CS related licene suspension question...

"Pamela" wrote in
hlink.net:



How is it that the child support ordered would be far more than what
the NCP earns?


Hmmm...

Happens ALL THE TIME.

The classic example is the Dareen White tragedy in Canada a few years ago:

http://www.darrinwhite.com/vansun.html

I could site a few thousand more examples if you think it doesn't happen.

Most child support "deadbeats", in fact can not afford to pay their
arrearages, and many can not afford their support obligations. This is
pretty well established by about every analysis of child support debt.

Best - Fido

..

"Pamela" wrote in
hlink.net:



How is it that the child support ordered would be far more than what
the NCP earns?


Hmmm...

Happens ALL THE TIME.

The classic example is the Dareen White tragedy in Canada a few years ago:

http://www.darrinwhite.com/vansun.html

I could site a few thousand more examples if you think it doesn't happen.

Most child support "deadbeats", in fact can not afford to pay their
arrearages, and many can not afford their support obligations. This is
pretty well established by about every analysis of child support debt.

Best - Fido

..

"Pamela" wrote in
hlink.net:



How is it that the child support ordered would be far more than what
the NCP earns?


Hmmm...

Happens ALL THE TIME.

The classic example is the Dareen White tragedy in Canada a few years ago:

http://www.darrinwhite.com/vansun.html

I could site a few thousand more examples if you think it doesn't happen.

Most child support "deadbeats", in fact can not afford to pay their
arrearages, and many can not afford their support obligations. This is
pretty well established by about every analysis of child support debt.

Best - Fido

..

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Pamela" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Pamela" wrote in message
hlink.net...
I never respond to this stuff, but you know, I don't think taking a
person's
license for failure to provide for his children is extreme.

I have an ex who has not paid child support for years, may see his
daughter
whenever he wants, makes a great income, and cheats and steals his
way
through life.

OK, try this one for size (mind the subtle sarcasm).. NCP -can't- pay
the
ordered amount because it's way more then the NCP earns (include the
fact
that the economy sucks and NCP has had little luck in retaining work
in
the
profession of choice). Because of the already existing restrictions
placed
upon NCP, NCP can't see the children much beyond every few months.
NCP
makes just barely enough to cover -basic- expenses (food, gas, phone,
etc..), so there's very little left over for yachting excisions to the
Mediterranean with Trophy Wife/Husband #5...

How is it that the child support ordered would be far more than what the
NCP
earns? When my ex left, I took jobs far outside my profession because I
needed to earn money to take care of my children. My children came
before
my ego.

Taking his driver's license away seems a rather amusing way to wake
him
up.
More I think about it, the more I like it.

I find the idea of license suspension hardly amusing at all. How is
this
in
the best interest of any NCPs children? How does this help CSE get
what
they want, that being the NCPs wallet/purse?

Taking my ex's license would not affect his children in anyway. He
doesn't
pay a thing. He doesn't do a thing for them in any way.


We teach our children that there are consequences to what we do.
Perhaps,
ex's who disregard the health and welfare of their children ought to
be
taught the same lesson.

The same can (and often is) said of CSE agencies that overstep their
bounds - but far too often hide from their actions with "I was only
following orders"...

I don't think that NCP's should be driven to the ground at all. I think
they should pay their fair share, that's all. Often, child support
becomes
oppressive because it is so in arrears that the amount becomes
overwhelming.
Why would anyone let it go that far?
My brother didn't pay child support for years. He worked off the book
jobs
so his income could not be garnished. In the end, he had a huge debt.
But,
he caused that to happen by his own foolishness. He not only had years
of
unpaid child support to make up for, but interest, and the amount they
took
was far more than the original ordered amount.

Tough lesson to learn.

No, I don't think that NCPs should be run into ruin either. But it
happens
far too often.

Ah, the old "pay your fair share" ploy. Did you know the IRS uses this
same
argument to entice people to pay a tax that they have no legal reason to
pay? Ah, but that's for another newsgroup...

It's not a ploy. It's reasonable assumption that both parent's should
contribute to the welfare of their children.




What is fair? Should an NCP pay 30% of their PRE-tax income? What about
40%? Do I hear 50, 60, 70%? There are numerous cases where NCPs have
been
ordered to pay 200% or more of their income. Case in point, the Canadian
father that was ordered to pay TWICE his take home pay. He killed himself
after the courts took everything from him - including his child.

Is that your meaning of "fair share"? It surely isn't mine.

Did I say that I thought any of that was fair? I think you know I did not.
Every state child support calculation I have ever seen seemed to be around
20-30%. In my ex's case it was a little less than 20%, and that was based
on my income, which was derived from TWO jobs. The court didn't make him
pay more, so I could work only one job. The 20% he was ordered to pay was
calculated from the earnings of his ONE job.

Now, do you think that was fair? Was he paying his fair share? Was I
paying my fair share?

CS -is- oppressive because there are no laws that force married,
non-married
/ co-habitating or single parents to set-aside a certain percentage of
their
incomes to cover the costs of raising their children. That comes right
out
of the family budget and has no bearing on what the courts use to base
their
judgments on. The courts don't follow any logical pattern to determine
CS.

Yes, they do. As far as I am aware, it has to do with percentage of income.
It did in my case.

CS arrears becomes an insurmountable mountain of money that NCP's can
rarely, if ever hope to pay because of oppressive CS orders in the first
place. When you take home $2000 (after tax income) a month, have expenses
around $1600 (basic stuff, rent, food, car payment, insurance, gas, phone,
electricity and maybe cable), that doesn't leave much room to move. Yet
courts routinely issue orders that NCPs are to pay 50% (or more) of their
income at PRE-tax rates as CS.

I am sorry, but I have never known of a case where the child support ordered
was 50% of the NCP income. I only have heard of the 50% when there are
arrears to be paid. A friend of mine in CA earns $2000 a month. His child
support is $567. a month for three children, + $160 a month, which is his
share of the child care costs. I do not see that as excessive.

THESE ARE HIS CHILDREN. They come before new car payments, cable, or
anything else.

This means that you actually are having your CS orders based on $2700 a
month. Not the $2000 you actually bring home. A 50% CS order means $1350
is what you are ordered to pay. But you tell me who bases their take-home
pay on PRE-tax income????

Where does this happen? What state?



I'll tell you - NO ONE. Save for the twisted system that the so-called
Family Court uses. Is this fair to you to base a CS order on money that
you
don't even have? And I'm -not- taking about imputed income either. That
is
a whole other ball-game....


well, I could be wrong. But, I have never heard of such a thing, except in
cases where the child support has not been paid, and the NCP is made to pay
both current and past child support combined.

Pamela

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Pamela" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Pamela" wrote in message
hlink.net...
I never respond to this stuff, but you know, I don't think taking a
person's
license for failure to provide for his children is extreme.

I have an ex who has not paid child support for years, may see his
daughter
whenever he wants, makes a great income, and cheats and steals his
way
through life.

OK, try this one for size (mind the subtle sarcasm).. NCP -can't- pay
the
ordered amount because it's way more then the NCP earns (include the
fact
that the economy sucks and NCP has had little luck in retaining work
in
the
profession of choice). Because of the already existing restrictions
placed
upon NCP, NCP can't see the children much beyond every few months.
NCP
makes just barely enough to cover -basic- expenses (food, gas, phone,
etc..), so there's very little left over for yachting excisions to the
Mediterranean with Trophy Wife/Husband #5...

How is it that the child support ordered would be far more than what the
NCP
earns? When my ex left, I took jobs far outside my profession because I
needed to earn money to take care of my children. My children came
before
my ego.

Taking his driver's license away seems a rather amusing way to wake
him
up.
More I think about it, the more I like it.

I find the idea of license suspension hardly amusing at all. How is
this
in
the best interest of any NCPs children? How does this help CSE get
what
they want, that being the NCPs wallet/purse?

Taking my ex's license would not affect his children in anyway. He
doesn't
pay a thing. He doesn't do a thing for them in any way.


We teach our children that there are consequences to what we do.
Perhaps,
ex's who disregard the health and welfare of their children ought to
be
taught the same lesson.

The same can (and often is) said of CSE agencies that overstep their
bounds - but far too often hide from their actions with "I was only
following orders"...

I don't think that NCP's should be driven to the ground at all. I think
they should pay their fair share, that's all. Often, child support
becomes
oppressive because it is so in arrears that the amount becomes
overwhelming.
Why would anyone let it go that far?
My brother didn't pay child support for years. He worked off the book
jobs
so his income could not be garnished. In the end, he had a huge debt.
But,
he caused that to happen by his own foolishness. He not only had years
of
unpaid child support to make up for, but interest, and the amount they
took
was far more than the original ordered amount.

Tough lesson to learn.

No, I don't think that NCPs should be run into ruin either. But it
happens
far too often.

Ah, the old "pay your fair share" ploy. Did you know the IRS uses this
same
argument to entice people to pay a tax that they have no legal reason to
pay? Ah, but that's for another newsgroup...

It's not a ploy. It's reasonable assumption that both parent's should
contribute to the welfare of their children.




What is fair? Should an NCP pay 30% of their PRE-tax income? What about
40%? Do I hear 50, 60, 70%? There are numerous cases where NCPs have
been
ordered to pay 200% or more of their income. Case in point, the Canadian
father that was ordered to pay TWICE his take home pay. He killed himself
after the courts took everything from him - including his child.

Is that your meaning of "fair share"? It surely isn't mine.

Did I say that I thought any of that was fair? I think you know I did not.
Every state child support calculation I have ever seen seemed to be around
20-30%. In my ex's case it was a little less than 20%, and that was based
on my income, which was derived from TWO jobs. The court didn't make him
pay more, so I could work only one job. The 20% he was ordered to pay was
calculated from the earnings of his ONE job.

Now, do you think that was fair? Was he paying his fair share? Was I
paying my fair share?

CS -is- oppressive because there are no laws that force married,
non-married
/ co-habitating or single parents to set-aside a certain percentage of
their
incomes to cover the costs of raising their children. That comes right
out
of the family budget and has no bearing on what the courts use to base
their
judgments on. The courts don't follow any logical pattern to determine
CS.

Yes, they do. As far as I am aware, it has to do with percentage of income.
It did in my case.

CS arrears becomes an insurmountable mountain of money that NCP's can
rarely, if ever hope to pay because of oppressive CS orders in the first
place. When you take home $2000 (after tax income) a month, have expenses
around $1600 (basic stuff, rent, food, car payment, insurance, gas, phone,
electricity and maybe cable), that doesn't leave much room to move. Yet
courts routinely issue orders that NCPs are to pay 50% (or more) of their
income at PRE-tax rates as CS.

I am sorry, but I have never known of a case where the child support ordered
was 50% of the NCP income. I only have heard of the 50% when there are
arrears to be paid. A friend of mine in CA earns $2000 a month. His child
support is $567. a month for three children, + $160 a month, which is his
share of the child care costs. I do not see that as excessive.

THESE ARE HIS CHILDREN. They come before new car payments, cable, or
anything else.

This means that you actually are having your CS orders based on $2700 a
month. Not the $2000 you actually bring home. A 50% CS order means $1350
is what you are ordered to pay. But you tell me who bases their take-home
pay on PRE-tax income????

Where does this happen? What state?



I'll tell you - NO ONE. Save for the twisted system that the so-called
Family Court uses. Is this fair to you to base a CS order on money that
you
don't even have? And I'm -not- taking about imputed income either. That
is
a whole other ball-game....


well, I could be wrong. But, I have never heard of such a thing, except in
cases where the child support has not been paid, and the NCP is made to pay
both current and past child support combined.

Pamela

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Pamela" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Pamela" wrote in message
hlink.net...
I never respond to this stuff, but you know, I don't think taking a
person's
license for failure to provide for his children is extreme.

I have an ex who has not paid child support for years, may see his
daughter
whenever he wants, makes a great income, and cheats and steals his
way
through life.

OK, try this one for size (mind the subtle sarcasm).. NCP -can't- pay
the
ordered amount because it's way more then the NCP earns (include the
fact
that the economy sucks and NCP has had little luck in retaining work
in
the
profession of choice). Because of the already existing restrictions
placed
upon NCP, NCP can't see the children much beyond every few months.
NCP
makes just barely enough to cover -basic- expenses (food, gas, phone,
etc..), so there's very little left over for yachting excisions to the
Mediterranean with Trophy Wife/Husband #5...

How is it that the child support ordered would be far more than what the
NCP
earns? When my ex left, I took jobs far outside my profession because I
needed to earn money to take care of my children. My children came
before
my ego.

Taking his driver's license away seems a rather amusing way to wake
him
up.
More I think about it, the more I like it.

I find the idea of license suspension hardly amusing at all. How is
this
in
the best interest of any NCPs children? How does this help CSE get
what
they want, that being the NCPs wallet/purse?

Taking my ex's license would not affect his children in anyway. He
doesn't
pay a thing. He doesn't do a thing for them in any way.


We teach our children that there are consequences to what we do.
Perhaps,
ex's who disregard the health and welfare of their children ought to
be
taught the same lesson.

The same can (and often is) said of CSE agencies that overstep their
bounds - but far too often hide from their actions with "I was only
following orders"...

I don't think that NCP's should be driven to the ground at all. I think
they should pay their fair share, that's all. Often, child support
becomes
oppressive because it is so in arrears that the amount becomes
overwhelming.
Why would anyone let it go that far?
My brother didn't pay child support for years. He worked off the book
jobs
so his income could not be garnished. In the end, he had a huge debt.
But,
he caused that to happen by his own foolishness. He not only had years
of
unpaid child support to make up for, but interest, and the amount they
took
was far more than the original ordered amount.

Tough lesson to learn.

No, I don't think that NCPs should be run into ruin either. But it
happens
far too often.

Ah, the old "pay your fair share" ploy. Did you know the IRS uses this
same
argument to entice people to pay a tax that they have no legal reason to
pay? Ah, but that's for another newsgroup...

It's not a ploy. It's reasonable assumption that both parent's should
contribute to the welfare of their children.




What is fair? Should an NCP pay 30% of their PRE-tax income? What about
40%? Do I hear 50, 60, 70%? There are numerous cases where NCPs have
been
ordered to pay 200% or more of their income. Case in point, the Canadian
father that was ordered to pay TWICE his take home pay. He killed himself
after the courts took everything from him - including his child.

Is that your meaning of "fair share"? It surely isn't mine.

Did I say that I thought any of that was fair? I think you know I did not.
Every state child support calculation I have ever seen seemed to be around
20-30%. In my ex's case it was a little less than 20%, and that was based
on my income, which was derived from TWO jobs. The court didn't make him
pay more, so I could work only one job. The 20% he was ordered to pay was
calculated from the earnings of his ONE job.

Now, do you think that was fair? Was he paying his fair share? Was I
paying my fair share?

CS -is- oppressive because there are no laws that force married,
non-married
/ co-habitating or single parents to set-aside a certain percentage of
their
incomes to cover the costs of raising their children. That comes right
out
of the family budget and has no bearing on what the courts use to base
their
judgments on. The courts don't follow any logical pattern to determine
CS.

Yes, they do. As far as I am aware, it has to do with percentage of income.
It did in my case.

CS arrears becomes an insurmountable mountain of money that NCP's can
rarely, if ever hope to pay because of oppressive CS orders in the first
place. When you take home $2000 (after tax income) a month, have expenses
around $1600 (basic stuff, rent, food, car payment, insurance, gas, phone,
electricity and maybe cable), that doesn't leave much room to move. Yet
courts routinely issue orders that NCPs are to pay 50% (or more) of their
income at PRE-tax rates as CS.

I am sorry, but I have never known of a case where the child support ordered
was 50% of the NCP income. I only have heard of the 50% when there are
arrears to be paid. A friend of mine in CA earns $2000 a month. His child
support is $567. a month for three children, + $160 a month, which is his
share of the child care costs. I do not see that as excessive.

THESE ARE HIS CHILDREN. They come before new car payments, cable, or
anything else.

This means that you actually are having your CS orders based on $2700 a
month. Not the $2000 you actually bring home. A 50% CS order means $1350
is what you are ordered to pay. But you tell me who bases their take-home
pay on PRE-tax income????

Where does this happen? What state?



I'll tell you - NO ONE. Save for the twisted system that the so-called
Family Court uses. Is this fair to you to base a CS order on money that
you
don't even have? And I'm -not- taking about imputed income either. That
is
a whole other ball-game....


well, I could be wrong. But, I have never heard of such a thing, except in
cases where the child support has not been paid, and the NCP is made to pay
both current and past child support combined.

Pamela

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Pamela" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Pamela" wrote in message
hlink.net...
I never respond to this stuff, but you know, I don't think taking a
person's
license for failure to provide for his children is extreme.

I have an ex who has not paid child support for years, may see his
daughter
whenever he wants, makes a great income, and cheats and steals his
way
through life.

OK, try this one for size (mind the subtle sarcasm).. NCP -can't- pay
the
ordered amount because it's way more then the NCP earns (include the
fact
that the economy sucks and NCP has had little luck in retaining work
in
the
profession of choice). Because of the already existing restrictions
placed
upon NCP, NCP can't see the children much beyond every few months.
NCP
makes just barely enough to cover -basic- expenses (food, gas, phone,
etc..), so there's very little left over for yachting excisions to the
Mediterranean with Trophy Wife/Husband #5...

How is it that the child support ordered would be far more than what the
NCP
earns? When my ex left, I took jobs far outside my profession because I
needed to earn money to take care of my children. My children came
before
my ego.

Taking his driver's license away seems a rather amusing way to wake
him
up.
More I think about it, the more I like it.

I find the idea of license suspension hardly amusing at all. How is
this
in
the best interest of any NCPs children? How does this help CSE get
what
they want, that being the NCPs wallet/purse?

Taking my ex's license would not affect his children in anyway. He
doesn't
pay a thing. He doesn't do a thing for them in any way.


We teach our children that there are consequences to what we do.
Perhaps,
ex's who disregard the health and welfare of their children ought to
be
taught the same lesson.

The same can (and often is) said of CSE agencies that overstep their
bounds - but far too often hide from their actions with "I was only
following orders"...

I don't think that NCP's should be driven to the ground at all. I think
they should pay their fair share, that's all. Often, child support
becomes
oppressive because it is so in arrears that the amount becomes
overwhelming.
Why would anyone let it go that far?
My brother didn't pay child support for years. He worked off the book
jobs
so his income could not be garnished. In the end, he had a huge debt.
But,
he caused that to happen by his own foolishness. He not only had years
of
unpaid child support to make up for, but interest, and the amount they
took
was far more than the original ordered amount.

Tough lesson to learn.

No, I don't think that NCPs should be run into ruin either. But it
happens
far too often.

Ah, the old "pay your fair share" ploy. Did you know the IRS uses this
same
argument to entice people to pay a tax that they have no legal reason to
pay? Ah, but that's for another newsgroup...

It's not a ploy. It's reasonable assumption that both parent's should
contribute to the welfare of their children.




What is fair? Should an NCP pay 30% of their PRE-tax income? What about
40%? Do I hear 50, 60, 70%? There are numerous cases where NCPs have
been
ordered to pay 200% or more of their income. Case in point, the Canadian
father that was ordered to pay TWICE his take home pay. He killed himself
after the courts took everything from him - including his child.

Is that your meaning of "fair share"? It surely isn't mine.

Did I say that I thought any of that was fair? I think you know I did not.
Every state child support calculation I have ever seen seemed to be around
20-30%. In my ex's case it was a little less than 20%, and that was based
on my income, which was derived from TWO jobs. The court didn't make him
pay more, so I could work only one job. The 20% he was ordered to pay was
calculated from the earnings of his ONE job.

Now, do you think that was fair? Was he paying his fair share? Was I
paying my fair share?

CS -is- oppressive because there are no laws that force married,
non-married
/ co-habitating or single parents to set-aside a certain percentage of
their
incomes to cover the costs of raising their children. That comes right
out
of the family budget and has no bearing on what the courts use to base
their
judgments on. The courts don't follow any logical pattern to determine
CS.

Yes, they do. As far as I am aware, it has to do with percentage of income.
It did in my case.

CS arrears becomes an insurmountable mountain of money that NCP's can
rarely, if ever hope to pay because of oppressive CS orders in the first
place. When you take home $2000 (after tax income) a month, have expenses
around $1600 (basic stuff, rent, food, car payment, insurance, gas, phone,
electricity and maybe cable), that doesn't leave much room to move. Yet
courts routinely issue orders that NCPs are to pay 50% (or more) of their
income at PRE-tax rates as CS.

I am sorry, but I have never known of a case where the child support ordered
was 50% of the NCP income. I only have heard of the 50% when there are
arrears to be paid. A friend of mine in CA earns $2000 a month. His child
support is $567. a month for three children, + $160 a month, which is his
share of the child care costs. I do not see that as excessive.

THESE ARE HIS CHILDREN. They come before new car payments, cable, or
anything else.

This means that you actually are having your CS orders based on $2700 a
month. Not the $2000 you actually bring home. A 50% CS order means $1350
is what you are ordered to pay. But you tell me who bases their take-home
pay on PRE-tax income????

Where does this happen? What state?



I'll tell you - NO ONE. Save for the twisted system that the so-called
Family Court uses. Is this fair to you to base a CS order on money that
you
don't even have? And I'm -not- taking about imputed income either. That
is
a whole other ball-game....


well, I could be wrong. But, I have never heard of such a thing, except in
cases where the child support has not been paid, and the NCP is made to pay
both current and past child support combined.

Pamela

"Fido" wrote in message
32...
"Pamela" wrote in
hlink.net:



How is it that the child support ordered would be far more than what
the NCP earns?


Hmmm...

Happens ALL THE TIME.

The classic example is the Dareen White tragedy in Canada a few years ago:

http://www.darrinwhite.com/vansun.html

I could site a few thousand more examples if you think it doesn't happen.

Most child support "deadbeats", in fact can not afford to pay their
arrearages, and many can not afford their support obligations. This is
pretty well established by about every analysis of child support debt.

Best - Fido

.

Fido,
I couldn't open your link. But, is it the actual court proceedings or is
it a editorial or article? I ask that because the true facts are hardly
ever presented in these things. One would have to see the actual court
transcripts to really see the whole truth.
I am not saying it is not possible. It may be.

Pamela

"Fido" wrote in message
32...
"Pamela" wrote in
hlink.net:



How is it that the child support ordered would be far more than what
the NCP earns?


Hmmm...

Happens ALL THE TIME.

The classic example is the Dareen White tragedy in Canada a few years ago:

http://www.darrinwhite.com/vansun.html

I could site a few thousand more examples if you think it doesn't happen.

Most child support "deadbeats", in fact can not afford to pay their
arrearages, and many can not afford their support obligations. This is
pretty well established by about every analysis of child support debt.

Best - Fido

.

Fido,
I couldn't open your link. But, is it the actual court proceedings or is
it a editorial or article? I ask that because the true facts are hardly
ever presented in these things. One would have to see the actual court
transcripts to really see the whole truth.
I am not saying it is not possible. It may be.

Pamela

"Fido" wrote in message
32...
"Pamela" wrote in
hlink.net:



How is it that the child support ordered would be far more than what
the NCP earns?


Hmmm...

Happens ALL THE TIME.

The classic example is the Dareen White tragedy in Canada a few years ago:

http://www.darrinwhite.com/vansun.html

I could site a few thousand more examples if you think it doesn't happen.

Most child support "deadbeats", in fact can not afford to pay their
arrearages, and many can not afford their support obligations. This is
pretty well established by about every analysis of child support debt.

Best - Fido

.

Fido,
I couldn't open your link. But, is it the actual court proceedings or is
it a editorial or article? I ask that because the true facts are hardly
ever presented in these things. One would have to see the actual court
transcripts to really see the whole truth.
I am not saying it is not possible. It may be.

Pamela