she's 21, just found ex, too late?

[Ensoul100]

He owes me over $6,000 in back child support...and this paying the "huge"
amount of $30 a week

ex moved all over the country...finally caught with him because he called my
daughter with a case of guilties...that's what I call it
begged her forgiveness for keeping him her life...this a pattern...then he
makes tons of promises...then breaks them all

ok...so now that I have his address and social security number, but my daughter
is 21...and has her own place

I would like to still get the back support, she his first born

anybody know if it's possible...I cannot afford a lawyer


ensoul



He felt that his whole life was some kind of dream and he sometimes wondered
whose it was and whether they were enjoying it
~Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

[Virginia]

Why? You aren't still supporting her are you?

Ensoul100 wrote:

> He owes me over $6,000 in back child support...and this paying the "huge"
> amount of $30 a week
>
> ex moved all over the country...finally caught with him because he called my
> daughter with a case of guilties...that's what I call it
> begged her forgiveness for keeping him her life...this a pattern...then he
> makes tons of promises...then breaks them all
>
> ok...so now that I have his address and social security number, but my daughter
> is 21...and has her own place
>
> I would like to still get the back support, she his first born
>
> anybody know if it's possible...I cannot afford a lawyer
>
>
> ensoul
>
>
>
> He felt that his whole life was some kind of dream and he sometimes wondered
> whose it was and whether they were enjoying it
> ~Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

[Virginia]

Why? You aren't still supporting her are you?

Ensoul100 wrote:

> He owes me over $6,000 in back child support...and this paying the "huge"
> amount of $30 a week
>
> ex moved all over the country...finally caught with him because he called my
> daughter with a case of guilties...that's what I call it
> begged her forgiveness for keeping him her life...this a pattern...then he
> makes tons of promises...then breaks them all
>
> ok...so now that I have his address and social security number, but my daughter
> is 21...and has her own place
>
> I would like to still get the back support, she his first born
>
> anybody know if it's possible...I cannot afford a lawyer
>
>
> ensoul
>
>
>
> He felt that his whole life was some kind of dream and he sometimes wondered
> whose it was and whether they were enjoying it
> ~Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Ensoul100 > wrote:

: ok...so now that I have his address and social security number, but my daughter
: is 21...and has her own place

: I would like to still get the back support, she his first born

: anybody know if it's possible...I cannot afford a lawyer

If you live in California, the back support is still owed. My sister is
going through a similar situation. Unpaid CS in Calif. remains a debt
that doesn't go away after the child turns 18.

b.

Ensoul100 > wrote:

: ok...so now that I have his address and social security number, but my daughter
: is 21...and has her own place

: I would like to still get the back support, she his first born

: anybody know if it's possible...I cannot afford a lawyer

If you live in California, the back support is still owed. My sister is
going through a similar situation. Unpaid CS in Calif. remains a debt
that doesn't go away after the child turns 18.

b.

[welynchz]

Just wondering what you would use the money for if it were paid or recovered
given that the child in question is now an adult at 21? If the money were
indeed for the benefit of the child, then shouldn't it go to the now 21 year
old???
"Ensoul100" > wrote in message
...
> He owes me over $6,000 in back child support...and this paying the "huge"
> amount of $30 a week
>
> ex moved all over the country...finally caught with him because he called
my
> daughter with a case of guilties...that's what I call it
> begged her forgiveness for keeping him her life...this a pattern...then he
> makes tons of promises...then breaks them all
>
> ok...so now that I have his address and social security number, but my
daughter
> is 21...and has her own place
>
> I would like to still get the back support, she his first born
>
> anybody know if it's possible...I cannot afford a lawyer
>
>
> ensoul
>
>
>
> He felt that his whole life was some kind of dream and he sometimes
wondered
> whose it was and whether they were enjoying it
> ~Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

[welynchz]

Just wondering what you would use the money for if it were paid or recovered
given that the child in question is now an adult at 21? If the money were
indeed for the benefit of the child, then shouldn't it go to the now 21 year
old???
"Ensoul100" > wrote in message
...
> He owes me over $6,000 in back child support...and this paying the "huge"
> amount of $30 a week
>
> ex moved all over the country...finally caught with him because he called
my
> daughter with a case of guilties...that's what I call it
> begged her forgiveness for keeping him her life...this a pattern...then he
> makes tons of promises...then breaks them all
>
> ok...so now that I have his address and social security number, but my
daughter
> is 21...and has her own place
>
> I would like to still get the back support, she his first born
>
> anybody know if it's possible...I cannot afford a lawyer
>
>
> ensoul
>
>
>
> He felt that his whole life was some kind of dream and he sometimes
wondered
> whose it was and whether they were enjoying it
> ~Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

[Tracy]

"AZ Astrea" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tracy" > wrote in message
> news:JBf3b.279147$Ho3.37842@sccrnsc03...
> > "Jon" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > welynchz wrote:
> > > > Just wondering what you would use the money for if it were paid or
> > > > recovered given that the child in question is now an adult at 21? If
> > > > the money were indeed for the benefit of the child, then shouldn't
it
> > > > go to the now 21 year old???
> > >
> > > Well, if this person spent the money to support the child before the
> child
> > > turned 21, then she likely went without various things during those
18+
> > > years. Just because the child is now past support age, doesn't mean
> that
> > > the mother didn't spend well over $6000 in the child's life taking
care
> of
> > > her.
> > > I personally think the question should be, do you really want to press
> the
> > > issue to maybe get some money? Is it worth possibly getting the money
> for
> > > all the work and stress it will take to go to court for a maybe
result.
> > > Personally, for me it isn't worth the trouble.
> > > Jon
> >
> >
> > Thank you Jon for providing the exact question which *should be* asked.
> :)
> >
> ----------------------------------------------
> But if CS is a lifestyle award and doesn't take into account the actual
> money spent to raise the child then it may be argued that just because the
> child is past support age doesn't mean that the mother DID spend well over
> $6000 in the child's life taking care of her. And the amount she is
> claiming he owes isn't for her whole life it comes to a little over four
> years.


That's a lot of *ifs*.

$6,000/4 years calculates out to $1,500/yr. Divide that by 12 (number of
months) it works out to $125/month. If you think the mother didn't spend
well over $125/month on her child to "justify" a child support award of
$125/month, then that is your choice. It is my choice to be realistic.

The mother is owed the money... not the child - period. Just like my ex
owed me well over $15k. My boys were cared for. I covered my ex's butt.
That money is owed to me. My situation is no different than the OP. I have
to question if it is worth the effort to go after my ex for what he didn't
pay.

$171/month for two children. More than eight years unpaid. First 8.5 years
no judgment establishing child-support.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***


>
> ~AZ~
>
> >
> >
> > Tracy
> > ~~~~~~~
> > http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
> > "You can't solve problems with the same
> > type of thinking that created them."
> > Albert Einstein
> >
> > *** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Tracy]

"AZ Astrea" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tracy" > wrote in message
> news:JBf3b.279147$Ho3.37842@sccrnsc03...
> > "Jon" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > welynchz wrote:
> > > > Just wondering what you would use the money for if it were paid or
> > > > recovered given that the child in question is now an adult at 21? If
> > > > the money were indeed for the benefit of the child, then shouldn't
it
> > > > go to the now 21 year old???
> > >
> > > Well, if this person spent the money to support the child before the
> child
> > > turned 21, then she likely went without various things during those
18+
> > > years. Just because the child is now past support age, doesn't mean
> that
> > > the mother didn't spend well over $6000 in the child's life taking
care
> of
> > > her.
> > > I personally think the question should be, do you really want to press
> the
> > > issue to maybe get some money? Is it worth possibly getting the money
> for
> > > all the work and stress it will take to go to court for a maybe
result.
> > > Personally, for me it isn't worth the trouble.
> > > Jon
> >
> >
> > Thank you Jon for providing the exact question which *should be* asked.
> :)
> >
> ----------------------------------------------
> But if CS is a lifestyle award and doesn't take into account the actual
> money spent to raise the child then it may be argued that just because the
> child is past support age doesn't mean that the mother DID spend well over
> $6000 in the child's life taking care of her. And the amount she is
> claiming he owes isn't for her whole life it comes to a little over four
> years.


That's a lot of *ifs*.

$6,000/4 years calculates out to $1,500/yr. Divide that by 12 (number of
months) it works out to $125/month. If you think the mother didn't spend
well over $125/month on her child to "justify" a child support award of
$125/month, then that is your choice. It is my choice to be realistic.

The mother is owed the money... not the child - period. Just like my ex
owed me well over $15k. My boys were cared for. I covered my ex's butt.
That money is owed to me. My situation is no different than the OP. I have
to question if it is worth the effort to go after my ex for what he didn't
pay.

$171/month for two children. More than eight years unpaid. First 8.5 years
no judgment establishing child-support.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***


>
> ~AZ~
>
> >
> >
> > Tracy
> > ~~~~~~~
> > http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
> > "You can't solve problems with the same
> > type of thinking that created them."
> > Albert Einstein
> >
> > *** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Bob Whiteside]

"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> But that isn't the correct question, Tracy.
>
> >"AZ Astrea" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> "Tracy" > wrote in message
> >> news:JBf3b.279147$Ho3.37842@sccrnsc03...
> >> > "Jon" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> > > welynchz wrote:
> >> > > > Just wondering what you would use the money for if it were paid
or
> >> > > > recovered given that the child in question is now an adult at 21?
If
> >> > > > the money were indeed for the benefit of the child, then
shouldn't
> >it
> >> > > > go to the now 21 year old???
> >> > >
> >> > > Well, if this person spent the money to support the child before
the
> >> child
> >> > > turned 21, then she likely went without various things during those
> >18+
> >> > > years. Just because the child is now past support age, doesn't
mean
> >> that
> >> > > the mother didn't spend well over $6000 in the child's life taking
> >care
> >> of
> >> > > her.
> >> > > I personally think the question should be, do you really want to
press
> >> the
> >> > > issue to maybe get some money? Is it worth possibly getting the
money
> >> for
> >> > > all the work and stress it will take to go to court for a maybe
> >result.
> >> > > Personally, for me it isn't worth the trouble.
> >> > > Jon
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Thank you Jon for providing the exact question which *should be*
asked.
> >> :)
> >> >
> >> ----------------------------------------------
> >> But if CS is a lifestyle award and doesn't take into account the actual
> >> money spent to raise the child then it may be argued that just because
the
> >> child is past support age doesn't mean that the mother DID spend well
over
> >> $6000 in the child's life taking care of her. And the amount she is
> >> claiming he owes isn't for her whole life it comes to a little over
four
> >> years.
> >
> >
> >That's a lot of *ifs*.
> >
> >$6,000/4 years calculates out to $1,500/yr. Divide that by 12 (number of
> >months) it works out to $125/month. If you think the mother didn't spend
> >well over $125/month on her child to "justify" a child support award of
> >$125/month, then that is your choice. It is my choice to be realistic.
>
> It's very likely she spent at least $125/month on the child. But the
question
> is whether she spent just as much on the child WITHOUT the $125 as she
would
> have WITH the $125. If she did, then SHE sacrificed and dad owes her.
But if
> she didn't...then at least part of the sacrifice was by the child, not the
> mother. As an example, in my own case mommy supplies daughter with only
the
> basic necessities, probably less than 2/3 of what I pay. My daughter
should
> have the right to go after her mother for owed support when she turns 21.
And
> if I were to stop paying it's doubtful my daughter would be much worse
off,
> since there isn't much of what mom provides for her (from my support)
that's
> really optional. But there's certainly no reason to think that mom would
> suddenly start providing her with the full value of what I was supposed to
be
> paying. The fact is that what daughter gets from mom would probably
decrease
> slightly. To then go after me saying that I owe mother for what she
provided
> my daughter - and say it's equal to what my support should have been -
just
> doesn't pencil out.
>
> The state of oregun says mom is responsible for about 1/3 of my daughter's
> total support. In order to justify saying that she was covering my butt
if I
> didn't pay, she should have to show that she supported my daughter at a
rate
> equal to about 133% of the amount of my support obligation. She can't.
The
> fact is, she's barely paying her own share...FROM MY SHARE - she
contributes
> nothing of her own. If I were to stop paying, she'd only be forced to
finally
> start pitching in her own share.

I disagree and here's why. It's a math thingy. If you are paying 67% of
the child's expenses and her mother is paying 33% of the child's expenses
that means if you stopped paying CS, the child's mother would have to triple
her contribution to make up the difference. That's a 300% increase in the
amount paid by the mother, not 133%. A 133% increase on her contribution
would only increase the CS to 43.9% of the ordered amount.

But your point is valid. CP mothers don't have the resources to make up the
full amount of CS if the NCP stops paying it. Yet they claim they made it
up and the law recognizes they made it up.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> But that isn't the correct question, Tracy.
>
> >"AZ Astrea" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> "Tracy" > wrote in message
> >> news:JBf3b.279147$Ho3.37842@sccrnsc03...
> >> > "Jon" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> > > welynchz wrote:
> >> > > > Just wondering what you would use the money for if it were paid
or
> >> > > > recovered given that the child in question is now an adult at 21?
If
> >> > > > the money were indeed for the benefit of the child, then
shouldn't
> >it
> >> > > > go to the now 21 year old???
> >> > >
> >> > > Well, if this person spent the money to support the child before
the
> >> child
> >> > > turned 21, then she likely went without various things during those
> >18+
> >> > > years. Just because the child is now past support age, doesn't
mean
> >> that
> >> > > the mother didn't spend well over $6000 in the child's life taking
> >care
> >> of
> >> > > her.
> >> > > I personally think the question should be, do you really want to
press
> >> the
> >> > > issue to maybe get some money? Is it worth possibly getting the
money
> >> for
> >> > > all the work and stress it will take to go to court for a maybe
> >result.
> >> > > Personally, for me it isn't worth the trouble.
> >> > > Jon
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Thank you Jon for providing the exact question which *should be*
asked.
> >> :)
> >> >
> >> ----------------------------------------------
> >> But if CS is a lifestyle award and doesn't take into account the actual
> >> money spent to raise the child then it may be argued that just because
the
> >> child is past support age doesn't mean that the mother DID spend well
over
> >> $6000 in the child's life taking care of her. And the amount she is
> >> claiming he owes isn't for her whole life it comes to a little over
four
> >> years.
> >
> >
> >That's a lot of *ifs*.
> >
> >$6,000/4 years calculates out to $1,500/yr. Divide that by 12 (number of
> >months) it works out to $125/month. If you think the mother didn't spend
> >well over $125/month on her child to "justify" a child support award of
> >$125/month, then that is your choice. It is my choice to be realistic.
>
> It's very likely she spent at least $125/month on the child. But the
question
> is whether she spent just as much on the child WITHOUT the $125 as she
would
> have WITH the $125. If she did, then SHE sacrificed and dad owes her.
But if
> she didn't...then at least part of the sacrifice was by the child, not the
> mother. As an example, in my own case mommy supplies daughter with only
the
> basic necessities, probably less than 2/3 of what I pay. My daughter
should
> have the right to go after her mother for owed support when she turns 21.
And
> if I were to stop paying it's doubtful my daughter would be much worse
off,
> since there isn't much of what mom provides for her (from my support)
that's
> really optional. But there's certainly no reason to think that mom would
> suddenly start providing her with the full value of what I was supposed to
be
> paying. The fact is that what daughter gets from mom would probably
decrease
> slightly. To then go after me saying that I owe mother for what she
provided
> my daughter - and say it's equal to what my support should have been -
just
> doesn't pencil out.
>
> The state of oregun says mom is responsible for about 1/3 of my daughter's
> total support. In order to justify saying that she was covering my butt
if I
> didn't pay, she should have to show that she supported my daughter at a
rate
> equal to about 133% of the amount of my support obligation. She can't.
The
> fact is, she's barely paying her own share...FROM MY SHARE - she
contributes
> nothing of her own. If I were to stop paying, she'd only be forced to
finally
> start pitching in her own share.

I disagree and here's why. It's a math thingy. If you are paying 67% of
the child's expenses and her mother is paying 33% of the child's expenses
that means if you stopped paying CS, the child's mother would have to triple
her contribution to make up the difference. That's a 300% increase in the
amount paid by the mother, not 133%. A 133% increase on her contribution
would only increase the CS to 43.9% of the ordered amount.

But your point is valid. CP mothers don't have the resources to make up the
full amount of CS if the NCP stops paying it. Yet they claim they made it
up and the law recognizes they made it up.

[Mel Gamble]

You missed some there, Bob...

>"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
>> But that isn't the correct question, Tracy.
>>
>> >"AZ Astrea" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >> "Tracy" > wrote in message
>> >> news:JBf3b.279147$Ho3.37842@sccrnsc03...
>> >> > "Jon" > wrote in message
>> >> > ...
>> >> > > welynchz wrote:
>> >> > > > Just wondering what you would use the money for if it were paid
>or
>> >> > > > recovered given that the child in question is now an adult at 21?
>If
>> >> > > > the money were indeed for the benefit of the child, then
>shouldn't
>> >it
>> >> > > > go to the now 21 year old???
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Well, if this person spent the money to support the child before
>the
>> >> child
>> >> > > turned 21, then she likely went without various things during those
>> >18+
>> >> > > years. Just because the child is now past support age, doesn't
>mean
>> >> that
>> >> > > the mother didn't spend well over $6000 in the child's life taking
>> >care
>> >> of
>> >> > > her.
>> >> > > I personally think the question should be, do you really want to
>press
>> >> the
>> >> > > issue to maybe get some money? Is it worth possibly getting the
>money
>> >> for
>> >> > > all the work and stress it will take to go to court for a maybe
>> >result.
>> >> > > Personally, for me it isn't worth the trouble.
>> >> > > Jon
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Thank you Jon for providing the exact question which *should be*
>asked.
>> >> :)
>> >> >
>> >> ----------------------------------------------
>> >> But if CS is a lifestyle award and doesn't take into account the actual
>> >> money spent to raise the child then it may be argued that just because
>the
>> >> child is past support age doesn't mean that the mother DID spend well
>over
>> >> $6000 in the child's life taking care of her. And the amount she is
>> >> claiming he owes isn't for her whole life it comes to a little over
>four
>> >> years.
>> >
>> >
>> >That's a lot of *ifs*.
>> >
>> >$6,000/4 years calculates out to $1,500/yr. Divide that by 12 (number of
>> >months) it works out to $125/month. If you think the mother didn't spend
>> >well over $125/month on her child to "justify" a child support award of
>> >$125/month, then that is your choice. It is my choice to be realistic.
>>
>> It's very likely she spent at least $125/month on the child. But the
>question
>> is whether she spent just as much on the child WITHOUT the $125 as she
>would
>> have WITH the $125. If she did, then SHE sacrificed and dad owes her.
>But if
>> she didn't...then at least part of the sacrifice was by the child, not the

Because of this part:
************************************************** ************************
*************
>> mother. As an example, in my own case mommy supplies daughter with only
>the
>> basic necessities, probably less than 2/3 of what I pay. My daughter
************************************************** ************************
*************
>should
>> have the right to go after her mother for owed support when she turns 21.
>And
>> if I were to stop paying it's doubtful my daughter would be much worse
>off,
>> since there isn't much of what mom provides for her (from my support)
>that's
>> really optional. But there's certainly no reason to think that mom would
>> suddenly start providing her with the full value of what I was supposed to
>be
>> paying. The fact is that what daughter gets from mom would probably
>decrease
>> slightly. To then go after me saying that I owe mother for what she
>provided
>> my daughter - and say it's equal to what my support should have been -
>just
>> doesn't pencil out.

THIS part:
************************************************** ************************
*******************
>> The state of oregun says mom is responsible for about 1/3 of my daughter's
>> total support.
************************************************** ************************
*******************
isn't happening.

>> In order to justify saying that she was covering my butt
>if I
>> didn't pay, she should have to show that she supported my daughter at a
>rate
>> equal to about 133% of the amount of my support obligation. She can't.
>The
>> fact is, she's barely paying her own share...FROM MY SHARE - she
>contributes
>> nothing of her own. If I were to stop paying, she'd only be forced to
>finally
>> start pitching in her own share.
>
>I disagree and here's why. It's a math thingy. If you are paying 67% of
>the child's expenses and her mother is paying 33% of the child's expenses

Wrong *IF*, Bob. As indicated by the above highlighted portion of my previous
post, mom ISN'T paying 33%, and I'm not paying 67%. What I am paying SHOULD
be, according to oregun, about 67% but that's based on the TOTAL the state says
she should be getting from both of us (spent in mom's home outside of my direct
contributions when she's with me). Since the total she's getting in mom's home
is only about 2/3 of what *I* pay, the only "33%" that applies to mom is that's
the percentage of my paid CS that she's taking for herself.

>that means if you stopped paying CS, the child's mother would have to triple
>her contribution to make up the difference.

See, Bob, that's the rub. Her contribution is currently a negative amount. I
don't even know what you would consider the mathematical factor to go from a
negative contribution to a positive one.

>That's a 300% increase in the
>amount paid by the mother, not 133%. A 133% increase on her contribution

Even if you up her current contribution from a negative to zero, what do you
have to multiply zero by to come up with a few hundred? It's almost a
mathematical impossibility, but not quite. Since her current contribution is
negative 1/3, you'd have to multiply it by NEGATIVE 3 just to come up with my
share... It gets very confusing, but the net realworld result would be that
she'd have to give up the third of mine that she's been spending on herself,
just to get to the zero point. Then she'd have to give up an amount equal to 3
times that much and spend it on my daughter to make up for what *I* should be
paying. Then she'd have to give up that much again and spend it on my daughter
- plus a bit more - to make up for her own 1/3 that she hasn't been
contributing

>would only increase the CS to 43.9% of the ordered amount.
>
>But your point is valid. CP mothers don't have the resources to make up the
>full amount of CS if the NCP stops paying it. Yet they claim they made it
>up and the law recognizes they made it up.

The law *PRETENDS* to recognize they made it up.

I suppose there are a lot of CP's out there who try to make up for SOME of what
the NCP isn't contributing, but I have to wonder just how much income the CP
would have to have of there own before what the child would get WITH CS is no
more than what the child would get WITHOUT CS. I can see it in the case of my
daughter, because the amount in either case is bare necessities. But where the
CP might be actually using ALL the CS plus her own share for the child...I have
to wonder what kind of income level the CP would have to have before the child
would still recieve the same amount if the CS were to stop. And of course that
level would be different for each CP.

Mel Gamble

[Mel Gamble]

You missed some there, Bob...

>"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
>> But that isn't the correct question, Tracy.
>>
>> >"AZ Astrea" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >> "Tracy" > wrote in message
>> >> news:JBf3b.279147$Ho3.37842@sccrnsc03...
>> >> > "Jon" > wrote in message
>> >> > ...
>> >> > > welynchz wrote:
>> >> > > > Just wondering what you would use the money for if it were paid
>or
>> >> > > > recovered given that the child in question is now an adult at 21?
>If
>> >> > > > the money were indeed for the benefit of the child, then
>shouldn't
>> >it
>> >> > > > go to the now 21 year old???
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Well, if this person spent the money to support the child before
>the
>> >> child
>> >> > > turned 21, then she likely went without various things during those
>> >18+
>> >> > > years. Just because the child is now past support age, doesn't
>mean
>> >> that
>> >> > > the mother didn't spend well over $6000 in the child's life taking
>> >care
>> >> of
>> >> > > her.
>> >> > > I personally think the question should be, do you really want to
>press
>> >> the
>> >> > > issue to maybe get some money? Is it worth possibly getting the
>money
>> >> for
>> >> > > all the work and stress it will take to go to court for a maybe
>> >result.
>> >> > > Personally, for me it isn't worth the trouble.
>> >> > > Jon
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Thank you Jon for providing the exact question which *should be*
>asked.
>> >> :)
>> >> >
>> >> ----------------------------------------------
>> >> But if CS is a lifestyle award and doesn't take into account the actual
>> >> money spent to raise the child then it may be argued that just because
>the
>> >> child is past support age doesn't mean that the mother DID spend well
>over
>> >> $6000 in the child's life taking care of her. And the amount she is
>> >> claiming he owes isn't for her whole life it comes to a little over
>four
>> >> years.
>> >
>> >
>> >That's a lot of *ifs*.
>> >
>> >$6,000/4 years calculates out to $1,500/yr. Divide that by 12 (number of
>> >months) it works out to $125/month. If you think the mother didn't spend
>> >well over $125/month on her child to "justify" a child support award of
>> >$125/month, then that is your choice. It is my choice to be realistic.
>>
>> It's very likely she spent at least $125/month on the child. But the
>question
>> is whether she spent just as much on the child WITHOUT the $125 as she
>would
>> have WITH the $125. If she did, then SHE sacrificed and dad owes her.
>But if
>> she didn't...then at least part of the sacrifice was by the child, not the

Because of this part:
************************************************** ************************
*************
>> mother. As an example, in my own case mommy supplies daughter with only
>the
>> basic necessities, probably less than 2/3 of what I pay. My daughter
************************************************** ************************
*************
>should
>> have the right to go after her mother for owed support when she turns 21.
>And
>> if I were to stop paying it's doubtful my daughter would be much worse
>off,
>> since there isn't much of what mom provides for her (from my support)
>that's
>> really optional. But there's certainly no reason to think that mom would
>> suddenly start providing her with the full value of what I was supposed to
>be
>> paying. The fact is that what daughter gets from mom would probably
>decrease
>> slightly. To then go after me saying that I owe mother for what she
>provided
>> my daughter - and say it's equal to what my support should have been -
>just
>> doesn't pencil out.

THIS part:
************************************************** ************************
*******************
>> The state of oregun says mom is responsible for about 1/3 of my daughter's
>> total support.
************************************************** ************************
*******************
isn't happening.

>> In order to justify saying that she was covering my butt
>if I
>> didn't pay, she should have to show that she supported my daughter at a
>rate
>> equal to about 133% of the amount of my support obligation. She can't.
>The
>> fact is, she's barely paying her own share...FROM MY SHARE - she
>contributes
>> nothing of her own. If I were to stop paying, she'd only be forced to
>finally
>> start pitching in her own share.
>
>I disagree and here's why. It's a math thingy. If you are paying 67% of
>the child's expenses and her mother is paying 33% of the child's expenses

Wrong *IF*, Bob. As indicated by the above highlighted portion of my previous
post, mom ISN'T paying 33%, and I'm not paying 67%. What I am paying SHOULD
be, according to oregun, about 67% but that's based on the TOTAL the state says
she should be getting from both of us (spent in mom's home outside of my direct
contributions when she's with me). Since the total she's getting in mom's home
is only about 2/3 of what *I* pay, the only "33%" that applies to mom is that's
the percentage of my paid CS that she's taking for herself.

>that means if you stopped paying CS, the child's mother would have to triple
>her contribution to make up the difference.

See, Bob, that's the rub. Her contribution is currently a negative amount. I
don't even know what you would consider the mathematical factor to go from a
negative contribution to a positive one.

>That's a 300% increase in the
>amount paid by the mother, not 133%. A 133% increase on her contribution

Even if you up her current contribution from a negative to zero, what do you
have to multiply zero by to come up with a few hundred? It's almost a
mathematical impossibility, but not quite. Since her current contribution is
negative 1/3, you'd have to multiply it by NEGATIVE 3 just to come up with my
share... It gets very confusing, but the net realworld result would be that
she'd have to give up the third of mine that she's been spending on herself,
just to get to the zero point. Then she'd have to give up an amount equal to 3
times that much and spend it on my daughter to make up for what *I* should be
paying. Then she'd have to give up that much again and spend it on my daughter
- plus a bit more - to make up for her own 1/3 that she hasn't been
contributing

>would only increase the CS to 43.9% of the ordered amount.
>
>But your point is valid. CP mothers don't have the resources to make up the
>full amount of CS if the NCP stops paying it. Yet they claim they made it
>up and the law recognizes they made it up.

The law *PRETENDS* to recognize they made it up.

I suppose there are a lot of CP's out there who try to make up for SOME of what
the NCP isn't contributing, but I have to wonder just how much income the CP
would have to have of there own before what the child would get WITH CS is no
more than what the child would get WITHOUT CS. I can see it in the case of my
daughter, because the amount in either case is bare necessities. But where the
CP might be actually using ALL the CS plus her own share for the child...I have
to wonder what kind of income level the CP would have to have before the child
would still recieve the same amount if the CS were to stop. And of course that
level would be different for each CP.

Mel Gamble

[Bob Whiteside]

"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...

> You missed some there, Bob...

I knew what you were getting at. Actually it's your daughter who is missing
the support.

Have you thought about using ORS 107.105(c):

(c) For the support of the children of the marriage by the parties. In
ordering child support, the formula established by ORS 25.270 to 25.287
shall apply. The court may at any time require an accounting from the
custodial parent with reference to the use of the money received as child
support. The court is not required to order support for any minor child who
has become self-supporting, emancipated or married, or who has ceased to
attend school after becoming 18 years of age.

To force an accounting of how the CS is being used?

[Bob Whiteside]

"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...

> You missed some there, Bob...

I knew what you were getting at. Actually it's your daughter who is missing
the support.

Have you thought about using ORS 107.105(c):

(c) For the support of the children of the marriage by the parties. In
ordering child support, the formula established by ORS 25.270 to 25.287
shall apply. The court may at any time require an accounting from the
custodial parent with reference to the use of the money received as child
support. The court is not required to order support for any minor child who
has become self-supporting, emancipated or married, or who has ceased to
attend school after becoming 18 years of age.

To force an accounting of how the CS is being used?

[gini52]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > You missed some there, Bob...
>
> I knew what you were getting at. Actually it's your daughter who is
missing
> the support.
>
> Have you thought about using ORS 107.105(c):
>
> (c) For the support of the children of the marriage by the parties. In
> ordering child support, the formula established by ORS 25.270 to 25.287
> shall apply. The court may at any time require an accounting from the
> custodial parent with reference to the use of the money received as child
> support. The court is not required to order support for any minor child
who
> has become self-supporting, emancipated or married, or who has ceased to
> attend school after becoming 18 years of age.
>
> To force an accounting of how the CS is being used?
===
Wish Florida had one of those statutes.
===
===
>
>

[gini52]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > You missed some there, Bob...
>
> I knew what you were getting at. Actually it's your daughter who is
missing
> the support.
>
> Have you thought about using ORS 107.105(c):
>
> (c) For the support of the children of the marriage by the parties. In
> ordering child support, the formula established by ORS 25.270 to 25.287
> shall apply. The court may at any time require an accounting from the
> custodial parent with reference to the use of the money received as child
> support. The court is not required to order support for any minor child
who
> has become self-supporting, emancipated or married, or who has ceased to
> attend school after becoming 18 years of age.
>
> To force an accounting of how the CS is being used?
===
Wish Florida had one of those statutes.
===
===
>
>

[Mel Gamble]

>
>"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
>
>> You missed some there, Bob...
>
>I knew what you were getting at. Actually it's your daughter who is missing
>the support.
>
>Have you thought about using ORS 107.105(c):
>
>(c) For the support of the children of the marriage by the parties. In
>ordering child support, the formula established by ORS 25.270 to 25.287
>shall apply. The court may at any time require an accounting from the
>custodial parent with reference to the use of the money received as child
>support. The court is not required to order support for any minor child who
>has become self-supporting, emancipated or married, or who has ceased to
>attend school after becoming 18 years of age.
>
>To force an accounting of how the CS is being used?

I haven't looked into it, but I doubt they'd go after her in washington.
Thanks for the suggestion though.

Mel Gamble

[Mel Gamble]

>
>"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
>
>> You missed some there, Bob...
>
>I knew what you were getting at. Actually it's your daughter who is missing
>the support.
>
>Have you thought about using ORS 107.105(c):
>
>(c) For the support of the children of the marriage by the parties. In
>ordering child support, the formula established by ORS 25.270 to 25.287
>shall apply. The court may at any time require an accounting from the
>custodial parent with reference to the use of the money received as child
>support. The court is not required to order support for any minor child who
>has become self-supporting, emancipated or married, or who has ceased to
>attend school after becoming 18 years of age.
>
>To force an accounting of how the CS is being used?

I haven't looked into it, but I doubt they'd go after her in washington.
Thanks for the suggestion though.

Mel Gamble

[PapaPolarbear]

"Virginia" > wrote in message
et...
> since the point of CS is raising a child if she's not providing a cent
> of help to the kid there's no longer a purpose to the order why not let
> it go.
>
> The Dave© wrote:
> >>Virginia wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Why? You aren't still supporting her are you?
> >
> >
> > I agree with your sentiment, but I do have a problem with the idea that
> > someone can acceptably skip out on their obligations if they are good
> > enough to "lay low" for a long enough time.

With all due respect to your opinion (Virginia) I agree with 'The Dave'. If
the persuit of the father has been on-going, the mother has the right to
persue this. It may be an act of futility but it is her right. He skipped
out, he had the responsibility, and the daughter can't sue for support
(back-support).

Just because he was evasive for so long doesn't let him off the hook. It's a
crime, he should pay.

Cameron

[PapaPolarbear]

"Virginia" > wrote in message
et...
> since the point of CS is raising a child if she's not providing a cent
> of help to the kid there's no longer a purpose to the order why not let
> it go.
>
> The Dave© wrote:
> >>Virginia wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Why? You aren't still supporting her are you?
> >
> >
> > I agree with your sentiment, but I do have a problem with the idea that
> > someone can acceptably skip out on their obligations if they are good
> > enough to "lay low" for a long enough time.

With all due respect to your opinion (Virginia) I agree with 'The Dave'. If
the persuit of the father has been on-going, the mother has the right to
persue this. It may be an act of futility but it is her right. He skipped
out, he had the responsibility, and the daughter can't sue for support
(back-support).

Just because he was evasive for so long doesn't let him off the hook. It's a
crime, he should pay.

Cameron

[PapaPolarbear]

"welynchz" > wrote in message
...
> Just wondering what you would use the money for if it were paid or
recovered
> given that the child in question is now an adult at 21? If the money were
> indeed for the benefit of the child, then shouldn't it go to the now 21
year
> old???

Child Support is not for the child. Sounds odd, but it is for the custodial
parent to offset/cover the costs of raising the child.

The child should benefit from the additional income of CS by having a roof
over his/her head, clothes and such. CS, typically, does not cover extras
like swimming lessons, camps, skating lessons, etc. This may be influenced
by the agreement.

Mel Lastman (Mayor of Toronto) was sued for support by his illegitimate
children (procreation outside of marriage deal) and while their mother has
the right to ask for back-support, the children do not. The children lost.

In reality this case and this mother may in fact fund her daughter's
education with the money if it is recovered, but she should not feel at all
guilty about buying a new car or buying a house.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"welynchz" > wrote in message
...
> Just wondering what you would use the money for if it were paid or
recovered
> given that the child in question is now an adult at 21? If the money were
> indeed for the benefit of the child, then shouldn't it go to the now 21
year
> old???

Child Support is not for the child. Sounds odd, but it is for the custodial
parent to offset/cover the costs of raising the child.

The child should benefit from the additional income of CS by having a roof
over his/her head, clothes and such. CS, typically, does not cover extras
like swimming lessons, camps, skating lessons, etc. This may be influenced
by the agreement.

Mel Lastman (Mayor of Toronto) was sued for support by his illegitimate
children (procreation outside of marriage deal) and while their mother has
the right to ask for back-support, the children do not. The children lost.

In reality this case and this mother may in fact fund her daughter's
education with the money if it is recovered, but she should not feel at all
guilty about buying a new car or buying a house.

Papa

[Chris Owens]

Ensoul100 wrote:
>
> He owes me over $6,000 in back child support...and this paying the "huge"
> amount of $30 a week
>
> ex moved all over the country...finally caught with him because he called my
> daughter with a case of guilties...that's what I call it
> begged her forgiveness for keeping him her life...this a pattern...then he
> makes tons of promises...then breaks them all
>
> ok...so now that I have his address and social security number, but my daughter
> is 21...and has her own place
>
> I would like to still get the back support, she his first born
>
> anybody know if it's possible...I cannot afford a lawyer
>
> ensoul
>
> He felt that his whole life was some kind of dream and he sometimes wondered
> whose it was and whether they were enjoying it
> ~Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

As a general rule, payment of back support is not voided by the
child having become an adult. However, you are probably going to
have to go to court to get it out of him; AND, it will probably
only result in a garnishment of not more than 20% of his gross,
at best. So, what you need to ask yourself is whether the money
is worth the aggravation. One thing to consider is that some
states will tack interest onto unpaid back support; so, the sum
might be much more than $6K. You really do need to talk to a
lawyer.

Chris Owens


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Chris Owens]

Ensoul100 wrote:
>
> He owes me over $6,000 in back child support...and this paying the "huge"
> amount of $30 a week
>
> ex moved all over the country...finally caught with him because he called my
> daughter with a case of guilties...that's what I call it
> begged her forgiveness for keeping him her life...this a pattern...then he
> makes tons of promises...then breaks them all
>
> ok...so now that I have his address and social security number, but my daughter
> is 21...and has her own place
>
> I would like to still get the back support, she his first born
>
> anybody know if it's possible...I cannot afford a lawyer
>
> ensoul
>
> He felt that his whole life was some kind of dream and he sometimes wondered
> whose it was and whether they were enjoying it
> ~Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

As a general rule, payment of back support is not voided by the
child having become an adult. However, you are probably going to
have to go to court to get it out of him; AND, it will probably
only result in a garnishment of not more than 20% of his gross,
at best. So, what you need to ask yourself is whether the money
is worth the aggravation. One thing to consider is that some
states will tack interest onto unpaid back support; so, the sum
might be much more than $6K. You really do need to talk to a
lawyer.

Chris Owens


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[AZ Astrea]

Actually, depending on the state it can easily be from 50% to 65% of his net
garnished. This being after taxes but before things like insurance and
such. And I still don't agree with the idea of paying after a child is
grown and gone just so the mom can buy a new car or house.

~AZ~

"Chris Owens" > wrote in message
...
> Ensoul100 wrote:
> >
> > He owes me over $6,000 in back child support...and this paying the
"huge"
> > amount of $30 a week
> >
> > ex moved all over the country...finally caught with him because he
called my
> > daughter with a case of guilties...that's what I call it
> > begged her forgiveness for keeping him her life...this a pattern...then
he
> > makes tons of promises...then breaks them all
> >
> > ok...so now that I have his address and social security number, but my
daughter
> > is 21...and has her own place
> >
> > I would like to still get the back support, she his first born
> >
> > anybody know if it's possible...I cannot afford a lawyer
> >
> > ensoul
> >
> > He felt that his whole life was some kind of dream and he sometimes
wondered
> > whose it was and whether they were enjoying it
> > ~Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
>
> As a general rule, payment of back support is not voided by the
> child having become an adult. However, you are probably going to
> have to go to court to get it out of him; AND, it will probably
> only result in a garnishment of not more than 20% of his gross,
> at best. So, what you need to ask yourself is whether the money
> is worth the aggravation. One thing to consider is that some
> states will tack interest onto unpaid back support; so, the sum
> might be much more than $6K. You really do need to talk to a
> lawyer.
>
> Chris Owens
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[AZ Astrea]

Actually, depending on the state it can easily be from 50% to 65% of his net
garnished. This being after taxes but before things like insurance and
such. And I still don't agree with the idea of paying after a child is
grown and gone just so the mom can buy a new car or house.

~AZ~

"Chris Owens" > wrote in message
...
> Ensoul100 wrote:
> >
> > He owes me over $6,000 in back child support...and this paying the
"huge"
> > amount of $30 a week
> >
> > ex moved all over the country...finally caught with him because he
called my
> > daughter with a case of guilties...that's what I call it
> > begged her forgiveness for keeping him her life...this a pattern...then
he
> > makes tons of promises...then breaks them all
> >
> > ok...so now that I have his address and social security number, but my
daughter
> > is 21...and has her own place
> >
> > I would like to still get the back support, she his first born
> >
> > anybody know if it's possible...I cannot afford a lawyer
> >
> > ensoul
> >
> > He felt that his whole life was some kind of dream and he sometimes
wondered
> > whose it was and whether they were enjoying it
> > ~Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
>
> As a general rule, payment of back support is not voided by the
> child having become an adult. However, you are probably going to
> have to go to court to get it out of him; AND, it will probably
> only result in a garnishment of not more than 20% of his gross,
> at best. So, what you need to ask yourself is whether the money
> is worth the aggravation. One thing to consider is that some
> states will tack interest onto unpaid back support; so, the sum
> might be much more than $6K. You really do need to talk to a
> lawyer.
>
> Chris Owens
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Moon Shyne]

"AZ Astrea" > wrote in message
...
> Actually, depending on the state it can easily be from 50% to 65% of his net
> garnished. This being after taxes but before things like insurance and
> such. And I still don't agree with the idea of paying after a child is
> grown and gone just so the mom can buy a new car or house.

If you don't pay for a long enough period, you get to just walk away from the
debt? Is that what you're suggesting?

Think that would work for car loans, mortgages, credit card debt and student
loans too? Let's see..... don't pay your student loan till after you're out of
school, and then you shouldn't have to pay it because you're no longer in
school?

Somehow, I don't think it's gonna fly.

>
> ~AZ~
>
> "Chris Owens" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Ensoul100 wrote:
> > >
> > > He owes me over $6,000 in back child support...and this paying the
> "huge"
> > > amount of $30 a week
> > >
> > > ex moved all over the country...finally caught with him because he
> called my
> > > daughter with a case of guilties...that's what I call it
> > > begged her forgiveness for keeping him her life...this a pattern...then
> he
> > > makes tons of promises...then breaks them all
> > >
> > > ok...so now that I have his address and social security number, but my
> daughter
> > > is 21...and has her own place
> > >
> > > I would like to still get the back support, she his first born
> > >
> > > anybody know if it's possible...I cannot afford a lawyer
> > >
> > > ensoul
> > >
> > > He felt that his whole life was some kind of dream and he sometimes
> wondered
> > > whose it was and whether they were enjoying it
> > > ~Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
> >
> > As a general rule, payment of back support is not voided by the
> > child having become an adult. However, you are probably going to
> > have to go to court to get it out of him; AND, it will probably
> > only result in a garnishment of not more than 20% of his gross,
> > at best. So, what you need to ask yourself is whether the money
> > is worth the aggravation. One thing to consider is that some
> > states will tack interest onto unpaid back support; so, the sum
> > might be much more than $6K. You really do need to talk to a
> > lawyer.
> >
> > Chris Owens
> >
> >
> > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>
>

[Moon Shyne]

"AZ Astrea" > wrote in message
...
> Actually, depending on the state it can easily be from 50% to 65% of his net
> garnished. This being after taxes but before things like insurance and
> such. And I still don't agree with the idea of paying after a child is
> grown and gone just so the mom can buy a new car or house.

If you don't pay for a long enough period, you get to just walk away from the
debt? Is that what you're suggesting?

Think that would work for car loans, mortgages, credit card debt and student
loans too? Let's see..... don't pay your student loan till after you're out of
school, and then you shouldn't have to pay it because you're no longer in
school?

Somehow, I don't think it's gonna fly.

>
> ~AZ~
>
> "Chris Owens" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Ensoul100 wrote:
> > >
> > > He owes me over $6,000 in back child support...and this paying the
> "huge"
> > > amount of $30 a week
> > >
> > > ex moved all over the country...finally caught with him because he
> called my
> > > daughter with a case of guilties...that's what I call it
> > > begged her forgiveness for keeping him her life...this a pattern...then
> he
> > > makes tons of promises...then breaks them all
> > >
> > > ok...so now that I have his address and social security number, but my
> daughter
> > > is 21...and has her own place
> > >
> > > I would like to still get the back support, she his first born
> > >
> > > anybody know if it's possible...I cannot afford a lawyer
> > >
> > > ensoul
> > >
> > > He felt that his whole life was some kind of dream and he sometimes
> wondered
> > > whose it was and whether they were enjoying it
> > > ~Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
> >
> > As a general rule, payment of back support is not voided by the
> > child having become an adult. However, you are probably going to
> > have to go to court to get it out of him; AND, it will probably
> > only result in a garnishment of not more than 20% of his gross,
> > at best. So, what you need to ask yourself is whether the money
> > is worth the aggravation. One thing to consider is that some
> > states will tack interest onto unpaid back support; so, the sum
> > might be much more than $6K. You really do need to talk to a
> > lawyer.
> >
> > Chris Owens
> >
> >
> > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>
>

[Bob Whiteside]

"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "AZ Astrea" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Actually, depending on the state it can easily be from 50% to 65% of his
net
> > garnished. This being after taxes but before things like insurance and
> > such. And I still don't agree with the idea of paying after a child is
> > grown and gone just so the mom can buy a new car or house.
>
> If you don't pay for a long enough period, you get to just walk away from
the
> debt? Is that what you're suggesting?

That *is* how CS judgment law is set up. Most states have a law stating CS
judgments expire after 7-10 years unless they are re-upped.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "AZ Astrea" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Actually, depending on the state it can easily be from 50% to 65% of his
net
> > garnished. This being after taxes but before things like insurance and
> > such. And I still don't agree with the idea of paying after a child is
> > grown and gone just so the mom can buy a new car or house.
>
> If you don't pay for a long enough period, you get to just walk away from
the
> debt? Is that what you're suggesting?

That *is* how CS judgment law is set up. Most states have a law stating CS
judgments expire after 7-10 years unless they are re-upped.

[AZ Astrea]

>Top posting<
I don't know what's up with my news server, I didn't see this post until
today, but anyway...

The short answer, if you buy something on credit it can be discharged
through bankruptcy.

The other answer, the money has nothing to do with the children. If the cp
absolutely positively does not have enough money to raise the children then
how the heck did they get raised? Either they are alive and adults having
had enough money to be raised or they're not. There was either enough money
for them to be raised, which they were or they wouldn't be alive or there
wasn't, (so they would be, what, dead?). In my opinion(!) what would be
more reasonable is the ncp paying half of what the cp actually paid to raise
the child. I don't think it would be as difficult as some may claim. It's
not that difficult to show how much money you make in a year, how much you
paid for rent/mort, utilities, (the difference between what it would cost
for one person to live somewhere and the costs for two, or more) and
anything else. You start the year, (divorce?), with x amount of money, you
add in the x that you earn in the year, you subtract your expenses, (or look
at how much money you have left at the end of the year to find your
expenses) and you have a starting point. You only include what you spent on
the child in the child's expenses(duh). You would not include clothes you
bought for yourself, entertainment that was for your sole pleasure, etc.
Split the end result fifty-fifty and voila, the
honest-to-god-true-amount-that-was-spent-to-raise-the-child.
So, darn, the cp doesn't get to have a large unaccountable, non-taxable cash
flow to add to her own,(and maybe her new husbands?) or get to drive the
latest car, take tropical vacations, etc. Gee, kids do cost money but do
all intact families drive luxury cars and take fancy vacations? Do those
kids live to be considered 'raised' to adulthood? Why should a cp be
entitled to more than half the true costs of raising a child? If a ncp is
beyond the reach of cse, (dead, a quadraplegic living off the government
having no money whatsoever, etc), does that mean that the child is doomed to
die? That they will not be 'raised' to adulthood? Sure being poor isn't as
good as being rich but there are always going to be poor people, (some who
know they can't afford a kid, some who have one, some who have more and some
who are so out of touch with reality that they have litters figuring God, or
somebody, will provide) and there are always going to be rich people, (same
stuff about none, some and too many kids, except maybe they can provide but
aren't required by law to do so) though most fall somewhere in between.
Should the government provide intact families with a nice car and make sure
they at least occasionally get a good vacation?

Then, there are those men who don't learn of their 'father-hood' until
eight, ten, fifteen years after the fact. Perhaps the mother had no desire
to have the father know about the kid but some years down the road finds
herself in a financial situation and decides to tap that cash cow. I don't
think these men went on a spending spree, used it up and decided they had no
further obligation to pay. But I think they should be allowed bankruptcy if
that's what it would take for a dead-broke parent to prove the inability to
pay. And then they should never be looked at as some kind of cash cow
instead of helping with the true costs.

~AZ~

"Chris Owens" > wrote in message
...
> AZ Astrea wrote:
> >
> > Actually, depending on the state it can easily be from 50% to 65% of his
net
> > garnished. This being after taxes but before things like insurance and
> > such. And I still don't agree with the idea of paying after a child is
> > grown and gone just so the mom can buy a new car or house.
> >
> > ~AZ~
>
> Look at it this way: NCP owed X dollars in CS during the
> minority of the child. S/he actually only paid Y dollars;
> meaning that the CP was shorted in payments by Z [X-Y] dollars;
> which shortage the CP had to make up out of his/her own
> finances. Why shouldn't the NCP be required to make up this
> shortage? If I buy something on credit and destroy / use it up
> before I finish paying for it, does that mean I have no futher
> obligation to pay?
>
> Chris Owens
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[AZ Astrea]

>Top posting<
I don't know what's up with my news server, I didn't see this post until
today, but anyway...

The short answer, if you buy something on credit it can be discharged
through bankruptcy.

The other answer, the money has nothing to do with the children. If the cp
absolutely positively does not have enough money to raise the children then
how the heck did they get raised? Either they are alive and adults having
had enough money to be raised or they're not. There was either enough money
for them to be raised, which they were or they wouldn't be alive or there
wasn't, (so they would be, what, dead?). In my opinion(!) what would be
more reasonable is the ncp paying half of what the cp actually paid to raise
the child. I don't think it would be as difficult as some may claim. It's
not that difficult to show how much money you make in a year, how much you
paid for rent/mort, utilities, (the difference between what it would cost
for one person to live somewhere and the costs for two, or more) and
anything else. You start the year, (divorce?), with x amount of money, you
add in the x that you earn in the year, you subtract your expenses, (or look
at how much money you have left at the end of the year to find your
expenses) and you have a starting point. You only include what you spent on
the child in the child's expenses(duh). You would not include clothes you
bought for yourself, entertainment that was for your sole pleasure, etc.
Split the end result fifty-fifty and voila, the
honest-to-god-true-amount-that-was-spent-to-raise-the-child.
So, darn, the cp doesn't get to have a large unaccountable, non-taxable cash
flow to add to her own,(and maybe her new husbands?) or get to drive the
latest car, take tropical vacations, etc. Gee, kids do cost money but do
all intact families drive luxury cars and take fancy vacations? Do those
kids live to be considered 'raised' to adulthood? Why should a cp be
entitled to more than half the true costs of raising a child? If a ncp is
beyond the reach of cse, (dead, a quadraplegic living off the government
having no money whatsoever, etc), does that mean that the child is doomed to
die? That they will not be 'raised' to adulthood? Sure being poor isn't as
good as being rich but there are always going to be poor people, (some who
know they can't afford a kid, some who have one, some who have more and some
who are so out of touch with reality that they have litters figuring God, or
somebody, will provide) and there are always going to be rich people, (same
stuff about none, some and too many kids, except maybe they can provide but
aren't required by law to do so) though most fall somewhere in between.
Should the government provide intact families with a nice car and make sure
they at least occasionally get a good vacation?

Then, there are those men who don't learn of their 'father-hood' until
eight, ten, fifteen years after the fact. Perhaps the mother had no desire
to have the father know about the kid but some years down the road finds
herself in a financial situation and decides to tap that cash cow. I don't
think these men went on a spending spree, used it up and decided they had no
further obligation to pay. But I think they should be allowed bankruptcy if
that's what it would take for a dead-broke parent to prove the inability to
pay. And then they should never be looked at as some kind of cash cow
instead of helping with the true costs.

~AZ~

"Chris Owens" > wrote in message
...
> AZ Astrea wrote:
> >
> > Actually, depending on the state it can easily be from 50% to 65% of his
net
> > garnished. This being after taxes but before things like insurance and
> > such. And I still don't agree with the idea of paying after a child is
> > grown and gone just so the mom can buy a new car or house.
> >
> > ~AZ~
>
> Look at it this way: NCP owed X dollars in CS during the
> minority of the child. S/he actually only paid Y dollars;
> meaning that the CP was shorted in payments by Z [X-Y] dollars;
> which shortage the CP had to make up out of his/her own
> finances. Why shouldn't the NCP be required to make up this
> shortage? If I buy something on credit and destroy / use it up
> before I finish paying for it, does that mean I have no futher
> obligation to pay?
>
> Chris Owens
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[AZ Astrea]

>Top posting<
I don't know what's up with my news server, I didn't see this post until
today, but anyway...

The short answer, if you buy something on credit it can be discharged
through bankruptcy.

The other answer, the money has nothing to do with the children. If the cp
absolutely positively does not have enough money to raise the children then
how the heck did they get raised? Either they are alive and adults having
had enough money to be raised or they're not. There was either enough money
for them to be raised, which they were or they wouldn't be alive or there
wasn't, (so they would be, what, dead?). In my opinion(!) what would be
more reasonable is the ncp paying half of what the cp actually paid to raise
the child. I don't think it would be as difficult as some may claim. It's
not that difficult to show how much money you make in a year, how much you
paid for rent/mort, utilities, (the difference between what it would cost
for one person to live somewhere and the costs for two, or more) and
anything else. You start the year, (divorce?), with x amount of money, you
add in the x that you earn in the year, you subtract your expenses, (or look
at how much money you have left at the end of the year to find your
expenses) and you have a starting point. You only include what you spent on
the child in the child's expenses(duh). You would not include clothes you
bought for yourself, entertainment that was for your sole pleasure, etc.
Split the end result fifty-fifty and voila, the
honest-to-god-true-amount-that-was-spent-to-raise-the-child.
So, darn, the cp doesn't get to have a large unaccountable, non-taxable cash
flow to add to her own,(and maybe her new husbands?) or get to drive the
latest car, take tropical vacations, etc. Gee, kids do cost money but do
all intact families drive luxury cars and take fancy vacations? Do those
kids live to be considered 'raised' to adulthood? Why should a cp be
entitled to more than half the true costs of raising a child? If a ncp is
beyond the reach of cse, (dead, a quadraplegic living off the government
having no money whatsoever, etc), does that mean that the child is doomed to
die? That they will not be 'raised' to adulthood? Sure being poor isn't as
good as being rich but there are always going to be poor people, (some who
know they can't afford a kid, some who have one, some who have more and some
who are so out of touch with reality that they have litters figuring God, or
somebody, will provide) and there are always going to be rich people, (same
stuff about none, some and too many kids, except maybe they can provide but
aren't required by law to do so) though most fall somewhere in between.
Should the government provide intact families with a nice car and make sure
they at least occasionally get a good vacation?

Then, there are those men who don't learn of their 'father-hood' until
eight, ten, fifteen years after the fact. Perhaps the mother had no desire
to have the father know about the kid but some years down the road finds
herself in a financial situation and decides to tap that cash cow. I don't
think these men went on a spending spree, used it up and decided they had no
further obligation to pay. But I think they should be allowed bankruptcy if
that's what it would take for a dead-broke parent to prove the inability to
pay. And then they should never be looked at as some kind of cash cow
instead of helping with the true costs.

~AZ~

"Chris Owens" > wrote in message
...
> AZ Astrea wrote:
> >
> > Actually, depending on the state it can easily be from 50% to 65% of his
net
> > garnished. This being after taxes but before things like insurance and
> > such. And I still don't agree with the idea of paying after a child is
> > grown and gone just so the mom can buy a new car or house.
> >
> > ~AZ~
>
> Look at it this way: NCP owed X dollars in CS during the
> minority of the child. S/he actually only paid Y dollars;
> meaning that the CP was shorted in payments by Z [X-Y] dollars;
> which shortage the CP had to make up out of his/her own
> finances. Why shouldn't the NCP be required to make up this
> shortage? If I buy something on credit and destroy / use it up
> before I finish paying for it, does that mean I have no futher
> obligation to pay?
>
> Chris Owens
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----