Another Child support question

[jbowman]

Sorry to beat a dead horse. But posters are told all the time on this site 'FOLLOW THE COURT ORDER" or "YOU CAN NOT IGNORE A COURT ORDER" when it comes to visitation, paying support, paying half of medical, whatever.

But on the other hand, CP's that come to get help regarding non payment or alleged hidden income or enforcement of a court order are told "STOP BE GREEDY', "QUIT COMPLAINING". It makes no sense to me. Two different messages are being sent. In essence saying "oh dont pay attention to that pesky court order---its only a guideline--a few missed months, or a few missed dollars means nothing because Bobby-Sue gets nothing".

I find it funny that a CP is considered "lucky" to get CS. Or lucky to get CS at an imputed income of X amount because so many people get less. What??? So if an imputed income is 30K (which apparently some feel is just peachy) but the NCP actually earns 65K, a CP should just settle for what their child is "lucky' enough to get.

Just because there are unfortunate people in the world--that dont earn very much money, that may be on welfare, that dont get CS--does not mean that others who have worked very hard for what they have should settle for less to balance the universe.

 

[MrsK]

Sorry to beat a dead horse. But posters are told all the time on this site 'FOLLOW THE COURT ORDER" or "YOU CAN NOT IGNORE A COURT ORDER" when it comes to visitation, paying support, paying half of medical, whatever.

But on the other hand, CP's that come to get help regarding non payment or alleged hidden income or enforcement of a court order are told "STOP BE GREEDY', "QUIT COMPLAINING". It makes no sense to me. Two different messages are being sent. In essence saying "oh dont pay attention to that pesky court order---its only a guideline--a few missed months, or a few missed dollars means nothing because Bobby-Sue gets nothing".

I find it funny that a CP is considered "lucky" to get CS. Or lucky to get CS at an imputed income of X amount because so many people get less. What??? So if an imputed income is 30K (which apparently some feel is just peachy) but the NCP actually earns 65K, a CP should just settle for what their child is "lucky' enough to get.

Just because there are unfortunate people in the world--that dont earn very much money, that may be on welfare, that dont get CS--does not mean that others who have worked very hard for what they have should settle for less to balance the universe.

Usually an NCP isnt imputed an 30k income when they make 65k. But if an NCP isnt working & is imputed a 30k income rather than, say, a min wage income, well I'd say that DOES make them lucky.

No one is saying 'settle for less' (or at least I'm not) but I think ppl are saying "Dont make a mountain out of a molehill" when the NCP is like a week behind in support.

 

[Silverplum]

No one is saying 'settle for less' (or at least I'm not) but I think ppl are saying "Dont make a mountain out of a molehill" when the NCP is like a week behind in support.

That's EXACTLY what *I* meant!!

Plus, one must consider the long-term, and maintaining a reasonably pleasant coparenting relationship, if at all possible. Freaking out on a minor lateness is not going to, ya know, take you there to the aforementioned reasonably pleasant coparenting relationship. It's a part of wisely picking battles, skirmishes, and wars.

 

[jbowman]

That's EXACTLY what *I* meant!!

But, Silver, what you are failing to see is that I WASN'T REFERRING TO YOU specifically. Seriously, I wasnt. I was referring to some of the information I have seen posted on this site repeatedly.

The two separate messages that getting sent. For example, there was a post recently regarding a woman with a 5 year old--no support order but is asking about getting one now because she is moving out of her parents home. She is berated for allowing 5 years to go by--she is a gold digger only out for the money etc.

Another post, a woman with a 5 year old. Also, no order of support. States she doesnt need it. She is told--"you really should go get a support order".

Two stories--almost the same situation but two different messages. Boggles the mind.

If you'd like the links, I will provide them but they are current posts.

Addition: Story 1. Not necessarily a likeable woman https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=356802

Story 2. Pretty much the same situation--more likeable woman https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=356869

 

[jbowman]

Usually an NCP isnt imputed an 30k income when they make 65k. But if an NCP isnt working & is imputed a 30k income rather than, say, a min wage income, well I'd say that DOES make them lucky.
.

No, youre right, I woudnt expect this situation to happen very often. BUT, if it does, why would the CP be berated and told to be happy with what she's got?

If an income is imputed based on prior work history--but suddenly the income is higher--or it is suspected to be higher, why would the poster not be advised to take measures to make the court see the difference rather than advising the poster to suck it up and quit complaining?

 

[amberlea434]

I'm pretty sure the woman in Story #1 was "berated" only because she didn't make any sense. She claimed for 5 years that she didn't need the fathers money, didn't want it, because her parents were taking care of her child for her. But then, all of a sudden, it's imperative that she receive child support now that she's going to be taking care of the child on her own. And that's fine, the child deserves the support, but everyone is trying to figure out WHY she waited so long to file if it's SO important.

Not that it changes how you feel about everything, J, I just wanted to throw that in there.

 

[jbowman]

I'm pretty sure the woman in Story #1 was "berated" only because she didn't make any sense. She claimed for 5 years that she didn't need the fathers money, didn't want it, because her parents were taking care of her child for her. But then, all of a sudden, it's imperative that she receive child support now that she's going to be taking care of the child on her own. And that's fine, the child deserves the support, but everyone is trying to figure out WHY she waited so long to file if it's SO important.

Not that it changes how you feel about everything, J, I just wanted to throw that in there.

Well thanks. But, think about it this way. This woman didnt feel like she "needed" it for the first 5 years of her child's life. Ok. She obviously didnt feel it was SO important until now. Its either here nor there because like you said the child deserves support.

Woman number 2 didnt feel like she "needed" it either but was still told to go file for it.

So legally both women were in the same position regardless of how they individually felt. But one was essentially told that she was rotten for asking for it and the other was urged to go file. I dont know. It just seems crappy to give out a different set of advice for people who are not liked vs. likeable people.

 

[Ohiogal]

Well thanks. But, think about it this way. This woman didnt feel like she "needed" it for the first 5 years of her child's life. Ok. She obviously didnt feel it was SO important until now. Its either here nor there because like you said the child deserves support.

Woman number 2 didnt feel like she "needed" it either but was still told to go file for it.

So legally both women were in the same position regardless of how they individually felt. But one was essentially told that she was rotten for asking for it and the other was urged to go file. I dont know. It just seems crappy to give out a different set of advice for people who are not liked vs. likeable people.

Truthfully the first woman's story was not making sense and she was looking for a way to deprive dad of his rights> I do not remember the other woman's story and didn't look it up. She waited five years and spent the posts degrading dad for doing nothing for five years. Well dad didn't have to do anything. It is not even clear if dad is dad at this point.

 

[jbowman]

Truthfully the first woman's story was not making sense and she was looking for a way to deprive dad of his rights> I do not remember the other woman's story and didn't look it up. She waited five years and spent the posts degrading dad for doing nothing for five years. Well dad didn't have to do anything. It is not even clear if dad is dad at this point.

And your point being?? So because she sucks, she is essentially told that she shouldn't go file for CS because she waited too long???

But the other one--whose child was also 5 was told "yeah you should go file".

Do you see the double standard there?

Maybe woman 1 hated the ex, she spent the posts degrading him, so what??? Alot of us hate the ex. No dad didnt have to do anything, and it was not clear if he was dad... AND?? why would she be discouraged from finding out just because of her personal choices?

 

[Ohiogal]

And your point being?? So because she sucks, she is essentially told that she shouldn't go file for CS because she waited too long???

But the other one--whose child was also 5 was told "yeah you should go file".

Do you see the double standard there?

Maybe woman 1 hated the ex, she spent the posts degrading him, so what??? Alot of us hate the ex. No dad didnt have to do anything, and it was not clear if he was dad... AND?? why would she be discouraged from finding out just because of her personal choices?

I am not saying she should not file. What I am saying is what I say in my posts -- she needs to realize what CS is -- and it is not an admission fee to see the child nor is it to cover her rent nor will it go up just because HER expenses go up. Yes she should file but she should also get an attitude adjustment.

 

[amberlea434]

Well thanks. But, think about it this way. This woman didnt feel like she "needed" it for the first 5 years of her child's life. Ok. She obviously didnt feel it was SO important until now. Its either here nor there because like you said the child deserves support.

Woman number 2 didnt feel like she "needed" it either but was still told to go file for it.

So legally both women were in the same position regardless of how they individually felt. But one was essentially told that she was rotten for asking for it and the other was urged to go file. I dont know. It just seems crappy to give out a different set of advice for people who are not liked vs. likeable people.

I think the difference between advice given to these two women are that the experienced members on this board can see right through posters that are full of it.

The second woman differs from the first in saying that she has encouraged contact between the father and child at any given time since birth. She hasn't filed for CS because she doesn't need it, and her question wasn't regarding CS, anyway. She's just afraid that since an order isn't set, the father could take the child and not bring him back. They're telling her to go ahead and get a court order for custody and CS as a precaution incase their civil co-parenting relationship happens to turn sour in the future.

The first woman's motives were very obvious from the get-go as to why she wanted CS.

 

[Silverplum]

J-Bo, I accept, acknowledge, and honor your contribution and opinion. I can totally see where you are coming from. I also appreciate your stubborn opposition to what you see is wrong.

I also know that you acknowledge my point of view here, as well. I have no problem with you.

Amberlea got it right in her last post, as far as I'm concerned. One poster totally accepted the fatherhood of the dad. The other just acted like he was a potential ATM.

Those posters are likely long gone by now. Can we let it go?

 

[fairisfair]

good lord, I have a stuck finger, and now a headache. Every single one of you involved in this argument has a basic interest in providing good fair information for the posters here. Even the naughty ones. Let it go, please my head is pounding.

I say we raise a glass to each other, and to the damn fine job we are doing here.

Salute!!!!

 

[fairisfair]

Never mind my stuck finger, Silver fixed it. LOL

Now stop fighting.

 

[Silverplum]

Never mind my stuck finger, Silver fixed it. LOL

Now stop fighting.

Hee!
All I wanna know now is: Does jbowman like the nick "J-Bo?"
Or is the close comparison to (the horrid) "J-Lo" too much for jbowman to bear?