Reposted this with a gender specific idea:
What is the name of your state? CT
Hey all, this is a long one but if you have some ideas or ever need electronic copies of all of it to use to help another, where gender and custody is reversed let me know,
Quick history:
Male (me) sole legal and physical of two
Agreement July 2002 - I waive CS arrearages as the defense represented that the children would receive a lump sum arrearage from SSA MUCH greater than the $1500 arrearage in CS.
I agree to pay alimony non-tax deductible.
Alimony is reduced then ended by agreement (threat of going forward with the motion)
July 2002
Separation agreement states the defense represents that there is an arrearage coming from her claim with SSA greater than the CS arrearage –transcripts reflect my atty. stating she was shown a letter by the defense, that the agreement deviates from the CS guide lines- the GAL is there for all of this – I therefore withdraw my claim – Judge comments "so if he does, if he does not receive a check from SSA at any time he preserves his (children’s) right to CS?" "Yes your honor but it is our understanding that the payment from SSA will be forth coming after entry of the final judgement."
OK the confusing part as to why I need to reopen a judgment for a modification of child support when that remains in the jurisdiction of the court – showing of financial change, guide lines are deviated by more than 15% etc-
It becomes known that there is no arrearage from SS.
Nov 2002
The confusion: Judge states on the 3rd motion filed for contempt and finally heard- the 1st two contempt motions the court couldn’t get to, 60 days passed, one was filed before the final judgement, told to re-file, the motion # that was ruled was not the similar motion number I thought I was arguing, despite that judge states that she doesn’t believe she can make a definitive ruling that the defendant mislead everyone of the arrearage so I will not find her contempt at this time. Implies that at some time if she gets definitive information, gives me a copy of the supposed SSA letter that will get the funds, and states ‘and sick you upon social security to determine’ I also state perhaps a complete accounting records of payment if that would help her honor – exactly yes- we can address this in the future.
Jan 2003
Month later a different motion with the GAL, judge asked what became of that SSA thing from the spring? "I obtained the records you requested your honor, and they do not show an arrearage do"- “huh sounds like the money is no there to be had. I don’t think I need those reports at this time.”
March 2003
Future comes up in a motion of contempt against me for alimony- the children’s benefit had stopped a third time that in the agreement is the alimony source, I just did not have any money to pay the alimony that month – figure food for my kids is more important - NOT- at that I say but the defense owes over $1500 CS – Judge upset that I bring that up now, says she ruled on it! She does not owe you one penny – appeal- Did the trial court fail to grant a fair trial - Despite the cleric case law, statute and fact the appellant is a heroin addict and did not even file briefs- it is affirmed – petition supreme court- denied
What she did file shows she sent a fraudulent letter to SSA stating she was the proper payee. What she did file to the appellate court was a copy of a motion never filed that intended to order me to stop interfering with being the named payee [CFR Title 20-- CHAP III--SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION PART 416 defines this ] - custodial parent (me) is the first named choice.
I contact SSA, they say we don’t have a letter that we sent showing an arrearage, can you get it that may help. Defense can’t find it, my atty. is no more. Next call, a known 2 party recorded, SSA states well we paid an arrearage of $17,000+ in 2000 to Miss Chilinsky, but we do not see any other arrearage.
I have more proof that not only is there no arrearage, but the arrearage there was, was already paid to the defense.
And here we are today, I am just assembling my argument to re open and then obtain CS per the guidelines. And yes even though the defense receives a SSA benefit, she is not title D, welfare, the guidelines show a support of $81 weekly. I am aware of the father on welfare that the appellate court reversed, welfare does NOT count as income towards CS. This court on a payment issue of the GAL did not recognize SSA to the minor children as conforming to CTGS 46b payment of GAL from funds appropriated to the judicial department – "46B refers to children on welfare not children receiving SSA " J. For the record my ex’s SSA benefit when added with my previous alimony payment, and if I was allowed to deduct alimony from my GROSS income put her NET above me in 2003! Wow not working she makes more than the sole custodial parent with two children!
I have a slew of opinions that have dammed men regarding SSA. I have this courts own previous rulings. I am an Aries who does not give up. The CS guidelines still show a support obligation. My income is less than 1/2 what it was back in 2002.
What I am looking for, aside from gender not allowing my children to receive CS, what other angles do you all for see a trial court and appellate court using to go against what the state of CT legislature has made a law?
As I said if my denial of CS could help, I will gladly email you everything. Mr. Computer geek here does not believe in paper except for wrapping fish and use in the bathroom!
Thanx
gsl
What is the name of your state? CT
Hey all, this is a long one but if you have some ideas or ever need electronic copies of all of it to use to help another, where gender and custody is reversed let me know,
Quick history:
Male (me) sole legal and physical of two
Agreement July 2002 - I waive CS arrearages as the defense represented that the children would receive a lump sum arrearage from SSA MUCH greater than the $1500 arrearage in CS.
I agree to pay alimony non-tax deductible.
Alimony is reduced then ended by agreement (threat of going forward with the motion)
July 2002
Separation agreement states the defense represents that there is an arrearage coming from her claim with SSA greater than the CS arrearage –transcripts reflect my atty. stating she was shown a letter by the defense, that the agreement deviates from the CS guide lines- the GAL is there for all of this – I therefore withdraw my claim – Judge comments "so if he does, if he does not receive a check from SSA at any time he preserves his (children’s) right to CS?" "Yes your honor but it is our understanding that the payment from SSA will be forth coming after entry of the final judgement."
OK the confusing part as to why I need to reopen a judgment for a modification of child support when that remains in the jurisdiction of the court – showing of financial change, guide lines are deviated by more than 15% etc-
It becomes known that there is no arrearage from SS.
Nov 2002
The confusion: Judge states on the 3rd motion filed for contempt and finally heard- the 1st two contempt motions the court couldn’t get to, 60 days passed, one was filed before the final judgement, told to re-file, the motion # that was ruled was not the similar motion number I thought I was arguing, despite that judge states that she doesn’t believe she can make a definitive ruling that the defendant mislead everyone of the arrearage so I will not find her contempt at this time. Implies that at some time if she gets definitive information, gives me a copy of the supposed SSA letter that will get the funds, and states ‘and sick you upon social security to determine’ I also state perhaps a complete accounting records of payment if that would help her honor – exactly yes- we can address this in the future.
Jan 2003
Month later a different motion with the GAL, judge asked what became of that SSA thing from the spring? "I obtained the records you requested your honor, and they do not show an arrearage do"- “huh sounds like the money is no there to be had. I don’t think I need those reports at this time.”
March 2003
Future comes up in a motion of contempt against me for alimony- the children’s benefit had stopped a third time that in the agreement is the alimony source, I just did not have any money to pay the alimony that month – figure food for my kids is more important - NOT- at that I say but the defense owes over $1500 CS – Judge upset that I bring that up now, says she ruled on it! She does not owe you one penny – appeal- Did the trial court fail to grant a fair trial - Despite the cleric case law, statute and fact the appellant is a heroin addict and did not even file briefs- it is affirmed – petition supreme court- denied
What she did file shows she sent a fraudulent letter to SSA stating she was the proper payee. What she did file to the appellate court was a copy of a motion never filed that intended to order me to stop interfering with being the named payee [CFR Title 20-- CHAP III--SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION PART 416 defines this ] - custodial parent (me) is the first named choice.
I contact SSA, they say we don’t have a letter that we sent showing an arrearage, can you get it that may help. Defense can’t find it, my atty. is no more. Next call, a known 2 party recorded, SSA states well we paid an arrearage of $17,000+ in 2000 to Miss Chilinsky, but we do not see any other arrearage.
I have more proof that not only is there no arrearage, but the arrearage there was, was already paid to the defense.
And here we are today, I am just assembling my argument to re open and then obtain CS per the guidelines. And yes even though the defense receives a SSA benefit, she is not title D, welfare, the guidelines show a support of $81 weekly. I am aware of the father on welfare that the appellate court reversed, welfare does NOT count as income towards CS. This court on a payment issue of the GAL did not recognize SSA to the minor children as conforming to CTGS 46b payment of GAL from funds appropriated to the judicial department – "46B refers to children on welfare not children receiving SSA " J. For the record my ex’s SSA benefit when added with my previous alimony payment, and if I was allowed to deduct alimony from my GROSS income put her NET above me in 2003! Wow not working she makes more than the sole custodial parent with two children!
I have a slew of opinions that have dammed men regarding SSA. I have this courts own previous rulings. I am an Aries who does not give up. The CS guidelines still show a support obligation. My income is less than 1/2 what it was back in 2002.
What I am looking for, aside from gender not allowing my children to receive CS, what other angles do you all for see a trial court and appellate court using to go against what the state of CT legislature has made a law?
As I said if my denial of CS could help, I will gladly email you everything. Mr. Computer geek here does not believe in paper except for wrapping fish and use in the bathroom!
Thanx
gsl