Arrears Payments

[karma1]

Well, ryry'smom made a judgement call

and although there were no names called, you can see that ryry'smom posted frustration coming from her own situation and reflected those emotions in her post.
The poster was asking a non-emotional question but got emotional responses-so, she then got an emotional reply-
just my take on the whole thing

 

[CMSC]

thanks TNBSMommy

You know, "pissed off" there is no need for name calling. Ryry's mom helps alot of people with her posts, and just b/c you don't like her response is no reason to resort to childish name calling. That really was uncalled for. Personally, I expect more out of my own children, much less an adult.

I find it hard to believe I actually offended someone. Gee what was I thinking, someone asks if their tax refund can be intercepted for arrears and their name is "pissedoff"...well, I am so sorry but I thought that the two going together meant someone was getting their refund intercepted and was not happy about it, what else would there be to get you pissed off????

 

[CMSC]

Re: Well, ryry'smom made a judgement call

and although there were no names called, you can see that ryry'smom posted frustration coming from her own situation and reflected those emotions in her post.
The poster was asking a non-emotional question but got emotional responses-so, she then got an emotional reply-
just my take on the whole thing

lovingwife, where in my response did i show any relation to my own situation??? do you know my situation? i don't even have a situation anymore. Am I the only one who involves emotion at times in my posts? I found no where in this post where I involved my own situation. It is an opinion, sorry.

as far as emotion goes, i said something "gripes me" ooohhh, I am so sorry, I guess I will edit it if you all find it offensive. I am sorry that I find it really offensive because someone is upset that a woman would not take a DNA test because it wasn't court ordered. I would have to be court ordered to take one if the father denied my child! I don't know too many women who would say, "oh, ok I understand you don't think this child is yours I will prove it." That is what griped me. You want to know what else "gripes me" loving wife? The fact that this involves a child.
I understand not wanting to pay for a child that is not yours but if the child is found to be yours then yes you are responsible for retro support at no ones fault.
I was also a little annoyed with the fact that the posters name is "pissedoff" and he wanted to know if his taxes could be intercepted when that situation did not even apply to him in the first place. All he had to do was go to the search engine at the top of the page and get an in general answer.
sorry JMO.

 

[TNBSMommy]

I agree with you, Ryry's mom, I was sitting here thinking "what is he asking for" after he made the post
"No I did not get anything. I owed taxes, it was just a question and wanted to see if anybody had a proper answer."
I understand why people give limited information, but I don't get why they get mad when you take the info they give you and give them an answer they don't like. Of course there is more to everyone's situation than anyone else knows, unless you are directly involved. But it is not that hard to simply say, no you don't understand, this is the rest of the story.
And I agree that if MY son and daughter's father would have pulled wanting a blood test, I would have to be court ordered too before I would give him one.

 

[CMSC]

I agree with you, Ryry's mom, I was sitting here thinking "what is he asking for" after he made the post
"No I did not get anything. I owed taxes, it was just a question and wanted to see if anybody had a proper answer."
I understand why people give limited information, but I don't get why they get mad when you take the info they give you and give them an answer they don't like. Of course there is more to everyone's situation than anyone else knows, unless you are directly involved. But it is not that hard to simply say, no you don't understand, this is the rest of the story.
And I agree that if MY son and daughter's father would have pulled wanting a blood test, I would have to be court ordered too before I would give him one.

Finally, someone got my point! Thanks!! You would have to tie me down and show me a court order before I allowed you to deny your children!! I would think that would be a given with any mom.

What I don't get and this is totally off subject. It is okay to force someone to turn over their DNA BUT it is unconstitutional to require someone to get a job? I really think the use of the constitution is being construed a little bit???!!!

 

[karma1]

2 sides to this coin....

the mother has the child and the father asks for a DNA test-she goes one month after child is born without support money-if I was the mother, I would have done the DNA test to NOT further delay any support money that is needed for the child. If this had gone through CSE (in CA anyway) a DNA test would have been asked for and done-
so, in this scenario, if the mother had cooperated from the very beginning, no support payments would have been missed-
isn't that in the best interest of the child?
ryry'smom-from all of your explanations on here, and all the time you are spending on here doing just that-IMO-might be time for a break? internet forums are not real life ya know-you get pretty worked up over faceless names on here but in the grand scheme of things-is it really that important?

 

[Roscleo]

I just can't bite my tonue anylonger

Ok I really tried to stay out of this whole post but I just can't any more.
First of all no pissed off did not lie to get information. Pissed off just wanted an answer. Maybe he can change his tax status so that won't owe taxes next year, and will get taxes back. Who knows but this point is he didn't lie and he should not have to change his screen name on here just to corresponde with his question. I don't see any one else changing their screen names for each different post. Yes pissed off has posted on here before. This whole post was about taxes and arrears, now it has turned into a whole post about DNA testing. The only way a woman should not want to take a DNA test is if she does not know herself who the father of the child is. I would not be in the least bit offended in anyway if my husband asked me to take a DNA test. Men can't just take a womans word that he is the only one she slept with. And that in fact the child is his. If BM was so concerned over the childs well being she would have cooperated with the DNA test in the first place. Sounds to me like BM either didn't want to let pissed off have a relationship with his child or she was playing games. And that is ok??? I think not. Anyway this post is not about DNA at all and that all I will say about the DNA issue.
I do however feel badly for pissedoff as he only posted a question on here and got judged and slammed just for a question about taxes and arrears.

Pissedoff
I certianly hope this does not deter you from posting any other questions on here in the future. I am sorry you were slammed the way you were. You did do a great job protecting yourself and thank you for the new word. I have been using it alot for our PB thanks. It really fits her perfectly.

ryrysmom and TNBS mommy
Slam me all you want go ahead. But I will not dignify your slam with another response. I have better things to do that get into a slamming contest on here. Plus I do have two small ones who keep me pretty busy.

 

[CMSC]

Re: I just can't bite my tonue anylonger

Ok I really tried to stay out of this whole post but I just can't any more.
First of all no pissed off did not lie to get information. Pissed off just wanted an answer. Maybe he can change his tax status so that won't owe taxes next year, and will get taxes back. Who knows but this point is he didn't lie and he should not have to change his screen name on here just to corresponde with his question. I don't see any one else changing their screen names for each different post. Yes pissed off has posted on here before. This whole post was about taxes and arrears, now it has turned into a whole post about DNA testing. The only way a woman should not want to take a DNA test is if she does not know herself who the father of the child is. I would not be in the least bit offended in anyway if my husband asked me to take a DNA test. Men can't just take a womans word that he is the only one she slept with. And that in fact the child is his. If BM was so concerned over the childs well being she would have cooperated with the DNA test in the first place. Sounds to me like BM either didn't want to let pissed off have a relationship with his child or she was playing games. And that is ok??? I think not. Anyway this post is not about DNA at all and that all I will say about the DNA issue.
I do however feel badly for pissedoff as he only posted a question on here and got judged and slammed just for a question about taxes and arrears.

Pissedoff
I certianly hope this does not deter you from posting any other questions on here in the future. I am sorry you were slammed the way you were. You did do a great job protecting yourself and thank you for the new word. I have been using it alot for our PB thanks. It really fits her perfectly.

ryrysmom and TNBS mommy
Slam me all you want go ahead. But I will not dignify your slam with another response. I have better things to do that get into a slamming contest on here. Plus I do have two small ones who keep me pretty busy.

Roscleo, I would in no way ever slam you because I get your situation you are in with the whole DNA thing and I respect what you have gone through, whether or not you care to believe.

Lovingwife, don't worry I will be on and off vacation for the next 3 1/2 weeks so you won't have to put up with my crude honesty for that time, enjoy!

 

[TNBSMommy]

The only reason I even posted was to point out there is no need for name calling.--and continiously calling ryry's mom a "twit" is name calling, lovingwife, at least in my opinion. Personally I would be offended if my kids dad asked for a dna test. However I do realize, more so from reading some of these posts on here that there are quite a few women out there who lie to get certain people to pay cs/ or to keep someone with them, etc. And you all are right, this isn't a post about dna, it is about taxes and arrears, so I will drop that.
As far as ME calling anyone a liar, I simply said I wondered when the original poster asked if his taxes would be taken, than turned around and stated he pays in instead of receiving a refund. But anyway, it is his personal business and there is no reason to even keep this thread going. I don't plan on responding any more too it.
pissed off, good luck! I hope you found the answer you are looking for. Roscleo, I am sorry we all bothered you enough to get involved, when you didn't want to
And ryry's mom, enjoy your vacation!

 

[Grace_Adler]

Ok, you know I gotta throw my 2 cents in. Sometimes I think we all get a little emotional on here..that's human nature I think. But namecalling's not cool.

As far as DNA, I know this post isn't about that but since it was brought up... Me personally, I'd be offended if my husband or if it was a boyfriend asked me to take one, but I totally understand CSE or the courts ordering one because in their eyes how are they supposed to tell the ones who are telling the truth from the ones who are lying so they make everyone take one.

I'm bringing up the job thing too because someone just metioned it and it was brought up on another thread, but I forget where so I thought I'd put it up here on this one since it was brought up. I don't get that whole unconstitutional thing. Unless I'm misunderstanding what I read, NC law says they can order you to get a job. Where did the unconstitutional thing come from? I'm totally lost on that and would like to learn more.

As far as the rest of the thread, I'm kinda of confused by the whole thing so I ain't goin' there.
Sorry, that was all.

 

[karma1]

Grace....

ryrysmom was refering to another thread about making someone work and the constitutionality of it-from a couple days ago, I think. But you are right, this comment just added some confusion to this original post and I don't understand it either....
and I never said the name calling thing was okay-just that I understood where it was coming from-

 

[Grace_Adler]

Right.. I don't think many people on here think that name calling is ok.. I didn't take it that I thought you did. Big HOWEVER, sometimes it has been done and I don't know.. I may have even been guilty of it myself .. I don't remember.. sometimes it's done in a joking way too. I just think this particular time..it was uncalled for as I'm sure most of you probably did. In some cases it's hard to bite your tongue though.
About the constitutional thing..I just meant I was wondering where someone got the information about it being unconstitutional cause I wanted to learn more about it.

 

[karma1]

this would probably be a question for IAAL

about the constitutionality of making someone work?
this was all brought up by ryrysmom on 6/10 under sbaldwins post which you were a part of too, if I recall.
ryrysmom (a quick recap) said she was told by her CSE office that they cannot make a person work-but I am confused with her whole reply as her support is set at 50$ a month, currently, and I do believe she is getting that amount but wants more. I am thinking this may be a question of not making someone work, but making someone get a better paying job-therefore allowing more money to go towards support. See what I am getting at here? Obviously, that 50$ a month is coming from somewhere (and no, I do not think that is anywhere near being fair), so, one would assume it is from employment. I am just going by what I have read regarding this and am trying to make sense of it, too. If is goes up to 170$ , which she is expecting, then that money, too, has to come from somewhere, right? I may be reading more into this but I think it is a case of thinking and wanting the NCP to work at a better job and the CSE telling her that that part is unconstitutional-
of course, I am expecting all kinds of slams for this, (not from you Grace) but this is what I can see from reading what is posted and some of the inconsistencies I mentioned earlier.
I guess in her case, the courts will decide what can and cannot be done-
I am wondering about the constitutionality of all of this as well, as DH's papers specifically state he had to bring his hours up to 40 a week (which he has)-according to ryrysmom, and what she has been told, this is not lawful.
try posting this as a new thread-maybe IAAL will respond then?

 

[Roscleo]

something else about all of this

I would also think it would be unconstutuional for the courts to tell an NCP if they are working part time and going to school that they can't do that or that they must continue to work full time and go to school so that they can continue to pay the set amount of cs. The constitution abolished slavery along time ago but it seems our court system has found a way to make it legal.. You know "In the best interest of the children". I would also think that regarding the whole school issue that is a violation of rights since doesn't everyone have the right to pusue happiness and better themselves. The courts won't allow it.
Before any one bashes me yes I do believe that men and women alike are responsible to take care of thier children in every way. I just don't think the courts should be able to determine how much money you should pay, or put restrictions on jobs you can hold or that you should get a better paying job so you can pay more money.. This really goes back to the more money the states collect in cs the more money from the federal government.
I also believe it is unconstitutional to send someone to jail and take their license away for not paying cs.

 

[Grace_Adler]

I think maybe you misunderstood. From what I understand.. she is supposed to be getting $50 a month but is not getting any support. I don't think she was asking for more, not sure... but was later was told she should be getting the $170 or whatever it was..not $50 a month. I think that's what it was..or maybe I'm the one in the dark..LOL!

Yes I had that discussion on the other thread, I just couldn't remember where it was or everything that was said. I just want to know if it is or not and where the information can be found showing it is or isn't unconstitutional..follow me? Yes, IAAL would probably know. I just wanted to know because I think NC can force people to get a job. It's no big deal though..I was just curious.