"Child Support" money?

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 18:07:51 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


"mary Adrian" wrote in message
...
To the Dave-You want details dude-I was on public assistance at the
time
the court ordered was made for 18.43 a week-no where even close to
65,000+. My son has seen his father once since he was born. His father
never sent birthday cards. christmas cards, never called or saw him-so
that means there's never been any time spent at "dad's house". I'm not
bitter or angry at him in fact I don't give a rat's patoot one way or
the other. My son is now 26 so we're past the support crap. .By the way
when my son turned 18 his father's wages were still being garnished so
we received a couple more of those special checks-the child support
office had the audacity to tell me that I would have to pay back the
extra money. My response was-take me to court. I never heard another
word from them. Later, Mary

Now the facts are starting to make some sense. If the son is 26, that
means
the CS order was being paid prior to the change in 1996 where most states
eliminated the $25 pass-through and started keeping 100% of the CS to
reimburse welfare benefits. The bulk of the CS paid was being kept by
the
state to reimburse public assistance money already given to the CP mother
and the $18.43 per week was either the legal pass-through amount or the
amount left over after the benefits were reimbursed.

Of course, this is not the first time a CP mother has perceived the
child's
father was not paying CS when they were paying CS to the state. Many of
the
welfare mothers don't understand the middleman government is collecting
and
keeping the CS being paid to repay money they have advanced to the
mother.

Actually if he was paying child support on a regular basis and the
amount was greater than the amount given through welfare assistance
she wouldnt have been on it in the first place.

That statement alone proves you don't understand this topic. Why are you
posting opinions like that when they aren't even relevant? The fact the CS
pass-through received by a CP mother on welfare exceeded the maximum allowed
under law shows the CS paid to the state exceeded the public assistance they
paid out.


So that being said, he probably wasnt ordered to pay hardly anything
at all in the first place, not enough probably to pay for his share of
the expenses.

There is no "share" to pay when welfare is involved. The NCP is the only
party required to support the child and the CP pays nothing.


Furthermore, you boneheads dont know why this woman was on welfare.
It is possible to be one welfare and hold a job.

Doesn't matter.


Instead you attack her and start in with your "many of the welfare
mothers" crap.

We discussed this very issue when you posted the Census data on CS. The
Census asks CP mothers if they received 100% of the CS ordered. The welfare
recipients respond, "No" and get placed into the "Received Partial Support"
category. In fact, as this case proves, 100% of the CS was paid, but the
mother is confused about how the system works and claims only a partial
amount was received.

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 18:07:51 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


"mary Adrian" wrote in message
...
To the Dave-You want details dude-I was on public assistance at the
time
the court ordered was made for 18.43 a week-no where even close to
65,000+. My son has seen his father once since he was born. His father
never sent birthday cards. christmas cards, never called or saw him-so
that means there's never been any time spent at "dad's house". I'm not
bitter or angry at him in fact I don't give a rat's patoot one way or
the other. My son is now 26 so we're past the support crap. .By the way
when my son turned 18 his father's wages were still being garnished so
we received a couple more of those special checks-the child support
office had the audacity to tell me that I would have to pay back the
extra money. My response was-take me to court. I never heard another
word from them. Later, Mary

Now the facts are starting to make some sense. If the son is 26, that
means
the CS order was being paid prior to the change in 1996 where most states
eliminated the $25 pass-through and started keeping 100% of the CS to
reimburse welfare benefits. The bulk of the CS paid was being kept by
the
state to reimburse public assistance money already given to the CP mother
and the $18.43 per week was either the legal pass-through amount or the
amount left over after the benefits were reimbursed.

Of course, this is not the first time a CP mother has perceived the
child's
father was not paying CS when they were paying CS to the state. Many of
the
welfare mothers don't understand the middleman government is collecting
and
keeping the CS being paid to repay money they have advanced to the
mother.

Actually if he was paying child support on a regular basis and the
amount was greater than the amount given through welfare assistance
she wouldnt have been on it in the first place.

That statement alone proves you don't understand this topic. Why are you
posting opinions like that when they aren't even relevant? The fact the CS
pass-through received by a CP mother on welfare exceeded the maximum allowed
under law shows the CS paid to the state exceeded the public assistance they
paid out.


So that being said, he probably wasnt ordered to pay hardly anything
at all in the first place, not enough probably to pay for his share of
the expenses.

There is no "share" to pay when welfare is involved. The NCP is the only
party required to support the child and the CP pays nothing.


Furthermore, you boneheads dont know why this woman was on welfare.
It is possible to be one welfare and hold a job.

Doesn't matter.


Instead you attack her and start in with your "many of the welfare
mothers" crap.

We discussed this very issue when you posted the Census data on CS. The
Census asks CP mothers if they received 100% of the CS ordered. The welfare
recipients respond, "No" and get placed into the "Received Partial Support"
category. In fact, as this case proves, 100% of the CS was paid, but the
mother is confused about how the system works and claims only a partial
amount was received.

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...

The knowldge about CS and family law issues is tainted by the croines
in this group. They use other's comments as their own and have even
taken articles against their position and inserted words in places so
the article reads here as supporting their postition. Bob, is really
good about doing this, and then cries when he is caught.

You are so smart. After posting here for several years, you are the first
one to figure I change words in my resources to support what I say.

Don't tell anybody, but the really hard part is changing the words on the
web sites for the resource links. It's tricky, but the links to the web
pages I post send people to secret web locations that mirror the original
sites. If I were you, I'd wear a tin foil hat, just in case I have other
powers you haven't discovered yet.

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...

The knowldge about CS and family law issues is tainted by the croines
in this group. They use other's comments as their own and have even
taken articles against their position and inserted words in places so
the article reads here as supporting their postition. Bob, is really
good about doing this, and then cries when he is caught.

You are so smart. After posting here for several years, you are the first
one to figure I change words in my resources to support what I say.

Don't tell anybody, but the really hard part is changing the words on the
web sites for the resource links. It's tricky, but the links to the web
pages I post send people to secret web locations that mirror the original
sites. If I were you, I'd wear a tin foil hat, just in case I have other
powers you haven't discovered yet.

Bob Whiteside wrote in message
ink.net...

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...

The knowldge about CS and family law issues is tainted by the croines
in this group. They use other's comments as their own and have even
taken articles against their position and inserted words in places so
the article reads here as supporting their postition. Bob, is really
good about doing this, and then cries when he is caught.

You are so smart. After posting here for several years, you are the first
one to figure I change words in my resources to support what I say.

Don't tell anybody, but the really hard part is changing the words on the
web sites for the resource links. It's tricky, but the links to the web
pages I post send people to secret web locations that mirror the original
sites. If I were you, I'd wear a tin foil hat, just in case I have other
powers you haven't discovered yet.



LMAO..... I needed that today.

Bob Whiteside wrote in message
ink.net...

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...

The knowldge about CS and family law issues is tainted by the croines
in this group. They use other's comments as their own and have even
taken articles against their position and inserted words in places so
the article reads here as supporting their postition. Bob, is really
good about doing this, and then cries when he is caught.

You are so smart. After posting here for several years, you are the first
one to figure I change words in my resources to support what I say.

Don't tell anybody, but the really hard part is changing the words on the
web sites for the resource links. It's tricky, but the links to the web
pages I post send people to secret web locations that mirror the original
sites. If I were you, I'd wear a tin foil hat, just in case I have other
powers you haven't discovered yet.



LMAO..... I needed that today.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:47:26 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 18:07:51 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


"mary Adrian" wrote in message
...
To the Dave-You want details dude-I was on public assistance at the
time
the court ordered was made for 18.43 a week-no where even close to
65,000+. My son has seen his father once since he was born. His father
never sent birthday cards. christmas cards, never called or saw him-so
that means there's never been any time spent at "dad's house". I'm not
bitter or angry at him in fact I don't give a rat's patoot one way or
the other. My son is now 26 so we're past the support crap. .By the way
when my son turned 18 his father's wages were still being garnished so
we received a couple more of those special checks-the child support
office had the audacity to tell me that I would have to pay back the
extra money. My response was-take me to court. I never heard another
word from them. Later, Mary

Now the facts are starting to make some sense. If the son is 26, that
means
the CS order was being paid prior to the change in 1996 where most states
eliminated the $25 pass-through and started keeping 100% of the CS to
reimburse welfare benefits. The bulk of the CS paid was being kept by
the
state to reimburse public assistance money already given to the CP mother
and the $18.43 per week was either the legal pass-through amount or the
amount left over after the benefits were reimbursed.

Of course, this is not the first time a CP mother has perceived the
child's
father was not paying CS when they were paying CS to the state. Many of
the
welfare mothers don't understand the middleman government is collecting
and
keeping the CS being paid to repay money they have advanced to the
mother.

Actually if he was paying child support on a regular basis and the
amount was greater than the amount given through welfare assistance
she wouldnt have been on it in the first place.

That statement alone proves you don't understand this topic. Why are you
posting opinions like that when they aren't even relevant? The fact the CS
pass-through received by a CP mother on welfare exceeded the maximum allowed
under law shows the CS paid to the state exceeded the public assistance they
paid out.

It does make a difference and I totally understand the topic, just
dont agree with you views of how it works.




Furthermore, you boneheads dont know why this woman was on welfare.
It is possible to be one welfare and hold a job.

Doesn't matter.

It should matter, it probably doesnt matter to you because it go
against your crusade.



Instead you attack her and start in with your "many of the welfare
mothers" crap.

We discussed this very issue when you posted the Census data on CS. The
Census asks CP mothers if they received 100% of the CS ordered. The welfare
recipients respond, "No" and get placed into the "Received Partial Support"
category. In fact, as this case proves, 100% of the CS was paid, but the
mother is confused about how the system works and claims only a partial
amount was received.

That's how you read things, because otherwise it doesn't fit your
agenda.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:47:26 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 18:07:51 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


"mary Adrian" wrote in message
...
To the Dave-You want details dude-I was on public assistance at the
time
the court ordered was made for 18.43 a week-no where even close to
65,000+. My son has seen his father once since he was born. His father
never sent birthday cards. christmas cards, never called or saw him-so
that means there's never been any time spent at "dad's house". I'm not
bitter or angry at him in fact I don't give a rat's patoot one way or
the other. My son is now 26 so we're past the support crap. .By the way
when my son turned 18 his father's wages were still being garnished so
we received a couple more of those special checks-the child support
office had the audacity to tell me that I would have to pay back the
extra money. My response was-take me to court. I never heard another
word from them. Later, Mary

Now the facts are starting to make some sense. If the son is 26, that
means
the CS order was being paid prior to the change in 1996 where most states
eliminated the $25 pass-through and started keeping 100% of the CS to
reimburse welfare benefits. The bulk of the CS paid was being kept by
the
state to reimburse public assistance money already given to the CP mother
and the $18.43 per week was either the legal pass-through amount or the
amount left over after the benefits were reimbursed.

Of course, this is not the first time a CP mother has perceived the
child's
father was not paying CS when they were paying CS to the state. Many of
the
welfare mothers don't understand the middleman government is collecting
and
keeping the CS being paid to repay money they have advanced to the
mother.

Actually if he was paying child support on a regular basis and the
amount was greater than the amount given through welfare assistance
she wouldnt have been on it in the first place.

That statement alone proves you don't understand this topic. Why are you
posting opinions like that when they aren't even relevant? The fact the CS
pass-through received by a CP mother on welfare exceeded the maximum allowed
under law shows the CS paid to the state exceeded the public assistance they
paid out.

It does make a difference and I totally understand the topic, just
dont agree with you views of how it works.




Furthermore, you boneheads dont know why this woman was on welfare.
It is possible to be one welfare and hold a job.

Doesn't matter.

It should matter, it probably doesnt matter to you because it go
against your crusade.



Instead you attack her and start in with your "many of the welfare
mothers" crap.

We discussed this very issue when you posted the Census data on CS. The
Census asks CP mothers if they received 100% of the CS ordered. The welfare
recipients respond, "No" and get placed into the "Received Partial Support"
category. In fact, as this case proves, 100% of the CS was paid, but the
mother is confused about how the system works and claims only a partial
amount was received.

That's how you read things, because otherwise it doesn't fit your
agenda.

Not a valid answer (not surprisingly)...

Fighting For Kids wrote:

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:24:59 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

You are correct, except for one thing...

Fighting For Kids wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:03:12 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

A choice she made...

Moon Shyne wrote:

"Cameron Stevens" wrote in message
...

snip


At one time I *WAS* able to pay my CS directly. I can still pay it
electronically, in fact the payments are scheduled right through to December
2004. The Legislative Body should be able to legislate that CS is required.
The CS Agency should have a place to pursue arrears. The problem *I* see
with the system is that while the amount pursued is based on income, the
amount does not float with the income but rather is a cold harsh number,
enforced without concern for the circumstances of the people involved.

This is not about telling you how to raise your children, and if the CP and
NCP come to an agreement it should be respected by the courts/system. It is
not the NCPs that have the necessary level of responsibility that the system
should be involved with. The problem is that a system that begins to care
about the circumstances of the people involved becomes expensive to operate.
Without the system's help there is a significant number (this could be 1%
and still be significant) of children who are not voluntarily supported but
the NCP. The system, when automated - as technology might allow the control
required - becomes threatening and a discomfort to the user of the system
but how does one implement a system that is changable, for every case, which
are ALL DIFFERENT without the costs becoming astronomical.

The system, as it stands, does not serve the needs of the child. It exists
under this premise because it was designed to serve the responsible mother
whose husband had taken off and left her destitute. Helpless, she needed
money to remain at home and exist and welfare was not prepared to pick up
the tab. The system was designed to equalize the incomes so that the CPs
lessened ability to find work of equal value would not present to the child
an grass-is-greener perspective on the now occational world of the NCP.
After all the NCP (father) makes all the big money. This is the logic of the
system. This is the foundation of it's original purpose. Very respectible
from a 1960's point-of-view.

There's a huge difference from that "design" to today's reality. We need the
system to drop the prejudice of the woman being unable to find work of equal
value (or boyfriend/new husband to subsidize)

Why would you transfer the responsibility for the children to some new
boyfriend/husband? Why not transfer it to some new girlfriend/wife of the NCP?

and protect the child's real
best interest, the relationship with BOTH parents (not money as presumed byt
the system). The amounts involved need to appreciate that there are hills
and valleys to life and that professional momentum and success can be
affected by speedbumps and semi-trailers on the highway of life. The CP must
take responsibility for budgetting their money and understand that, just as
they would need to do if married to the NCP, planning for a worst-case is
essential.

Doesn't the NCP have to do the same budgeting and planning?

The father may lose his job, may go on disability and may need to
work someplace else and while she may not appreciate his position he may
just burn out and need to take a seriously less stressful and lower-paying
job to simply survive..

And all of the same may well be true for the CP, who, in addition to working to
supply her share of support for the children, has the additional workload of the
hands on care for the children for the majority of the time.

...and now chooses to moan about. "Poor me, poor me...I demanded full
custody of these damn kids and now I have FULL custody of these damn
kids. I am SOOO stressed out, but I'll be damned if I'll let that
******* share evenly in the work no matter how much he begs. I'll just
make him pay more while I whine about how stressed these danmed kids
make me..."

Mel Gamble

Hmm..sounds like more of what you write about all the time. Poor me,
poor me... I didnt want custody of the kids now I have to pay to help
support them. I just can't handle this so now i'm going to cry about
how the sytem is taking advantage of me.

...the CP is moaning about a custody situation she demanded, while the
NCP is moaning about a situation forced on him against his will.

Please.. you make choices about what happens in your life. Playing
the victim again.

....as none of the NCP's posting here has ever claimed to have "chosen"
that side of the equation. *I* didn't choose that side. I make many
choices - the subject at hand was NOT one of them.

Oh, and one would gladly trade places with the other - guess which one
that would be???

Yeah, im sure you men would gladly change places with CP's. That is
funny. I bet that most men,if the CP handed them their children,
would run as fast as they could.

Would you like to talk to my daughter about that - it's what both of us
long for. Your man was NOT running from his CHILD....

Mel Gamble

Mel Gamble

There is a very clear but mislead impression that men walk away from a
marriage unscathed or smelling like roses. While some wealthy people have
teh power to bend the system to thier will, the bulk of the fathers/NCPs do
not and those fathers are negatively impacted by the process of divorce
itself. Bankrupcy is pursued by many fathers (NCPs) as a necessity,

Just as it is pursued by many mothers as a necessity.

not as a
shirking of responsibility and the over all impression of the father being a
"Deadbeat Dad" is unfair if not a persecution in itself. A fine upstanding
employee may, if the employer is biased or mislead, become recognised as a
burden on the company, a criminal of sorts, when the garanshee notice
arrives.

In this day and age where nearly all child support orders are via wage
assignment? Somehow, I doubt that the company won't recognize it for exactly
what it is - SOP.

It's shameful to the father, whether his payment is reasonable or
not.

I will always advise that falling behind in CS is to be avoided at all
costs. It's difficult to stay ahead of it sometimes but it should be the
focus. If you need to contact the CS agency, take the tiem the hour off to
negotiate a repayment schedule will save your skin later on. Even so, the
system remains a fickle beast that is more prone to nip once and devour it's
prey in the next blink of an eye, just as the prey was ready to fead the
beast forever without the need for a fight.

Cameron

Not a valid answer (not surprisingly)...

Fighting For Kids wrote:

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:24:59 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

You are correct, except for one thing...

Fighting For Kids wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:03:12 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

A choice she made...

Moon Shyne wrote:

"Cameron Stevens" wrote in message
...

snip


At one time I *WAS* able to pay my CS directly. I can still pay it
electronically, in fact the payments are scheduled right through to December
2004. The Legislative Body should be able to legislate that CS is required.
The CS Agency should have a place to pursue arrears. The problem *I* see
with the system is that while the amount pursued is based on income, the
amount does not float with the income but rather is a cold harsh number,
enforced without concern for the circumstances of the people involved.

This is not about telling you how to raise your children, and if the CP and
NCP come to an agreement it should be respected by the courts/system. It is
not the NCPs that have the necessary level of responsibility that the system
should be involved with. The problem is that a system that begins to care
about the circumstances of the people involved becomes expensive to operate.
Without the system's help there is a significant number (this could be 1%
and still be significant) of children who are not voluntarily supported but
the NCP. The system, when automated - as technology might allow the control
required - becomes threatening and a discomfort to the user of the system
but how does one implement a system that is changable, for every case, which
are ALL DIFFERENT without the costs becoming astronomical.

The system, as it stands, does not serve the needs of the child. It exists
under this premise because it was designed to serve the responsible mother
whose husband had taken off and left her destitute. Helpless, she needed
money to remain at home and exist and welfare was not prepared to pick up
the tab. The system was designed to equalize the incomes so that the CPs
lessened ability to find work of equal value would not present to the child
an grass-is-greener perspective on the now occational world of the NCP.
After all the NCP (father) makes all the big money. This is the logic of the
system. This is the foundation of it's original purpose. Very respectible
from a 1960's point-of-view.

There's a huge difference from that "design" to today's reality. We need the
system to drop the prejudice of the woman being unable to find work of equal
value (or boyfriend/new husband to subsidize)

Why would you transfer the responsibility for the children to some new
boyfriend/husband? Why not transfer it to some new girlfriend/wife of the NCP?

and protect the child's real
best interest, the relationship with BOTH parents (not money as presumed byt
the system). The amounts involved need to appreciate that there are hills
and valleys to life and that professional momentum and success can be
affected by speedbumps and semi-trailers on the highway of life. The CP must
take responsibility for budgetting their money and understand that, just as
they would need to do if married to the NCP, planning for a worst-case is
essential.

Doesn't the NCP have to do the same budgeting and planning?

The father may lose his job, may go on disability and may need to
work someplace else and while she may not appreciate his position he may
just burn out and need to take a seriously less stressful and lower-paying
job to simply survive..

And all of the same may well be true for the CP, who, in addition to working to
supply her share of support for the children, has the additional workload of the
hands on care for the children for the majority of the time.

...and now chooses to moan about. "Poor me, poor me...I demanded full
custody of these damn kids and now I have FULL custody of these damn
kids. I am SOOO stressed out, but I'll be damned if I'll let that
******* share evenly in the work no matter how much he begs. I'll just
make him pay more while I whine about how stressed these danmed kids
make me..."

Mel Gamble

Hmm..sounds like more of what you write about all the time. Poor me,
poor me... I didnt want custody of the kids now I have to pay to help
support them. I just can't handle this so now i'm going to cry about
how the sytem is taking advantage of me.

...the CP is moaning about a custody situation she demanded, while the
NCP is moaning about a situation forced on him against his will.

Please.. you make choices about what happens in your life. Playing
the victim again.

....as none of the NCP's posting here has ever claimed to have "chosen"
that side of the equation. *I* didn't choose that side. I make many
choices - the subject at hand was NOT one of them.

Oh, and one would gladly trade places with the other - guess which one
that would be???

Yeah, im sure you men would gladly change places with CP's. That is
funny. I bet that most men,if the CP handed them their children,
would run as fast as they could.

Would you like to talk to my daughter about that - it's what both of us
long for. Your man was NOT running from his CHILD....

Mel Gamble

Mel Gamble

There is a very clear but mislead impression that men walk away from a
marriage unscathed or smelling like roses. While some wealthy people have
teh power to bend the system to thier will, the bulk of the fathers/NCPs do
not and those fathers are negatively impacted by the process of divorce
itself. Bankrupcy is pursued by many fathers (NCPs) as a necessity,

Just as it is pursued by many mothers as a necessity.

not as a
shirking of responsibility and the over all impression of the father being a
"Deadbeat Dad" is unfair if not a persecution in itself. A fine upstanding
employee may, if the employer is biased or mislead, become recognised as a
burden on the company, a criminal of sorts, when the garanshee notice
arrives.

In this day and age where nearly all child support orders are via wage
assignment? Somehow, I doubt that the company won't recognize it for exactly
what it is - SOP.

It's shameful to the father, whether his payment is reasonable or
not.

I will always advise that falling behind in CS is to be avoided at all
costs. It's difficult to stay ahead of it sometimes but it should be the
focus. If you need to contact the CS agency, take the tiem the hour off to
negotiate a repayment schedule will save your skin later on. Even so, the
system remains a fickle beast that is more prone to nip once and devour it's
prey in the next blink of an eye, just as the prey was ready to fead the
beast forever without the need for a fight.

Cameron