"Bob Whiteside" wrote
"Gini" wrote
"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.
===
Of course, because to the court, it doesn't matter. Florida statute requires
all parties to file a financial affidavit with the court, and support cannot
be set without it.
But...in our case, the ex filled it out with all her expenses and to the
item "Actual expenses
for the child(ren)," she totaled $300.00. Yep. Right there it was--She
actually spent $300. of the
$1200. CS on the kids. No matter--this mandatory document that must be
submitted to the court
for the establishment of a child support order, was never even looked at by
the judge. He didn't give a **** what it
said. Support is set at the guidelines amount. Period. Rhetorically, does
anyone
really believe that if the NCP exercises his right under law to require an
accounting of CS expenditures, that the court
will actually audit it? Family law judges simply refuse to be encumbered by
details.