And it has examples where it should have but didn’t. The law is not uniform by state and is not uniformly applied even within a state. Lots of variables: the judge, the lawyers (or lack thereof), the disposition of the co-parents. It’s not because my friend stupid, or lying, or trying to neglect his kid, or any of your other implications. Sometimes people just get screwed over when they are legitimately trying to do the right thing for themselves and their kids (yes, the right thing ALSO includes what’s best for the parent, not just the kid). WhyNot did, on the CP side of it; diggleblop got screwed on the NCP side of it. So did my friend. In the first case, it was the deadbeat dad; in diggleblop’s case, it was the asshole judge; in my friend’s case, it was a far more resourceful golddigger ex. Why is it only the first situation you can possibly understand or have sympathy for?
I am not unsympathetic, but since other people in comparable situations have managed to get their payments adjusted I have to wonder why his case is different. It’s easy to blame the other guy, but that doesn’t mean we have anything near the whole story.
And in my case it was lowered when my ex petitioned the court to have to reduced and the judge agreed with him. Then twelve years later I petitioned and it was raised. I would like to ad that this can only be done every three years.
My ex is currently on unemployment. He is looking for a job and when he gets one if the job is paying much lower than he will most likely want to reduced payments but since an assessment was just done a year ago then he has to wait two more years.
Does that suck? Yeah it does but it also sucked when it was lowered and I had to wait three years for another review. I did not ask for a review after three years because at the time he helped with school clothes, school supplies and such so I felt it balanced out. Not all custodial parents are gold digging bitches.
It of course also suck if he landed some great job that pays him three times as much, I can not petition to have it raised for two years. It goes both ways.
It can be done. I am sure you might think than a man asking the court to reduce his payments in 1995 would have been laughed at but he did it.
I think what Broomstick is trying to get through to you is that it is possible. Maybe not in all cases and maybe not in all states but then again we already mentioned that the rules are not universal, it varies.
Should they be the same across the board? Maybe, but a lot of things vary from state to state and since child support is a state run agency it is going to vary.
As a custodial parent I have barely scraped by for the last sixteen years with a full time job and child support. I had no lawyer when I got divorced, he did. I assume because he could afford one, while I could not. Is that fair? Sure it is. I should have looked into free counciling but at the time I was very young and I did not know what I know now, that was my ignorance.
The thing that people seem to forget is that even if the non-custodial parent is going through hardships because their payments are to high for what they feel they can manage the court does not care. What they do care about is that the child or children do not suffer any hardships. They would rather have the non-custodial parent working two jobs and eating ramen noodles every night then the child going with out shoes or a decent winter coat.
When a previous poster stated “will some one think of the children” that is what the court is doing. They were created by both parties and both parties should be equally responsible. I wonder how many non-custodial parents petition the court to get custody so they can care for the kids and get support from the money grubbing ex’s? Do they really think that having the responsibility of caring for the kids full time and an X amount of dollars from their ex is going to be easier and would be more financially beneficially? I hardly think so.
Trust me when I say that I have paid a great deal more than their father has paid for their care over the last sixteen years.
I guess in some cases the non-custodial parent is not only paying for half the childs care but they are also paying for their freedom of not having to “raise” some of these children. If you think $50 or $500 a month is making up for the day to day, year to year resposibility of caring for and raising a child you are sadly mistaken.
LOL, you guys. That’s why you pay your frickin child support. Not paying it results in criminal charges, period. No bonds happen all the time. It would take a few months at the very least to get up to 13k owed in back child support unless you’re wealthy. It’s deliberate and continuous. If you can’t pay, petition the court to lower it. It’s based on income.
Ummm… Did you notice that the last post on this thread was almost 6 years ago? :eek:
Does your rant apply to someone who owes over $70,000, works under the table with multiple social security numbers and gets away with it because it is LA County?
Or how about the woman who lost custody of her child because the father refused to pay child support so she was stuck in a one bedroom apartment and since the child did not have his own bedroom, the father gets custody (in California, lack of paying support cannot be considered in custody/visitation issues) because he can afford a two bedroom house.
Because I know both those women. Debtor’s prison? How about calling it supporting your kid?
Since this is an old thread and has been raised for no good reason, I’m closing it.
Anyone who wishes to open a debate about child support may do so in Great Debates.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator