Do I have a say here?

[TCool]

I would rather people take care of their support obligations before they decide they want to go take some classes. If they can't afford their kids while they quit their job to go to school, then they should figure out how to keep their full time job and go to school online at night, while their relatives or friends watch their kids, or after they save up enough money.

Its not the government that "keeps people poor." Its bad planning on people's part.

True, and I agree (for the most part, some government systems are severely flawed and definitely contribute to a cycle of poverty). But what I'm getting at is that the government has no problem offering aid to people who don't work at all (I know many of those people) but does have issues offering aid to someone who is going to school. For example, I know a lot of people who live in my home town and clog up the system. They decide not to work because they get food stamps, insurance and cheap rent in the low income housing and can get by on just what they get from ex's in child support. On the other hand someone like me gets rejected for all but state insurance because, as they told me, I am a student. It is not going to hold me back any, I will make it through, but it is a stupid system and needs to be fixed. It incentivizes being poor and their are too many people willing to take advantage of that. But, that is a political issue and probably isn't one for discussion on a legal forum.

Anyway, if someone could answer my question about the purging of the contempt that would be great.

 

[brennonsdaddy05]

You don't have any choice in this! Your ex has a legal obligation to support her child, whether she is pregnant with another child or not. She has to support all her children! She needs to find a way to do it and because you are receiving state help they will force you to do it. No exeptions! If she cannot afford it she needs to re-appear and file a modification order.

 

[garrula lingua]

The court set a 'purge'/coercive amount.

It might be the entire amount due, or just the amount the court ordered her to pay during the deferred period (from the initial contempt finding to the compliance hearing).

If the amount ordered will pay the arrears in full before the compliance hearing, she will be in compliance (safe).

If the court ordered her to pay a specific amount of arrears before the compliance hearing, the court will, usually, not count an involuntary capture of funds (such as an IRS intercept/federal offset). In that case, she would be out of compliance with the court's orders and could go to jail.

If the Judge ordered an amount specific to be paid by your ex; your ex must comply or go to jail.

 

[TCool]

You don't have any choice in this! Your ex has a legal obligation to support her child, whether she is pregnant with another child or not. She has to support all her children! She needs to find a way to do it and because you are receiving state help they will force you to do it. No exeptions! If she cannot afford it she needs to re-appear and file a modification order.

I know, I'm not questioning that anymore. I am questioning if the part that says the contempt will be purged by her paying $944 means that if she pays that to me around Feb (from tax returns) that come 5/1/09 if she hasn't resumed paying she doesn't go to jail? The contempt order says she has to resume paying 5/1/09 or go to jail for 60 days, but at the bottom of the order it says the contempt charge will be purged if she pays $944. That money will be coming to me from her tax returns, she already got the order stating it will be taken by the state for child support. So that will be getting paid, but she will then most likely be behind again come May, but to me saying the contempt charge will be purged means nothing in that order will apply anymore. But again, I am not a legal expert and I've learned that many times these things don't exactly mean what they appear to mean (to me anyway).

So, I am sorry for the confusion, perhaps I should have started a new thread regarding this, but I assumed everyone would read the new post before responding.

 

[TCool]

The court set a 'purge'/coercive amount.

It might be the entire amount due, or just the amount the court ordered her to pay during the deferred period (from the initial contempt finding to the compliance hearing).

If the amount ordered will pay the arrears in full before the compliance hearing, she will be in compliance (safe).

If the court ordered her to pay a specific amount of arrears before the compliance hearing, the court will, usually, not count an involuntary capture of funds (such as an IRS intercept/federal offset). In that case, she would be out of compliance with the court's orders and could go to jail.

If the Judge ordered an amount specific to be paid by your ex; your ex must comply or go to jail.

Well, it ordered her to resume paying $240 per month plus an extra amount to cover the arrears, I think about an extra $20 per month, starting 5/1/09. But in a separate part of the order it says the contempt charge will be purged if she pays the $944 dollars. So, from that and what you say I am guessing as long as she pays that $944 dollars before 5/1/09 she is safe until any further contempt order.

So, she wouldn't necessarily have to resume paying 5/1/09 to avoid jail if she meets the requirements of having it purged. Correct?

 

[garrula lingua]

She must continue to pay the current amt due of $240 a month; otherwise, she is not in compliance.

If she is found to be in compliance on her court date, the common event is for her to be put on 'suspension'/probation for several years. Her payments will be monitored. If she fails to pay, she may have her probation revoked and she would, again, be facing jail.

She has to support her children - just because she's a female, the responsibility isn't less, and there's no greater sympathy for a deadbeat Mom.
Get off state aid and then she doesn't have to support them ... you could then close your case.

But remember, college is going to be a lot more expensive for your little ones, and I don't think either one of you is saving anything for the children.

 

[TCool]

Well, taking her off of insurance is not an option, that is the only aid we currently get. It would be irresponsible to do that.

If she is found to be in compliance on her court date, the common event is for her to be put on 'suspension'/probation for several years. Her payments will be monitored. If she fails to pay, she may have her probation revoked and she would, again, be facing jail.

Ok, that pretty much answers my question. I'm not going to go out of my way to help her, she got herself into this situation. I just felt like being nice and trying to offer her some advice. Obviously that advice is going to be "GET A JOB!"

But remember, college is going to be a lot more expensive for your little ones, and I don't think either one of you is saving anything for the children.

Well, obviously at this moment we are not. She does nothing, and I'm struggling to get through school. However, the amount of money I'll be able to put away for her education after getting my own education will be much higher than it would be if I had just chose to work a dead end job all these years instead of going to school. It's only 4 years, and there is no guarantee that me working full time those years instead of going to school would have allowed me to put away anything. However, with the education I will have a much higher earnings potential and will be able to put money away for her education. Especially since I'm going to one of the best Business schools in the nation.

 

[LdiJ]

Well, taking her off of insurance is not an option, that is the only aid we currently get. It would be irresponsible to do that.



Ok, that pretty much answers my question. I'm not going to go out of my way to help her, she got herself into this situation. I just felt like being nice and trying to offer her some advice. Obviously that advice is going to be "GET A JOB!"



Well, obviously at this moment we are not. She does nothing, and I'm struggling to get through school. However, the amount of money I'll be able to put away for her education after getting my own education will be much higher than it would be if I had just chose to work a dead end job all these years instead of going to school. It's only 4 years, and there is no guarantee that me working full time those years instead of going to school would have allowed me to put away anything. However, with the education I will have a much higher earnings potential and will be able to put money away for her education. Especially since I'm going to one of the best Business schools in the nation.

You know, I don't mind at all that my tax dollars are currently contributing to the support of someone like you.

Other posters on this forum don't necessarily agree. However, I know that the amount you are costing the taxpayers right now, will be more than made up in the taxes you will be contributing once you finish your education and are employed.

The medical assistance and perhaps EIC that you are getting now, will cost the taxpayers far less than the EIC you would likely be receiving until your child was grown if you went the dead end job route.

So good for you for getting your education.

 

[TCool]

You know, I don't mind at all that my tax dollars are currently contributing to the support of someone like you.

Other posters on this forum don't necessarily agree. However, I know that the amount you are costing the taxpayers right now, will be more than made up in the taxes you will be contributing once you finish your education and are employed.

The medical assistance and perhaps EIC that you are getting now, will cost the taxpayers far less than the EIC you would likely be receiving until your child was grown if you went the dead end job route.

So good for you for getting your education.

Thank you! I'm glad I'm not the only person who see's it that way.