Jail/Prisons & Insanity.

[Ken King]

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

The difference of set fixed amounts instead of percentages is like this;

People's electric bill is different every month so it is flexible as if more electricity is used then pay more on the electric bill. But some people chose to get a set fixed amount like $500. per month for electricity so then the bill stays the same all year long at $500. and does not go up and down with summer air conditioning or electric going down in mild weather, so that payment bill is always the same as a "fixed set amount." But child support needs to be flexible and it is not, that is because the Courts order parents to only pay the "set fixed amounts" like $500. per month for child support, then the parent gets laid off in winter or gets an injury so one can not work in summer and still the child support is not flexible so the parent is still required to pay the full set fixed amount when the parent did not make enough money to pay it, so then the parents are forced to break the child support law because it is unjust.

By allowing for proportionate payments versus establishing an amount of determined support an unscrupulous person could stop work, switch to a lower paying job, or obtain unreported income to deprive the child of equitable support. Not to mention the administrative nightmare of tracking changes in income that would make verification of the appropriate level of withholding an undue burden on the state. Your concept of “scaled” payments would make the system more susceptible to abuse and knowing the nature of many I am sure they would take advantage of your design.

As to what you said about if a parent gets laid off or is injured then a dramatic change in earnings has taken place justifying a modification of the support order and upon the date of filing for reconsideration the support is frozen until a new amount is calculated. Dramatic change is determined by a change of earnings of 25% or more. If you bothered to read the current law you would see that provisions are already in place for your scenarios and are time-based on filing dates for a modification and not on dates of when it makes it to a hearing.

But the USA federal child support guidelines say to only take percentages for child support and if that were done then the c/s payments would be flexible and give the separated parent a better chance of paying the demands.

Again you still don’t understand what that portion of the law is about. It is about how much a creditor can take from your disposable income via garnishment orders. That law protects a person from having their entire paycheck seized by an entity that has obtained a judgment on a debt owed. It has nothing to do with how or the amount a state determines appropriate for child support. For the life of me I don’t understand why you can’t get a grasp on this as it is clear as day what it means.

Then if the parent made less money the percentages would automaticly change too. As in, if the separated parent made $2,000. one month then 25 percent would be $500. in c/s, but if the parent missed half a month of work and only made $1,000. then 25 percent would be $250. in c/s which is all the parent could afford. If the child support is a set fixed amount as is done now then the parent that made a $1,000. all month and still have to pay the $500. then that would be to give 50 percent / half of their pay for child support, because fixed set amounts violate the percentage guidelines. If percentages then if the parent won a million dollar lottery then the c/s would get 25 percent automaticly, but now the Courts only order the set fixed amounts no matter what and it cripples many low income parents and they are forced to break the unjust laws.

You’re grasping at straws trying to justify a parent not meeting their obligations to provide support. If faced with a true hardship there are processes in place to address them and correct in unjust burden derived by legitimate circumstances. And should the non-custodial win the lotto then the custodial could request a modification based on those winnings using the exact same process as would be used to deal with a hardship. It’s all already in the law.

Saying / believing that the parents can go back to Court is just not true because the Courts only orders the fixed set amounts and that means that loosing a job or missing days from work simply do not count and the parent will only be put into jail by the Courts, so parents are forced to break the c/s laws because they are unjust.

Wrong again, as the law has provisions for everything you have brought up and if an unjust situation is supported by evidence then amounts different then what are in the guidelines can be established. What is abundantly clear is that you haven’t even read the laws concerning child support and are just making things up as you go versus learning what is or isn’t covered? Poor folk only pay what they are able and the guidelines clearly show that it is based on ability to pay and they aren’t being unduly gouged as you contend.

Because I do trust you and I trust all parents everywhere. Since the beginning of time or even from Adam and Eve the human beings always provide for their own children and it is not necessary to go into each home to know this is true. Plus our society has many resourses for parents and for children that are free and easy to get.

This is another falsehood that is being perpetuated by you. There has been and will always be people that don’t care what becomes of the children that they bring into this world. You are perfect evidence of this when you abandoned your child leaving your wife to provide for and care for him while you thought of only your wants and desires while forcing your child to live in a world where his father didn’t think enough of him to make sure that all of his needs were met. Your desertion is one of the travesties of our society and is a disgrace that our society facilitates with programs that pick up your slack without holding you accountable. It seems to be an expectation that you hold where others are forced to pay for your inhumanity and indifference to your own flesh and blood.

If you want to fix the problem the first thing that needs to be done is for people to do what is right and take care of their own instead of expecting the government to be left to take care of the mess that those like you think nothing of creating. And for those that don’t do what is right then they should be made to pay the price for dumping the burden on the rest of us by spending many long and lonely days locked away like the animals they have proven they are.

[hvp05]

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

... thus any man-made-law that divides families and degrades either parent as child support does, is a law that is un-human and it needs to end.

Stop hopping around so much; you're making me dizzy. Earlier you explained how violent criminals should still be punished. Does that stand only if they do not have children? "Well, since you have kids we won't put you in prison for that murder."

I think there is value in child support punishment because parents ought to be held to some kind of standard. The law can not dictate who has children, or the quantity. Nor can they dictate the beliefs you instill in your children. But if one chooses to be blatantly negligent, abusive or a similar type of scum, they can - and should - face punishment.

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

When the children under the custodial are taught to disrespect and dishonor their own separated parent then the custodial has betrayed the child and has cheapened society and those unjust child support laws enpower that pervertion and again - it needs to be stopped.

Despite what you believe, deadbeats do exist. They always have. And a parent does not need to be in arrears concerning their support demands to be considered a deadbeat. Often they are one in the same, so it is easy to see why your simplistic thought process could become confused.

Irresponsible deadbeats should be called out and exposed for what they are. Just as any loser should be.

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

But child support needs to be flexible and it is not, that is because the Courts order parents to only pay the "set fixed amounts" like $500. per month...

How many times everyday must the folks attempt to clarify this for you? I don't know how much simpler it can be broken down.

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

... then the parent gets laid off in winter or gets an injury so one can not work in summer...

Again, you are talking about a small minority. Most who do not pay are running - to Texas, for example, where they believe they can remain hidden indefinitely. These people are physically/mentally capable of maintaining a regular income and sending a regular payment... they simply choose not to do so. There is no excuse for being such a lame-ass.

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

But the USA federal child support guidelines say to only take percentages...

As Ken clearly explained to you a few days ago, you are talking about two completely different portions of child support law. Regular child support is, understandably, determined by the state and is dependent upon the individual circumstances. Percentages only come into play once the non-custodial's case has gone into arrears.

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

Then if the parent made less money the percentages would automaticly change too. As in, if the separated parent made $2,000. one month then 25 percent would be $500. in c/s, but if the parent missed half a month of work and only made $1,000. then 25 percent would be $250. in c/s which is all the parent could afford.

Here's the other problem with your percentages hypothesis: the child's lifestyle is not correlated to the non-custodial's income. If the non-custodial suddenly experiences a 15% income reduction the parent can not say, "Well Billy, it looks like you will be eating 15% less this month." Therefore, the shortage will fall on somebody... the custodial parent. How is that supposed to be fair? The non-custodial loses their job, so the custodial must bear the burden? The unemployed parent should avoid blame, suck it up and find another job. Hopefully it will all be for the better, and if the two parents work out a special deal in the meantime that is between them, but the burden should not automatically fall back on the custodial.

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

Saying / believing that the parents can go back to Court is just not true because the Courts only orders the fixed set amounts and that means that loosing a job or missing days from work simply do not count and the parent will only be put into jail by the Courts, so parents are forced to break the c/s laws because they are unjust.

Again, you have raised this example that I believe is unrealistic. Being unemployed for two weeks will not put a non-custodial far enough behind that the courts would care. That form of action requires months of leading negligence. (Example: Being 2+ years and $5,000 dollars in the negative after the non-custodial runs 1,500 miles to abandon all responsibilities.)

Again, the non-custodial would have no good excuse. And if that is the best argument you have, you're in trouble.

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

... human beings always provide for their own children...

You dumbass. I am thoroughly confused as to why you persist in stating this when we have a prime example to prove it false: YOU!! You willingly left your child and you chose to avoid payment. And you have admitted doing so. We do not need you to "explain" this; it is what it is.

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

Plus our society has many resourses for parents and for children that are free and easy to get.

What a great ending! Why not just go outside and start tossing flyers that say, "Become a drain on your society today! Ask me how!"?

Nothing is free, jackass. Certainly, when it comes from the government, the aid or service must have been funded with tax dollars. Under my system, such support would be tightly controlled; losers like you would not even receive a cent of such money.

I absolutely can not believe you are running a campaign with this philosophy. Your last statement alone would give me reason enough to vote for someone else.

[hvp05]

Super post, Ken. I am currently prohibited from sending anymore green, but here is a

Originally Posted by Ken King

What is abundantly clear is that you haven’t even read the laws concerning child support and are just making things up as you go versus learning what is or isn’t covered?

Either he has read the law and has misunderstood it or he has refused to read it altogether. Whichever is true, I believe he is blinded by his own history and anger. He proclaims that his case is long past and this is all about "protecting" today's families, but only a spiteful, unconscionable loser could be so misguided.

[Ken King]

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

Child support and custody are separate issues but they are closely aligned. See in KK's post #275 above as KK says that degrading his children's mom and refusing visitation because mom failed to pay him the child support cash is what he does, and so do many other custodials deny visitation based on c/s. It is a betrayal of the children and an injustice to the separated parent and the custodial is selling out their family for cash payments, as KK says he does.

Slanderer, you take the cake you stupid scum sucking liar, where did I say anything of the sort. I challenge you to prove what you have said above in this quoted post, upon your being unable to prove what you have written you will retract your statement and apologize for being a lying insignificant loser.

You might think you are being cute or sharp witted but the reality is that you are nothing but an imbecilic lying deadbeat hypocrite. You can thank whomever it is you pray to that duels are no longer legal as you most certainly would have been challenged and felt my slap across your ignorant face. A slap that you can be certain of that would have knocked some of that stupid right off of your face. I hope that one day I will have the fortune to come face to face with you and we will see if you are bold enough to repeat your lies to my face. Somehow I doubt that you possess the fortitude to do so.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Ken King

A slap that you can be certain of that would have knocked some of that stupid right off of your face.

You are a pretty fit fella but I doubt you could hit him that hard.

[hvp05]

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

See in KK's post #275 above as KK says that degrading his children's mom and refusing visitation because mom failed to pay him the child support cash is what he does, and so do many other custodials deny visitation based on c/s.

Lo, the hypocrite and his vile underhandedness. You decry the name calling, etc. only to turn and present ad hominems willy-nilly.

Not only is your post generally untrue, to highlight Ken is abhorrent. In post #135 Ken categorically stated he never did any such thing as you claim.

I would continue... but this speaks for itself. More than mere words can demonstrate.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

The difference of set fixed amounts instead of percentages is like this;

People's electric bill is different every month so it is flexible as if more electricity is used then pay more on the electric bill. But some people chose to get a set fixed amount like $500. per month for electricity so then the bill stays the same all year long at $500. and does not go up and down with summer air conditioning or electric going down in mild weather, so that payment bill is always the same as a "fixed set amount." But child support needs to be flexible and it is not,

Hey douche bag, daycare is a set price every month, insurance, house payments, electric bill is pretty consistent, my cable is the same as is my phone. Food and clothing will fluctuate a little and like your example above with the $500 electric bill extra money left over in one month can be applied the next month when expenses are more.

The set support limit argument vs. percentage is pure bullshiat rhetoric you are using to argue your lame point. The amount your salary fluctuates at any job is minuscule if you put in your 40. Sick days and vacation days cover time off. So to hinge your core argument on this is totally stupid but you are beyond stupid anyway.

Originally Posted by hvp05

Not only is your post generally untrue, to highlight Ken is abhorrent. In post #135 Ken categorically stated he never did any such thing as you claim.

Well I really do not like to pick at KK but he puts it out there (as I do too) so I see what he says as very common among custodial parents.

Now see in that KK link given by hvp that his 25 year old adult child knows what his mother is - says his father.

So the 25 year old (and other offspring) can say and believe that their own God given mother is a "deadbeat" and the custodial never taught them to honor thy mother. Instead children are taught to badmouth and degrade their own separated parent and the custodials like KK do not object. This is a betrayal of the children and an injustice to their separated parent and a degradation to society and it all comes from the unjust child support laws. Those laws teach that the children's parents are to be degraded and the custodial accepts the slander for cash C/S payments and the children follow suit and do as they are told and betray their own separated parent. This is an abomination and a pervertion and the law is not to be our masters in our families. I am starting the process that will put an end to the injustice and the slander too.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by JPC, Sr.

Well I really do not like to pick at KK but he puts it out there (as I do too) so I see what he says as very common among custodial parents.

Now see in that KK link given by hvp that his 25 year old adult child knows what his mother is - says his father.

So the 25 year old (and other offspring) can say and believe that their own God given mother is a "deadbeat" and the custodial never taught them to honor thy mother. Instead children are taught to badmouth and degrade their own separated parent and the custodials like KK do not object. This is a betrayal of the children and an injustice to their separated parent and a degradation to society and it all comes from the unjust child support laws. Those laws teach that the children's parents are to be degraded and the custodial accepts the slander for cash C/S payments and the children follow suit and do as they are told and betray their own separated parent. This is an abomination and a pervertion and the law is not to be our masters in our families. I am starting the process that will put an end to the injustice and the slander too.

Fool, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, dodges child support like a duck, acts like a degenerate like a duck it must be a duck. If a kid attains the age of clarity of thought and discovers their estranged parent is a duck who should argue facts and say it is a parrot?

Originally Posted by KCM

Okay..now I am confused. Are you talking about child support issues or visitation issues here. Do you not know your law? Do you not understand that visitation and child support are in fact two separate issues? Not paying your child support has nothing to do with not being able to see your child?

Just for the record, the BIG unspoken reason why child support and visitation are separate issues is because -

if the child support is not paid in full then the visitation can be and often is completely denied and refused,

but if the child support is completely paid then only maybe the separated parent might get to visit their own God given children and maybe not.

The law and many custodials only really want the extra cash from child support and refusing visitation is common place.

What I do object to most is the gov and the Courts that give power and force to these laws that break up the family. I want it stopped.

FYI, this is why child support and visitation are made into separate issues.