Parenting Police.

[MMDad (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

I looked at the worksheet from the posts above and see no line for this type of a cost. Am I missing something?

From the code:

(i) School and transportation expenses.-By agreement of the parties or by order of court, the following expenses incurred on behalf of a child may be divided between the parents in proportion to their adjusted actual incomes:

(1) any expenses or attending a special or private elementary or secondary school to meet the particular educational needs of the child; or

(2) any expenses for transportation of the child between the homes of the parents.

[MMDad (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

Like if the cusodial (male or female) makes 10 million dollars a year and the separated parent only makes minimum wage on a part time 20 hour week job, then the child support takes by force from the dirt poor parent and gives it to the rich even though it is a great disparity and an injustice.

Village idiot, you still have not explained how the fact that the abandoner in this case would owe 60 cents per month justifies your claim.

Are you simply lying, or are you stupid?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by MMDad

From the code:

I completely missed that. Thanks!

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by MMDad

Village idiot, you still have not explained how the fact that the abandoner in this case would owe 60 cents per month justifies your claim.

Are you simply lying, or are you stupid?

Because the poor parent putting in 60 cents is far more in comparing to the rich parent that has an abundance.

An example is made HERE.

When the law takes from the poor to give to the rich as is done in child support then it needs to be overthrown.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by Pandora

It depends on how they ran that debt up. I will guarantee that it isn’t uncommon for debtors to garnish wages.

Anyway, there is no judge in the world that would put a man in jail for child support if he was TRYING..............

For any credit and credit cards there are laws protecting against harassment, see link HERE.

But all those things listed as being harassment are regularly and agressively done to parents in order to steal the child support.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

For any credit and credit cards there are laws protecting against harassment, see link HERE.

But all those things listed as being harassment are regularly and agressively done to parents in order to steal the child support.

How again is performing a legal function stealing?

[Beelzebaby666]

Originally Posted by jetmonkey

I'm pretty sure you just agreed with him.

Thanks for pointing that out!!! He just makes me so mad!!!!!:

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by This_person

How again is performing a legal function stealing?

It comes from God's commandment of ; "Thou shalt not steal." and God outranks Caesar (the Gov) and so so God's law is more important then is man's law that says it is legal to steal if its child support.

Just because the gov says it is okay by law to do sinful things then we citizens must decide if we are going to obey a gov that preaches legal sinning or shall we obey God and defy the gov that legalizes the stealing.

The USA government tells us that killing babies through abortions is okay but it is not, the gov tells us that stealing child support is okay but it is not, the gov says that torturing prisoners is okay but it is not.

So just because a law is legal does not make it right and I tell people to do right.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

It comes from God's commandment of ; "Thou shalt not steal." and God outranks Caesar (the Gov) and so so God's law is more important then is man's law that says it is legal to steal if its child support.

Just because the gov says it is okay by law to do sinful things then we citizens must decide if we are going to obey a gov that preaches legal sinning or shall we obey God and defy the gov that legalizes the stealing.

The USA government tells us that killing babies through abortions is okay but it is not, the gov tells us that stealing child support is okay but it is not, the gov says that torturing prisoners is okay but it is not.

So just because a law is legal does not make it right and I tell people to do right.

So, it's stealing because it's stealing? Your logic is just as good as it's punishment because it's unjust, and it's unjust because it's punishment! What about providing for a child is stealing? You do understand that the goal of child support is to set standards by which non-custodial parents and custodial parents share the financial requirements to raise a child, right?

[tirdun]

Against my better judgment, here's one last shot:

Please tell me, JPC where this chain of logic fails.

1. Two people have a child and both provide, in some way, for that child
2. One person, lets say the Father, leaves the relationship for whatever reason
3. The child and mother are now without the Father's financial support
4. Society has determined that a parent is not relieved of responsibility to a child by leaving the relationship
5. The father, however, refuses to pay any support.
6. The state, in the interests of the child, as determined by society, orders the father to pay support.
7. During the lapse, the state pays in lieu of the father.
8. The father refuses to pay
9. Having exhausted other options, the state takes money from the Father's paycheck in order to fulfill the responsibility AND repay the state for its support in the lapse.
10. The father takes further steps to avoid payment, breaking the law in the process
11. The state arrests the father for breaking the law

Now maybe we are all misunderstanding you, but I see no failure in this logical process. You seem to be saying either that #4 is wrong (someone leaving a relationship is no longer responsible for children from that relationship) or #6 is wrong (the father cannot be legally ordered to fulfill this responsibility).

I'd love to see a real clarification of your position.