from that angle.   
    
    This kind of thing burns me up.  My SO was unemployed in Mass and
    he was not able to get his support reduced.  In fact, he was
    threatened with the old get yourself a job making the same amount
    of money as the last one or have the option of going to jail!!
    This was by the courts!!
    
    Why would she be treated any differently?

re: .0
    >    In cases such as this, should 1/2 of the income from that buisness be
>    considered hers?
    
    
    If she is not employed, and receives no income, then I have to say she
    has no income from which to pay support.  
    
    HER HUSBAND SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR YOUR CHILDREN, ANY MORE THAN
    YOUR WIFE SHOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR THEM.
    
    I yelled that last sentence because I believe what's fair is fair. 
    THere is a lot of discussion in this conference about including a
    spouse's income in the computation... and I think most, if not all, of
    it treats the notion as repugnant and unfair.
    
    
    tony

>    If she is not employed, and receives no income, then I have to say she
>    has no income from which to pay support.  
>
It is interesting to note that if the roles were reversed, the unemployed male
would be forced to get a job to pay the support (anyway, just my observation).
    
>    HER HUSBAND SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR YOUR CHILDREN, ANY MORE THAN
>    YOUR WIFE SHOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR THEM.
>    
>    I yelled that last sentence because I believe what's fair is fair. 
>    THere is a lot of discussion in this conference about including a
>    spouse's income in the computation... and I think most, if not all, of
>    it treats the notion as repugnant and unfair.

Who said anything about being fair, but agree, you should not have to pay for
your SO's support obligations just as much I would not expect my SO to pay for
mine.

Just as a side note, during my child support variation hearing last June, the
judge asked for my SO's income information. In the same breath, the judge
ignored my ex's SO income information if not ignoring the ex's information. Talk
about a double kick in the butt. Like I said, who said anything about being fair
when it comes to the courts.

The courts tend to use the term 'in the child's best interest' allot, while they
ramble on almost in an effort to justify the pain they are about to dump on some
poor sap. How in the f**king h*ll can the judge determine what is in the child's
best interest when not once is the environment of the child even taken into
account. It seems to be the best line they have to force some poor sap into
living out of his/her car and eating crackers and water to survive.

Sorry, getting a bit carried away here, but the lack of fairness in the system
just ticks me off sometimes. But in all fairness, if all this crap is in the
child's best interest, would this not be the best place to start than seeing how
far the system can empty one's purse/wallet before destroying someone's life?

John

		In most states the issue of support cannot be ducked. It
	must be documented that a REAL and SINCERE EFFORT was/is being made
	to support the children. If the court thinks that the person is 
	under-achieving because of anger/issues with the custodial parent
	the judge will be very though. They are the predominant issue. In many
	states a new spouses mate can be forced to pay and it is fair. The
	issues were known when they entered the situation. Marriage is
	a sharing of the assests and LIABILITES. In my case I entered into
	a marriage recognizing day one that he might not always support them
	and at present I'm supplying a large piece of the childrens financial
	support. I accepted that rsik when I married and non-custodial parents
	that marry also assume the same risk.... 

From 145.12
    /  This past June, I was awarded temporary custody.  She and her
    |  boyfriend were about to (and did) move to Washington state from
    |  NH.  She has a degree in English Literature and teaches.  She
    |  quit her substitute teaching job here and has no job out there.
    |
    |  What made it interesting was, that when she said, she didn't feel
    |  she should have to pay support because I made more then the
    |  average teacher, the judge went into this long dissertation on
    |  support.  Basically he said, every NCP was to pay according to a
    |  formula regardless of gender or difference in income between CP
    |  and NCP.  Every child was entitled to the best effort of each
    |  parent.  He also said that the court can consider the income of
    |  the CP's or NCP's new mate.
    |
    |  Then, the judge issued NO support order AND continued my order to
    \  pay her alimony for an extra 3 months!

            I have since learned from another member of this conference
       that NH law requires a "minimum" amount of support, regardless of
       income.  What this problem tells me, is that the court (at least
       this judge in NH) really doesn't know what to do with a woman who
       won't take a full-time job.  IMO, the system has no problem going
       after a man, because men "traditionally" must work, married or
       not.  However, if they threaten to put a woman, especially a
       married woman, in jail for non-support - what kind of a can of
       worms will they open up?

            � What if, she is married to a man making $125,000/year, 
              but she doesn't work and her ex has the children and makes
              $8,000/year?

            � What about single mothers with children (over 6?) on 
              welfare; can they be "forced" to work?

            � Does the culture lose its' ability to claim that it
              "protects women" and children?

       Does this begin to take the equal rights issue out of the area of
       woman's choice and into the area of culturally enforced?


       Richard

>            � What if, she is married to a man making $125,000/year, 
>              but she doesn't work and her ex has the children and makes
>              $8,000/year?
>
An interesting example, on one hand you can see why she does not need a job and
on the other hand she should get one to pay her fair share. If her new hubby
prefers that she does not work then that's between them. I would say she should
pay her share, and how she does it is up to her in this case.



>            � What about single mothers with children (over 6?) on 
>              welfare; can they be "forced" to work?
>
You can get into a catch 22 scenario here. If she works, day care costs can eat
any gains and end up with less. IN some cases, the working single mother can
gain more by working than welfare. Then there is the child(ren) to consider and
what is the father doing to help.  No easy answer..............



>            � Does the culture lose its' ability to claim that it
>              "protects women" and children?
>
>       Does this begin to take the equal rights issue out of the area of
>       woman's choice and into the area of culturally enforced?
>
Is there such a thing as equal rights?

re:                     <<< Note 155.7 by GLOSSA::BRUCKERT >>>
                     -< Responaibility can't be ducked.
 >-

<	In many
<	states a new spouses mate can be forced to pay and it is fair. 
    
    Can you support this claim?  The only states I know anything about (a
    very limited selection) are quite the reverse, and specifically
    *dis-allow* the inclusion of the NCP spouse's income in any formulae
    for computing child support.  In fact, I have only "heard" of one state
    (that I can recall) which allows it, and I am not at all sure that it
    does in fact.  (that state being MA.)  I suspect that the fear of the
    spouse's income being used is just that ... a FEAR.  Please correct me
    if I am wrong. 
    
    However, the basenote specifically addressed TEXAS.  And *that* state I
    *do* know about.  I have currently employed a Texas lawyer who has
    specifically answered this question for me.  I am quite clear on that.
    
    <The
<	issues were known when they entered the situation. Marriage is
<	a sharing of the assests and LIABILITES. 
    
    You are, of course, correct in assuming that marriage is a sharing
    experience... and most states recognise that, and are therefore called
    "community property" states.  however, in TEXAS (again... this is the
    only state with which I have personal experience, and first hand
    knowledge), being a community property state, also recognizes PRIVATE
    or SEPERATE property... such as the purchase of the home in question
    (re: .0) with private funds, which by law are NOT subject to the
    community property laws.  While I don't place children in the same
    category as PROPERTY... the same laws assume.  
    
    Suppose you marry.  Do you assume the previous personal debts of your 
    spouse?  of course not.  That person remains personally and privately
    responsible.  However, you do assume any obligations you jointly
    acquire.  The same with children and support.  It remains, as it should
    a personal and private obligation (notice I avoid the word "liability",
    because of its connotations).  The new spouse may certainly (and in
    some cases of non-support, it might even be morally appropriate) assume
    some of this obligation... sharing marrage and all... however it should
    NEVER be required by any court!  Our courts interfere far too
    much in private lives as it is... and allowing this further incursion
    is just too much.  Better the CP and children just accept the situation
    than establish yet another governmental intrusion into our lives.  We
    can live without it, thank you very much.
    
    
    <In my case I entered into
<	a marriage recognizing day one that he might not always support them
<	and at present I'm supplying a large piece of the childrens financial
<	support. I accepted that rsik when I married and non-custodial parents
<	that marry also assume the same risk.... 

    I, also... but there is a significant difference between willingly
    contributing to the support of children who aren't your own and being
    TOLD you must do it.  There should be no RISK as you mention... it's
    all very cut and dried.  Right out in front of God and everybody.  You
    either do or you don't.  
    
    Having said all this (and, yes, I get emotional too!)  I would like to
    append this thought:  
    
    In the case mentioned (hypothetical, I think, but not without
    possibility) where the NCP remains unemployed or underemployed
    intentionally, and is shirking his/her obligations to the children,
    then I would be willing to consider the need for a court to press that
    NCP's spouse for support.  BUT, NEVER IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
    
    
    JIMHO
    
    tony
    

    Washington State does include the new spouse's income when determining
    child support.  There is a group here that is working on having that
    changed.
    
    Karen

		Do I know which states do take the new spouses income into
	account. No I can't remember but there was a whole show about it.
	(Phil Donahue or some such). The anger on the part of the new spouses
	having their wages considered was very high.

		In the case of a spouse with custody remarrying. The reality
	is that although legally there may be no "requirement" to support the
	chldren there certainly is a moral and emotional one, if the NCP
	doesn't provide adequate support, How do you not support them? Stop
	feeding them dinner, get there cloths from the salavation army, turn
	off the heat to their room? It might as well be a legal requirement,
	but I understand that to some poeple it makes a big difference. 

		I agree that in most cases the new spouses income isn't and
	shouldn't be takien into consideration. But when a NCP using the income
	of the new spouse to be in a sitatuion not to have to work, and then
	tries to not pay support because of no income, then it directly or
	indirectly comes into play. The parent must pay support and some means
	of determining what is a reasonable amount must be used. In such a 
	case the new spouse is enabling(helping) the NCP to avoid their legal
	and moral responsibility. 
	
		Divorce and the negative impact (fiancial and emotional) on
	everyone is terrible. There are no easy or simplistic answers. 

    According to Phil Donahue, a housewife was worth about $780.00/week
    about 6 years ago and I think a non-custodial non-working housewife
    should pay accordingly.  Afterall, when you come home from work they
    can't wait to tell you what Phil baby said.
    
    Yes, I think any mother collecting welfare should perform community
    service.  And the bit about having to pay for daycare doesn't work
    because the community service for some could be doing the daycare for
    the others.  WORKFARE sounds good to me.
    
    
    Thank you,
    No applause, just throw money.
    

    
    
    re -1
    
    Have you or has anyone you know directly ever been on welfare?
    If not, then you have no idea on just how screwed up the system is.
    The folks on welfare have a choice of working to make not enough
    money to live off of or getting their checks which give them just
    enough money to live off of.  The state has eliminated almost all
    of the subsidized daycare so there would be no way in hell that
    these folks could put the kids in day care while off doing their
    "community service".
    
    This thing burns me up.  When my dad died my mom went through hell
    to get welfare just so we could live with a roof over our heads 
    and food in our stomach.  She finally had to enlist the help of
    a state representative to get her enrolled.  She was told that she
    would loose all benefits if she found a job.  Exactly one year
    to the day she went off welfare.  For us it served the purpose
    it was intended to do.  Did you know that the average stay on
    welfare is between one year and one year six months?  I believe
    your statement maybe was supposed to be addressed to the folks
    who live off welfare for over two years and who make it a way of
    live. Sorry to flame on like this but this touches a raw nerve.
    
    
    Why don't the courts start with making it a law that both natural
    parents (except in the cases of adoption) be the only two people
    who are legally responsible for paying to suppport THEIR kids!!!
    
    Michele

    Michele,
    
    	I have seen a dead beat dad who claims that he cannot get a job and
    has not paid in three years. The sad part of the system is that it goes
    after those who are trying to make it, and pay their fair share. While
    those who are the lower forms of the food chain, they let go for it is
    not worth the states money and resources to chase them and make them
    pay. 
    
    	I have three section 8 folks in my units. One of them is attending
    a gym to loose weight. Funny, she has more disposible income than I do
    and I am making a comfortable amount of money. I have talked to two of
    the three about making the natural fathers pay for suport for their out
    of wed lock children. Offering them help. No takers in my offer........
    
    	I feel that there is a gross abuse on both sides of the fence and its
    hurting our way of life for those who do give a sh*t. What should be
    going on is folks working on reporting cheaters of both sides.
    Reguardless if you think that the are good people or not. Remember that
    Charlie Manson was viewed as a good person, so was Jim Jones too! And
    I am shure that Jeffery Dahmer was at one time a good sort....

    This topic is very complicated and a general rule shouldn't blanket
    cover every remarriage situation.  A first attempt at negotiation
    should be the rule before any court ordered obligation.
    
    I'm trying to put myself in the child's position and in the parents's,
    as well as the new spouses' positions:  
    
    As the child, how must it feel to hear from step-parent that "hey,
    she isn't my child, why should I support her, I married the mother
    not her family".  Sounds quite cold to me.  And personally, I would
    hesitate to marry someone holding that opinion.
    
    As the NCP that wanted contact and wanted to support my kids, how
    do I feel about the step-parent supporting my kids.  I'm on the
    jealous side myself.  But on the other hand, if I were the NCP that
    didn't want to support my kids, wouldn't I hope for a wonderful
    new step-parent to help take care of them.  I'd truly despise my
    ex for taking up with a person that didn't take into account the
    welfare, both emotional and financial, for the kids.
    
    And as a step-parent, shouldn't I really look at the marriage as
    an union not only between my spouse but her children as well!  How
    can you not?  If the new spouse/step-parent only wanted to be looked
    at as the new husband, then I guess he would not be my step-dad
    but rather my mother's husband and only that!  And then try demanding
    respect from your new wife's kids.
    
    These of course apply differently to every situation and I believe
    an appointment at the round table for all concerned is very much
    necessary if not required!  I think 1st marriages and remarriages
    are not only a romantic link but also a business arrangement to
    some degree.  Life can not always be this "happy" bliss ready to
    be disposed of as a piece of office paper tossed into the recycling
    bucket.

    re .11
    Governor Booth Gardner recently repealed the Washington law that
    includes the spouse's income when determining child support.
    
    Karen

    re .14
    
    Yes, I have experienced it.  My ex-wife has been collecting for her son
    who was an out of marriage birth since he was born in 1974, except for
    the time when I was supporting him and she went right back to welfare
    when we separated.  Not only that, but she was renting 1 room of our
    house for $300.00/month to another welfare mother who supposedly hadn't
    seen her husband for years but his car was outside my house every night
    and she gave birth to 1 child and got pregnant with a third in the 1
    1/2 years she was there.  Welfare thought that whole situation was OK. 
    I think that's pretty good, 2 welfare mothers both getting checks, 1
    with no bills because they were paying electric and gas, and 1 paying
    $300.00/month rent to the other which was being subsidized by welfare. 
    I can also name at least a dozen women doing the exact same thing right
    in my own town.  I reported them both and welfare said it was none of
    my business.  So, don't tell me what I know and what I don't know,
    because I do know all about the welfare system abuses.  When I
    mentioned, WORKFARE I didn't say take away their checks.  I said make
    them do something for the check and those performing the daycare part
    of it would still get their checks.  All this means is that they aren't
    sitting at home just waiting for their checks.  We're not talking about
    sweat shop labor either.
    
    
    

    re .15
    
    Go ahead, call the welfare department and try to report someone who's
    cheating.  I'll bet you come back here grumbling about the response you
    got.
    
    

    re ..18
    
    So you yourself have never been on it.  You have only seen the cheats.
    Is that correct?  I am not arguing with you that the cheats do exist.
    Everyone knows that.  I also agree that anyone receiving public
    assitance should have to do something for the check.  They should
    not be allowed to get away with what is happening with your situation.
    Clearly that is wrong.  However, the system allows them to get away
    with it.  That very same system makes it impossible for them to
    get off welfare unless they find themselve momentarily independently
    wealthy or have family/friends who will help financially while they
    are trying to get out of the system.
    
    I do not believe that any parent who is able bodied and can find
    a safe affordable place to put the kids into daycare should be
    allowed to not work.  Regardless of whether or not the parents are
    still married or divorced.  They are and should be the only ones
    who should be held financially accountable to support thier kids.
    Welfare should be used as an absolute last resort (which is what it
    is used for by most of the people on it).

Welfare is a sad system, and as I have stated before, you end up in a catch 22
situation (experiences from a close friend who has been on welfare for a half
dozen months). When you look at it, there is more to gain by staying on welfare
than getting a job. If you get work and then have to pay for daycare, you loose
in the long run and so does the child. The CP ends up working long hours to make
ends meet and the child is farmed out to daycare. On welfare you get to spend a
lot of time with the child.

The only way to get a good start is to cheat the very system that is supposedly
there to help when the chips are down. Unfortuately, because of the deliberate
cheats of the system, those who are in need, cannot get help when the need
is real.

Five words sum the welfare system 'A REAL CAN OF WORMS'.

John

    Although this topic seems to have changed to a welfare discussion (no
    offense intended :^) ), I have a question on the greneral question of
    income.
    
    Does anyone know how or if a corporation could shield some income or
    assets?  For example (and this IS all hypothetical) suppose a parent
    has set up a corporation and operates technically through that
    corporation to get some income.  This income could be "held" by the
    corporation and distributed to the "employee" sporadically or not all,
    yet the employee could have "use" of the funds.
    
    I guess that it could be used by either the CP or the NCP given the
    unique circumstances, but I was thinking of my to-be-ex's situation
    where she can/could  get quite a bit of income on part-time jobs as a
    technical writer or editor.  This could impact the child support
    guidelines computation if it was reported or not reported.
    
    Steve

    	I don't know what the basenoter's situation is....  FWIW, here in
    Illinois, the law says that the CP gets the deductions unless specified
    otherwise in the divorce agreement.
    
    	My divorce agreement states that I get the _younger_ daughter for a
    deduction (I'll have the deduction longer than my ex does!).  This
    hasn't caused problems yet (but the divorce was final less than two
    years ago).  I _do_ feel that visitation and finances are two separate
    subjects and shouldn't have anything to do with each other. 
    F'rinstance, I don't see my kids a lot, not as much as I'd like, but
    they're teenagers, and Dad (and Mom) are not high on their list of
    priorities.  For me, the tax deduction doesn't make or break me, but
    the fact that I have it lets me know that my ex does value my
    contribution toward raising our kids.