Another Child support question

[jbowman]

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?

If I had an ass like J-Lo, I might appreciate that but unfortunately I am severely lacking in the cute booty area.

J-bo is good--although it sounds like Deliverance music should be playing when you call me that.

 

[texgirl]

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.

J-Bo--I am the person who posted about the question about imputed income and increase in child support, and I agree that some of the responses were pretty strange (the guy obsessed with my income, for one!). As I explained, the ex was working for his wife on a 1099 basis and was judged to be underemployed--and meanwhile was living a pretty comfortable lifestyle. All of which is pretty suspicious, no? And if ex's wife is helping him to avoid paying the correct amount of child support, why shouldn't I pursue an increase aggressively?

And I agree with your general point as well. If a CP denies visitation under any circumstances (suspected abuse, for example), they are treated with scorn,while other CPs are mocked for being upset that their support is late or missed.

 

[jbowman]

J-Bo--I am the person who posted about the question about imputed income and increase in child support, and I agree that some of the responses were pretty strange (the guy obsessed with my income, for one!). As I explained, the ex was working for his wife on a 1099 basis and was judged to be underemployed--and meanwhile was living a pretty comfortable lifestyle. All of which is pretty suspicious, no? And if ex's wife is helping him to avoid paying the correct amount of child support, why shouldn't I pursue an increase aggressively?

I will explain why this bothered me so much. I am/was in the same situation. The NCP in my case is hiding income using his wife's bank account. He is also paid by 1099, not bringing more than one to court--when I know he is getting a couple 1099's. I can't prove it. They have a VERY comfortable lifestyle. And while I do fine in the financial department, I am very disgruntled that he is able to shurk (sp) his responsibility. No, I will not go without if I dont get his CS, I will not suffer if I dont get more. But if both parents should provide for their child equally then, why I am paying more??? It matters not, how much I make. I could make 100 K per year, but the NCP is still responsible for contributing honestly to the support of his child. When I hear "stop complaining, think of the less fortunate" it pisses me off. But, I digress. I love my Silverplum and Fair so Im done harping.

 

[Ohiogal]

I will explain why this bothered me so much. I am/was in the same situation. The NCP in my case is hiding income using his wife's bank account. He is also paid by 1099, not bringing more than one to court--when I know he is getting a couple 1099's. I can't prove it. They have a VERY comfortable lifestyle. And while I do fine in the financial department, I am very disgruntled that he is able to shurk (sp) his responsibility. No, I will not go without if I dont get his CS, I will not suffer if I dont get more. But if both parents should provide for their child equally then, why I am paying more??? It matters not, how much I make. I could make 100 K per year, but the NCP is still responsible for contributing honestly to the support of his child. When I hear "stop complaining, think of the less fortunate" it pisses me off. But, I digress. I love my Silverplum and Fair so Im done harping.

That is your problem right there -- both parents are not supposed to provide for their child equally. It doesn't work that way. Both parents are supposed to provide for their child based on how much they earn. Not how much the stepparents earn.

 

[texgirl]

That is your problem right there -- both parents are not supposed to provide for their child equally. It doesn't work that way. Both parents are supposed to provide for their child based on how much they earn. Not how much the stepparents earn.

I can't speak for J-Bo, but I am not going after the stepmom's earings. I am upset at the situation where ex is engaging in what appears to be fraud to reduce child support. Can we agree that there are people who do this? And that is it wrong? And that it ok for CPs to do what they can to legally seek redress? And that this does not mean they are greedy *******?

 

[jbowman]

I can't speak for J-Bo, but I am not going after the stepmom's earings. I am upset at the situation where ex is engaging in what appears to be fraud to reduce child support. Can we agree that there are people who do this? And that is it wrong? And that it ok for CPs to do what they can to legally seek redress? And that this does not mean they are greedy *******?

Oh, no I am definitely not trying to go after step mom's earnings. I said that he is hiding his income in her bank account. Only claiming a portion of it.

And as far as providing equally--I am actually referring to a shared income state. And in that case, yes, we are both supposed to provide equally--based on the percentage of time each child spends with parent.

 

[Accountable]

I'm certain that I will be facing this battle as well. Our next court date is to debate the SOL defense in establishing paternity, which I'm certain the court will rule in my favor. The State, in their suit to establish paternity and support, based their calculation of support on the fathers' boastings on his public internet forum for a business he is in partnership with his current wife. The maxium income Texas will use to compute support on is $6000/mo, and the father's boastings were that they earn nearly six times that, so his 50% would clearly AT LEAST qualify for the maximum of $6000. However, his attorney claims he is nearly bankrupt. Well, on closer scrutiny, it appears that their earnings funnel through an LLC and a buik goes straight into a retirement account. He deeded his interest in the 5000 sq ft home to his wife just a few months after they closed on it.

Personally, I don't care if they just compute his income on his earning capacity or even minimum wage, for that matter. It would still be more than I am receiving in assistance from him now. I'm frankly more interested in just establishing paternity, for my daughter's sake. However, since I am now also supporting my mother who receives only a pittance of SSI and whose medical expenses currently exceed her SSI, ANY amount of support will help as my daughter's expenses will increase when she starts high school in the fall.

 

[texgirl]

Oh, no I am definitely not trying to go after step mom's earnings. I said that he is hiding his income in her bank account. Only claiming a portion of it.

And as far as providing equally--I am actually referring to a shared income state. And in that case, yes, we are both supposed to provide equally--based on the percentage of time each child spends with parent.

I didn't mean to imply you were, simply clarifying that I can only speak about my own situation. I think we actually face a similar obstacle in which 1099 status is being manipulated to hide income. I know, for example, that ex works long hours in his wife's business--often going in on weekends and working until 8 or 9 at night. However, if you look at his reported earnings, it seems he is working only intermittently. So judge declared him to be underemployed, but the fact is that he and his wife are working to suppress his earnings.

In my state (TX), child support is not based on shared income model. It is a straight 20% of NCP's income--that is why I said my income doesn't matter in my original post about child support modificaiton.

 

[texgirl]

I'm certain that I will be facing this battle as well. Our next court date is to debate the SOL defense in establishing paternity, which I'm certain the court will rule in my favor. The State, in their suit to establish paternity and support, based their calculation of support on the fathers' boastings on his public internet forum for a business he is in partnership with his current wife. The maxium income Texas will use to compute support on is $6000/mo, and the father's boastings were that they earn nearly six times that, so his 50% would clearly AT LEAST qualify for the maximum of $6000. However, his attorney claims he is nearly bankrupt. Well, on closer scrutiny, it appears that their earnings funnel through an LLC and a buik goes straight into a retirement account. He deeded his interest in the 5000 sq ft home to his wife just a few months after they closed on it.

Personally, I don't care if they just compute his income on his earning capacity or even minimum wage, for that matter. It would still be more than I am receiving in assistance from him now. I'm frankly more interested in just establishing paternity, for my daughter's sake. However, since I am now also supporting my mother who receives only a pittance of SSI and whose medical expenses currently exceed her SSI, ANY amount of support will help as my daughter's expenses will increase when she starts high school in the fall.

I am glad to hear the state is being so aggressive and using the website information to bag him. That hasn't been my experience in TX. What county are you in? I'm in Travis.

 

[Accountable]

Tarrant. The AG's office used his statements concerning his income on the internet, because they had nothing else. They scheduled a child support negotiation conference in which we were both instructed to bring proof of income. He didn't bother to show up, so they had nothing else. I, however, had printed out all of the internet research I had done, as well as my evidence that the SOL does not apply in this situation. So, once they agreed with me that he is the likely father, they used his own words in calculating support.

 

[Accountable]

Oh, and since learning that I saw his boastings on his website, he modified to read only that he has a "comfortable living", removing any specific figures. However, the site shows the date the edit was made and that he was the person making the edit.

 

[Ohiogal]

Oh, no I am definitely not trying to go after step mom's earnings. I said that he is hiding his income in her bank account. Only claiming a portion of it.

And as far as providing equally--I am actually referring to a shared income state. And in that case, yes, we are both supposed to provide equally--based on the percentage of time each child spends with parent.

Again you are wrong. You are not supposed to provide equally in a shared income state. You are supposed to provide in a manner related to the amount of time your child spends with each parent AND the percentage amount of income each parent earns in relation to the whole. In other words if mom earns 55% of the income and dad earns 45% percent of the income then it is equivalent to mom paying 55% of the support and dad paying 45% of the support. The amount of time spent with each parent dictates who pays who but NOT what amount. If mom has the child 55% of the time and provides 55% of the support and dad has the child 45% of the time and provides 45% of the support then neither pays the other.

 

[jbowman]

Again you are wrong. You are not supposed to provide equally in a shared income state. You are supposed to provide in a manner related to the amount of time your child spends with each parent AND the percentage amount of income each parent earns in relation to the whole. In other words if mom earns 55% of the income and dad earns 45% percent of the income then it is equivalent to mom paying 55% of the support and dad paying 45% of the support. The amount of time spent with each parent dictates who pays who but NOT what amount. If mom has the child 55% of the time and provides 55% of the support and dad has the child 45% of the time and provides 45% of the support then neither pays the other.

OK OHIOGAL OK. Christ, maybe I should have said FAIRLY instead of EQUALLY.

Bottom line, NCP should be contributing FAIRLY as per the laws in their state, ok with that??? All Im trying to say is that if the NCP is hiding income, well then, I am paying more than I should to financially support my child. He needs to kick in his legitimate share. And just because it may be alot to some--it is NOT what it should be legally, therefore I will complain regardless if people tell me I am greedy.