JPC, Rapper "50 Cent" Needs your help...

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

If you have some comment on that wording then feel free to do so. I leave out the parts of little or no value whenever it suits me.

Okay, here's my comment...that's dishonest. When you selectively pick out words out of context and change a person's meaning within their comments. You do this routinely, and it's a dishonest way of having a conversation.

Not to mention, your point is wrong, but that's been the ongoing conversation we've been having for a long time. You've yet to convince anyone that you make any sense. Not one person. People may read a line or two and agree with it, but the thrust of your meaning no one, not one person, agrees with.

Why do you think that is?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

That is very true. Yes, the child support checks all go to the custodials and never to the children.

Even if the c/s is in arreas big time and the child turns 21 or older then the child support checks still ALWAYS go ONLY to the custodial.

How many three year olds do you know with a checking account? The money goes to the custodial because the custodial is paying the bills, the adult that is taking care of the child. The child doesn't pay the rent, buy the medicine, buy the food, pay the electric, pay the phone bill, etc. The custodial does. So, when the deadbeat is finally paying back the old child support, even long after the child turns 18, or 21, the money goes to the custodial, because the custodial is being repaid for covering the non-supporting parent's role earlier.

Your comment about the money going to the custodial after the child is emancipated is like saying "even after I sold the car, they still want me to finish paying the loan I got on it."

In this "fitty" case the mom gets all the $25,000 and if the c/s gets raised then that mom gets it all given to her only and nothing is ever given to the child by the gov.

The government has no business giving anything to the child. The non-custodial parent (in this case, someone who is paying a large amount of money, the discussion is over whether it should be more or not) pays the custodial via the government as a watchdog to keep everyone honest. The governement has no business paying the child.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by MMDad

Look at the law, not a training slide.

So, I looked up the law for (f), and this is what I found:

Originally Posted by NY Law

(f) The court shall calculate the basic child support obligation, and the non-custodial parent`s pro rata share of the basic child support obligation. Unless the court finds that the non-custodial parents`s
pro-rata share of the basic child support obligation is unjust or inappropriate, which finding shall be based upon consideration of the following factors:
(1) The financial resources of the custodial and non-custodial parent, and those of the child;
(2) The physical and emotional health of the child and his/her special needs and aptitudes;
(3) The standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage or household not been dissolved;
(4) The tax consequences to the parties;
(5) The non-monetary contributions that the parents will make toward the care and well-being of the child;
(6) The educational needs of either parent;
(7) A determination that the gross income of one parent is substantially less than the other parent`s gross income;
(8) The needs of the children of the non-custodial parent for whom the
non-custodial parent is providing support who are not subject to the
instant action and whose support has not been deducted from income
pursuant to subclause (D) of clause (vii) of subparagraph five of
paragraph (b) of this subdivision, and the financial resources of any
person obligated to support such children, provided, however, that this
factor may apply only if the resources available to support such
children are less than the resources available to support the children
who are subject to the instant action;
(9) Provided that the child is not on public assistance
(i) extraordinary expenses incurred by the non-custodial parent in exercising visitation, or
(ii) expenses incurred by the non-custodial parent in extended visitation provided that the custodial parent`s expenses are substantially reduced as a result thereof; and
(10) Any other factors the court determines are relevant in each case, the court shall order the non-custodial parent to pay his or her pro rata share of the basic child support obligation, and may order the non-custodial parent to pay an amount pursuant to paragraph (e) of this subdivision.

So, basically, like I said. It's 17% for one child, but that's a guideline that the court can choose to follow or not.

[MMDad (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

Many of us do not like the Colleges and Universities as they turn the students into immoral aristacrats.

Originally Posted by JPC sr

:brow: Amen.

You are actually celebrating the absolute failure you created in your son? He is an unemployable drug addict, alcoholic, drunk driver, thief, and deadbeat. But at least he isn't an "immoral aristacrat (sic)".

You were able to instill the immorality in him very well with the example you set, but you definitely did not create an aristocrat. No, you created immoral gutter trash, just like dad.

What is your rmeasure of success? Total time in prison? The way he's going, he probably will do more time than you. Is that what you're proud of?

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by This_person

Why do you think that is?

I am not going to follow others around the subject.

The point remains that the unjust child support does not provide anything but extras and luxuries,

so the claim to helping children by degrading the parents is a complete fraud,

and the "50 cent" case just makes this point blatant.

[Ken King (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

I am not going to follow others around the subject.

The point remains that the unjust child support does not provide anything but extras and luxuries,

so the claim to helping children by degrading the parents is a complete fraud,

and the "50 cent" case just makes this point blatant.

Extras and luxuries? What are these, you keep using the term; define it so we can see what the hell you are talking about. Just because you might see anything beyond a daily bowl of gruel and a cardboard sleeping structure as a luxury many of us wouldn’t.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by Ken King

Just because you might see anything beyond a daily bowl of gruel and a cardboard sleeping structure as a luxury many of us wouldn’t.

If any child is in that condition it is only - ONLY because of neglect or abuse by the custodial.

They have custody.

If any child in the entire USA does without then it is only -ONLY because of neglect or abuse by the custodial - only by the custodial.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

If any child is in that condition it is only - ONLY because of neglect or abuse by the custodial.

They have custody.

If any child in the entire USA does without then it is only -ONLY because of neglect or abuse by the custodial - only by the custodial.

That's right! A parent is no longer a member of their child's immediate family as soon as that parent deserts their child and runs away, maintaining no communication with them, neglecting their every need, leaving their child's well being to anyone, anyone I tell you, anyone else but themselves. That's the moral, honest, responsible way of being a parent, and if the other parent can't handle it, they can kiss his ass!!

[Ken King (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

If any child is in that condition it is only - ONLY because of neglect or abuse by the custodial.

They have custody.

If any child in the entire USA does without then it is only -ONLY because of neglect or abuse by the custodial - only by the custodial.

Answer the question @sshole.

Extras and luxuries? What are these, you keep using the term; define it so we can see what the hell you are talking about.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by Ken King

Extras and luxuries? What are these, you keep using the term; define it so we can see what the hell you are talking about. Just because you might see anything beyond a daily bowl of gruel and a cardboard sleeping structure as a luxury many of us wouldn’t.

I hate to do this but here;

1) Extras = link here.

2) Luxuries = link here.

All the children in the entire USA have ready and easy and free (if need be) access to all their true needs in housing, food, clothing, medical, schooling, and much more, so all else is extras and luxuries.

The "50 cent" case of $25,000 per month shows the excess and untruth in the abusive child support claims.