Ohiogal
Queen Bee
No I am not. The title CUSTODIAL parent doesn't matter. What matters is dad has every right to request child support from mom since dad is the one raising the child and IS the custodial parent.
-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
Child decides to live with non custody parent
- Thread starter ServedMinnesota
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
- Status
ServedMinnesota
Junior Member
Wow
Listen, I did not come on here to piss anyone off.
I did not think I went overboard about describing Dick. If I did, I did not mean to offend anyone. I am just not used to dealing with sensitive people. This obviously was a hot button for you all.
All of the info about the police and the origional order and the school districts seem to me to be just bits of info for you to gossip about and go way off topic, like you did.
For instance, the school district does not matter. The move was only 20 miles. The child could still have comuted to the school if she chose to - open enrollment. That is not an issue and you seem to be distracted by it.
Who I am seems to be a distraction as well. Even though you clearly stated it is none of my business and I am to stay out of it. I freely admited I can not change any of the events. I was just looking for advice of what the COURTS would do, not looking for anyones personal opinion.
Listen, I did not come on here to piss anyone off.
I did not think I went overboard about describing Dick. If I did, I did not mean to offend anyone. I am just not used to dealing with sensitive people. This obviously was a hot button for you all.
All of the info about the police and the origional order and the school districts seem to me to be just bits of info for you to gossip about and go way off topic, like you did.
For instance, the school district does not matter. The move was only 20 miles. The child could still have comuted to the school if she chose to - open enrollment. That is not an issue and you seem to be distracted by it.
Who I am seems to be a distraction as well. Even though you clearly stated it is none of my business and I am to stay out of it. I freely admited I can not change any of the events. I was just looking for advice of what the COURTS would do, not looking for anyones personal opinion.
If Jane IS so concerned about her child's well-being while with Dick, she should contact her local DHS/CPS office and see if the situation is legally tolerable. There ARE regulations (at least, in nearly every other state that I've lived in) for acceptable living conditions for a minor child, whether she chooses to live with that parent or not. Also, there are guidelines (at least, here in FL, and in VA, MD) for what is considered "fit parenting." Letting an underage child DRINK (alcohol) is enough grounds to have a child taken away.
If Jane's not THAT upset about her child's living conditions then you shouldn't be, either. And prior to inquiring, bear in mind that if the suspicions are baseless and/or exaggerated, you've committed a crime (here, it's a crime to file a fraudulent report to CPS), and will only incur or increase resentment between Jane and her child.
As to your questions about maintaining the readiness: AFAIC, she should "maintain" a home for her child, living with her or not. What if Dick dies? Becomes hospitalized? Daughter is not old enough to live on her own in an empty apartment -- unless she's been emancipated -- in which case, there's no child support at issue ... so of course, I'd assume that she'd end up living with Jane.
I wouldn't be surprised if the court system sees it the same way.
As to reducing the child support, AFAICS, the child support for child #1 would be eliminated, while CS for child #2 would continue (again, based on FL, VA, MD). Therefore, the CS would be reduced to be commiserate with the number of children living with Jane.
As to what do in court, be honest. Don't bash, don't complain ... just state the facts.
ServedMinnesota
Junior Member
Wow
Listen, I did not come on here to piss anyone off.
I did not think I went overboard about describing Dick. If I did, I did not mean to offend anyone. I am just not used to dealing with sensitive people. This obviously was a hot button for you all.
All of the info about the police and the origional order and the school districts seem to me to be just bits of info for you to gossip about and go way off topic, like you did.
For instance, the school district does not matter. The move was only 20 miles. The child could still have comuted to the school if she chose to - open enrollment. That is not an issue and you seem to be distracted by it. The house size does not matter either. It just seems odd to me that we should have to maintain a room for her and not be reinburst by the dad for it. If he is not paying any additional expenses and Jane is still paying for all of childs bills, why or by how much would the support be changed.
Who I am seems to be a distraction as well. Even though you clearly stated it is none of my business and I am to stay out of it. I freely admited I can not change any of the events. I was just looking for advice of what the COURTS would do, not looking for anyones personal opinion. I am not looking for advice at what should have been done. It seems kinda odd that the couch quarterbacks have a stong opinion about a case they know little of the facts. For instance, if you are smoker you will not think this is a big deal, but Dick smokes heavily inside his house. Not illegal. But everyone on the planet, including dick and the child know that secondhand smoke causes lots of health problems. So that is one reason of many that would seem to go way off topic, but I was just trying to say no one want to see him in jail, he is just doing stuff that I think most would not agree with.
yeah... the whole situation sucks. But I am doing the best that I can with the power that I have to make sure the child gets a good education and then a job so she will not end up pregnat and on welfare or think that living off unemployment is a good life. Just trying to lead by example that.... nevermind....
Anyways... please give me advice of what the COURTS would do in this case.
Listen, I did not come on here to piss anyone off.
I did not think I went overboard about describing Dick. If I did, I did not mean to offend anyone. I am just not used to dealing with sensitive people. This obviously was a hot button for you all.
All of the info about the police and the origional order and the school districts seem to me to be just bits of info for you to gossip about and go way off topic, like you did.
For instance, the school district does not matter. The move was only 20 miles. The child could still have comuted to the school if she chose to - open enrollment. That is not an issue and you seem to be distracted by it. The house size does not matter either. It just seems odd to me that we should have to maintain a room for her and not be reinburst by the dad for it. If he is not paying any additional expenses and Jane is still paying for all of childs bills, why or by how much would the support be changed.
Who I am seems to be a distraction as well. Even though you clearly stated it is none of my business and I am to stay out of it. I freely admited I can not change any of the events. I was just looking for advice of what the COURTS would do, not looking for anyones personal opinion. I am not looking for advice at what should have been done. It seems kinda odd that the couch quarterbacks have a stong opinion about a case they know little of the facts. For instance, if you are smoker you will not think this is a big deal, but Dick smokes heavily inside his house. Not illegal. But everyone on the planet, including dick and the child know that secondhand smoke causes lots of health problems. So that is one reason of many that would seem to go way off topic, but I was just trying to say no one want to see him in jail, he is just doing stuff that I think most would not agree with.
yeah... the whole situation sucks. But I am doing the best that I can with the power that I have to make sure the child gets a good education and then a job so she will not end up pregnat and on welfare or think that living off unemployment is a good life. Just trying to lead by example that.... nevermind....
Anyways... please give me advice of what the COURTS would do in this case.
Granted, but still, considering the topic/forum, I think not expecting to hear quite a bit of bashing is like going to the monkey house at the zoo and being surprised when the apes start throwing poo.
Anywho, when does rampant bashing about a spouse's evil ex become valid concern over the safety of a child?
Personally, I'm more concerned whether he's bashing the father in front of child #2. Spanking "Dick" in front of a bunch of strangers is one thing; talking badly about "Dick's" character in front of his flesh and blood is another thing entirely.
Last edited:
ServedMinnesota
Junior Member
just the facts
Thats what I meant by the statement.
I do not have your lingo down but I am picking up the vocabulary.
He is not doing anything illegal. No underage drinking. Clean home. Just allowing work hours that would raise an eyebrow. No drugs. Smoking openly in home - but child openly chooses to be in environment of second hand smoke - complains about it, but still chooses to be there. Jane is not going to call CPS on him.
Dick is not EVIL and does not need to have the child taken away from him for safety reasons
No one is talking trash in front of the kids in this case. I assumed that this was an annonymous adult forum and none of the parties involved would ever read this. I am simply doing this for my own information so I can wade though the muck and mire with some direction. I will keep it in check for this discussion.
Now we are getting into good quality information... thank you...
As to your questions about maintaining the readiness: AFAIC, she should "maintain" a home for her child, living with her or not. What if Dick dies? Becomes hospitalized? Daughter is not old enough to live on her own in an empty apartment -- unless she's been emancipated -- in which case, there's no child support at issue ... so of course, I'd assume that she'd end up living with Jane.
I am not sure if she would. She expressed interest in living with Jane and the EVIL BOORISH SLANDERING stepdad once she is 18 and I think she wants my help to pay for college, but it is odd to me that 18 is the magic number for her. Under 18 and the child does not want to live here.
more good information ... thanks...
As to reducing the child support, AFAICS, the child support for child #1 would be eliminated, while CS for child #2 would continue (again, based on FL, VA, MD). Therefore, the CS would be reduced to be commiserate with the number of children living with Jane.
As to what do in court, be honest. Don't bash, don't complain ... just state the facts.
I am getting better at that. I think someone on here is taking the Dick name for a hidden meaning. After I reflect on it, a poor choice of names for this board. Though common in generic discussions, I can see how some on here take offense to it. If you want, call her the Wicked Witch and him the Poor Abused Ex Husband. I dont care. I am just trying to figure out how this all works.
So, do I assume correctly that Jane should still be paying for all expenses, just as child support was intended, until the court date and then Dick will assume all expenses for the child? Will Jane now be ordered by the court to start making payments to Dick?
Thats what I meant by the statement.
I do not have your lingo down but I am picking up the vocabulary.
He is not doing anything illegal. No underage drinking. Clean home. Just allowing work hours that would raise an eyebrow. No drugs. Smoking openly in home - but child openly chooses to be in environment of second hand smoke - complains about it, but still chooses to be there. Jane is not going to call CPS on him.
Dick is not EVIL and does not need to have the child taken away from him for safety reasons
No one is talking trash in front of the kids in this case. I assumed that this was an annonymous adult forum and none of the parties involved would ever read this. I am simply doing this for my own information so I can wade though the muck and mire with some direction. I will keep it in check for this discussion.
Now we are getting into good quality information... thank you...
As to your questions about maintaining the readiness: AFAIC, she should "maintain" a home for her child, living with her or not. What if Dick dies? Becomes hospitalized? Daughter is not old enough to live on her own in an empty apartment -- unless she's been emancipated -- in which case, there's no child support at issue ... so of course, I'd assume that she'd end up living with Jane.
I am not sure if she would. She expressed interest in living with Jane and the EVIL BOORISH SLANDERING stepdad once she is 18 and I think she wants my help to pay for college, but it is odd to me that 18 is the magic number for her. Under 18 and the child does not want to live here.
more good information ... thanks...
As to reducing the child support, AFAICS, the child support for child #1 would be eliminated, while CS for child #2 would continue (again, based on FL, VA, MD). Therefore, the CS would be reduced to be commiserate with the number of children living with Jane.
As to what do in court, be honest. Don't bash, don't complain ... just state the facts.
I am getting better at that. I think someone on here is taking the Dick name for a hidden meaning. After I reflect on it, a poor choice of names for this board. Though common in generic discussions, I can see how some on here take offense to it. If you want, call her the Wicked Witch and him the Poor Abused Ex Husband. I dont care. I am just trying to figure out how this all works.
So, do I assume correctly that Jane should still be paying for all expenses, just as child support was intended, until the court date and then Dick will assume all expenses for the child? Will Jane now be ordered by the court to start making payments to Dick?
Last edited by a moderator:
Silverplum
Senior Member
We are a prep for Court and for dealing with lawyers. So you are expected to act like a grownup, mature and with emotion in check.
I can guarantee you, if you were to speak this way in front of your wife's attorney, the attorney would drop your wife as a client in an instant. Or, at the very least, make sure you were entirely removed from all proceedings.
And it wouldn't be like getting candy.
ServedMinnesota
Junior Member
ohio gal
The title CUSTODIAL parent doesn't matter. What matters is dad has every right to request child support from mom since dad is the one raising the child and IS the custodial parent.
So if I understand this, it does not matter right now who is paying for what and who is not paying for things. It does not matter who is custodial or non.
What does matter is the physical place of residence?
I can certainly see that in a clear situation where the noncustodial parent is paying for all the bills and the custodial parent does not pay any bills but is still getting the child support payment.
Does it make a difference in this case where the non resident parent is paying all the expenses?
I was curious what would happen if he gets custody or child support payment removed (are they the same thing?) and he and the child have a fight and kicks her out. She is now with mom. Does mom go back to court and get the child support changed again?
Does this go back and forth, on and on, or does the court determine that this has to remain in effect for a certain period of time?
The title CUSTODIAL parent doesn't matter. What matters is dad has every right to request child support from mom since dad is the one raising the child and IS the custodial parent.
So if I understand this, it does not matter right now who is paying for what and who is not paying for things. It does not matter who is custodial or non.
What does matter is the physical place of residence?
I can certainly see that in a clear situation where the noncustodial parent is paying for all the bills and the custodial parent does not pay any bills but is still getting the child support payment.
Does it make a difference in this case where the non resident parent is paying all the expenses?
I was curious what would happen if he gets custody or child support payment removed (are they the same thing?) and he and the child have a fight and kicks her out. She is now with mom. Does mom go back to court and get the child support changed again?
Does this go back and forth, on and on, or does the court determine that this has to remain in effect for a certain period of time?
ServedMinnesota
Junior Member
silverplum
We are a prep for Court and for dealing with lawyers. So you are expected to act like a grownup, mature and with emotion in check.
I can guarantee you, if you were to speak this way in front of your wife's attorney, the attorney would drop your wife as a client in an instant. Or, at the very least, make sure you were entirely removed from all proceedings.
And it wouldn't be like getting candy.
Ok... for goodness sake how much more do you have to rub my nose in it. I do not say anything bad in front of the kids, I do not act like a sourpuss in front of the kids. I do not act bad in front of the ex. I let my guard down a bit here and you put me back in check. Good for you. I should ALWAYS act the adult. Please get on with the business of the forum.
We are a prep for Court and for dealing with lawyers. So you are expected to act like a grownup, mature and with emotion in check.
I can guarantee you, if you were to speak this way in front of your wife's attorney, the attorney would drop your wife as a client in an instant. Or, at the very least, make sure you were entirely removed from all proceedings.
And it wouldn't be like getting candy.
Ok... for goodness sake how much more do you have to rub my nose in it. I do not say anything bad in front of the kids, I do not act like a sourpuss in front of the kids. I do not act bad in front of the ex. I let my guard down a bit here and you put me back in check. Good for you. I should ALWAYS act the adult. Please get on with the business of the forum.
Silverplum
Senior Member
I was merely answering your question/comment, particularly about us being "sensitive people." See the quote? Then my answer? It's not a matter of US being "sensitive." It's a matter of the COURT and the LAW being "sensitive" to language.
This IS the "business of the forum."
Last edited by a moderator:
ServedMinnesota
Junior Member
Zigner
Step back a bit...WHY is mom still paying those things. Wouldn't it be wiser to agree that the FATHER no longer has to pay child support for that child, and then the FATHER can pay for those things?
As the evil stepdad, thats what I kind of thought too.
Mom is paying because she is the one receiving the child support check and she is spending the check on the child as she is supposed to.
The moms feeling is that dad will not pick up the slack if he stops paying for child support.
I can see from his point, why should I have to pay twice?
If it was just straight cut I would agree with the thought that dad gets the child and all expenses and no support payment. But the feeling from my camp is that he will pocket the money, the child will still come to mom for $$$ and clothing and medical, etc. The dad does not have a good history being generous with his money and .... scratch that.....
how to say without upsetting people
The dad does not have a good history spending money on the child in a manner that is accepted by the courts and the general public unless he has to. The support payment seems to keep him in check. And dont go off the deep end on me either. I dont expect him to burden the entire cost of the child either. I expect I will be paying some hefty tuition bills in the not too distant future. I doubt he will contribute to those costs.
I am trying to learn to use different language to not upset anyone. I am not being sarcastic. I know you could read it that way. I was just trying to show that I caught myself and am trying to do it correctly
Step back a bit...WHY is mom still paying those things. Wouldn't it be wiser to agree that the FATHER no longer has to pay child support for that child, and then the FATHER can pay for those things?
As the evil stepdad, thats what I kind of thought too.
Mom is paying because she is the one receiving the child support check and she is spending the check on the child as she is supposed to.
The moms feeling is that dad will not pick up the slack if he stops paying for child support.
I can see from his point, why should I have to pay twice?
If it was just straight cut I would agree with the thought that dad gets the child and all expenses and no support payment. But the feeling from my camp is that he will pocket the money, the child will still come to mom for $$$ and clothing and medical, etc. The dad does not have a good history being generous with his money and .... scratch that.....
how to say without upsetting people
The dad does not have a good history spending money on the child in a manner that is accepted by the courts and the general public unless he has to. The support payment seems to keep him in check. And dont go off the deep end on me either. I dont expect him to burden the entire cost of the child either. I expect I will be paying some hefty tuition bills in the not too distant future. I doubt he will contribute to those costs.
I am trying to learn to use different language to not upset anyone. I am not being sarcastic. I know you could read it that way. I was just trying to show that I caught myself and am trying to do it correctly
Last edited:
ServedMinnesota
Junior Member
for goodness sake
I am not butting in!
Does anyone else see me as butting in?
I am trying my hardest to show that I am trying to learn the process and know what could happen.
Everyone gets so personal in here.
I am no more intersted than a factory manager is interested in one particular worker. The factory manager is more interested in the process and what makes the decisions go from here to there.
I am in a catch 22 so a little bit of help would be appreciated.
I know I am in a keep my opinions to myself - never said I was looking to share them to the direct parties involved. I thought being uninvolved parties you would be less sensitive.
On the same boat, I bet I would be bashed just as much by the ones doing the bashing if I was UNINVOLVED and INDIFFERENT get away from me, I can not wait until you are 18 type attitude step dad.
I find it hard to see how someone can connect dots of me being concerned of a child being in a smoke environment (not illegal) and working long hours at a subway rather than getting good grades in school (not illegal) and would have me labled as a trouble maker that should just butt out.
I am not butting in!
Does anyone else see me as butting in?
I am trying my hardest to show that I am trying to learn the process and know what could happen.
Everyone gets so personal in here.
I am no more intersted than a factory manager is interested in one particular worker. The factory manager is more interested in the process and what makes the decisions go from here to there.
I am in a catch 22 so a little bit of help would be appreciated.
I know I am in a keep my opinions to myself - never said I was looking to share them to the direct parties involved. I thought being uninvolved parties you would be less sensitive.
On the same boat, I bet I would be bashed just as much by the ones doing the bashing if I was UNINVOLVED and INDIFFERENT get away from me, I can not wait until you are 18 type attitude step dad.
I find it hard to see how someone can connect dots of me being concerned of a child being in a smoke environment (not illegal) and working long hours at a subway rather than getting good grades in school (not illegal) and would have me labled as a trouble maker that should just butt out.
Last edited:
- Status
Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!
Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">