Posted on 06/21/2005 9:19:50 PM PDT by Fido969
I don't object to the child support payments. I want my daughter to have a good life and be well-cared for. I cannot change the fact that my ex refuses to seek a job that she is qualified for and would pay 40k a year. What I object to is her poisoning my 9 year-old daughter to the point where she is resistant to spend time with me. As a result, I'm left with the choices of either dragging her back to court for a servere finger wagging, or to give up on my child.
Oh yes, eventually the courts will do something... that is, unless the ex manages to convince the daughter to accuse her daddy of something terrible - all in the child's best interest of course... she's better off without me in her life anyway. (according to the ex-wife) Just send the money.
Be happy that you're not getting the Massachusetts treatment.
I'm working towards making "support" payments taxable income for the payee and tax-deductable for the payer
If you ever "win", they'll just bump the rate to cover average tax liability on the receiving end.
(or, even better, come out of pre-tax dollars).
Not gonna happen. They would have to make child expenses deductible for children in intact families too.
Whilst you obviously are incapable of complex, multi-layered thought and lucid prose, the baring of your scatalogical, disyllabic fang is what really sets you apart. Trod on and go educate yourself on the subject, oh woman of ignorance.
btw-your screen-name is spelled incorrectly, should end in y, not e
No, it is not BS.
In some cases, a chunk of CS is embedded alimony. See, there are instances when one of the parents is required to pay more than the actual costs of the child(ren), because if they do not pay that extra, the standard of living of their children would drop significantly. There is no way to raise the boat for them, without raising the boat for the entire household. Picture one parent living in a mansion, while their children live with the other parent in a trailer park or in some ghetto.
Your objection is understandable.
As a result, I'm left with the choices of either dragging her back to court for a servere finger wagging, or to give up on my child.
Sometimes a grandparent can get through to them, better than a court. If grandparents are not an option, (sometimes they are part of or even the source of the problem) instead of just pushing to get your parenting time order enforced, you could ask for "family counseling". A *good* therapist might get through to her. Someone should remind mom that one day your daughter will be a teenager. Does she really, really wanna handle that all by herself?
Finally, your ex might be doing this to keep you engaged. IOW, she needs to have the drama of putting herself into the role of being victim/victor.
Who does object to child support payments?
Some object to excessive child support payments.
I'm sorry.
Women can be shrews. Just ask my wife what she thinks.
Rare is a woman who won't use the children on occasion to get back at the husband.
They are just wired different.
But like I said earlier, "no dads" are a bigger problem than deadbeat.
I recently received a letter from the State of California, asking questions about an employee that left nearly 7 years ago. I have heard he is in bad health....and of course, once he missed a payment the mother of his son went right to the state to file some sort of action.
There were all kinds of warning to me about having to provide information....I wanted to call the case agent and tell her to stick it up her a**
[He didn't bring a hand grenade to the courthouse.]
This quote is from the story: "A man killed by police after he brandished a grenade in the federal courthouse. ...Authorities said Manley had tried to bypass courthouse security while clutching a hand grenade, later found to be inactive.]
Unless the author of this story left out something really important (which is admittedly possible) like "He found a hand grenade somewhere in the courthouse and picked it up..", then your assertion that "He didn't bring a hand grenade to the courthouse." is incorrect.
damn right...we milkstools have to laager up
He didn't bring a grenade to the courthouse.
If you're not in California - then call. It only costs 5 cents a minute!
Most fathers the state establishes arbitrary child support orders against have not "abandoned" their children. Also, most custodial parents can afford to provide for the family after they discard the father, although at a greater burden than when they enjoyed two incomes. Responsible parents with children don't get divorced for "no-fault." There is simply not enough information to make this call.
Or maybe fathers who are fed up with the purely socialist nature of this program.
What is it that happens so often? Men get shot for waving around a hand grenade in a courthouse?
Most likely, the $8K 'bill' was for child support he didn't pay when his kids were under 18.
In general, what is 'socialist' about child support?
Gee, I wonder why you don't win in court.
I think the courts tend to favor the more ruthless party. As far as the left is concerned, the courts can be detrimental to the mother and the father, because both of those cases favor the left by damaging traditional society.
Fathers killing or getting killed over family court matters. You could blame the fathers all day long. On the other hand, you might think there is something wrong with family court.
The idea of supporting children certainly is not socialist in itself. The arbitrary governmental taking from one parent to increase the standard of living of another without a compelling state interest is socialist.
You have to consider that alimony and support for an abandoned spouse and her children are available in a private action through district court. This award is not derived from the so-called guidelines. The basis of this award is an standard of living the family could have expected to maintain before the abandonment. This action calls on the equitable power of the court.
A IV-D child support order is administrative in character and regulated by statute and administrative rules. The statutes regulate the actions of the welfare agency in the administration of its welfare programs. This is why title IV-D is meant to work in tandem with title IV-A, or what has now become TANF.
The guidelines are part of a statutory scheme to order a spouse who has abandoned his family to the welfare roles. This is an administrative action to recover or avoid an amount of money the state is obligated to provide the impoverished family the the father could have otherwise provided. The basis for the order is the pecuniary interest the state incurs as a result of the family becoming eligible for welfare assistance. Unfortunately, the regulatory scheme has become mal-administered to the point that the procedure for establishing these orders no longer associate the legitimate basis of the order with the evil sought to be remedied by the program. Orders are now established without any basis whatsoever, and attempt to extend the basis for the common law releif to all separated families without establishing abandonment or need. Fault is still required to be established in order to show a father has abandoned his family, and need is required to be established by showing his absence has created a liability on the state to provide welfare under the Social Security Act.
It's the misapplication of this program that stinks of socialism. If it were applied correctly to the class of deadbeat dads it was intended to reach, and for the amount the government could lawfully demand, I would have no problem with it at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.