If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   In today's episode of "good things happen to bad people", Powerball lotto winner who is getting $152 Million lump sum, after taxes, owes $29K in back child support   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 394
    More: Asinine, Powerball, New Jersey, child support, Powerball jackpot, lump sums, evils  
•       •       •

9364 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Mar 2013 at 2:57 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



394 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-28 09:13:12 PM

BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose:

The fact remains that a millionaire custodian does not need a few thousand a year off of the other parent for the kids.

It's not about what the CP needs; it's about what is owed to the kids by both parents.

Keep telling yourself that.

In the case I mentioned and in madbassest1's case, the kids don't need it, wouldn't miss it.

I hate the idea that If my wife and I were to split and satisfactorily work everything out between us in terms of support and custody that the state would still get involved against our wishes to pay for an unneeded child advocate and services we didn't want or need.

You sound like a lawyer or a person getting payments.

If the money is for the kids, why doesn't the state make sure the money is spent on the kids, because, in many cases, none of it is spent on the kids.

Bloated system is bloated - and not very effective.

The entire legal system will keep telling you that.

So it's OK for me to raid my kid's piggy bank because he won't miss it and doesn't need it?

I paid child support for 10 years and received it for six.  Never had the slightest problem in either position because my ex and I understood what child support is and we both love our son.

You and I are in no position to say what is spent on most kids.  The courts get into that only in the most blatant neglect cases because otherwise, bitter and greedy payers would be demanding audits every month, trying to lower their payments and/or just make the ex's life Hell.


Good for you. In WV, the state would have taken a cut of every one of those payments.

People that can work this shiat out without courts and lawyers and the state playing middle man with the payments should have every right to do so. In WV, they do not.

The crap about the piggy bank makes no sense.
 
2013-03-28 09:18:17 PM
"So it's OK for me to raid my kid's piggy bank because he won't miss it and doesn't need it?"

BTW, I know more than one minor that had their non-divorced parents dip into their savings accounts and it was perfectly legal. Wrong but legal. Bad analogy.

Nite
 
2013-03-28 09:22:08 PM

a_room_with_a_moose: dark brew: BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose:

The fact remains that a millionaire custodian does not need a few thousand a year off of the other parent for the kids.

It's not about what the CP needs; it's about what is owed to the kids by both parents.

My wife doesn't work.  I guess I should tell her that she isn't living up to her financial obligations to our child (I won't cause she's got that crazy Latin blood).

What's "owed to the kids" is a loving and nurturing childhood in which they are provided for in the best manner that their parents can afford.   If the custodial parent is able to provide financially for the child and doesn't need the money from the other parent, that shouldn't be a problem.  It is far more important for the non-custodial parent to continue to be in the child's life than to pay 100 bucks a month into a savings account, especially if it means working some menial job in order to just pay the support but miss out on time with the children.

I like the way you think. You made my point in a much better manner than I could have.


My deadbeat dad ended up owing about 18K for my brother and I that he never paid.  My mother didn't make a lot but we got by.  I would have rather my dad showed up at some of my football games or at least made an effort to be in my life rather than get 9K in a savings account.  Obviously in a perfect world I would have had both, but this ain't a perfect world.
 
2013-03-28 09:27:19 PM

dark brew: BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose:

The fact remains that a millionaire custodian does not need a few thousand a year off of the other parent for the kids.

It's not about what the CP needs; it's about what is owed to the kids by both parents.

My wife doesn't work.  I guess I should tell her that she isn't living up to her financial obligations to our child (I won't cause she's got that crazy Latin blood).

What's "owed to the kids" is a loving and nurturing childhood in which they are provided for in the best manner that their parents can afford.   If the custodial parent is able to provide financially for the child and doesn't need the money from the other parent, that shouldn't be a problem.  It is far more important for the non-custodial parent to continue to be in the child's life than to pay 100 bucks a month into a savings account, especially if it means working some menial job in order to just pay the support but miss out on time with the children.


What's owed to the kids before and after divorce are two entirely different things in the eyes of the law.  Divorced parents are not above the law.  They don't get to decide what's owed to the child financially.  Society evidently likes the law as it is; so-called fathers' rights activists have unsuccessfully tried to change it for decades.

I'll assume the "menial job" that prevents a parent from seeing her kids is a second or third job on top of a full-time primary job.  Otherwise, you're presenting a false dilemma.  That should not happen; if it does, there's a flaw in a judge's judgment. Many years ago, I read of a case in which it was decided that a non-custodial father did not have to work more than 40 hours a week to satisfy his child support obligation.  I can't find it online; it was probably a family court decision that set no precedent.  If you want to fight change in the law, that's one I'd join in.
 
2013-03-28 09:33:41 PM
BarkingUnicorn: It's "Judge Judy" justice: excuses are like assholes; everybody has one and nobody wants to hear it.

I have no idea what this means.
 
2013-03-28 09:38:25 PM

ultraholland: BarkingUnicorn: It's "Judge Judy" justice: excuses are like assholes; everybody has one and nobody wants to hear it.

I have no idea what this means.


JJ's solution to every excuse for not paying your debts is, "Get a JOB!  If one isn't enough, get another JOB!"  Assholes are body orifices from which gases often issue raucously, causing consternation among standers-by.
 
2013-03-28 09:56:49 PM
As someone who is now completely current on child support payments.....I'm getting a, well, you know.
Was about a grand behind during a short time of unemployment, State of Michigan didn't care if I lived under a bridge or not... YOU MUST PAY!
/Mom uses cash for "Entertainment"
//kid still needs clothes and such
///coolest kid in the universe, I love her sooooo much, whatever she needs, she's got it
////claims she is "Spawn of the Devil (me)
//pisses her Mom off when she says so
//I love slashies
 
2013-03-28 10:21:27 PM
Jeez you guys are pretty hard on my woman for her ex husband leaving her. Welcome to fark. Gods forbid she have two kids from the same guy in this day and age .
 
2013-03-28 10:23:18 PM
Oh yea, and I don't know if anyone else had done it , but it's really hard to adopt kids if one of the parents fights it, at least in my state.
 
2013-03-28 10:43:46 PM

Madbassist1: BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: In WV, your CS payments go to the state and the state pays the custodial parent - after taking their cut, of course.

Are you referring to the $25 annual fee for CSE services, including the Family Support Registry?  That's a federal thing, enacted by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.  Thank Bush.

No, that's not what hes talking about. The state takes one or two percent off the top for 'processing'. that's what he's talking about. In fairness, it gives the state incentive to enforce the law,.


And the state's getting rich off this? LOL!

I said in the gas-tax thread, our tax system is overly complicated and contentious because everything has to "make sense" and people don't have any sense.  State needs $X to do what citizens want it to do.  Tax everyone's income progressively and be done with it.  If you want something for your taxes that go to CSE, make a baby, get divorced and get custody.
 
2013-03-28 11:00:05 PM

BarkingUnicorn: .

And the state's getting rich off this? LOL!

I said in the gas-tax thread, our tax system is overly complicated and contentious because everything has to "make sense" and people don't have any sense.  State needs $X to do what citizens want it to do.  Tax everyone's income progressively and be done with it.  If you want something for your taxes that go to CSE, make a baby, get divorced and get custody.


It isn't so much the little bit they skim off of the top (but that's a decent chunk of change too), but when you add in the federal dollars that come in to the state collection agencies, which is based on how much they collect every year, you can see where the state has an interest in being involved in every single case where child support is ordered, whether they need to be an intermediary or not. It is to the point now where in a lot of states, if a divorce happens, there is no option to directly pay the support to the custodial parent...you HAVE to send it to the state for redistribution (with a delay of a week or so). That way the state can say they collected $X00 million in child support, and get their funding from the feds for doing work that in a lot of cases didn't need to be done in the first place.
 
2013-03-28 11:49:06 PM

buzzcut73: BarkingUnicorn: .

And the state's getting rich off this? LOL!

I said in the gas-tax thread, our tax system is overly complicated and contentious because everything has to "make sense" and people don't have any sense.  State needs $X to do what citizens want it to do.  Tax everyone's income progressively and be done with it.  If you want something for your taxes that go to CSE, make a baby, get divorced and get custody.

It isn't so much the little bit they skim off of the top (but that's a decent chunk of change too), but when you add in the federal dollars that come in to the state collection agencies, which is based on how much they collect every year, you can see where the state has an interest in being involved in every single case where child support is ordered, whether they need to be an intermediary or not. It is to the point now where in a lot of states, if a divorce happens, there is no option to directly pay the support to the custodial parent...you HAVE to send it to the state for redistribution (with a delay of a week or so). That way the state can say they collected $X00 million in child support, and get their funding from the feds for doing work that in a lot of cases didn't need to be done in the first place.


Right.  Cops get funding for doing work that in a lot of cases didn't need to be done in the first place.

This chart is based on 2000 data.  It's old, but that was a better time than today so I imagine the situation was a bit rosier for obligees.  "57 percent of the obligors in the nine study states owed $5,000 in arrears or less."  So 43% owed more than $5K. Yeah, I'd make everybody go through the Family Support Registry.

aspe.hhs.gov
 
2013-03-29 12:07:08 AM
If only the bill was printed in Spanish.
 
2013-03-29 12:43:53 AM

kevhead07: As someone who is now completely current on child support payments.....I'm getting a, well, you know.
Was about a grand behind during a short time of unemployment, State of Michigan didn't care if I lived under a bridge or not... YOU MUST PAY!
/Mom uses cash for "Entertainment"
//kid still needs clothes and such
///coolest kid in the universe, I love her sooooo much, whatever she needs, she's got it
////claims she is "Spawn of the Devil (me)
//pisses her Mom off when she says so
//I love slashies


Some states will consider the child's wishes when choosing the custodial parent.  You might want to look into that.

And fark parents who poison their child's relationship with their ex as a form of punishment (note I am being gender neutral).
 
2013-03-29 01:05:14 AM
I'm sorry, has anyone slapped the subby upside his head yet for that headline?

The man's bet bet is to get a loan to pay the 29k so he can collect the lotto and pay off the loan.
 
2013-03-29 01:13:13 AM

a_room_with_a_moose: I hate the idea that If my wife and I were to split and satisfactorily work everything out between us in terms of support and custody that the state would still get involved against our wishes to pay for an unneeded child advocate and services we didn't want or need.


You hate the fact that the state doesn't trust divorcing parents to act in the best interests of their children. I take comfort in the fact that the state protects children's interests.  Apparently, in WV children need more protection than they do elsewhere.

 
2013-03-29 02:06:08 AM
So much confident ignorance for one thread...
 
2013-03-29 02:19:56 AM

BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: I hate the idea that If my wife and I were to split and satisfactorily work everything out between us in terms of support and custody that the state would still get involved against our wishes to pay for an unneeded child advocate and services we didn't want or need.

You hate the fact that the state doesn't trust divorcing parents to act in the best interests of their children. I take comfort in the fact that the state protects children's interests.  Apparently, in WV children need more protection than they do elsewhere.


Jury is back in. You are just being a prick.

Making the system mandatory for all divorce cases with kids is BS, an overreach of the state and inflexible.

It is like mandatory minimum sentencing. It screws everybody the same even though the offenses may vary. Why even bother with the judge? You could get the same result with a payment table.

If you think it isn't about the money you aren't familiar with WV state government.

You GOTTA be a lawyer. No one else would suck the cock of the legal system as hard as you do.
 
2013-03-29 02:26:21 AM

kronicfeld: Slaxl: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.

Perhaps he doesn't have any money?

Maybe, but if he has no money and didn't move for a reduction then he has no one but himself to blame. And of course if he has no money through his own fault, then that's no excuse.


If it were so easy.  I had a coworker whose support was based on an old job that he got laid off from.  Then when he got a minimum wage job they kept taking at the old rate so he had $100 a month leftover after they took child support which is why he lived with family members.  The child support office treats you like an asshole, the court proceedings are costly and take forever to get hearings and changes.  Meanwhile his batty ex collects everything he made while neglecting his kid.

I give the guy credit for toughing it out and getting his kid back after his ex went to the nut hut.
 
2013-03-29 02:34:29 AM

BarkingUnicorn: buzzcut73: BarkingUnicorn: .

And the state's getting rich off this? LOL!

I said in the gas-tax thread, our tax system is overly complicated and contentious because everything has to "make sense" and people don't have any sense.  State needs $X to do what citizens want it to do.  Tax everyone's income progressively and be done with it.  If you want something for your taxes that go to CSE, make a baby, get divorced and get custody.

It isn't so much the little bit they skim off of the top (but that's a decent chunk of change too), but when you add in the federal dollars that come in to the state collection agencies, which is based on how much they collect every year, you can see where the state has an interest in being involved in every single case where child support is ordered, whether they need to be an intermediary or not. It is to the point now where in a lot of states, if a divorce happens, there is no option to directly pay the support to the custodial parent...you HAVE to send it to the state for redistribution (with a delay of a week or so). That way the state can say they collected $X00 million in child support, and get their funding from the feds for doing work that in a lot of cases didn't need to be done in the first place.

Right.  Cops get funding for doing work that in a lot of cases didn't need to be done in the first place.

This chart is based on 2000 data.  It's old, but that was a better time than today so I imagine the situation was a bit rosier for obligees.  "57 percent of the obligors in the nine study states owed $5,000 in arrears or less."  So 43% owed more than $5K. Yeah, I'd make everybody go through the Family Support Registry.


The arrears couldn't possibly be because of unrealistic payment expectations and tacked on interest and fees. Of course, to the state, the higher the better because they make more money.

Your analogy of the cops is poor. They make bank all of the time off of asset forfeiture, often with no evidence of drugs OR crime.

Is B. Unicorn a troll, a lawyer, a cock or all three? You decide!
 
2013-03-29 04:03:42 AM
a_room_with_a_moose: .

The purpose of requiring payments through the state is to discourage underpayments and detect them  ASAP.  Underpayment may be unavoidable.  It may be due to the obligor's assholery.  It may be due to a conspiracy between both parents to defraud their children.  Regardless, payments need to be monitored to protect the child's interest and somebody has to pay for that monitoring.

I think it should be all taxpayers, each according to his ability. Children's money should not be garnished to improve its collection.  Thank your dully (sic) elected representatives for that crime against kids, and your fellow voters who don't give a shiat because they are not divorced with children.

A more apt analogy than "minimum sentences" would be car emissions inspections.  Your perfectly maintained car has to go through the same inspection process as  your neighbor's smoke-belching clunker.  You both pay, but only he is denied the right to drive his car.  You both get better air to breathe.
 
2013-03-29 04:57:45 AM

what_now: Slaxl: what_now: sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.

Ok, but he hasn't paid child support since 2009. So I'm ok with saying he's probably a bad person.

Perhaps he doesn't have any money?

so..why's he playing the lotto?


To win $152 mil.  Duh!
 
2013-03-29 05:04:41 AM

OgreMagi: 99.998er:

J.G. Wentworth
My dad punched that bastard
.


Holy shiat!  I would frame that and hang it on the wall in my office, right next to my dad's picture, if my dad did that to JG Wentworth.
 
2013-03-29 05:52:37 AM
We could eliminate this entire "child support" system and all it's complications with two simple changes:
1. Pay people that raise children (because society has an interest in effective childrearing)
2. Tax people that produce children (because children should not be produced willy-nilly)

That would eliminate all the complications of trying to keep family court orders matched with actual incomes and needs, would simplify the collection of "child support", would help equalize children's access to societal resources, would simplify the administration of all "family-oriented" benefits because children's needs are already meet, etc., etc., etc.

But that would require us to admit that children are actually people who deserve support regardless of the circumstances of their birth, rather than treating children merely as property of and reflection on their parents.
 
2013-03-29 06:02:10 AM

a_room_with_a_moose: Making the system mandatory for all divorce cases with kids is BS


Pretending that children don't have a legitimate legal interest in the divorce of their parents is BS. A divorcing couple might well have reached terms they find agreeable, but that are not suitable for their children -- since children aren't legal people they must have an advocate to represent their interests in such cases.

If you'd like to avoid the advocate part you could just make children legal people and give them claim to the assets being divided, just like banks and other legal people already have. Personally I'd much rather we promoted children to full personhood rather than randomly assigning some advocate for them, but that doesn't seem to be a popular concept.
 
2013-03-29 06:50:25 AM

profplump: a_room_with_a_moose: Making the system mandatory for all divorce cases with kids is BS

Pretending that children don't have a legitimate legal interest in the divorce of their parents is BS. A divorcing couple might well have reached terms they find agreeable, but that are not suitable for their children -- since children aren't legal people they must have an advocate to represent their interests in such cases.

If you'd like to avoid the advocate part you could just make children legal people and give them claim to the assets being divided, just like banks and other legal people already have. Personally I'd much rather we promoted children to full personhood rather than randomly assigning some advocate for them, but that doesn't seem to be a popular concept.


This is the stupidest farking thing I have read in quite awhile.
 
2013-03-29 07:01:31 AM

profplump: a_room_with_a_moose: Making the system mandatory for all divorce cases with kids is BS

Pretending that children don't have a legitimate legal interest in the divorce of their parents is BS. A divorcing couple might well have reached terms they find agreeable, but that are not suitable for their children -- since children aren't legal people they must have an advocate to represent their interests in such cases.

If you'd like to avoid the advocate part you could just make children legal people and give them claim to the assets being divided, just like banks and other legal people already have. Personally I'd much rather we promoted children to full personhood rather than randomly assigning some advocate for them, but that doesn't seem to be a popular concept.


Both you and Unicorn presuppose the the kids have a right to the parents assets.

Legally, parents owe their kids food, clothing, shelter, and school in an environment free from abuse. Nothing more. Plenty of parents cut their kids off and throw them out at 25 (used to be 18). Leaving them nothing in the will. Good parents will do more, but that is not manditory.

Now you want divorced parents to set the kids up with a savings account or give them a share of the parents assets, above and beyond their needs in the above mentioned categories.

No wonder we have such a slew of self-entitled kids.

The system sucks and assumes every parent is a bad parent and won't look after their kids after a divorce. So much for innocent until proven guilty.

It will stay that way because the state has no interest in cutting the cash flow. I'm sure the money from lawyer lobbies helps, also.
 
2013-03-29 10:29:11 AM

sammyk: Not everyone that owes back child support is a bad person subby.

If you've never been on the receiving end of family court you really do not know what you are talking about.



davidvmoore.com
 
2013-03-29 10:52:41 AM

Bippal: As someone engaged to a person owed 7 grand in back support plus 10k in birthing costs getting a kick etc. But she's constantly getting the run around from the courts on getting him to pay anything. The judge even said once that the sperm donor would get special consideration because of a tour of duty in Iraq. Now here we sit, myself raising his kids, him taking off to oregon and knocking up an 18 year old, and us trying to get him to give up legal rights. Id rather him have nothing at all to do with them, it's not like he is anyways.


assets.diylol.com
 
2013-03-29 11:01:05 AM
For every guy biatching about paying child support there is always just as many women who have to raise their child without any financial help from the father.
 
2013-03-29 11:09:48 AM

Why Would I Read the Article: John Buck 41: I'm sure this has been mentioned but he apparently scraped up enough for a Powerball ticket.

F**k this a**hole.

Oh man, he scraped up an entire dollar? That monster!


He's worse than Hitler.
 
2013-03-29 11:21:08 AM

a_room_with_a_moose: Legally, parents owe their kids food, clothing, shelter, and school in an environment free from abuse. Nothing more.


While the parents are married, as you say you are.  After divorce they owe the kids a portion of their incomes from which all the other needs are to be met.  If that portion exceeds the actual cost of maintaining the kids, the rest still belongs to the kids.

I hope you don't learn that the hard way.
 
2013-03-29 11:31:55 AM

BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: Legally, parents owe their kids food, clothing, shelter, and school in an environment free from abuse. Nothing more.

While the parents are married, as you say you are.  After divorce they owe the kids a portion of their incomes from which all the other needs are to be met.  If that portion exceeds the actual cost of maintaining the kids, the rest still belongs to the kids.

I hope you don't learn that the hard way.


As you say. I say that is unfair. Married parents are not held to the same standard. That makes me think it is more about money than it is about fairness.

My points about unrealistic payment sizes, giving kids more than they need and the bloated mess that is the family court system still stand.

Don't worry about me. I would "accidentally" die in a high speed auto accident before I would put my kids or myself through that. My life insurance would well provide for them.
 
2013-03-29 12:01:03 PM

a_room_with_a_moose: BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: Legally, parents owe their kids food, clothing, shelter, and school in an environment free from abuse. Nothing more.

While the parents are married, as you say you are.  After divorce they owe the kids a portion of their incomes from which all the other needs are to be met.  If that portion exceeds the actual cost of maintaining the kids, the rest still belongs to the kids.

I hope you don't learn that the hard way.

As you say. I say that is unfair. Married parents are not held to the same standard. That makes me think it is more about money than it is about fairness.

My points about unrealistic payment sizes, giving kids more than they need and the bloated mess that is the family court system still stand.

Don't worry about me. I would "accidentally" die in a high speed auto accident before I would put my kids or myself through that. My life insurance would well provide for them.


Real Father-of-the-Generation material here.  He'd kill himself if his wife divorced him.  Not that I believe the hyperbolic blowhard.

I agree that the payment modification process is unrealistic in practice; judges routinely ignore the law. I disagree with the premise that payments, when based upon actual income, are unrealistic or excessive.
 
2013-03-29 12:27:07 PM
After coming back from yesterday and reading through the additional comments I realized two things:
1 - There are a lot of people angry about this topic
2 - Most of those people have NO IDEA how child support / visitation actually works

Is the system 100% fair? No. Are there edge cases of unfair treatment? Yes. Is the system cumbersome and difficult (but not impossible) not navigate? Without a doubt. As the laws vary from state to state you need to educate yourself appropriately and accept a couple of straight up facts:

The state does not care at what level you exist, only that you provide for your children as ordered. Can't afford that car payment and child support payments anymore? Too bad. Enjoy public transportation or a 20 year old beater. Or get another job.

Visitation and child support are not connected. One can not be with held to force compliance with the other. It doesn't work like that.

Both sides abuse and get abused by the system. It happens everyday.

Everyone forgets the court makes decisions in "the best interest of the child". Your personal best interest ceased to exist when that kid popped out, in the court's eyes.

Child support is not a "piggybank" for a child or "money for a child". It is money the non-custodial parent pays to reimburse the custodial parent for the expenses of raising child(ren). The NCP has no say in how the money is spent. If the children are being provided for (and that is a very low-bar, you would be surprised) the CP is free to do whatever he/she likes with the additional funds. If junior is clothed and fed and housed at even a minimal level, CP is free to buy as many cars/suits/purses as they like with the money NCP sends. Yeah it sucks and kids are often on the short end of the stick, but that is how it works.

You had sex like an adult, now you get the second half of the adult equation - responsibility. Kids are expensive. More so when you are parenting from afar. If you don't want to pay, then I suggest you don't have any. Having a kid is 100% preventable.
 
2013-03-29 12:43:45 PM

bunner: The oppressed, protected class fandango applies to the following people.

People with dark skin.  People with a vagina.  People who are gay.  People with billions of dollars.  The rest of you better start kissing the aforementioned asses rosy and cutting checks.

No seriously.

Look into it.


"Study it out" as it were.
 
2013-03-29 01:25:37 PM

BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: .

The purpose of requiring payments through the state is to discourage underpayments and detect them  ASAP.  Underpayment may be unavoidable.  It may be due to the obligor's assholery.  It may be due to a conspiracy between both parents to defraud their children.  Regardless, payments need to be monitored to protect the child's interest and somebody has to pay for that monitoring.

I think it should be all taxpayers, each according to his ability. Children's money should not be garnished to improve its collection.  Thank your dully (sic) elected representatives for that crime against kids, and your fellow voters who don't give a shiat because they are not divorced with children.

A more apt analogy than "minimum sentences" would be car emissions inspections.  Your perfectly maintained car has to go through the same inspection process as  your neighbor's smoke-belching clunker.  You both pay, but only he is denied the right to drive his car.  You both get better air to breathe.


I have much more faith in my childs mother and the human race as a whole, for that matter, than you do. Tell ya what. My child is 12 now. mom started paying support when she was 6. 6*52*50 = 15200 or so. That is less than one months salary for me. I find it farking insulting that you think I'm shorting my child in some way by not making life harder on her mother. You are a bitter person, and not only are you completely wrong about my situation, but you're also wrong about encouraging the state to get involved in child support matters without provocation.
 
2013-03-29 02:36:44 PM

Madbassist1: BarkingUnicorn: a_room_with_a_moose: .

I have much more faith in my childs mother and the human race as a whole, for that matter, than you do. Tell ya what. My child is 12 now. mom started paying support when she was 6. 6*52*50 = 15200 or so. That is less than one months salary for me. I find it farking insulting that you think I'm shorting my child in some way by not making life harder on her mother. You are a bitter person, and not only are you completely wrong about my situation, but you're also wrong about encouraging the state to get involved in child support matters without provocation.


Again I say, it's not about you.  I am not surprised that a guy who makes $250K thinks it is.  Egotism correlates to income. But for a moment, let's make it about you.  Tell me if I'm wrong about your situation:

1. Your ex has been ordered to pay $50/week to her child.
2. You accept that money with a fiduciary duty to spend it on your child or save it for his/her future  use.
3. You breach that duty by giving the money back to your ex.
4. Your defense is that your opinion of what's fair supersedes the law.

If all that is correct, then you deserve jail more than she does.

The CSE system is as it is because of people like you.
 
2013-03-29 05:16:55 PM
So he owes $152,029,000 in child support? How the fark did that happen? Has he been going around claiming to be Wilt Chamberlain?
 
2013-03-29 05:42:37 PM
tylerdurden217:
"Can't find a job" doesn't cut it. I'm not talking about someone who makes a late payment occasionally .. I'm saving my criticism for those that NEVER pay or are so far behind that the figure is totaling in the thousands or worse yet, 10's of thousands.


And that's the issue. Support laws aren't perfect, and it's certainly possible for someone to be stuck with an monthly order they have no possible way to pay. Even if you have a basis to lower your order it can take months for a court to actually grant your modification, and most jurisdictions don't allow for reimbursement of past support payments.

None of that excuses not paying anything. I've seen non-custodial parents who have almost nothing but still make sure to scrape together a few dollars a month to send, because they want to be able to look their children in the eye when they're adults and be able to honestly say they did their best. The gulf between those NCP's - who might have huge support arrears - and the jerks who blow off their entire obligation is vast.

TFA gives no clues as to which category Mr. Quezada falls into.

/If you have five or more kids by three or more partners there usually isn't a whole lot left over
 
2013-03-30 07:54:36 AM

BarkingUnicorn: The CSE system is as it is because of people like you.


Like I said, you're a bitter person. I also doubt your ability to look at issues in context.
 
2013-03-30 02:32:09 PM
My supervisor's ex just spent approximately $10k in order to get a $50/month increase in child support for the 2 years of support the kid has left.

She was hoping for a lot more, of course, but they totally tried to misapply the law, like using temporary pay while outside the country as part of his base pay, that had already ended when he went to court.
 
2013-03-31 04:49:34 AM

Thespecialistkc: Uh, this dude IS a bad person. Period. Not paying child support makes you a bad person.


www.epm.org
Disagrees.
 
2013-03-31 06:13:38 AM

DrPainMD: Thespecialistkc: Uh, this dude IS a bad person. Period. Not paying child support makes you a bad person.

[www.epm.org image 430x336]
Disagrees.


He's wrong.
 
Displayed 44 of 394 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report