"Gini" wrote in message
news:HmW9j.5994$L91.1601@trndny05...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote
..............................

CP's have some discretion in how CS is used, which means they are not
required to spend the money on "any particular thing". But not spending
the money on the children is a valid reason to seek a variation from the
CS guideline amounts. Several states have statutes that allow the NCP to
file a motion with the court to get an accounting of how CS is spent.

Also every state that requires some kind of document be filed by the CP
to detail income and expenses prior to a CS modification has de facto CS
accounting.

The bottom line is the CP has to provide a sworn and notarized accounting
of how the household budget money is spent and how much is spent directly
on the children by expense category.
===
In theory, of course.

I have to agree with you. The difference between theory and practice in
family law is hard to accept sometimes.

When I saw the Uniform Support Affidavit in my case I knew it was a totally
fabricated picture of what was really going on. It wasn't signed and
notarized as required which was another clue. It was later described as a
"draft" and not the finished product.

I used discovery to get checkbook records and did spreadsheets showing the
variances between the alleged spending and the actual spending to show she
was lying about her expenses to get more CS plus SS. The judge protected
her by refusing to allow my spreadsheets into evidence. No evidence. No
perjury. Simple. Screw the dad!

She never did produce a signed, final version of the USA as required by
state family law and the judge thought I was nit-picking to want her to sign
the declaration statement about its truth and accuracy.