The Child Support Solution.

[MysticalMom]

The Custodials notoriously use the children as a weapon against the separated parents and that too is unethical in the extreme.

Your position is not sustainable except by low cheap shots like name calling slander and holding up the children as hostages to hide behind.

------------------------------

OMG.

I still think this is/he is one big joke.

 

[Pete]

The Custodials notoriously use the children as a weapon against the separated parents and that too is unethical in the extreme.

Your position is not sustainable except by low cheap shots like name calling slander and holding up the children as hostages to hide behind.

------------------------------

The non Custodials notoriously use false claims of poverty as a weapon against moral obligation and that is unethical in the extreme and vile.

Your position is not sustainable except by lies and holding up fake disabilities to hide behind.

------------------------------

 

[bresamil]

The Custodials notoriously use the children as a weapon against the separated parents and that too is unethical in the extreme.

Your position is not sustainable except by low cheap shots like name calling slander and holding up the children as hostages to hide behind.

------------------------------

That's it. I'm finding this young man - JPC Jr - and I'll even let him use my computer, if he does not have one, to post his feelings.
All aspiring politicians should expect their skeletons in the closet to be found and interviewed at length. Its time JPC Sr faces the "truth" of his past.

 

[JPC, Sr.]

The Truth Will Set Us All Free.

I totally agree with your point

If a garnishment is in place to take $100 which is 25% of $400 then your weekly take home is reduced to say $300 the $100 will come out as scheduled which is 33%.

Unfortunately there is no way possible to be sure the exact percentage is taken.

Of course there is an easy way to do it. Right now the law sends notice to the parents employer to garnish set amount (ie; $75.) and instead the law needs to instruct the employer to garnish only 25 percent and then each employer would adjust the amount every paycheck. That is why the law states percentages in the first place because fixed set amounts are unjust and abusive.

You do of course realize that the #1, BEST way to keep this from happening is to not let the situation get to the point you are in arrears and garnished don't you?

Except that is an unreasonable demand. Parents (like all humanity) do get sick and have accidents or miss work for various real reasons and getting fired or laid off or the employer telling them not to work for a couple days, and more. So no working class parent (like the millions in jail now USA, and hundreds in SMC) can not set their own work hours. The inflexable set amounts cripple the parents while the percentages (like the law says and the Courts do not do) would give us a real solution to deadbroke parents in jail at $25,000. per year.

You complaining about an extra percentage or two being taken via garnishment because you missed a day is like a serial killer complaining because his cot in jail is too hard.

The poster degrades the working class plight but that never came from me. That 25 to 65 percent is no trivial matter at all and it needs to be stopped.

-----------------------------------

 

[Toxick]

The Custodials notoriously use the children as a weapon against the separated parents and that too is unethical in the extreme.

It is, indeed, unethical in the extreme to use a child as a weapon against one's ex. It is absolutely reprehensible to turn your children against one of their parents regardless of what they've done - and I would never ever defend such behavior.

However, I have to take issue with your assertion that "custodials notoriously use children as a weapon".

As you may have gathered (or perhaps you've ignored it - who knows?) that I know a good many divorced couples, more than a few of them with children involved.

Despite the fact that there is severely intense bad-blood between several of these ex-couples - and in some cases, outright hatred - not a single one of them badmouth their ex in front of their children.


I didn't ace my Statistics course, however, I would think that I would have seen some of that behavior, if it were so prevalent among custodial parents.


I'm not saying it doesn't happen... but your use of the word "notorious" is out of place.

Your position is not sustainable except by low cheap shots like name calling slander and holding up the children as hostages to hide behind.

While I disagree with bringing your personal progeny into this conversation (other than direct reference to your neglect of said progeny vis a vis being a deadbeat) - regardless of age or relevance - I've seen no slander, nor cowering behind children.


You see, slander implies falsehood and malicious intent.

None of which appear in the post to which you're replying.

And although I personally regard asking about your children to be bad form, it was a valid question, and doesn't seem to be "hiding behind" anything.

 

[2ndAmendment]

That 25 to 65 percent is no trivial matter at all and it needs to be stopped.

Of disposable income you lame brain. That means income after taxes, medical, mortgage or rent, and other necessary living expenses. That does not include your beer money no matter how much of a necessity you think beer is.

 

[SAHRAB]

: The poster degrades the working class plight but that never came from me. That 25 to 65 percent is no trivial matter at all and it needs to be stopped.

-----------------------------------

You are a sad miserable excuse for a piece of sh!t, and have no clue what it takes to support a child - you admitedly didnt do it yourself so you have no concept on what this takes.

The only non-trivial matter is the fact that you are obviously capable of working for an income, but instead would much rather BRUTALIZE myself and other Tax-Paying citizens to subsidize your pathetic existance. You have "worked" the system so that I and others are forced to take income from our families (a concept that is alien to yourself) and now use my childrens money to foist this BS upon us.

What needs to be stopped is your Bu!!sh!t ramblings about ChildCare you are a DEADBEAT, you openly admit and bask in the fact that you yourself are a DEADBEAT (just wont admit to the term itself).

 

[Pete]

Of course there is an easy way to do it. Right now the law sends notice to the parents employer to garnish set amount (ie; $75.) and instead the law needs to instruct the employer to garnish only 25 percent and then each employer would adjust the amount every paycheck. That is why the law states percentages in the first place because fixed set amounts are unjust and abusive.

Are you saying that child support and garnishment are just now? I am glad you agree

Except that is an unreasonable demand. Parents (like all humanity) do get sick and have accidents or miss work for various real reasons and getting fired or laid off or the employer telling them not to work for a couple days, and more. So no working class parent (like the millions in jail now USA, and hundreds in SMC) can not set their own work hours. The inflexable set amounts cripple the parents while the percentages (like the law says and the Courts do not do) would give us a real solution to deadbroke parents in jail at $25,000. per year.

You are nuttier than a payday candybar if you think people believe that deadbeats are being thrown in jail because they missed a day of work or two. The child support enforcement process is VERY lengthy before you are jailed for failure to pay support. STOP LYING!

The poster degrades the working class plight but that never came from me. That 25 to 65 percent is no trivial matter at all and it needs to be stopped.

-----------------------------------

The candidate degrades children and custodial parents plight when the non custodial parent dodges support and glorifies deadbeats as innocent victims of an unjust machine.

He is a heartless, cruel, selfish beast who is only interested in himself.

 

[2ndAmendment]

It is, indeed, unethical in the extreme to use a child as a weapon against one's ex. It is absolutely reprehensible to turn your children against one of their parents regardless of what they've done - and I would never ever defend such behavior.

I agree totally.

What JPC, Sr. the epitome of deadbeats, fails to understand is that when children grow up, they realize whether the non-custodial parent cares for them and actions speak louder than words. This discarded piece of scrotum withheld support from his kid.

The kid eventually looks around and says, "Mom, how come Jake can have new sneakers every year, and I can't.".
Mom: "We can't afford them dear."
Kid: "Why not?"
Mom: "Well I am the only one bringing in any money for us."
Kid: "Doesn't dad give us any money?"
Mom: "No. He thinks the money he would give us is only for extras."
Kid: "Oh. (disappointed)"

 

[RoseRed]

Your position is not sustainable except by low cheap shots like name calling slander and holding up the children as hostages to hide behind.

------------------------------

You took that as a cheap shot?

Your son is over 18, right? I think he, as a grown man, could answer the question himself.

 

[ylexot]

Of disposable income you lame brain. That means income after taxes, medical, mortgage or rent, and other necessary living expenses. That does not include your beer money no matter how much of a necessity you think beer is.

Actually, that's what you or I might consider "disposable income", but the legal definition that I found does not include mortgage, rent, or other necessary living expenses. It's what's left after taxes, Social Security, and other mandatory deductions from your paycheck.

 

[Chasey_Lane]

Deadbeat Cusick, you need a serious dose of reality. Fortunately for you, the very same taxpayers you criticize are the same ones clothing, feeding & sheltering your worthless existence. If you want to make a change, why not start with yourself. Get off your lazy azz, get a job, and stop suckling from the government.

 

[Chasey_Lane]

Actually, that's what you or I might consider "disposable income", but the legal definition that I found does not include mortgage, rent, or other necessary living expenses. It's what's left after taxes, Social Security, and other mandatory deductions from your paycheck.

There are different terms, and it is calculated differently. Both of you are correct.

 

[Chasey_Lane]

I agree totally.

What JPC, Sr. the epitome of deadbeats, fails to understand is that when children grow up, they realize whether the non-custodial parent cares for them and actions speak louder than words. This discarded piece of scrotum withheld support from his kid.

Exactly! My daughter will be 9 next month, and she's able to start putting bits & pieces together. I have never said a bad word about her father to her, and I never would. It will be more than a reward for me when the day finally comes and she tells him to kiss her azz.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Actually, that's what you or I might consider "disposable income", but the legal definition that I found does not include mortgage, rent, or other necessary living expenses. It's what's left after taxes, Social Security, and other mandatory deductions from your paycheck.

All I know is when I went through the divorce and child custody thing with my ex, the child support was figured after reasonable living expenses were deducted, too. I couldn't figure in a new car, but I was allowed the car payment I was already making.

That may not be the legal definition, but it is what we worked out. My ex wanted more, but the judge told her, "You can't get blood from a rock." (real quote) Our divorce and child custody was a real battle; in court 2 days for first hearing and then 2 more hearings after that; one 1 day and another 2 day one. You can guess things were not exactly nice between my ex and I.

Over the years, as my income increased, I increased the money for support of our daughter. My ex and I actually got to be friendly; not friends but friendly. When my daughter turned 12, she decided to come live with me. My ex started sending me child support, not much and not regular, but some.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Exactly! My daughter will be 9 next month, and she's able to start putting bits & pieces together. I have never said a bad word about her father to her, and I never would. It will be more than a reward for me when the day finally comes and she tells him to kiss her azz.

I got that when my daughter told her mother that she wanted to live with me. Shocker for mom.

 

[ylexot]

There are different terms, and it is calculated differently. Both of you are correct.

Yep, the one I found earlier was somewhere in Texas law, but I just searched it again and found this on www.nolo.com:

Disposable Income - The difference between a debtor's current monthly income and allowable expenses. This is the amount that the new bankruptcy law deems available to pay into a Chapter 13 plan.

Under this definition, disposable income would be (to borrow a word from JPC) "extra".

 

[pixiegirl]

Current child support is based on two worksheets made by the court system. There is a worksheet for sole custody and one for joint custody. Neither has any deductions based on mortgage, rent, car payments or the like. The only adjustments to income that can be made are for health insurance and daycare expenses. All child support is figured using Gross monthly income.

 

[pixiegirl]

Here are the actual codes.

 

[RoseRed]

That's it. I'm finding this young man - JPC Jr - and I'll even let him use my computer, if he does not have one, to post his feelings.
All aspiring politicians should expect their skeletons in the closet to be found and interviewed at length. Its time JPC Sr faces the "truth" of his past.

Any luck yet? He shut up right after you made this post. Maybe we actually struck a nerve.