can my child support be raised in reguards to inheritance?

[stepmom&mom]

Johannah~

You say that it is unfair for the children to live off of the frills of the NCP. Why is this? Is it because it's not fair that the CP can't take that money and spend it how they want it?? The NCP inherited the money, NOT the CP, so why should the CP get to decide how it is spent? If the NCP wants to take their kid to disneyland 50 times, that's their decision. If it was really about the kids, then why would the CP care so much about getting a cut?

If it were me, I'd send the kids to live with the NCP for awhile, since the NCP has plenty of money to spare. Then I'd take a vacation myself!

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Oh, I guess your a mind reader and can divine the motivations of the OP?

I don't have to and you would have known that had you any idea of the issues. Read the statutory requirements for amending a child support order in the Iowa statutes.

Yep, and you were the first one in line to enter!

By the way, the ability to use curse words does not prove your expertise in anything nor disprove anyone's elses expertise. It just futher underscores your inanity.

There IS no other expertise in this thread. Only stupid opinion which means nothing under the law.

So, either shut the hell up or point to any law, court opinion or leglislative bill currently in the Iowa Leglislature that gives anything you said in this thread an inkling of believability.

Simply put, you're a troll who doesn't know what the hell they are talking about.

 

[johannah11]

Simply put, you're a troll who doesn't know what the hell they are talking about.

Simply put, I am a lawyer. Are you? i can speak civilly can you? What chip is on your shoulder? Obviously quite a big one.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Simply put, I am a lawyer. Are you? i can speak civilly can you? What chip is on your shoulder? Obviously quite a big one.

Then do as I suggested. Pull out Iowa Code 2001: Section 598.21 and give this poster the exact cite outlining the grounds on which a modification of support can be allowed and the exact procedures to follow IN IOWA.

Oh, and while you're at it, tell this forum who is the ONLY person in this thread to give the poster the CORRECT legal answer.

 

[johannah11]

Johannah~

You say that it is unfair for the children to live off of the frills of the NCP. Why is this? Is it because it's not fair that the CP can't take that money and spend it how they want it?? The NCP inherited the money, NOT the CP, so why should the CP get to decide how it is spent? If the NCP wants to take their kid to disneyland 50 times, that's their decision. If it was really about the kids, then why would the CP care so much about getting a cut?

If it were me, I'd send the kids to live with the NCP for awhile, since the NCP has plenty of money to spare. Then I'd take a vacation myself!

I never said the CP should decide how its spent. What I did say is that if the financial circumstances change for the better, what is it wrong or immoral to want the children to benefit in the form of in creased child support payments.

Just because the CP wants an increase from the miserable $327/month child support she gets doesn't mean she wants to get a cut so she can go on a cruise, move to a golf community and wear Prada instead of Walmart clothes. It may mean she wants a cut so her kids can have decent clothes, get tutoring they need, etc. Why shouldn't a parent with a half a million contribute to the daily support of his kids in a meaningful way?

 

[johannah11]

Then do as I suggested. Pull out Iowa Code 2001: Section 598.21 and give this poster the exact cite outlining the grounds on which a modification of support can be allowed and the exact procedures to follow IN IOWA.

Oh, and while you're at it, tell this forum who is the ONLY person in this thread to give the poster the CORRECT legal answer.

Okay, I did -- guess what -- you're wrong! Inheritance is a valid ground for modification. Here is the Section 598.21(8) and see specifically 589.21(8)(b)


8. Subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1738B, the court may subsequently modify orders made under this section when there is a substantial change in circumstances. In determining whether there is a substantial change in circumstances, the court shall consider the following:

a. Changes in the employment, earning capacity, income or resources of a party.

b. Receipt by a party of an inheritance, pension or other gift.

c. Changes in the medical expenses of a party.

d. Changes in the number or needs of dependents of a party.

e. Changes in the physical, mental, or emotional health of a party.

f. Changes in the residence of a party.

g. Remarriage of a party.

h. Possible support of a party by another person.

i. Changes in the physical, emotional or educational needs of a child whose support is governed by the order.

j. Contempt by a party of existing orders of court.

k. Other factors the court determines to be relevant in an individual case.

 

[stepmom&mom]

I never said the CP should decide how its spent. What I did say is that if the financial circumstances change for the better, what is it wrong or immoral to want the children to benefit in the form of in creased child support payments.

Just because the CP wants an increase from the miserable $327/month child support she gets doesn't mean she wants to get a cut so she can go on a cruise, move to a golf community and wear Prada instead of Walmart clothes. It may mean she wants a cut so her kids can have decent clothes, get tutoring they need, etc. Why shouldn't a parent with a half a million contribute to the daily support of his kids in a meaningful way?

So why doesn't she just ask for him to buy the kids those things? I can tell you from experience that non-custodial parents would be SO much less defensive and many times would be more than willing to provide things for their kids out of their own pockets. It's when they are handing over the cash to the custodial parent that they start to worry about how it's being spent. Ultimately, they simply have no control.

Especially in situations like these, when the basic needs are already being provided for and we are talking about extra funds, why shouldn't the parent who acquired the additional income (whether by working for, inheriting, or winning the money) decide how that money should be spent on the kids?

I mean, honestly, you are being hypocritical by stating that we are prejudging the CP, and yet you are prejudging the NCP by suggesting that they won't use any of their inheritance to provide anything but a disneyland trip for the kids!

 

[stepmom&mom]

Okay, I did -- guess what -- you're wrong! Inheritance is a valid ground for modification. Here is the Section 598.21(8) and see specifically 589.21(8)(b)


8. Subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1738B, the court may subsequently modify orders made under this section when there is a substantial change in circumstances. In determining whether there is a substantial change in circumstances, the court shall consider the following:

a. Changes in the employment, earning capacity, income or resources of a party.

b. Receipt by a party of an inheritance, pension or other gift.

c. Changes in the medical expenses of a party.

d. Changes in the number or needs of dependents of a party.

e. Changes in the physical, mental, or emotional health of a party.

f. Changes in the residence of a party.

g. Remarriage of a party.

h. Possible support of a party by another person.

i. Changes in the physical, emotional or educational needs of a child whose support is governed by the order.

j. Contempt by a party of existing orders of court.

k. Other factors the court determines to be relevant in an individual case.

Read Belize's first post in which it was stated that it COULD be modified.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Okay, I did -- guess what -- you're wrong! Inheritance is a valid ground for modification. Here is the Section 598.21(8) and see specifically 589.21(8)(b)


8. Subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1738B, the court may subsequently modify orders made under this section when there is a substantial change in circumstances. In determining whether there is a substantial change in circumstances, the court shall consider the following:

a. Changes in the employment, earning capacity, income or resources of a party.

b. Receipt by a party of an inheritance, pension or other gift.

c. Changes in the medical expenses of a party.

d. Changes in the number or needs of dependents of a party.

e. Changes in the physical, mental, or emotional health of a party.

f. Changes in the residence of a party.

g. Remarriage of a party.

h. Possible support of a party by another person.

i. Changes in the physical, emotional or educational needs of a child whose support is governed by the order.

j. Contempt by a party of existing orders of court.

k. Other factors the court determines to be relevant in an individual case.

attorney my ass.

 

[johannah11]

attorney my ass.

What you can't stand that I just proved you gave wrong legal advice?

 

[BL]

attorney my ass.

In another post they stated TAX attorney . And bitched about my snip and sarcastic remarks .

I told it to go state what it said in front of a Judge . I'd like to be sitting in on it .

 

[johannah11]

In another post they stated TAX attorney . And bitched about my snip and sarcastic remarks .

I told it to go state what it said in front of a Judge . I'd like to be sitting in on it .

I am a TAX attorney, but it doesn't require any particular legal expertise to look up a state statute.

I'd like to see you go in front of a judge with your attitude! Can you spell C-O-N-T-E-M-P-T?

 

[BelizeBreeze]

What you can't stand that I just proved you gave wrong legal advice?

No, there you are wrong. What I can't stand is that you can't read.

Now idiot, go back to my VERY FIRST response in this thread then when you see who DID give the only correct legal advice (and that includes you)
come back and tell us all what the hell a TAX attorney knows of family law.

what a jackass

 

[genivieve]

Hey bitch, go back and read this ENTIRE thread then don't bother replying to anything else.

You have neither the understanding nor background to give legal advice.

hahahha 11,000 posts and that is the best you can come up with. Well like I said, some people matter and some dont. And it is obvious after 11,000 posts you have nothing better to do, then put your fat potato chip greasy fingers all over a key board............................

 

[BelizeBreeze]

hahahha 11,000 posts and that is the best you can come up with. Well like I said, some people matter and some dont. And it is obvious after 11,000 posts you have nothing better to do, then put your fat potato chip greasy fingers all over a key board............................

and, of course, you have OTHER legal advice to offer this poster?

No? And why would that be? Maybe because you are just like our TAX attorney, no idea what you're talking about.

figures. One more troll.