"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
?-? wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
?-? wrote:
"Fred" wrote in

Both base child support on the combined gross incomes of both
parents,

That's after they impute his income up and impute her income down,
then
it's calulated.

Have a friend whose ex's income was imputed down to the point of where
they said she was earning only $800/mth as an RN.
What jurisdiction?

Wayne County, Michigan!

So of the $1600/mth he brings home and now imputed to $2000/mth, his
responsibility according to the Kourt is now $800/mth to support the
child
and it's mother. He's already in arrears, so how does this work for your
responsibility theory?

Works fine. "His semen, his choice, his responsibility." If he doesn't
think that his financial responsibility has been correctly determined,
he can seek judicial review. The current determination is documented,
after all. If it is unjust, then it should be changed.

I must tell you that the story you tell is *very* different from the one
told by my co-worker, who is paying something like $200/month on at
least the same takehome pay. I guess we would need more than hearsay to
figure out exactly why the amounts being paid were ordered.

Well, well, well. The reason for your skewed thinking is finally coming
out.

If all of your conclusions are based on what your co-worker pays, i.e. about
$200 per month, no wonder you can't grasp what people here are saying.

The Census Bureau tracks Child Support data. The average divorced mother
based on their 2003 data just released in July 2006 has a CS award of
$6,906. That is $575 per month. The average never married mother has a CS
award of $6,461. That is $538 per month.

In these newsgroups you are dealing with people who have above average CS
orders.

Do you and your co-worker flip burgers at a fast food restaurant? You have
to be on the very low end of the income scale to be thinking anyone paying
$200 per month in CS payments is typical!