playing games

[la4lyfe]

thanks guys for all the input but it just seems to me that the NCP ALWAYS get the shortend of the stick when it comes to seeing our child(ren)..But, it never a problem when it comes time to pay support,,I am not saying that I don't mind paying support but the problem is that I know that I am paying to much and it has to be modified..she is making $33K and i am making $28K plus holding insurance on my kids ($180) a month and being that I don't speak to my ex about anything, I am going to make that request that she hold insurance on the kids as well because I look at this way that anything can happen to me on any given day...Which means that my time here on earth is a chance everyday that I wake up, walkout my front door and going to work anything can happen....I just think that it would keep down confusion if she holds insurance on her end and I was told that a judge can make this ruling if an atty make the request and I know that nothing is guranteed.....I know that there are laws to protect parents and there rights but it seems as though that we two people get divorce the laws and courts look at the man as a criminal. And when its time for someone to try to fight for custody its always about money and how can a person put a price tag on kids and where they go..I look at this way just because your a mother does mean that your a "mom", and just because your a father doesn't mean that your a " daddy" or does it? I hear this saying all the time that it takes a good man to be called daddy would this be true for mothers? Just a thought that I had..Well, guys again I appreciate your time and comments.....

 

[GrowUp!]

Actually, in Louisiana, if a mom is secreting (hiding) a child so that the other parent can not exercise their visitation rights, you CAN have support suspended.

§315.23. Suspension or modification of child support obligation; secreting of child

If one joint custodial parent or his agent is intentionally secreting a child with the intent to preclude the other joint custodial parent from knowing the whereabouts of the child sufficiently to allow him to exercise his rights or duties as joint custodial parent, the latter may obtain from the court an order suspending or modifying his obligation under an order or judgment of child support. However, such circumstances shall not constitute a defense to an action for failure to pay court- ordered child support or an action to enforce past due child support.

Acts 1993, No. 261, §7, eff. Jan. 1, 1994.


He is confusing that with mom keeping the child from visiting dad. Although, its not far fetched that if mom was doing this on a regular basis, and dad had PROOF, that a judge may modify or suspend the child support as a lesson to mom. Stranger things have happened in this state, I would not be surprised if this could or even DID happen before here.

I believe we are misconstruing the language. The language is pretty much stating that if a child's whereabouts are being withheld from the other parent (i.e. kidnapping, relocation without notice and the such), then that is grounds for a motion to be filed to suspend child support. BUT as the language states, that parent being denied parenting time DOES NOT have the right to withhold CS ON THEIR OWN as a defense. This statute gives them the legal recourse to do it through the courts. Usually when the obligee isn't receiving support, that brings them out of the woodwork.

However, statutes are in place that does NOT allow court to use child support to "penalize" a parent (i.e. denial of periodic parenting time and the such).

 

[MrsK]

I believe we are misconstruing the language. The language is pretty much stating that if a child's whereabouts are being withheld from the other parent (i.e. kidnapping, relocation without notice and the such), then that is grounds for a motion to be filed to suspend child support. BUT as the language states, that parent being denied parenting time DOES NOT have the right to withhold CS ON THEIR OWN as a defense. This statute gives them the legal recourse to do it through the courts. Usually when the obligee isn't receiving support, that brings them out of the woodwork.

However, statutes are in place that does NOT allow court to use child support to "penalize" a parent (i.e. denial of periodic parenting time and the such).

If you read my post, you'd see that I said he is confusing the two, but that I DO believe its possible for him to try to get a lawyer & ask a judge to suspend it until mom gets her act together. He seems to have some proof, and I think he could try, and he should DEFINETLY have mom held in contempt for what she is doing. Then, if mom keeps it up, a judge may be MUCH more willing to teach mom a little monetary lesson. Some people only do the right thing when its hurting their bottom line. Sounds like his ex is one of them.

 

[MrsK]

For the poster who seems to think that CS should be paid to the other parent regardless ( because it's your child ) , you are wrong . Put yourself in some walking shoes ... If you were denied your times with your kids especially for years , not knowing their whereabouts , do you actually think you would pay money for their care ? Get real ...

I agree. If a CP was keeping a child from an NCP who wanted the child, doing everything in their power to withhold visitation, even hiding the child....CP should pay the consequences, and receive less/no support. They'd have to work harder to provide for the child. Maybe that would make them think twice about their bad behavior.

 

[BL]

I agree. If a CP was keeping a child from an NCP who wanted the child, doing everything in their power to withhold visitation, even hiding the child....CP should pay the consequences, and receive less/no support. They'd have to work harder to provide for the child. Maybe that would make them think twice about their bad behavior.

Not only that , if the denials become a pattern , the CP could face jail time , or any number of sanctions by the Court .