Closed Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 56
  1. #31
    SnowandIceGuy is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    21
    The seniors on this board can and should tell us what the law is, but accusing googmom of being bitter and trying to chisel her ex goes beyond legal advice well into the territory of mind-reading her motives and being nasty to her. It seems to me like she has a reason to wonder about this situation. If her ex is behaving in a legal manner, then she has to deal with it, but why be so harsh on her for just asking a completely legitimate question?
  2. #32
    CourtClerk is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Sitting at the computer probably rolling my eyes at your post
    Posts
    13,439
    Actually, for states that take into account subsequent children, it generally doesn't make a difference whether the child was born within or outside the confines of a marriage.

    As for what motivation a man has to marry you.... well, maybe that should be a topic of discussion before she beds him (pregnancy or not).
  3. #33
    Isis1 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    18,121
    Quote Originally Posted by SnowandIceGuy View Post
    So, isn't goodmom0723 sorta being scammed by her ex? He is getting his support on her children reduced, and the new support he's paying to lower the first support is an illusion. Yet numerous people have posted to this thread and accused her of being bitter, trying to take Dad to the cleaners, etc. It seems to me she's only trying to prevent him from dodging part of the support he's dutybound to pay to their children. Why the need to dump on the OP? She is not out of line to ask this question, IMO.
    because she is being so concerned about it, that's the problem. to go through such length's to get the extra child support is not healthy for the kids. it sets too much tone. if you have to work that hard for it. let it go. use that energy on raising your child.

    look at it this way, when dad breaks up with his lady love, there will be a court order in place. dad will be without both incomes. see, in my point of view as the new lady is that anytime this guy give me any nonsense i can walk off anytime. i already have a court order. all the mess is done with. what's dad gonna do? admit to the scam? it will only get him in trouble and he'd STILL be paying support.

    so "old" mom can suck it up and just get used to the new amount, because at some point dad and "new" mom will be broken up.and "old" mom will have that lowered amount anyway.
  4. #34
    jesscronin@comc is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Ginny J View Post
    There is NO "child support" fraud if the two are NOT married. Mom is being very smart and having everything thru the courts in this regard since there is no protection of rights - they are NOT married.

    Now, if the mom is collecting food stamps, TANF, etc. and living with someone AND not reporting it, that is a different story. And NO, you should NOT be privy to that. That would be between the mom and the state.

    On a personal note, you sound like a bitter woman. If you didn't follow child support guidelines before, and now regret it, oh well.

    Michigan child support guidelines:
    [url=http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/services/focb/mcsf.htm]Michigan Child Support Formula[/url]

    Wonderful answer!! My knowledge of this is the simple fact that regardless if it is through child support action or not the amount would still be reduced. Correct? When the non-custodial, (child support paying parent) has other biological children with someone else the ORS automatically takes this into consideration.

    Your child support would automatically decrease and certain things would affect this change ie: his insurance premium that he pays now for his other child/children, daycare expenses that must be paid for the child/children as well as the state would "free" up enough money from his CS obligation to ensure that he has enough money to support the other children.

    Seems to me the outcome would be the same either way since those are normal deductions that would occur. I agree that food stamps and such would be illegal. The "other" woman collecting child support from the father is covering her butt. Smart woman. Great decision!! His children with this other woman, as well as his future children should not have to suffer either just because he had a child with you first. Seems to me as though he is taking care of his responsibilities and financially being responsible for ALL his children-feel lucky. They all deserve the same, with the information you provided I believe he is doing just that.
  5. #35
    jesscronin@comc is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by SnowandIceGuy View Post
    This doesn't seem really fair. If I have a child with someone and pay support, what incentive do I have to marry the mother of my next child? I can have my new baby's mother file for child support, get the first child's payment reduced, and then my second child's mother can take the support I pay and put back into our household. It seems like a scam to me, especially because you cannot do this if you marry the mother of your second child. Am I right? Support is not reduced if you have a second child within wedlock, but if you have a second child out of wedlock, support for the first child can be reduced. Doesn't seem fair to me.
    Can someone clear this up for sure.....I live in Utah. When I go to the ORS child support calculator for the State of Utah it asks me several questions. My income, Ex's income, how much time the child spends overnight with each parent. But here is the interesting part.

    Next question:
    Does the mother and the mother's current spouse have any natural or adopted children together in the mother's present home that are not part of this child support action? If so, how many?

    Does the father and the father's current spouse have any natural or adopted children together in the father's present home that are not part of this child support action? If so, how many?

    If I enter "no" child support amount is the same as he is paying now.
    If I enter "yes" I am taken to another screen:
    2. What is the father's current spouse's monthly gross income? (May be $0.00) No mater what amount I place in this field it doesn't change any outcome.
    3. What is the monthly work or training related child care expense for the children in the father's present home?

    Automatically, even married, the amount changes drastically to account for the "younger" child living in his home, the amount of insurance premium, and it even takes into consideration (and makes a HUGE difference) HOW MUCH HE PAYS FOR DAYCARE!!!
    The amount is lowered with answering these questions. At least in Utah is would seem to me that married or not, child support order or not, right or wrong, fraud or not, either way the outcome is exactly the same. If you have another biological child with someone else your child support for your other children will decrease.

    Right?
    Last edited by jesscronin@comc; 12-11-2008 at 09:08 PM. Reason: Accidently posted before finished
  6. #36
    jesscronin@comc is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    11
    I am new to this site and it has come to my attention that I am approaching my posts wrong. I apologize. My previous posts looks as though I am high jacking this OP's question. In this particular post I was trying to raise the question for the benefit of the OP that it is quite possible that her CS would be reduce either way in order to get a better understanding of her question on fraud and to help her have a better understanding that she should let this problem go because either way the outcome would be the same. In trying to help the OP I have responded much to in depth and in a way that looks as though I am asking questions for my benefit.

    I am very sorry and will respond to OP's differently as to not have this interpretation repeated.

    Thanks for showing me the ropes around here
  7. #37
    SnowandIceGuy is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    21
    I live in NY and I would be interested in having jesscronin's question answered for NY also.
  8. #38
    SnowandIceGuy is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by IsabellaSoriano View Post
    because she is being so concerned about it, that's the problem. to go through such length's to get the extra child support is not healthy for the kids. it sets too much tone. if you have to work that hard for it. let it go. use that energy on raising your child.
    She's not asking for "extra" child support. She wants her children to keep getting what they've been getting.

    look at it this way, when dad breaks up with his lady love, there will be a court order in place. dad will be without both incomes.
    This doesn't do goodmom any good. What happens with her ex's new lady love is irrelevant. She simply wanted to know if it's legitimate for him to reduce the support to her children by having a court order to pay support for children with whom he's currently living. Seems like an excellent question to me and not coming from a place of bitterness or mean-spiritedness. She wants her children to get the support that the state said he owed. He's trying to dodge that.

    so "old" mom can suck it up and just get used to the new amount, because at some point dad and "new" mom will be broken up.and "old" mom will have that lowered amount anyway.
    Are you psychic? How do you know this? And how is this remotely relevant to what the OP is asking?
  9. #39
    Humusluvr is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,294
    Quote Originally Posted by SnowandIceGuy View Post
    She's not asking for "extra" child support. She wants her children to keep getting what they've been getting.



    This doesn't do goodmom any good. What happens with her ex's new lady love is irrelevant. She simply wanted to know if it's legitimate for him to reduce the support to her children by having a court order to pay support for children with whom he's currently living. Seems like an excellent question to me and not coming from a place of bitterness or mean-spiritedness. She wants her children to get the support that the state said he owed. He's trying to dodge that.



    Are you psychic? How do you know this? And how is this remotely relevant to what the OP is asking?
    I agree.

    I don't see how ANYTHING dad does after his first child support order, like making more babies, should affect his support of the first ones. If dad pays $500, that should be set in stone. If dad keeps foolishly sowing his seed, he should eventually get down to nothing left to live on, on then he should starve and die. Not his kids though.

    I'm half kidding. I hope he starves enough he can't get it up and make more babies.

    If the system says that it is this way - that's messed up.
  10. #40
    thedoctorisin is offline Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    669
    Quote Originally Posted by Humusluvr View Post
    If the answer is no - no more babies for you!!!
    Clearly at this point a court-ordered vasectomy is called for. That will stop the ex-husband from having additional babies for the sole purpose of trying to reduce his child support to the OP.
  11. #41
    Isis1 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    18,121
    Quote Originally Posted by Humusluvr View Post
    I agree.

    I don't see how ANYTHING dad does after his first child support order, like making more babies, should affect his support of the first ones. If dad pays $500, that should be set in stone. If dad keeps foolishly sowing his seed, he should eventually get down to nothing left to live on, on then he should starve and die. Not his kids though.

    I'm half kidding. I hope he starves enough he can't get it up and make more babies.

    If the system says that it is this way - that's messed up.
    i don't agree with the whole, more babies reduce the support of the first. i think that any state that figures the support this way is behind the times. but from what i am reading that is how THIS state works. yes, i do think OP is putting too much effort into nailing dad. and i probably would react the same way if i was in her shoes. but if the law allows for a reduction, then it's the law until some peeved custodial parent lobbies the issue until it changes.

    i'm on mom's side. but it the effort really worth it?
  12. #42
    Humusluvr is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,294
    Quote Originally Posted by thedoctorisin View Post
    Clearly at this point a court-ordered vasectomy is called for. That will stop the ex-husband from having additional babies for the sole purpose of trying to reduce his child support to the OP.
    Ah, finally! Someone who thinks like me!!!

    But, I hear its not legal to take away his baby making ability. Boo! Hiss!

    I made a suggestion in my newbieness that we order birth control for all welfare moms, and I thought I was going to be stoned. I still don't see the prob with that though.
  13. #43
    Isis1 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    18,121
    Quote Originally Posted by Humusluvr View Post
    Ah, finally! Someone who thinks like me!!!

    But, I hear its not legal to take away his baby making ability. Boo! Hiss!

    I made a suggestion in my newbieness that we order birth control for all welfare moms, and I thought I was going to be stoned. I still don't see the prob with that though.
    when i went through the process years ago, for medical coverage i remember the forms asking me if i was interested in birth control procedures and in what form. it also asked which one. tubal ligation was an option listed. then another question was listed asking if i was pregnant and planned on having more chilren? they don't say it, but they sure hint on it.

    and let me tell you, out here, no clinic lets you walk out the door without practically forcing you to take a birth control method.

    there should be some sort of forced birth control method. maybe a certain standard. but i'd probably qualify for it
  14. #44
    SnowandIceGuy is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by IsabellaSoriano View Post

    i'm on mom's side. but it the effort really worth it?
    It depends on how much money it is and how badly that loss of money will affect her children's lifestyle. If the state says she's entitled to that amount, they probably need it. I don't blame her one bit for trying to find out of what he's asking for is legal, and she certainly did not deserve some of the negative characterizations made of her in this thread.
  15. #45
    Isis1 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    18,121
    Quote Originally Posted by SnowandIceGuy View Post
    It depends on how much money it is and how badly that loss of money will affect her children's lifestyle. If the state says she's entitled to that amount, they probably need it. I don't blame her one bit for trying to find out of what he's asking for is legal, and she certainly did not deserve some of the negative characterizations made of her in this thread.
    according to the OP, the state did take his other court order into consideration. so the state allowed it.

    i understand her frustration, but i also understand what she is being told. she will be spend all this time and money on an issue that would likely end up being the way it is now. it;s not about forseeing the future, but when two scammers are in cahoots, it's only a matter of time when either scammer turns on the other.

Similar Threads

  1. child support fraud
    By gravedigger in forum Child Support
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-02-2009, 10:46 AM
  2. child support fraud
    By lisav in forum Child Support
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-16-2005, 11:15 AM
  3. Child Support Fraud?
    By Sarah12730 in forum Child Custody & Visitation
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-02-2001, 02:51 PM
  4. child support fraud
    By RebeccaAnn in forum Family Law Archive
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-26-2000, 06:28 AM
  5. child support fraud
    By AlaDad in forum Family Law Archive
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-06-2000, 10:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

© 1995-2012 Advice Company, All Rights Reserved

FreeAdvice® has been providing millions of consumers with outstanding advice, free, since 1995. While not a substitute for personal advice from a licensed professional, it is available AS IS, subject to our Disclaimer and Terms & Conditions Of Use.