JTig,

In no way am I trying to belittle your frustration, but in answer to a couple of your statements...
So far it has cost me $1600 to try to collect CS on my childs father. And the bill is still growing.
As for my ex-H, my older son's Dad, for the first 3 years I took $25 per week (less than 1/4 what the court ordered) because I didn't "need" the money, and he was saving for a house. I did get the full amount of CS the court ordered for about a year after, but then took a cut to $50 per week( about 1/3 what the court ordered), which I have taken for almost 4 years VOLUNTARILY, because my ex took a 5 year pay cut in order to go to school and increase his future potential in the long run....I took the cut even though I was under NO obligation to do so...I did it to help him make his life better.

I stated in this post that I do think she should pay, ABSOLUTELY, but please don't think that it's easy for a woman (I've been waiting almost a year on the baby) to get support, or that a lot of people can't make reasonable, affordable arrangements....

sofaraway,
I think its great when the custodial parent is willing to work with the non-custodial parent to come to some kind of agreement that works for everyone.
But I GREATLY resent the child support agency ordering such a ridiculously low amount just because it is difficult for the woman to pay.
I can assure you there a very few men that have had that consideration offered to them.

JTig,

yes, if I were whaere you were today, I'd resent it too. Absolutely.

I know that many (if not MOST) people are not like my older son's Dad and I, but over the years we have just worked very hard for what is in my son's best interest, physically, financially, mentally...etc.

hell, I HATE my baby's father, and I would have even been willing to make some minor adjustments to his support if he had been the least bit decent to me...which he hasn't. So, yes, I'll take what the court gives me, but that wasn't my first inclination....

Edited to add: The courts figure CS based on simple mathmatical calculations...if they came up with $35, that is what the guidelines say she should pay (and you mentioned her having a minimum wage job, so that actually makes sense) it really has nothing to do with her inability to pay...it's just a number the computer spits out...though I can understand it's frustrating for you......

<small>[ January 16, 2004, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: sofaraway ]</small>

Hello Pops,

In all the states I have lived in the DA's office has only been criminal. Thanks for the information on California. Never been there nor know how the state is run...well by actors it seems. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

As I said I have always admired you.

Cat,

My Mom raised my sister and I without a dime from my dad. So from a child's point of view I know how hard it is to survive as a family without the added funds comming in. Expecially off a woman's salary.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by MoiNouvelle:
<strong>

Cat,

My Mom raised my sister and I without a dime from my dad. So from a child's point of view I know how hard it is to survive as a family without the added funds comming in. Expecially off a woman's salary. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">=^^= Me, too. I certainly know how tough it is to raise a child as a single parent with no CS. I did it for 12 years. And I am also the daughter of a woman who raised me without CS...so I know what it is like not having the "extra" funds. But I didn't suffer...I had everything I needed. My son didn't suffer; he had all he needed.

Plus, I worked full time for an architectural and drafting supply house's City Desk with a few gigs as a hair model at the time. I had more seniority and more responsiblity than the person they hired to help me. But because this person had a wing-wang, they paid him $2.00 MORE per hour than I was making.

Naturally, during the seventies when I worked there, I was a bra-burning, war protesting, equal right's amendment, baby toting divorced gal, talking loud and drawing a crowd. What the hell did I know? I protested this gross inequality to my superiors citing that I too, as a single parent, had a child to support every bit as much as this kumquat. Their argument was that "men" have families to support and they did not consider "me" as having a family since all I had was one iddy-biddy kid to raise....all without CS. It got me fired.

It's all a comedy of extremes...the pendulem swings from one ridiculous social climate to the other. I optimistically predict that in twenty years, men will have as much pull with the system as women...because the pendulem will eventually reach the middle somewhere...but, not soon enough for most of us.

It IS tough to raise a child without CS, but it can be done and most the women I know did it all by themselves without CS...and none of them were exempt from struggle or difficulty, but it didn't take away from the overall well-being of their little families. They didn't go on welfare, they all worked and today almost all of them are professionals and got their on their own...all sending their kids to colleges. That's why I am stunned that the women of today get such a pass, yet comlain about it so much...it is all so easy for them financially. If it's not, there is something wrong because most of them are getting enormous sums of money...and I KNOW they don't spend it all on the kid...not by a long shot.

Personally, I think there should be a ceiling on CS of 10% for everyone across the board, no exceptions...like a flat tax. It would be enough for decent CS for the child while not making it so attractive to unethical women who are working the system. These percentages of 17, 20 and 25% are ridiculous and especially ludicrous in my case where my hsuband is garnished 65%. Just my opinion. I'm in a mood today.

<small>[ January 16, 2004, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: catnip ]</small>

We got screwed with no lube from a totally unfair CS system.
On the one hand, we filed first to honestly determine that we were in fact liable (proving through DNA etc.) and still got put through the wringer by a court that didn't care that a marriage and children existed previously before OC.

I got screwed again in CS court while trying to take my ex-husband "Wild Bill" to court for an increase in CS. (He was paying $200 a month for two kids, one of which her medicines alone cost us $230 a month!)He is trying to shirk his responsibility and I'm running out of funds to pay my lawyer to keep this going. As is stands, all the back medical we sued him for, we will have to eat the costs. The court system doesn't care, because we "used to be married" and since I'm not a single mother on welfare, I don't get the priority that my ex-h's OW did in the beginning....

The result?

We suffered immensely financially. We are now going bankrupt. We are moving in with my in-law's (and I'm not thrilled about that) to another state(also to get away from ex-ow, who is "missing him" again and calling Mr."T" at work. He is not answering the calls and he tells me each time a message is left for him). She has a pattern that seems to go every two years...she lays low, then strikes like a snake and comes out of 'hiding' or what-not every two years. We are looking into another attorney, but like 4theboys, each attorney we talk to won't give us consideration because really, there is nothing I can do to protect my family. My husband screwed up and the choices I'm told are the following:

1. leave and get less CS anyway because OW filed first

2. swallow this pill and learn to suck it up and live a life of quiet desparation trying to always make ends meet. As a deaf person, I couldn't even begin to get a job that would pay for child care for my five children. Welfare looks good for me, but then I would be stooping to ex-ow's level. (who has since married and has another child with new hubby).

3. continue to exhaust my Husband's retirement fund to try to pay for my very good aggressive lawyer to go after my ex-husband like a hound out of hell, but money is tight. We are running out.

I am thoroughly disgusted with an inept child support system. It could be worse, and I'm thankful that we managed to settle out of court. But no one can tell me that it's a fair system.
I see both sides of the coin in the CS issue and it really sucks a** big time.

I would love to get involved in reform in this area, but it's one of those, "Let's debate it but not rock the boat too much as it's a touchy thing" for the higher up's.

I hate falling through the cracks. I am angry. I will be angry for a long time. I'm angry enough to want to do something and have no clue where to begin.

I want what's fair. I want OC to be able to have what she needs, but I want my kids to be able to have shoes on their feet too.

My whole life has been rearranged for the convenience of the ex-ow and OC. I am suffering as a result of my selfish husband's lack of sound judgment. I am suffering his consequences each day. The ex-ow? She doesn't suffer. She only suffers because she doesn't have my husband in her life or her child's life. (She told me this).

Yes folks, life ain't fair.
And I'm pissed about it.

I took a break from the boards because I was getting in a dangerous mood and it wasn't beneficial to my marriage.

We're doing better, but I'm still pissed about alot of things.

Child Support laws Suck.
Twiisty

I really think the child support laws should be reformed. I haven't had to deal with the system myself, but I've heard horror stories. There is "unfairness" on both sides of the court.

In OK, when a parent is behind in CS, their drivers license is suspended. That sounds like good incentive to pay, but often times people *do* hit hard times, and even with a willingness to pay, they simply can't. Case in point.
I work for a small trucking company and last week I was interviewing a potential driver.
He is an "owner-operator" and has been leased on to a company that wasn't paying him nearly enough. After paying his truck payment, his insurance and fuel taxes, he was lucky to have enough to eat on much less pay CS. (I believe he told me he was living with his mother to save money) Anyway, as we were talking he asked how soon we could have him running, that time was of the esssence. I prodded a little bit and he said "I'm $450 behind on my CS, I need to get a paycheck and get it quickly. if I don't I lose my drivers license."
I asked if he had talked to the judge and explained the situation, he said yes, but the judge simply said "Pay it".
I sat there dumbfounded. Here is a man, willing to pay, but because of circumstance, he's fallen behind. So how does he get "punished"? Take away his livelihood.
He's a truckdriver, if he loses his license, he loses his job, and then he falls further behind.
(We're giving him an advance on his pay so he can pay the CS)

I've been lucky, my WS has been good about giving me money. We haven't filed any sort of formal papers and after hearing that drivers story, I don't think I'm going to. We'll work that out on our own. WS is a driver as well, and I understand how the industry works. Some weeks the freight is paying *very* well, some weeks it's not worth moving the truck for.
If I were to file formal papers, and because of circumstance he gets behind and loses his license, it benefits no one.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Squeeker:
<strong>Here is a man, willing to pay, but because of circumstance, he's fallen behind. So how does he get "punished"? Take away his livelihood.
He's a truckdriver, if he loses his license, he loses his job, and then he falls further behind.
</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Eventually, he will lose his incentive too. He might try to find alternative ways of making a living behind the scenes....off the radar. Sometimes, when people are persecuted long enough, they have to find creative ways to earn money so they can afford luxuries, such as FOOD and SHELTER.

Wow here in NV the lawas are much different. The women is just as much as responsible. In fact when figuring cs it is called a "shared cost of living". For years the cap was 500.00 no matter how much the one paying made. The just changed that in 2002. When you apply for a job or a business Lic., you have to fill out a paper regarding cs, if your ordered to pay it or not. It has to be turned into the state quickly after hired or when you apply for a business lic. Yes they will take your lic away or put you in jail, but they treat the women here the same. If you don't have physcall custody of your kids, you are expected to pay. Bottom line. If your not working they take the amount off what you would of made off your last job. They are pretty strick here. Every three years you can also apply for an increase. They also have a stipulation if you do fall on hard times. You have to prove it, but they stipulate that cs can be redused for that time period. At the same time they also allow for who ever has them the most to make up for that time. If it's 50-50 then of course it's more shared cost of living. My stbxh is very good about paying his support Thank God.

I don't mind my H having to pay CS EXCEPT when we can't afford the everyday necessities for our own family.

OW is ONLY working part time as a "poor single mom" (with another, younger kid w/o a dad). She gets a free ride, even her daycare is free. I think her parents help out for some things like pay for OC's PRIVATE school.

WE are not on state aid, totally independent yet without any consideration for our children. It makes me bitter in those times when I see OC with new shoes every month (and NOT because they are out grown or worn out) and my kids never get "new" shoes.

How can a "system" award CS for 1 child to an amount over $500 but the 2 C of the marriage enable the father to recieve a "hardship deduction" of less than that? The system claims to only represent the needs of the child but what they really represent is the needs of a child on WELFARE.

It is totally screwy I tell you. When my children are grown(and I actually have some time to myself), I WILL make some changes even if it means I have to become a lawyer myself to help all the good dads out there who are paying for all the deadbeats!

And when the mother is on welfare and the DA and judge are comparing incomes to determine support obligation they do not figure in the "benefits" they are receiving from welfare, only thier actual income. So it looks like they have way less, but actually they have more income and less expenses because they are not actually paying out of thier own pockets all thier expenses.

But hey, we get the husband and the full time dad for our kids right? That's supposed to make it bittersweet I guess. I'm going to go back to Tony's success stories to calm down since I'm all wriled up now! haha. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />