Child Support Reduction Question

[Mike703]

You're welcome.

Go here. http://www.state.tn.us/humanserv/is/isdownloads.htm Download the calculator and figure out what your new CS obligation will be if you accept the ex's offer. Use that information to make your decision.

You DO NOT want to go to court if you can avoid it. Not while you're not paying at all and collecting unemployment.

I agree, wait until you have a full time job (as i've mentioned this ENTIRE time).

 

[Mike703]

Not really. It's not too hard to give correct info plus a link to illustrate one's point.
http://ocse.acf.hhs.gov/ext/irg/sps/report.cfm?State=TN

It's every THREE years in TN. However, other factors make it possible for OP to file for a downward mod. (Doesn't mean he'll get it, of course.)

Such as a significant change in salary??? or possibly an agreement done under outdated statues???

 

[CJane]

Because I know what I received. But either way it really is irrelivant since his current agreement is obviously elligible....so don't u think we are splitting hairs a little??

The problem, Mike, is that even though you mean well, you're giving incorrect advice from a legal standpoint.

This effects not only this poster, but also anyone who follows the TOS and searches out posts before asking a question. So no, it's not splitting hairs to point out the incorrect advice that you're giving.

 

[CJane]

I agree, wait until you have a full time job (as i've mentioned this ENTIRE time).

Actually, I'm saying he doesn't want to go to court AT ALL while in arrears.

If I were his attorney, or even as pro se myself, I would take the ex's offer and run. It's the best offer he's going to get. And once he's employed, I would again recommend that he avoid court by educating himself as to the guidelines and working WITH HIS EX instead of through the courts.

 

[Mike703]

I disagree that he needed an attorney. He could go pro-se.

His kids need to eat.

Kinda hard to feed your kids if you're homeless. Nobody should go pro-se if they have minimal legal knowledge. What are you doing to this man??

 

[Mike703]

Actually, I'm saying he doesn't want to go to court AT ALL while in arrears.

If I were his attorney, or even as pro se myself, I would take the ex's offer and run. It's the best offer he's going to get. And once he's employed, I would again recommend that he avoid court by educating himself as to the guidelines and working WITH HIS EX instead of through the courts.

You act as if she is never gonna ask for that money back....

He is gonna pay that money regardless, but in order to help his case, the base support should be as low as possible so that he can realistically get caught up and not pay some inflated amount for however many years.....

 

[Silverplum]

Kinda hard to feed your kids if you're homeless. Nobody should go pro-se if they have minimal legal knowledge. What are you doing to this man??

*I* am not doing anything to him.

There is no need for "minimal legal knowledge." It's not hard at all to research, talk to the court clerk, fill out forms, and file them. It just takes determination and patience and time.

And yes, legal info IS a matter of "splitting hairs" sometimes. CJane explained already. Don't answer without facts or you will hurt someone. How would you like to be given invalid legal info??

 

[Mike703]

The problem, Mike, is that even though you mean well, you're giving incorrect advice from a legal standpoint.

This effects not only this poster, but also anyone who follows the TOS and searches out posts before asking a question. So no, it's not splitting hairs to point out the incorrect advice that you're giving.

And you are giving this man bad advice by telling this man to work this out with his ex's attorney rather than to seek advice from his own counsel. Almost anybody will tell you this is a bad idea based on the fact that he may not be fully aware of what he is doing an may enter into an agreement (although this does seem fair for the most part) that may not be favorable for him and could cause him to fall further into debt.

I have said in just about every other post in this thread that he should seek legal advice...maybe you were to busy looking for some way to contradict me to see that.

 

[Mike703]

*I* am not doing anything to him.

There is no need for "minimal legal knowledge." It's not hard at all to research, talk to the court clerk, fill out forms, and file them. It just takes determination and patience and time.

And yes, legal info IS a matter of "splitting hairs" sometimes. CJane explained already. Don't answer without facts or you will hurt someone. How would you like to be given invalid legal info??

Ok, so you mean to tell me that in this case, this would not qualify as a circumstance for review? because that was really the point i was getting at. Or are you just doing to try and disagree for 2 more pages??

 

[Silverplum]

And you are giving this man bad advice by telling this man to work this out with his ex's attorney rather than to seek advice from his own counsel. Almost anybody will tell you this is a bad idea based on the fact that he may not be fully aware of what he is doing an may enter into an agreement (although this does seem fair for the most part) that may not be favorable for him and could cause him to fall further into debt.

I have said in just about every other post in this thread that he should seek legal advice...maybe you were to busy looking for some way to contradict me to see that.

AFTER reading what he posted from the X's attorney, SEVERAL FA senior members felt it was a GOOD deal.

Maybe you are too busy looking for a chance to be right...but if you can even ASK if being legally correct and precise is "splitting hairs," and think that providing the relevant statute includes your letter from human services, then you clearly don't know the first thing you're typing.

 

[Mike703]

*I* am not doing anything to him.

There is no need for "minimal legal knowledge." It's not hard at all to research, talk to the court clerk, fill out forms, and file them. It just takes determination and patience and time.

And yes, legal info IS a matter of "splitting hairs" sometimes. CJane explained already. Don't answer without facts or you will hurt someone. How would you like to be given invalid legal info??

BTW it is totally about splitting hairs which is why i suggested that he should ask for more than just a check stub....I believe CJ quickly tried to contradict me on that issue...

So I take it you are on my side regarding that issue?? (Otherwise you'll just be proving my theory that your just on here trying to contradict whatever I say)

 

[Mike703]

AFTER reading what he posted from the X's attorney, SEVERAL FA senior members felt it was a GOOD deal.

Maybe you are too busy looking for a chance to be right...but if you can even ASK if being legally correct and precise is "splitting hairs," and think that providing the relevant statute includes your letter from human services, then you clearly don't know the first thing you're typing.

Ok, I see that letter thing is gonna be your issue for the ramainder of the night....

But on another note, I never said the offer was bad, I just recommended that he have an attorney review it before making a decision. If you read back through the entire thread you'll see that I never told him not to take it. Everything I've said was in regards to after he finds employment and his CS is recalculated (which I believe was a stipulation of the agreement)

 

[Mike703]

AFTER reading what he posted from the X's attorney, SEVERAL FA senior members felt it was a GOOD deal.

Maybe you are too busy looking for a chance to be right...but if you can even ASK if being legally correct and precise is "splitting hairs," and think that providing the relevant statute includes your letter from human services, then you clearly don't know the first thing you're typing.

I'm sorry, but yeah, I am not even going to bother responding to the letter thing anymore....both you and I know that it was never an issue in this case. Let it go homie!!

 

[Silverplum]

I'm sorry, but yeah, I am not even going to bother responding to the letter thing anymore....both you and I know that it was never an issue in this case. Let it go homie!!

1. I am not your "homie." Try again.

2. YOUR letter was never an issue in THIS case. That's true.

3. But YOU brought YOUR letter into this case. And offered it as your citation for your statements. That's where the problem came in. IF you plan to offer advice or info, MAKE SURE YOU CAN BACK IT UP.

When CJane asked you for a cite, it was because she KNEW you were WRONG and wanted to clarify the info not only for the OP, but for those rare future posters who actually read older posts first to get a handle on the legal situation in their state.

If you don't *get it* that you MUST provide CORRECT info, then you don't *get* a damn thing.

 

[Mike703]

1. I am not your "homie." Try again.

2. YOUR letter was never an issue in THIS case. That's true.

3. But YOU brought YOUR letter into this case. And offered it as your citation for your statements. That's where the problem came in. IF you plan to offer advice or info, MAKE SURE YOU CAN BACK IT UP.

When CJane asked you for a cite, it was because she KNEW you were WRONG and wanted to clarify the info not only for the OP, but for those rare future posters who actually read older posts first to get a handle on the legal situation in their state.

If you don't *get it* that you MUST provide CORRECT info, then you don't *get* a damn thing.

Talk about dead horse abuse...... I think i've proven my point *gone*