A good belly laugh

http://www.divorcesupport.com/divorc...n-to-1209.html

Read that first paragraph, and after you've wiped the tears out of your
eyes, feel free to respond.

"John Meyer" wrote in message
. ..
http://www.divorcesupport.com/divorc...n-to-1209.html

Read that first paragraph, and after you've wiped the tears out of your
eyes, feel free to respond.



"If, however, it means that you would be unable to purchase the necessities
of life for yourself, then a judge would take that into careful
consideration."


I believe the term was, "Have a nice day!".

DB wrote:
"John Meyer" wrote in message
. ..
http://www.divorcesupport.com/divorc...n-to-1209.html

Read that first paragraph, and after you've wiped the tears out of your
eyes, feel free to respond.



"If, however, it means that you would be unable to purchase the necessities
of life for yourself, then a judge would take that into careful
consideration."


I believe the term was, "Have a nice day!".



To cite:

http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/200...their-licenses


you know there's more than one reason to keep up a blog!

http://www.pueblonative.com/blog/

http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/200...rents-given-ch...

The department handles nearly 140,000 child support cases countywide,
of which 31,592 are managed through the agency's Victorville office. Just
over 158,000 children are supported through the department.
Approximately $15.5 million in child support goes unpaid in the county each month.


1) 158,000 children supported by the department.
???? Thru welfare? Thru foster care? What does that mean?
That's 18,000 more kids then they say they have cs cases?

2) 140,000 cs cases. $15.5 mil unpaid every month.
That breaks down to an average of only $25.00 per week per payor.
Too bad the media prefers to spit out huge numbers to induce a
"the sky is falling"
mentality on readers who don't care to actually think about (or do
the math for) what they're reading.

wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/200...rents-given-ch...

The department handles nearly 140,000 child support cases countywide,
of which 31,592 are managed through the agency's Victorville office. Just
over 158,000 children are supported through the department.
Approximately $15.5 million in child support goes unpaid in the county
each month.


1) 158,000 children supported by the department.
???? Thru welfare? Thru foster care? What does that mean?
That's 18,000 more kids then they say they have cs cases?

The government counts CS cases based on how many orders they manage and then
back into how many children the orders represent. This county has 1.12
children per CS order. The national average according to the census bureau
is 1.6 children per parent.

The only way to explain the gross discrepancy from the national average is
to recognize this county has an above average number of mothers who have had
children with multiple fathers and therefore have multiple CS orders to
being the children per order statistic down.

over 158,000 children are supported through the department.

The government counts CS cases based on how many orders they manage
and then back into how many children the orders represent.


So if you're saying the 158,000 is the number of kids covered by CS,
then why the hell is the department taking credit for supporting those
children? Wouldn't it be, um, the NCP's paying their child support who
are supporting the children?

wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/200...rents-given-ch...

The department handles nearly 140,000 child support cases countywide,
of which 31,592 are managed through the agency's Victorville office. Just
over 158,000 children are supported through the department.
Approximately $15.5 million in child support goes unpaid in the county
each month.


1) 158,000 children supported by the department.
???? Thru welfare? Thru foster care? What does that mean?

It means that's how many children are getting child support through the
system there.


That's 18,000 more kids then they say they have cs cases?

I have 1 child support case. I have 2 children.



2) 140,000 cs cases. $15.5 mil unpaid every month.
That breaks down to an average of only $25.00 per week per payor.

Which might lead some to wonder why the payors aren't making more of an
effort to pay it.

What about those extortionate rates I see complained about in so many posts
here?


Too bad the media prefers to spit out huge numbers to induce a
"the sky is falling"
mentality on readers who don't care to actually think about (or do
the math for) what they're reading.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

What about those extortionate rates I see complained about in so many
posts here?


I'm 47 years old, I've lost everything and no hope of ever gaining anything
back for the rest of my natural life!

Is that extortionate enough for you?

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/200...rents-given-ch...

The department handles nearly 140,000 child support cases countywide,
of which 31,592 are managed through the agency's Victorville office.
Just
over 158,000 children are supported through the department.
Approximately $15.5 million in child support goes unpaid in the county
each month.


1) 158,000 children supported by the department.
???? Thru welfare? Thru foster care? What does that mean?

It means that's how many children are getting child support through the
system there.


That's 18,000 more kids then they say they have cs cases?

I have 1 child support case. I have 2 children.



2) 140,000 cs cases. $15.5 mil unpaid every month.
That breaks down to an average of only $25.00 per week per payor.

Which might lead some to wonder why the payors aren't making more of an
effort to pay it.

What about those extortionate rates I see complained about in so many
posts
here?

The extortionate rates come from several sources.

1.) Imputed incomes.
2.) Add-ons for child care, healthcare, special needs, etc.
3.) Add-ons for arrearage amounts created by retroactive modifications and
delays in implementing changes.
4.) CS guideline scales that use marginal costs for big ticket items like
housing, transportation, and miscellaneous expenses.
5.) State laws that require 25% or more NCP income changes to lower CS
awards while not recognizing any income change criteria to do period reviews
to increase CS awards.
6.) Phony, smoke screen, undefined methodologies to consider tax positions
as being equal when they are not.
7.) Laws defining healthcare reimbursements as not being excessive until
they are double the basic CS order amount.
8.) No consideration for the costs of prior or subsequent children in
setting CS awards.
9.) No consideration for the children's expenses that travel with the
children.
10.) No consideration for the NCP's living or visitation costs.
11.) Arbitrary adjustment floor levels for shared parenting situations
requiring 30% or more time with the other parent prior to any adjustments.
12.) Treating CS guidelines as defacto law instead of guidelines that can be
adjusted to meet individual case circumstances.
13.) Using 20+ year old child rearing surveys with adjustments to set
current CS guideline scales.
14.) Using married parent economic data to hide the fact single parents
spend less on child rearing than married parents.
15.) Forcing non-biological men to pay CS for children they didn't create.
16.) Assumptions about the CP's circumstance/involvement that cannot be
rebutted.

2) 140,000 cs cases. $15.5 mil unpaid every month.
That breaks down to an average of only $25.00 per week per payor.

Which might lead some to wonder why the payors aren't making more of an effort to pay it.

Well, I consider forking over $675 of a $700 order as doing more than
"making an effort" considering all the dubious practices that cast
doubt on whether the $700 ordered is fair, ethical, or affordable to
begin with.

When there is a system in place to track the CP's share of CS, when
the CP can be held accountable, and face all the same penalties as the
NCP, for spending $25 less on the kids then officially ordered, then
maybe I'd take reports of arrearages on the NCPs part more seriously.