Move over JPC - Meet super-duper deadbeat

[vraiblonde]

Yeah.


THAT is what makes him look dumb.

 

[Ken King]

I think that the child support laws need to be reformed and that child support should be held accountable by the custodial parent meaning that just having custody does not entitle you to a check without showing some type of record keeping that the funds are going to the best interest of the children.

Both parents have to pay for a house, utilities, food and so and that should be taken into account. I also agree that the non custodial parent loses out when their visitation is limited or dictated by the courts. But that is about it. It took both parents to create the child and both parents should have equal parts in raising the child. That also can vary with special circumstances but you get what I mean.

Held accountable for what? Raising and supporting a child is expensive. If custody isn't joint then one parent (the custodial) has greater needs. Besides as long as the child is healthy and shows to be provided for why should the custodial be micromanaged for a detailed accounting? And how do you suggest this be done and what would the burden and cost be to the government?

As I have said it is expensive and you can see what the government estimates the cost per year by age to be here - http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/Crc/crc2005.pdf go to the very last page for a breakdown of total cost and specific cost by area of expense.

 

[JPC, Sr.]

The Preacher!

Held accountable for what? Raising and supporting a child is expensive. If custody isn't joint then one parent (the custodial) has greater needs.

Accountable to the fact that the government is bleeding the separated parents into poverty and into crime and the law is putting parents into jail for child support so there could be some accounting to verify if we are using the force of law to provide a need and not for greed.

Besides as long as the child is healthy and shows to be provided for why should the custodial be micromanaged for a detailed accounting?

The children are shown fine and provided for then there is no justification for pillaging the separated parents and no justification to be putting parents into jail.

And how do you suggest this be done and what would the burden and cost be to the government?

The child support system already is a burden on the government and collecting money for children that already have their needs met is unjust and illogical law. If the custodial can not show what the money is used for then it is not a necessity and the gov has no business collecting it when their is no reccognized need.

As I have said it is expensive and you can see what the government estimates the cost per year by age to be here - http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/Crc/crc2005.pdf go to the very last page for a breakdown of total cost and specific cost by area of expense.

These are not realistic numbers. When the child already has all its physical needs filled, and they all already do, then any more cash is just extra. Wanting extra and wanting better for the children is fine but putting separated parents into poverty and into jail when there is no real need is not sound law nor sensible actions for a government.

The guy with seven babies by seven women, can not be expected to provide them with that middle class status as KK's gov link tries to imply.

 

[somd whisper]

Held accountable for what? Raising and supporting a child is expensive. If custody isn't joint then one parent (the custodial) has greater needs. Besides as long as the child is healthy and shows to be provided for why should the custodial be micromanaged for a detailed accounting? And how do you suggest this be done and what would the burden and cost be to the government?

As I have said it is expensive and you can see what the government estimates the cost per year by age to be here - http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/Crc/crc2005.pdf go to the very last page for a breakdown of total cost and specific cost by area of expense.

Ken,
What I mean by that is both households should be take into account and both parents need to support the child.

I know how expensive caring for a child is. I have two. From this marriage and even though they are adults now had from a prior marriage. I do not think micromanage is what I was looking for, but I do know that there have been many problems with the custodial parents spending child support money on things that are not related to supporting the child. I understand what you are syaing and I wish I had an answer but I just do not. Not all cases on child support are determined equally. I know when I processed the paper work when I worked in the courts. but there is room for improvement.

 

[oldman]

Ken,
What I mean by that is both households should be take into account and both parents need to support the child.

I know how expensive caring for a child is. I have two. From this marriage and even though they are adults now had from a prior marriage. I do not think micromanage is what I was looking for, but I do know that there have been many problems with the custodial parents spending child support money on things that are not related to supporting the child. I understand what you are syaing and I wish I had an answer but I just do not. Not all cases on child support are determined equally. I know when I processed the paper work when I worked in the courts. but there is room for improvement.

Please give us an example of "not all cases on c/s being determined equally". I think doing so would be a great help in us understanding where you're coming from. The reason I ask is because quite of few here have been/are involved with c/s and I get the impression none have a problem with the way the cards have dealt to them.

Also understand that JPC's position is that non-custodials should not have to pay a dime if you haven't already picked up on it.

 

[Ken King]

Accountable to the fact that the government is bleeding the separated parents into poverty and into crime and the law is putting parents into jail for child support so there could be some accounting to verify if we are using the force of law to provide a need and not for greed.

It isn't greed it is what you are responsible for, to provide for YOUR child.

The children are shown fine and provided for then there is no justification for pillaging the separated parents and no justification to be putting parents into jail.

The only ones going to jail are those that refuse to care for their children.

The child support system already is a burden on the government and collecting money for children that already have their needs met is unjust and illogical law. If the custodial can not show what the money is used for then it is not a necessity and the gov has no business collecting it when their is no reccognized need.

The burden is from those like you that refuse to do what is right, taking care of your own children. It is those like you that force the government to try to recoup what is owed to the child. You are why they do it.

These are not realistic numbers. When the child already has all its physical needs filled, and they all already do, then any more cash is just extra. Wanting extra and wanting better for the children is fine but putting separated parents into poverty and into jail when there is no real need is not sound law nor sensible actions for a government.

You are an idiot and simply unaware as you have never partaken in raising or supporting a child. Those amounts are very realistic and depending on the health of the child can be viewed as conservative. The lower income grouping for those under $43,200 (average 18,100) indicates that children are in fact expensive.

For instance with a child you need a larger dwelling and they figure for that extra bedroom, electric, water, and heat that it costs about $240 a month, is that absurd? I don't think so.

Food on average will run an additional $125 a month, is that ridiculous? No, it is probably more most of the time. Or do you think that the custodial should do with fewer meals a week to stretch the food?

Transportation expenses average about $66 a month, is that unrealistic? Hell no and with gas prices now it's probably a hell of a lot more.

Clothing is averaged as being only $40 a month, who the heck are they kidding.

Health Care averages $40 a month, no way in hell. It's a lot more to get a health insurance policy than that and then the co-pays on top of that.

They average Child Care and Education at $52 a month when I doubt if child care can be had for less than a $100 a week and education expenses for school age children can be a heck of a lot higher.

And then they allow $48 a month for incidentals. All of these are very reasonable or would you consider these miscellaneous expenses that include personal care items, entertainment, and reading materials frivolous?

Total that all up and it is $611 a month, now split it 50/50 amongst the parents and that’s $305.50 a month.

Maybe if you had been actively involved in either raising a child or contributing to raising one you might understand this but you don't have any knowledge or experience as to what it takes. You live in a fool's paradise, as is appropriate for the fool that you are.

The guy with seven babies by seven women, can not be expected to provide them with that middle class status as KK's gov link tries to imply.

Why not? They are his kids and he should help take care of them. And those numbers in no way would place someone in what could be called middle class. Those are povetry level numbers.

By the way, how much does the government give you a month to live on? Is it more than $611 a month?

 

[somd whisper]

Please give us an example of "not all cases on c/s being determined equally". I think doing so would be a great help in us understanding where you're coming from. The reason I ask is because quite of few here have been/are involved with c/s and I get the impression none have a problem with the way the cards have dealt to them.

Also understand that JPC's position is that non-custodials should not have to pay a dime if you haven't already picked up on it.

Sure no problem sorry I should have thought about that sooner,

And yes I have picked up on that but thanks for pointing that out and just so you know I disagree with JPC on that.

By.... that I am saying working in the court systems there were child support cases were the amount of child support was not determined on the same scale or by the same formula.

An example comes to mind when a couple came in the husband was awarded child support and the mother working a full time job was given a much lower amount that she needed to pay in child support. Her salary was well up there and surpassed the husband by quite a bit.

The same day and same court another mother was awarded an astronomical amount of child support and the father held a barely above minimum wage income and her income was well above his.

Where in the same day another couple came in the mother worked and held a wonderful job as the father about but slightly higher and the father and mother shared custody where the child was with the father 6 months and the mother for six months and she was still awarded child support.

 

[Ken King]

Ken,
What I mean by that is both households should be take into account and both parents need to support the child.

I know how expensive caring for a child is. I have two. From this marriage and even though they are adults now had from a prior marriage. I do not think micromanage is what I was looking for, but I do know that there have been many problems with the custodial parents spending child support money on things that are not related to supporting the child. I understand what you are syaing and I wish I had an answer but I just do not. Not all cases on child support are determined equally. I know when I processed the paper work when I worked in the courts. but there is room for improvement.

How would you improve it?

Maryland uses "combined income" to get the base amount of the support award and then it is proportionately divided by each parent's percentage of contribution to the whole, what could be more fair then that?

And if there are circumstances that make it unjust the order can be challenged as allowed for under § 12-202 of the Family Law Article.

 

[somd whisper]

How would you improve it?

Maryland uses "combined income" to get the base amount of the support award and then it is proportionately divided by each parent's percentage of contribution to the whole, what could be more fair then that?

And if there are circumstances that make it unjust the order can be challenged as allowed for under § 12-202 of the Family Law Article.

Not always Ken. I already said I wish I knew how to make it better. I wish I had all the answers but I don't nor do I claim to.

 

[Ken King]

Not always Ken. I already said I wish I knew how to make it better. I wish I had all the answers but I don't nor do I claim to.

Not always what?

 

[PJay]

Ken, you said:

Maryland uses "combined income" to get the base amount of the support award and then it is proportionately divided by each parent's percentage of contribution to the whole, what could be more fair then that?

She's saying that's not always the case...and she's speaking the truth.

Do you believe, Ken that jail is the answer?

 

[Ken King]

Ken, you said:

Maryland uses "combined income" to get the base amount of the support award and then it is proportionately divided by each parent's percentage of contribution to the whole, what could be more fair then that?

Is that what she is saying and do you always speak for her?

She's saying that's not always the case...and she's speaking the truth.

Of course there can be exceptions as the law allows for but that is the basic premise of the law.

Do you believe, Ken that jail is the answer?

For those that willfully refuse to provide for their children blatantly or by either self-impoverishment, working under the table, or running away, yes. What do you think should happen to them? Make them legislative delegates?

 

[somd whisper]

Not always what?

Oh sorry, was rushing to write it I outlined it in my other post.

 

[oldman]

Sure no problem sorry I should have thought about that sooner,

And yes I have picked up on that but thanks for pointing that out and just so you know I disagree with JPC on that.

By.... that I am saying working in the court systems there were child support cases were the amount of child support was not determined on the same scale or by the same formula.

An example comes to mind when a couple came in the husband was awarded child support and the mother working a full time job was given a much lower amount that she needed to pay in child support. Her salary was well up there and surpassed the husband by quite a bit.

The same day and same court another mother was awarded an astronomical amount of child support and the father held a barely above minimum wage income and her income was well above his.

Where in the same day another couple came in the mother worked and held a wonderful job as the father about but slightly higher and the father and mother shared custody where the child was with the father 6 months and the mother for six months and she was still awarded child support.

Thanks for the above. We, the general public, don't often hear of cases like this so at least I am getting educated. I suppose, for the most part, it's a legal issue where the judge gets to impose his/her feelings because the law just isn't that specific?? I know there is a judge in Charles that has, up to this point, sentenced at least 3 child sexual offenders to 20 years and has suspended all but 1 or 1 and a half years on all three. Obviously it was within the law for him to do that but I have to maintain it was not in the best interest of the general public.

 

[somd whisper]

Is that what she is saying and do you always speak for her?


Of course there can be exceptions as the law allows for but that is the basic premise of the law.


For those that willfully refuse to provide for their children blatantly or by either self-impoverishment, working under the table, or running away, yes. What do you think should happen to them? Make them legislative delegates?

Ken,
She is right. I understand there are exceptions but more so than not.
Now you know that homesick does not speak for me, she was only trying to help, you know that I have always tried to be respectful to people when I am in here. I am not trying to argue with you. I agree with you, but there are other things to consider. Homesick was being polite, so hopefuly we can be cordial to one another.

 

[somd whisper]

Ken, you said:

Maryland uses "combined income" to get the base amount of the support award and then it is proportionately divided by each parent's percentage of contribution to the whole, what could be more fair then that?

She's saying that's not always the case...and she's speaking the truth.

Do you believe, Ken that jail is the answer?

Thanks Homesick that was what I meant but just did not type it all.

But I think jail may be the answer to those that keep dodging the child support. Not for all. I don't know about all. While I do not have a solution to the problem I still feel there is room for improvement. Not all child support cases are wrong and lots of families work with it, but so many of them just can't and NO I am not saying that excuses the father from child support. BOTH parents should support their child not because they are forced to but because they love them and only want the best for them.

 

[somd whisper]

Thanks for the above. We, the general public, don't often hear of cases like this so at least I am getting educated. I suppose, for the most part, it's a legal issue where the judge gets to impose his/her feelings because the law just isn't that specific?? I know there is a judge in Charles that has, up to this point, sentenced at least 3 child sexual offenders to 20 years and has suspended all but 1 or 1 and a half years on all three. Obviously it was within the law for him to do that but I have to maintain it was not in the best interest of the general public.

Hey no problem. I should have done that before. It is amazing the cases you can hear. I know that each case is different and each court is too but you would be amazed at how different case turnouts can be.

 

[Ken King]

Oh sorry, was rushing to write it I outlined it in my other post.

I take it that you are talking about these examples:

An example comes to mind when a couple came in the husband was awarded child support and the mother working a full time job was given a much lower amount that she needed to pay in child support. Her salary was well up there and surpassed the husband by quite a bit.

The same day and same court another mother was awarded an astronomical amount of child support and the father held a barely above minimum wage income and her income was well above his.

Where in the same day another couple came in the mother worked and held a wonderful job as the father about but slightly higher and the father and mother shared custody where the child was with the father 6 months and the mother for six months and she was still awarded child support.

Not knowing the specifics of each case I really can't comment on them with confidence, but there are many factors of adjustment that can be considered. But by law if they award was not in accordance with the guidelines then the court is required to document the reason for the deviation per § 12-202(a)(2)(v), which should explain the court's reasoning in reaching its decision. Are you privy to that information?

 

[somd whisper]

I take it that you are talking about these examples:

Not knowing the specifics of each case I really can't comment on them with confidence, but there are many factors of adjustment that can be considered. But by law if they award was not in accordance with the guidelines then the court is required to document the reason for the deviation per § 12-202(a)(2)(v), which should explain the court's reasoning in reaching its decision. Are you privy to that information?

Well I do know the specifics of the case. I was there. Yes I was privy to the info but I can tell you that it is something I will not divulge here or anywhere for that matter.

But I can tell you that this was not something that was out of the norm.

And again with all due respect whether you believe me or not will not change the fact that it happened or will happen again.

 

[Ken King]

Well I do know the specifics of the case. I was there. Yes I was privy to the info but I can tell you that it is something I will not divulge here or anywhere for that matter.

But I can tell you that this was not something that was out of the norm.

And again with all due respect whether you believe me or not will not change the fact that it happened or will happen again.

Okay, first of all I don't think I said that I didn't believe you. If you got that out of my posts be assured that I had no such intent.

All I am saying is what the law says on the matter. If the reason for not adhering to the guidelines wasn't documented by the court, as required by law, then that should make grounds for an immediate appeal and reconsideration should the impacted party choose to do so. If it was documented one would hope that the logic employed was reasonable and could withstand scrutiny of an appeals process.