b52s Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 That "Gold Digging" thread got me thinking. Esp. when someone gets shafted in a divorce...typically the husband...and has to go from a middle class income to poverty stricken. And if you try to get out of paying alimiony or child support (now, I know the kids shouldn't suffer...and they are deserving of support) BUt...I'm just trying to drive a point here...maybe I should leave out child support in this topic, and just talk about alimony. Anyway, there's this mid 50's man I know...he's been married to his second wife for a while now...but he was previously married in his young adult years....that chapter in his life pretty much was closed a LONG time ago. BUT, it's amazing how a chapter of that book can be FORCED open by court orders and the government...right? One day, this man is going about his normal routine in the day, and he goes to make a CC Purchase at a store...it doesn't work...he tries another card...it doesn't work either. HE leaves his groceries at the casheir, and goes to the ATM machine to physically withdraw cash out of his bank acct. The ATM doesn't give up the cash, and says he needs to go see a banking agent. He does this...and he's told he has to go to the Sherrif's Department to see to a sitaution where apparently he has to pay child support on an 18 year old kid...BACK child support. Okay, suprise, right? Okay, the story behind THAT story, apparently, he had a kid iwth his previous wife....the wife was a deadbeat and a loser anyhow...spent money foolishy and unfinancially stable. When the divorce occured, they had signed documentation that he did NOT have to pay child support and she'd take care of the kid financially. Again, that chapter closed. Now, he went to the sherriffs office to take care of his business, and he finds out the whole deal. Well, turns out the ex wife hunts him down from another states, and decides to get a WILD HAIR and decides...since she is apparently broke, decides to open up a case against her ex husband to get BACK pay on the child support he owes on the kid now. And if he doesn't pay up, or least can't come up with SOME money, he couldu spend the night in jail. SO needless to say, in order to get his bank accts open again, he had to agree to pay BACK child support on his adult kid. Pretty unfair, right? It's amazing how they (big brother) goes out of it's way in these cases....I'm actually impressed they actually DO their jobs in this case....weird...most organzations put things off forever...but when it comes to this kind of thing they don't fool around. They've been known to arrest father's trying to leave the country. His current wife isn't too happy about the situation either, because IT affects her too.
Yukikazi Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 The courts are WAY too biased in the woman's favor... This is why I don't really believe in marriage.. I refuse to loose my **** to someone else when I'm not even involved with them anymore. Marriage is nothing except a contact with the government to screw you when the lawyers get involved.. and all lawyers are always telling the women to get as much as possible.. they egg them on. I mean ****.. a single mom can have a kid.. put down pretty much any guys name on the cert and then 2-3 years down the line the guy suddenly gets his for child support. Its not even his damn kid but the courts decide that its better for the child to have a father so Oops your stuck paying for a child thats not yours when you didn't even sign a birth certificate.. you are screwed.. there is no legal recourse from this scenario.
torranceshipman Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 I wouldn't be bothered about signing a prenup before I got married, as long as there was a clause in there that our kids (if we had any) were alway taken care of.
james123 Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 The courts are WAY too biased in the woman's favor... This is why I don't really believe in marriage.. I refuse to loose my **** to someone else when I'm not even involved with them anymore. Marriage is nothing except a contact with the government to screw you when the lawyers get involved.. and all lawyers are always telling the women to get as much as possible.. they egg them on. I mean ****.. a single mom can have a kid.. put down pretty much any guys name on the cert and then 2-3 years down the line the guy suddenly gets his for child support. Its not even his damn kid but the courts decide that its better for the child to have a father so Oops your stuck paying for a child thats not yours when you didn't even sign a birth certificate.. you are screwed.. there is no legal recourse from this scenario. yeah, I've heard of a man who paid child support for years and years only to find out that the child was some other man's, with whom his wife had an affair while married.
flc Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 Child support is mandated by the State and cannot be resolved through the divorce, prenupt or any outside contract. If you have a child you are required to pay based on the calculation the State uses. No party in the divorce has any say in this. BTW - I think it is a good thing as long as the child support goes for child support and not other uses. Alimony is another issue but don't get me started on that one.
Yukikazi Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 This isn't about child support.. but it will come up in the thread... this is mainly about alimony and the courts favoring women in most decisions.
james123 Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 ^^I guess in certain cases it is justified.
phineas Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 It really depends on the judge. Some of them are real man haters. Some of them are real woman haters. Some of them just want the unwashed masses out of their courtroom asap & just don't care. My buddy caught a break. His wife made more than he did. She also had mental problems. If she stopped taking her medication she would break things. Then she left him for another guy & quit her job & tried sueing him for support. The judge said that wasn't going to fly & he walked away scott free.
ADF Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 The real villian here is whoever your friend's lawyer was in his first divorce. That is, assuming he is being completely honest with you. Frankly, some details of your friend's story sound fishy There is not a single state in the union that allows a man to discharge his child support obligations by signing an agreement. Not one. What is this nonsense about him having signed a document that freed him from having to pay child support? Such a document would carry no weight in a court of law. None. I also have to wonder why, if his first wife was so horrible with money, he would be willing to let her raise his son without support from him. Either he is a total monster who doesn't care about the well-being of his own child (which is possible), or there is soemthing more to the story.
2sure Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 In the state I live in the calculation for child support is pretty straight forward: The non-custodial parent pays 17% of their income to the custodial parent for child support which is listed as a portion of housing, utilities, food, clothing. Basic living expenses. Now anyone who has children, divorced or not KNOWS that one child takes up more than 20% of your income. So, for divorced parents in my state thats a 17/83 split. Doesnt seem like the non custodial parents are getting ripped off here. Now, like I said the child support calculation is for basic needs. Out of pocket expenses like child care, unreimbursed medical expenses, etc. Must be split 50/50. Seems at least more fair. Tuition, other educational expenses like tutors, special classes, summer camps, sports, music lessons, etc etc...are constant variables and would require continual renegotiating (aka COURT) between the divorced parents...so unless one splits or pays the cost of these...it falls to the custodial parent. Obviously, this is just a basic calculation and if there is a gross disparity between incomes it can be changed. But these days with both parents working it is less and less the case. Another factor that can change this is the becoming more typical problem of a parent becoming unemployed. If a non custodial parent loses their job and goes on unemployment they can petition the court to temporarily lower the child support due to this hardship. So - they only to have to pay between 5-17% of their unemployment check to the custodial parent. But get this: If the custodial parent loses their job...they still have the kids and 100% of their expenses. Stop whining.
Author b52s Posted December 21, 2009 Author Posted December 21, 2009 The real villian here is whoever your friend's lawyer was in his first divorce. That is, assuming he is being completely honest with you. Frankly, some details of your friend's story sound fishy There is not a single state in the union that allows a man to discharge his child support obligations by signing an agreement. Not one. What is this nonsense about him having signed a document that freed him from having to pay child support? Such a document would carry no weight in a court of law. None. I also have to wonder why, if his first wife was so horrible with money, he would be willing to let her raise his son without support from him. Either he is a total monster who doesn't care about the well-being of his own child (which is possible), or there is soemthing more to the story. Well, maybe not now...but the documentation was for back in like the 70's or 80's I think.
carhill Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 Sounds like a due process issue. Hope he sues every governmental agency involved.
Art_Critic Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 When the divorce occured, they had signed documentation that he did NOT have to pay child support and she'd take care of the kid financially I find that hard to believe... It sounds like you are not getting the whole story..
Art_Critic Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 There is not a single state in the union that allows a man to discharge his child support obligations by signing an agreement. Not one. This is true.. Even if it is 5 bucks a week he still has to pay.. Now if he gave up his parental rights.. then it is a different story.. He sounds like he was a deadbeat Dad and it is now catching up with him.
ADF Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 Well, maybe not now...but the documentation was for back in like the 70's or 80's I think. Well, the big change came with the Family Support Act of 1988. That was when the federal government began requiring states to come up with formulas for calculating child support payments. It didn't tell them exactly how to calculate payments, but it did require them to come up with some kind of logical procedure. Prior to that, child support was set pretty much according to the whims of individual judges. I am a paralegal, not a lawyer, so I don't want to try and give legal advice. However, even I know that a person cannot release themselves from paying child support just by signing a document. Child support is not even dischargable in bankruptcy cases, because it does not legally qualify as a debt. If some lawyer told your friend he could sign some paper and forget all about paying child support, that lawyer committed malpractice and ought to lose his or her license.
Author b52s Posted December 21, 2009 Author Posted December 21, 2009 Sounds like a due process issue. Hope he sues every governmental agency involved. Yeah, but locking his accts without notice....bad taste man.
carhill Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 I'll bet dollars to donuts he relinquished his rights legally and someone screwed up when she brought suit for arrears. I hope he is very detailed in his accounting of any damages which are occurring. Judges like detailed damages. His ex is a turnip, but the government treasuries are still somewhat solvent. If he is a deadbeat, he deserves to be in jail and is lucky to have been free this long Keep us posted on his progress. To me, this is about legal process, not child support. Good topic.
gopher Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 In the state I live in the calculation for child support is pretty straight forward: The non-custodial parent pays 17% of their income to the custodial parent for child support which is listed as a portion of housing, utilities, food, clothing. Basic living expenses. Now anyone who has children, divorced or not KNOWS that one child takes up more than 20% of your income. So, for divorced parents in my state thats a 17/83 split. Doesnt seem like the non custodial parents are getting ripped off here. Now, like I said the child support calculation is for basic needs. Out of pocket expenses like child care, unreimbursed medical expenses, etc. Must be split 50/50. Seems at least more fair. Tuition, other educational expenses like tutors, special classes, summer camps, sports, music lessons, etc etc...are constant variables and would require continual renegotiating (aka COURT) between the divorced parents...so unless one splits or pays the cost of these...it falls to the custodial parent. Obviously, this is just a basic calculation and if there is a gross disparity between incomes it can be changed. But these days with both parents working it is less and less the case. Another factor that can change this is the becoming more typical problem of a parent becoming unemployed. If a non custodial parent loses their job and goes on unemployment they can petition the court to temporarily lower the child support due to this hardship. So - they only to have to pay between 5-17% of their unemployment check to the custodial parent. But get this: If the custodial parent loses their job...they still have the kids and 100% of their expenses. Stop whining. I pay 32% for three kids, plus all the extra stuff...I guess it depends on where you are.
ADF Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 I'll bet dollars to donuts he relinquished his rights legally and someone screwed up when she brought suit for arrears. I hope he is very detailed in his accounting of any damages which are occurring. Judges like detailed damages. His ex is a turnip, but the government treasuries are still somewhat solvent. If he is a deadbeat, he deserves to be in jail and is lucky to have been free this long Keep us posted on his progress. To me, this is about legal process, not child support. Good topic. But reliquishing parental rights is BIG deal, and it involves a lot more than signing one docment. If the OP's friend relinquished parental rights, he'd know it.
dreamergrl Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 I think it speaks volumes about this guy that he'd sign anything stating he has no financial responsibility to his own kid. First off, I find it doubtful that it is possible. But lets play pretend. What kind of parent, man or woman, feels they should have no responsibility in raising their kid on all aspects. If he did not pay support, yes she can collect on back support. I know plenty of single parents that spent their parent life working several jobs to raise their kid. Why one parent should be able to say screw it and not have to help support the child at the very least is beyond me. Further more, if a man doesn't believe a kid is his, or has reason to doubt, don't sign the birth certificate. Duh. If reasonable doubt comes later, get a blood test.
carhill Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 I'm sure it will all be handled during discovery
Sam Spade Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 I've got no problem with *reasonable* child support. Alimony is another story. I'd rather strangle the judge and stay in jail.
sally4sara Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 Child support is mandated by the State and cannot be resolved through the divorce, prenupt or any outside contract. If you have a child you are required to pay based on the calculation the State uses. No party in the divorce has any say in this. BTW - I think it is a good thing as long as the child support goes for child support and not other uses. Alimony is another issue but don't get me started on that one. This is the truth. The rest is urban legend.
meerkat stew Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 (edited) In the state I live in the calculation for child support is pretty straight forward: The non-custodial parent pays 17% of their income And that is -pretax- income, not after tax. So that 17% blossoms up into an actual 30-40% of -real- income. Now anyone who has children, divorced or not KNOWS that one child takes up more than 20% of your income. False. Maybe a special needs child, but feeding, clothing and basic maintenance of an average child takes up nowhere near 20% of an average income. Nowhere near it. Capitalizing the word "knows" doesn't change a false statement to a true one, as much as you would like it to. So many men in my area in this economy are languishing in JAIL. Low income, uneducated, but honest men, who have gotten such a raw deal in court that they "drop out" of the process, and end up in jail on civil contempt charges. It is the great civil rights violation in 21st century U.S. culture that no other U.S. debtors are sent to jail, only supposed "deadbeat dads." Nice in a country with presumably no debtor's prison. Stop whining. Stop lying. Men are still being bent over to this day in domestic court in masses. The only thing that is going to change this is that women are seeing the unfairness upclose, as they begin to suffer the same injsutice in greater numbers as men have for decades. "Injustice" in this country sadly means injustice to a woman, child or member of a minority. All others ride at the back of the bus in 21st century America. Edited December 22, 2009 by meerkat stew
carhill Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 And that is -pretax- income, not after tax. So that 17% blossoms up into an actual 30-40% of -real- income. Looking at old checkbooks while cleaning out my mom's house, back when I was a kid, including private school tuition, school supplies and uniforms, it looked like, if one divided the grocery bill and utilities by three (dad, mom, and me) and then adding in a reasonable sum for incidentals and clothing, I cost them about the same as the mortgage payment back then, which varied from 85-100 a month during my childhood. Dad made between 1200 and 1500 a month, so a bit under 10%. Tuition, school supplies and uniforms ran about 65.00 per month, averaged over a whole year. Since I was an only child, I did receive more than the average gifts at the holidays I guess, but that was discretionary spending, not maintenance. It cost them 102.00 to have me (birth) and my dad paid cash. He also paid 52.00 a month for his two daughters with his previous wife who deserted him during WW2. Like I said somewhere else, our society is whacked
Recommended Posts