what good are stipulations

speedcam · #1 01-21-2004, 03:05 PM

What is the name of your state? wisconsin

just wondering what good they are if 6 months down the road they have no bearing on the case. example: my wife and i went to court for custody of the three minor children, after a long drawn out case of B.S. we decided to agree with 50/50 placement ---- but --- with a couple stipulations. they were collectively the 3 kids could not be late for school more than 3 times in a year and if insurance and medical bills( his half) weren't paid on time he lost 50/50 and had to pay child support along with the other bills. all the parties involved agreed including the attorney's. we were just told that the stipulations have nothing to do with this and do not matter any more by the judge. even though it was for costody again and minor child abuse. we even had pictures of the kids and all the marks, the reports from the couselor that reported the abuse, and other reports about things happening.
so what good are they?

one severly depressed and ticked off

speedcam

speedcam · #2 01-21-2004, 04:31 PM

oh and one more thing... now we were told to decide if we want to have full placement or if we want the 50/50 changed and if we want the placement that we should drop the child support.
i guess this is different than when i grew up because as far as i knew a parent had a legal obligation to care for and support his /her children. seems like to many are getting away with more than they deserve and leaving the other half to do everything for the kids now adays.
are the courts that immorally wrong now since the past 20-30 years when "family" is what mattered?

thanks for any and all comments

speed

speedcam · #3 01-22-2004, 12:41 PM

ok i went on alittle, but in all fairness i did not try to vent or anything. i just wanted to know why have them done if nothing was any good anymore and secondly, why should we have to choose if he should pay child supprot or not? granted i am treating them as my own children the best i can, but he "fathered" them.

VeronicaGia · #4 01-22-2004, 03:24 PM

First, who told you that if you wanted full custody you would have to waive support? That's incorrect.

Second, stipulations that are part of a court order are also a court order. So, if he (or she) violates the court order, a contempt charge can be filed.

Finally, your comment about the courts being immorally wrong is correct, only not in the way you are looking at it. There is obvious bias against fathers and men in general. They are more often treated like sperm donors and ATM machines. They have no value in family court, are ordered to pay an arbitrary figure to the other parent, who doesn't have to account for a dime of it, and on top of it pay for all the kids expenses when they are "allowed" their measly visitation.

speedcam · #5 01-22-2004, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by VeronicaGia
First, who told you that if you wanted full custody you would have to waive support? That's incorrect.

reply: our attorney told us that if we wanted to drop the child support( which we don't get anyhow but the state is going after him for it) that we "might " have a better chance at an outcome in our favor.

Second, stipulations that are part of a court order are also a court order. So, if he (or she) violates the court order, a contempt charge can be filed.

reply: i understand this and we are charging him with contempt for the past 2 years he's hasn't paid for med. bills or insurance. on the kids that was ordered. but we were also told in court by the resideing judge that the stipulations weren't worth anything in her court room.

Finally, your comment about the courts being immorally wrong is correct, only not in the way you are looking at it. There is obvious bias against fathers and men in general. They are more often treated like sperm donors and ATM machines. They have no value in family court, are ordered to pay an arbitrary figure to the other parent, who doesn't have to account for a dime of it, and on top of it pay for all the kids expenses when they are "allowed" their measly visitation.

ok i guess that is one way of looking at it, and probably a better one than i was looking. but if he's never been ordered to pay and support, i don't honestly see why he gets off with out ANY kind of it what so ever. because of the way things are my wife had to quit her job just to watch the kids because it was costing more to daycare them than she made in a week. now because the state takes him to court for a possibility of support he quits his job and says he can't work? bull... he was working two jobs up until then..

but thanks for your info. its pretty much what i thought.( that they were wrong) but we're kind of stuck at this point.

thanks.

speed

VeronicaGia · #6 01-23-2004, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by speedcam
ok i guess that is one way of looking at it, and probably a better one than i was looking. but if he's never been ordered to pay and support, i don't honestly see why he gets off with out ANY kind of it what so ever.

**If he was never court ordered to pay support, he is not legally obligated to provide support. Just like if she had sole legal and physical custody and he did not file for or was not granted visitation, she would not have to let him see the child(ren). Morally these things are another issue, but legally, that's how it is.

because of the way things are my wife had to quit her job just to watch the kids because it was costing more to daycare them than she made in a week. now because the state takes him to court for a possibility of support he quits his job and says he can't work? bull... he was working two jobs up until then..

**Well, that won't work anyway. The state is going to demand his tax returns, bank statements, and a list of his income and expenses. If he tries to fudge his taxes, the state can get his taxes from the IRS, so that won't work either. It will only prolong the inevitable.

but thanks for your info. its pretty much what i thought.( that they were wrong) but we're kind of stuck at this point.

thanks.

speed

speedcam · #7 01-23-2004, 04:42 PM

"Well, that won't work anyway. The state is going to demand his tax returns, bank statements, and a list of his income and expenses. If he tries to fudge his taxes, the state can get his taxes from the IRS, so that won't work either. It will only prolong the inevitable. "

AH HA!! NOW I WAS WAITING FOR THIS COMMENT... ( soory for the caps)

now here's where the "fun ?" begins.. when the state's attorney took him to court for child support, all the " i can't work because i'm injured, and i can't lift anything" excuses started. he was told to bring in proof from his doctor --- 3 weeks later he still didn't have proof so he was ordered to pay support( this was back in Dec.) then he decided to fight it so my wife and i received a call from the attorney about this and to inform us of the fight. we started talking and he told me that their records show he hasn't worked for 4 years. this really made sense to me since he had filed taxes and claimed the kids ( at least one) each year on them. i had told him to recheck his records because i can name off at least 5 different jobs he had. and two were just before he went to court the first time he was called to court for support by the state.
So if the state's records don't even show he worked how prove that he did work?

this is my "catch- 22" with this.

thanks for the input so far.. any ideas on this one?

speed

VeronicaGia · #8 01-26-2004, 01:18 PM

Is he remarried? Is there anyone else he could file a tax return with and also include one of his children?

If you know who he was employed by, see if the state will demand records of his employment directly from those employers. Is it possible he works sort of under the table, but still claims some type of miscellaneous income? Does he have capital gains or losses that would require him to file taxes?

speedcam · #9 01-27-2004, 11:09 AM

we do know who he works for, this would be his father, it is his company. now we were also told he is the "VP" of the company so being he has this title, we were origainally informed in court that as VP he is still getting some thing( whether it be a paycheck or not). as for the child support --- your right if he was never ordered i agree with you. on the origenal divorce papers child support was left open so she could ask for it if the time came. the reason for not having it in the first place, because he wasn't working then either.
for claiming on taxes.... he does claim one of the children every year. that was ordered. as for the others not sure, all i know is he is getting food stamps and welfare now all because of this act he's putting on. and yes i know its an act. no he's not remarried, but supposedly seeing someone at this time, which coincidently owns her own company also ( a tanning place) so i would not be suprised if he's working there and getting cash.
well i thank you for the in put Veronicagia and if you have any other questions let me know and i'll see what i can answer.

speed

VeronicaGia · #10 01-27-2004, 02:26 PM

If he is truly collecting welfare, you are SOL. Welfare is not garnishable. However, if he is collecting some type of Social Security Insurance or Social Security Disability, or some other type of workman's comp or long-term disability, you may be in luck.

Do you know what he's actually collecting?

Also, if she gets the court to subpoena his employer, whether it's his father or not, or his girlfriend, they'll have no choice but to comply.

speedcam · #11 01-27-2004, 04:38 PM

OK thanks. what he is getting is food stamps, welfare, workman's comp. and i know he filed for SSI,( not sure if he got that or not). his father already told my attorney ( because the subpoena issue was brought up) that he'd go to jail before he says anything.
but on the bright side we do have his probation officer subpoena'd by her recommendation. ( since she threw him in lock up for death threats against her and i)

thanks again
speed