I spoke with my lawyer today & found out that my child support agreement will stay in effect indefinately, which is good. When OW goes to seek her support at least there will be some impact to her & less money she can get.<P>Then I asked lawyer about why law does not address any sort of venue for regress against people who basically "attack" a marriage. He told me that the law years ago saw marriage as the only support for women, s that was why the alienation of affection law existed. But now that women basically support themselves (or can support themselves if they have to) that the law is being taken off the books in most states. He said that marriage is seen as an agreement between two people & if one of them breaks the agreement, well then the offended spouse gets to divorce them and that is it. I stated that if this were almost any other type of contract them it wouldn't work that way. I also said given that line of thinking, marriage is basically meaningless. It doesn't do much of anything. Think about it, all I get for my 9 years is child support that I would have gotten if I slept with him once! And since my H has been able to pursue his career while I took the responsibility of raising his daughter by previous marriage, he had attained greater earning power because of me! It is ludicrious. If we had a business contract it would be different, but a marriage license is just basically nothing. The slut he slept with has as much rights as I do. All I have the right to do is forsake all my future plans & income & my childrens future and work fulltime!<P>I know that everyone on this board has hit the same wall. I am talking with my rep. to the state legislature. At least I will get the opportunity to gripe! It is so funny to listen to political crap about family values and have to swallow this too. <P>Take care...<P>Carolyn

Carolyn,<P>While I'm sympathetic to your argument, its technically not true. Because you are married, you have a legal claim of 1/2 his retirement assets and the OW does not. Because you sacrificed so his earning power is higher, you can (at least in principle) capture part of that earning power through alimony in a divorce settlement, and the OW cannot.<P>The core of your argument, that child support awards are unfair, is correct, though.<P>The problems with child support awards are many. They were written with the presumption that the children of a divorce should not suffer any reduction in standard of living. Now, this sounds like a laudable goal, but we are left asking whether such a goal is really fair to all parties. For example, why should a non-custodial parent be forced to live at a standard of living lower than the children of the marriage? <P>A big problem with CS awards is that their implicit cost structure is based on an *intact* family. Obviously, once a family breaks up, the fixed costs rise dramatically (e.g., the couple needs to pay for two households, two cars, and so on). The legislatures ignored this and a related consideration, the after-tax implication of enacted child support policy.<P>As you're aware, what this means to an OW is that she can reap an exhorbitant child support award partly because that child support award itself <I>is based on a financial presumption that she was actually married to the father of the child, when in fact she never was</I>.<P>At this point, many will stand up and say, "But the OW's innocent child deserves due process and has just as much right to the father's income stream as the childen of the marriage." But that's a flat out lie; simply review your state's CS guidelines carefully. Most states ignore the financial implications of a second set of children when computing a child support award to the first set of children. In short, family courts show a disdain for due process that shocks the conscience.<P>So we are left asking, "Why is it that if a couple breaks up, the man remarries, and has a second set of children, they are ignored for CS calculations...but if a married man knocks up an OW, she is entitled to a full CS award?" The conclusion is that the current laws are, if anything, anti-marriage.<P>Bystander<p>[This message has been edited by Bystander (edited October 24, 2000).]

Carolyn, <BR> <BR> Sorry to respond so late. You sound pissed, and you have a right to be. Insult to injury, when will it end. Sometimes life is a sh*t sandwich, and every day is another bite. My Grandfather used to tell me that no one ever said life was fair. To hell with fair, how about unjust, ruthless, unbearable!!!<P><BR> But you are still here. You survived today, and you will survive tomorrow! You won't know how very strong you are untill you are tested, and you ARE being tested. You are much stronger than you think, look at what you have already endured, and you are still trying to make your marriage work! I hope your husband will realise some day how lucky he is. <P> Hang in there,<P>------------------<BR><P>Lynton

Oh my, CS, a festering wound of a subject to me. <P>CS has been extremely unfair for years. I think I'm looking from the other side of the fence though. First as a child of divorce, I had a "father" (I use that term loosely) that couldn't be bothered to pay that $10 a week CS. He didn't feel he should have to, after all my mother made more $ than him. Well, that's what happens when someone stays with a job and actually shows up on a daily basis. Plus, he had another child with his second wife. Well, unless he had temporary amnesia and forgot about the child from the first marriage, that comes down to poor planning on his part. In fourteen years my mother probably got about $500 in CS. We qualified for no aid at all because she had a judgement saying she was "supposed" to be getting CS.<P>Now let's move on to my divorce. I didn't try to screw my ex to the wall. I asked simply for what I needed to be able to pay the bills with what I was making. He agreed to it. We did not use our state established guidelines. That was poor planning on my part. I did my best to work with him on issues that came up, if he was short on money one week, no problem, pay me what you can and catch up when you can. Two years, no problems. <P>Then, he gets a girlfriend who is married, with two children, and pregnant with still another man's child. H kicks her out on her a**, so my ex takes her and her kids in. Within three weeks my ex could no longer pay CS (gf does not work). Tried to work with him for six months. Went from being behind to telling me to get on welfare. <P>Went to court, this man who couldn't afford to make CS payments sh** $1200 for an attorney literally overnight to keep himself out of jail. He asked for his CS to be lowered. Court said "Sorry, but you are already paying over $180 a month less than state guidelines demand. I didn't get a penny more, and got a whopping $300 of the $5000 back CS over the next 3 months. He'd sporadically pay $100 a month (order was now $650 including back). Year and a half later we go to court again. He is now almost $13000 behind. Asks for CS to be lowered again because he now had a child with GF who has still never held a job. But then again you can't work when you are collect welfare, food stamps, and medicaid, and saying that you are "renting" from your live-in bf. Judge laughed and said the court presumes that you have the ability to pay for subsequent children. Shoot, under his thinking, when I had another child after we divorced I should have gone in and asked for more money from his to support our children since I now had still another one to pay for. Anyway, I got $500 to keep him out of jail, and he is now supposed to pay $800 a month. That was almost 6 months ago, and i have recieved less than $1000.<P>I know there are some people who get dragged back into court for more CS everytime they get a $10 a week raise. That's not fair. But it's even less fair that non-custodial parents are often allowed to become 10's of thousands of dollars behind in CS, and the orders are never enforced. The children suffer. And it takes what was a perfectly amiciable divorce and turns it into basically a war. The children suffer. <P>Sorry to rant, but this is such a sore subject. <P> <BR>

PamO,<BR><BR>I could go on for hours about CS. <BR><BR>As I mentioned above, some problems we face right now include: (1) not treating all parties equally (e.g., why should an NCP live at a standard of living lower than the children?), (2) the implicit cost structure of CS assumes an intact family, and the post-tax implications of policy were ignored, (3) why are the guidelines presumptively correct, when in reality *nobody* has a family spending pattern that matches the guidelines? (4) why is the second set of children denied due process - why should the decision of a parent suddenly weigh on a child's claim to the parent's earning stream? (5) The CS guidelines are based on a "standard visitation" and are often not adjusted for shared parenting times greater than that - in effect, this becomes a simple cash subsidy to the custodial parent that raises her standard of living, (6) Why is there absolutely no accountability where CS money is spent, (7) Why should a custodial parent even have the *option* of trying to stick it to the other spouse? Etc.<BR><BR>Like I said, I could go on for hours. Apropos to this forum, think for a moment what current laws encourage. As you note, judges simply laugh in the face of a noncustodial parent who wants a reduction in CS for having more kids. But on the other hand, if an OW files for CS on a married man, she's on the gravy train. You see where this is going, right? If a man is in a marriage that is tanking, and he wants to have a child with a different woman, *the CS laws actually encourage him to impregnate her out of wedlock*. That way, her CS claim *will* be factored against the custodial parent. I'd like to say I'm making this up, but you can't avoid concluding that the current CS/custody laws are anti-father and anti-marriage.<BR><BR>All that said, I'm really disgusted to see men not paying a fair amount in CS (and the guidelines are, in general, too high). The problem is, the way they pile on arrearages/interest, they are practically assuring that he will be unable to ever pay. Which I'm now cynical enough to believe, is the point.<BR>Bystander

Well, FL is definitely a great state to be for non-custodial's who don't care to pay their CS. They unfortunately don't add any interest to arrearages. So basically my ex so far has what amounts to an over $13,000 interest free loan courtesy of, well, ME, since I am on no form of public assistance. If I was, my state would pursue him to the ends of the Earth. So basically he will still be paying back arrearages long after our children are emancipated, and probably long after we are grandparents. <P>It's funny in a wierd sort of way, one of his many complaints about CS is the way it is spent. I use it for really crazy things: mortgage, electricity, food, school clothes, to offset the cost of their health insurance, sport fees. He thinks it should go towards none of those things, because I would have to pay rent, etc even if I didn't have custody of the children. He thinks I should spend it ALL on toys, trips to Disney, etc. Unfortunately with the little sum he actually sees fit to send every now and then, I'd have to save for a long time to even pay for their tickets into Disney. In his defense, I should point out that he smokes ALOT of pot. <P>Luckily I haven't lost my sense of humor in this whole mess. Just my credit rating. <P>

PamO...I don't usually come here but i was bored.<BR>I too have CS problems but found out there is a federal law in effect that might help you. What it is, is that your local DA's office can put into effect that YOU get your ex-H's tax refund check every year. They can keep this in effect until you are paid every cent owed to you and it stays in effect even after your child is 18 if he still owes money from current or arrears.<BR>It is one way to get what is owed to you and he has no say in this unless he quits working or filing.<BR>Just a thought I'd pass along, it's what I do and works great for me!<p>[This message has been edited by shedawg (edited October 29, 2000).]

PamO,<BR><BR>The usual complaint about CS is that it isn't being spent on the children at all, that the custodial parent can (and often does) simply spend the money on herself. And at higher income levels, when the awards become increasingly excessive, I think the temptation for a custodial parent to raise their standard of living becomes overwhelming. Most of the custodial parents who complain about CS (due to collection difficulties or whatever) interestingly enough would *gladly* provide an accounting of where the money is being spent. The system needs reform, and it needs reform badly.<BR><BR>shedawg,<BR><BR>Anybody who wants to avoid a tax refund seizure only needs to file a new W-4 and have less money witheld from every paycheck. At the end of the year, your ex could even owe the government a small amount of money, hence there would literally be nothing to intercept on your behalf. Let's hope he doesn't figure out this obvious response. <BR><BR>Bystander

Shedawg,<P>Unfortunately, my ex doesn't file taxes. He works under the table for himself. We were in court in May, and the judge asked how much he makes a week. He said, "it varies". Well, then, how much did you claim on your incomes taxes for 1999? I haven't filed. Have you filed for an extension? No. If you were so inclined to file, how much would you claim? I don't really know.<P>At that point the judge realized what she was dealing with and told him to empty his wallet. He said he had $500 on him and was willing to pay $300 of it. She said you've got two choices, you give me all $500 and you get to go home today, or I'm going to have the baliff arrest you right now and it's going to cost you $1,000 to bond out. He threw a hissy and said that wasn't "fair". He wouldn't have enough to pay his bills this week. She said it's not real fair that your children have to go without because you don't feel you should have to pay the minimal amount of CS you are ordered to pay.<P>He went to Daytona Beach the next day for the weekend. So much for giving every penny he had. lol

GRRRRRRRR.....THE CHILD SUPPORT ISSUE......<P> Hello. I'll try to maintain some degree of good manners and proper decorum as I respond, but I'm not promising that I won't lapse into a string of obscenities! This CS issue makes me furrrious!!!!!<BR> I'll spare you all the gory details, but I also have a "we-got-SCREWED-in-the-child-support-order" story to tell. Bottom line. No one cares: not lawyers, not judges, not legislators... You are all quite correct in your observations: OW does have many of the rights as the wife. Also, the OC has identical rights to the father's estate/inheritance, even though father and mother never married. Therefore, MY children will have to share H's inheritance equally with OC, which is why I am in the process of changing the beneficiary on my retirement funds, annuity, and life insurance from my H to my children. At least if H isn't the beneficiary, OC and her whore-mother can't get their hands on anything I earned!!!