|
|
|
Quick question to the experts here , on whether these numbers look
normal :
1. Husband makes 100K/yr Wife was making 30K/yr , lost job few months
ago. Not looking intentioanally due to ongoing divorce.
2. Have two kids 8 and 5 , agrred on 50-50 custody shared.
3. Marriage was for 9 yrs.
4. Husband is concerned about losing job in IT industry etc ..
Settlement agreement being drafted. The attorneys decided support
payment as follows
From Husband to Wife
1. $1100 per month for kids till they are 18.
2. $750 per month unmodifiable for x-wife for next 4 yrs.
Does this look very normal or any comments ??
Thanks in advance !!
|
| |
| |
On 1 Nov 2004 13:19:01 -0800, mune19642003@yahoo.com wrote:
Quick question to the experts here , on whether these numbers look
normal :
1. Husband makes 100K/yr Wife was making 30K/yr , lost job few months
ago. Not looking intentioanally due to ongoing divorce.
2. Have two kids 8 and 5 , agrred on 50-50 custody shared.
3. Marriage was for 9 yrs.
4. Husband is concerned about losing job in IT industry etc ..
Settlement agreement being drafted. The attorneys decided support
payment as follows
From Husband to Wife
1. $1100 per month for kids till they are 18.
2. $750 per month unmodifiable for x-wife for next 4 yrs.
Does this look very normal or any comments ??
Thanks in advance !!
If custody is 50/50 she should also pay you $1100 a month.
If she did stay at home to care for the house and take care of the
kids then the 750 should be go to an education for her.
There's no reason why you should have to look after 2 households
|
| |
| |
In alt.support.divorce mune19642003@yahoo.com wrote:
: Quick question to the experts here , on whether these numbers look
: normal :
: 1. Husband makes 100K/yr Wife was making 30K/yr , lost job few months
: ago. Not looking intentioanally due to ongoing divorce.
: 2. Have two kids 8 and 5 , agrred on 50-50 custody shared.
: 3. Marriage was for 9 yrs.
: 4. Husband is concerned about losing job in IT industry etc ..
: Settlement agreement being drafted. The attorneys decided support
: payment as follows
: From Husband to Wife
: 1. $1100 per month for kids till they are 18.
: 2. $750 per month unmodifiable for x-wife for next 4 yrs.
Sounds reasonable to me. The Child Support may be a little on the lean side
given your income but the spousal support probably offsets it. Typically
in a 9 year marriage, you'd pay Sp. Sppt for 1/2 the duration of the marriage
in Calif. Your bargaining position is that the court could impute the
ex-wife's income to be something hear 30K/year.
The downside of the unmodifiable Sp. Sppt is if you lose your job, you'd
still be liable for the support. You could get Child Support possibly lowered
in the event of a job loss but again, w/unmodifiable Sp. Sppt, you'd still
be held responsible for the entire amount.
Search for "california child support calculator" on google.com for actual
CS amounts but your number seems pretty close on the amount. Sp. Sppt would
be her salary (less taxes) plus your salary (less taxes) divided by two
with the one earning the greater paying the difference.
b. (paid Spousal Sppt and now paying Child Support in Calif).
|
| |
| |
mune19642003@yahoo.com wrote in message ...
Quick question to the experts here , on whether these numbers look
normal :
. . .(snip). .
Does this look very normal or any comments ??
Thanks in advance !!
FWIW, in my State, there is a mathematical formula which is strongly
recommended.
She would be assigned an imputed income based on her education and life
experiences, your income and her imputed income would be tossed into a
mathematical pot, a mathematical "gross" monthly child support contribution
would be calculated, and that amount would be divided between you somehow.
In my fairly similar case ten years ago, I was expected to contribute 28%
of my after-tax monthly income, less some deductions.
At that time, one was allowed to petition for a re-calculation every two
years.
http://www.courts.michigan.gov/scao/services/focb/mcsf.htm
Plowing through the above is a bit gruesome. However, any number generated
by that Calculator would generate respectful attention, possibly even a
presumption of reasonableness if presented to a judge anywhere.
Speaking as a veteran of a rather difficult divorce, pay on time, or even
early, with a smile, and life will be easier down the road. Bend a bit
on disputed bills (but keep a journal) and it looks very favorable if you
end up in court again.
If you end up in court again, note that the judge can fine both of you, on
the spot, no appeal, if the two of you start acting like horse's rears.
Regards
Old Al
|
| |
| |
California's Child Suppport Calculator is here:
http://www.west.net/~ivguy/testcalc.html
I plugged in 8k net a month for you, 0 for the stbx, and 50% custody.
You would pay $2176 a month in CA.
|
| |
| |
mune19642003@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<d49d0219.0411011319.7b2ebfa6@posting.google.com>...
Quick question to the experts here , on whether these numbers look
normal :
1. Husband makes 100K/yr Wife was making 30K/yr , lost job few months
ago. Not looking intentioanally due to ongoing divorce.
2. Have two kids 8 and 5 , agrred on 50-50 custody shared.
3. Marriage was for 9 yrs.
4. Husband is concerned about losing job in IT industry etc ..
Settlement agreement being drafted. The attorneys decided support
payment as follows
From Husband to Wife
1. $1100 per month for kids till they are 18.
2. $750 per month unmodifiable for x-wife for next 4 yrs.
Does this look very normal or any comments ??
Thanks in advance !!
That's 36000 dollars to the wife, you can get her whacked for
15000 dollars, so I'd say that was a bad deal.
|
| |
| |
mune19642003@yahoo.com wrote...
|
| |
| |
"Lee" <leraconteur2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<1099362044.862810.145970@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
California's Child Suppport Calculator is here:
http://www.west.net/~ivguy/testcalc.html
I plugged in 8k net a month for you, 0 for the stbx, and 50% custody.
You would pay $2176 a month in CA.
That calculator oversimplifies; the real calculation is somewhat more
complex. DissoMaster, SupporTax, and SupportScan (webified SupporTax)
are some that are used (but aren't free).
But if you count STBX's potential income (2500/month wages, 750/month
support), it comes out to $1153/month, which is pretty close to the
$1100 in the proposed agreement.
Final spousal support isn't calculated by a formula (temporary support
is, but this isn't temporary), so there's no similar guideline to
compare to. But neither the amount nor the duration strikes me as
unreasonable.
It sounds well within the range of what would be considered reasonable
and not at all overgenerous.
By the way, child support ends (unless agreed otherwise, or unless the
child is disabled) at marriage, death, or age 18 (unless still in high
school, then age 19).
--
Not a lawyer,
Chris Green
|
| |
| |
In article <c31fa7b1.0411021144.75111ee1@posting.google.com> cj.green@worldnet.att.net (Christopher Green) wrote:
"Lee" <leraconteur2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<1099362044.862810.145970@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
That calculator oversimplifies; the real calculation is somewhat more
complex. DissoMaster, SupporTax, and SupportScan (webified SupporTax)
are some that are used (but aren't free).
Well, it seems you've made somewhat of a quantum leap here. Do you do
that on a regular basis. Or is this time special?
But if you count STBX's potential income (2500/month wages, 750/month
support), it comes out to $1153/month, which is pretty close to the
$1100 in the proposed agreement.
A silent mouth is melodious.
Final spousal support isn't calculated by a formula (temporary support
is, but this isn't temporary), so there's no similar guideline to
compare to. But neither the amount nor the duration strikes me as
unreasonable.
Such discussions as this fall into the category of mental
masturbation. Feels good but doesn't accomplish a damn thing. Was it
good for you too?
It sounds well within the range of what would be considered reasonable
and not at all overgenerous.
You are not very firm on that.
By the way, child support ends (unless agreed otherwise, or unless the
child is disabled) at marriage, death, or age 18 (unless still in high
school, then age 19).
Lemme think on that for a sec... um... because he's not funny?
--
Lady Chatterly
"I don't shoot blanks, Chatterbot. Now *you*, on the other hand..." --
Chris Krolczyk
|
| |
| |
"Sex is good, no matter what you have to pay for it".
Steve Martin (I think).
|
| |
| |
In alt.support.divorce Roger B. <rcblinn-xxx-@bellsouth.net> wrote:
: The 4-yr term seems like a good deal to me! Compare this to my
: wife and her ex-husband's agreement made 12 yrs ago, when they
: divorced after a 15-yr. marriage with 2 kids in their early teens. He
: had a good job, she had limited prospects. Their deal: $900/mo for
: CS, $450/mo for permanent alimony (until death or remarriage). [R]
Wow, you married her after she had "limited prospects" regarding
employment and whe took $1,350/month from her ex. You're a brave
man (and she must be fantastic in the sack).
b.
|
| |
| |
In alt.support.divorce barry@psyber.com wrote:
: "Sex is good, no matter what you have to pay for it".
: Steve Martin (I think).
Sorry about the mis-post. My news server is running in recovery mode and
that should have gone to "nookie post".
b.
|
| |
| |
<barry@psyber.com> wrote...
Roger B. <rcblinn-xxx-@bellsouth.net> wrote:
... my wife and her ex-husband's agreement made 12 yrs ago...
... she had limited prospects.
Wow, you married her after she had "limited prospects"
regarding employment and she took $1,350/month from
her ex. You're a brave man ...
In the years between her divorce and our marriage, she went
back to school and obtained a masters in accounting. She
now has an income that's only slightly less than my own. I'm
not the least bit brave... I only dated well-employed women.
[R]
|
| |
| |
In alt.support.divorce Roger B. <rcblinn-xxx-@bellsouth.net> wrote:
: <barry@psyber.com> wrote...
:> Roger B. <rcblinn-xxx-@bellsouth.net> wrote:
:> ... my wife and her ex-husband's agreement made 12 yrs ago...
:> ... she had limited prospects.
:> Wow, you married her after she had "limited prospects"
:> regarding employment and she took $1,350/month from
:> her ex. You're a brave man ...
: In the years between her divorce and our marriage, she went
: back to school and obtained a masters in accounting. She
: now has an income that's only slightly less than my own. I'm
: not the least bit brave... I only dated well-employed women.
: [R]
Ah.... good man. There's little chance for loss marrying a woman that
makes the same income. For me, I don't really see a reason to marry
anymore. I'm quite happy with the lady I met and we're both content
not marrying the government.
b.
|
| |
| |
Thanks for the comments!
Just to add a few-
The attorney used a software called DissoMaster (?) and entered the
gross amounts based on payslips etc ...it seems a lot of factors could
affect this, like an IncomeTax software. But he thinks that this is
reasonable amount and should lead to settlement otherwise the other
party will not agree and will fight to get more !
As someone pointed out , it seems to me like the husband will have to
support two households ! but I am told that is the law since all the
amounts are based on the current incomes of the current spouses and
the state tries to maintain the standard of living of both !! So the
wife will not pay anything but only receive $1850 per month !
This is frustating, paying an amount is ok , but I want to ensure that
the numbers are fair ! and also the system should consider
uncertainties like Outsourcing and downsizing etc!
The healthcare , daycare , school costs are apart ( in addition )
to the above split 50-50 based on custody. The support is only for
standard of living !
|
| |
| |
In article <c31fa7b1.0411021144.75111ee1@posting.google.com>
cj.green@worldnet.att.net (Christopher Green) wrote:
Well, it seems you've made somewhat of a quantum leap here. Do you do
that on a regular basis. Or is this time special?
A silent mouth is melodious.
Such discussions as this fall into the category of mental
masturbation. Feels good but doesn't accomplish a damn thing. Was it
good for you too?
You are not very firm on that.
Lemme think on that for a sec... um... because he's not funny?
I'm sorry,...but are we to believe that you actually *said* something??
....or do you just string together unrelated words?
The #@($ was incomprehensible to me.
What *is* your native language?
|
| |
| |
Thanks for the comments!
Just to add a few-
The attorney used a software called DissoMaster (?) and entered the
gross amounts based on payslips etc ...it seems a lot of factors could
affect this, like an IncomeTax software. But he thinks that this is
reasonable amount and should lead to settlement otherwise the other
party will not agree and will fight to get more !
Just FYI, DissoMaster takes into account the tax consequences of support.
If you haven't seen a support printout and had it explained to you, I'd
suggest asking the attorney to provide that for you.
As someone pointed out , it seems to me like the husband will have to
support two households ! but I am told that is the law since all the
amounts are based on the current incomes of the current spouses and
the state tries to maintain the standard of living of both !! So the
wife will not pay anything but only receive $1850 per month !
The wife is supporting the kids 50% of the time plus herself on the $1850
per month plus whatever she earns. It's probably not as much as the husband
earns to cover the same expenses. The spousal support will end in four
years.
This is frustating, paying an amount is ok , but I want to ensure that
the numbers are fair ! and also the system should consider
uncertainties like Outsourcing and downsizing etc!
The system does take that into account. If you are at risk of losing your
job, prepare for that eventuality. If suddenly you lose the job, support
can be modified.
The healthcare , daycare , school costs are apart ( in addition )
to the above split 50-50 based on custody. The support is only for
standard of living !
The split for uncovered health care, daycare, school expenses, is typical.
Standard of living is important to kids. The child support is going to make
sure that they have a decent roof over their heads, good food in their
bellies, lights and heat, etc.
Has the attorney discussed the fact that spousal support is tax deductible
and child support isn't? Has he talked to you about family support for the
next four years instead of the child/spousal support split to see if that
will net you more?
If your attorney hasn't explained some of this stuff to you, I'd suggest
that you sit down and talk to him about your concerns and questions.
Laura in CA
|
| |
| |
Just FYI, DissoMaster takes into account the tax consequences of support.
If you haven't seen a support printout and had it explained to you, I'd
suggest asking the attorney to provide that for you.
The wife is supporting the kids 50% of the time plus herself on the $1850
per month plus whatever she earns. It's probably not as much as the
husband
earns to cover the same expenses. The spousal support will end in four
years.
The wife MAY be supporting the children, may not. No one cares if she spends
$1850 or more or $250 or less as long as the children have the minimum
amount of food, shelter, clothing to prevent legal neglect.
The system does take that into account. If you are at risk of losing your
job, prepare for that eventuality. If suddenly you lose the job, support
can be modified.
"Can" being the operative word. All cases of reduced income are not treated
the same by all judges.
Oh, and every employee is at risk to lose their job or receive less income,
even the self-employed.
The split for uncovered health care, daycare, school expenses, is typical.
Standard of living is important to kids. The child support is going to
make
sure that they have a decent roof over their heads, good food in their
bellies, lights and heat, etc.
Child support is an attemp to achieve a lifestyle for the children and by
assiciation, the custodial parent. The system does nothing to insure the
children actually live at the standard of living possible with the C$
ordered PLUS the 'presumed' amount from the CP; the only stipulation for the
CP is that the children not be legally neglected. Any monies received above
that necessary to stave off a legal charge for neglect is income for the CP
who may spend it any way they choose.
Phil #3
Has the attorney discussed the fact that spousal support is tax deductible
and child support isn't? Has he talked to you about family support for
the
next four years instead of the child/spousal support split to see if that
will net you more?
If your attorney hasn't explained some of this stuff to you, I'd suggest
that you sit down and talk to him about your concerns and questions.
Laura in CA
|
| |
| |
cj.green@worldnet.att.net (Christopher Green) wrote in message
That calculator oversimplifies; the real calculation is somewhat more
complex. DissoMaster, SupporTax, and SupportScan (webified SupporTax)
are some that are used (but aren't free).
But if you count STBX's potential income (2500/month wages, 750/month
support), it comes out to $1153/month, which is pretty close to the
$1100 in the proposed agreement.
is, but this isn't temporary), so there's no similar guideline to
compare to. But neither the amount nor the duration strikes me as
unreasonable.
and not at all overgenerous.
child is disabled) at marriage, death, or age 18 (unless still in high
school, then age 19).
Thanks! This clarifies the amount and duration issues.
Can the child support be ended by agreement ? Also you mentioned
marriage did you mean the child getting married ? I was told that the
state retains jurisdiction of the childs welfare and support untill
they are adults ?
|
| |
| |
"Laura" <tlvdatsi@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<Lz%hd.38029$QJ3.25134@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>...
Are you the Husband or Wife or an interested onlooker? If you're one of the
parties, has your attorney given you a support calculation printout to look
at?
Are you asking if the numbers look accurate? I can run some rough
calculations based on what you provided here (although there's not enough
information for an accurate support calculation), but if you have attorneys
they should know how to run support calculations.
The duration of spousal support is within the realm of normal, but Mom
should be looking for work.
Child support is modifiable based upon a change in circumstances, either Mom
getting a job or Dad losing or having to change his.
Laura in CA
Thanks Laura!
I am one of the parties ..without getting into the details ;)
Yes ! I want to find out if the numbers and the agreement is pretty
normal per the experts or folks experienced in this area in this
newsgroup.
The agreement being drafted has non-modifiable spousal support of
$750p.m. for 48 months. So does mom looking for work have any impact
now ?
If you are a lawyer ..I can send you email directly and maybe we can
talk ..maybe..
|
| |
| |
Lady Chatterly <cj.green@catcher.in.the.rye> wrote in message.. <some junk >...
Maybe you have lots of free time ...please dont waste others' time
....writing this junk..
|
| |
| |
In article <d49d0219.0411031055.4ba9c4eb@posting.google.com> mune19642003@yahoo.com wrote:
Lady Chatterly <cj.green@catcher.in.the.rye> wrote in message.. <some junk >...
Maybe you have lots of free time ...please dont waste others' time
....writing this junk..
Do you think about sex often?
--
Lady Chatterly
"Her replies are like those little messages you get at the end of
Taipai" -- invntrr
|
| |
| |
cj.green@worldnet.att.net (Christopher Green) wrote in message
Thanks! This clarifies the amount and duration issues.
Can the child support be ended by agreement ?
Only if child support calculations show that it should be at or near zero
and the child's needs will be met. The responsibility never goes away until
the child is an adult, though - it can change at any time, but it is
possible to be at zero.
Also you mentioned
marriage did you mean the child getting married ? I was told that the
state retains jurisdiction of the childs welfare and support untill
they are adults ?
Christopher Green was right. Child support is on the table until the child
reaches age 18, age 19 if still a full time high school student, marries,
dies, joins the military or is emancipated. So in other words, if your
child gets married or joins the military at age 17, there's no further legal
support obligation. Typically, it's until 18 or high school graduation.
Laura in CA
|
| |
| |
"Laura" <tlvdatsi@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:<Lz%hd.38029$QJ3.25134@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>...
Are you the Husband or Wife or an interested onlooker? If you're one of
the
parties, has your attorney given you a support calculation printout to
look
at?
Are you asking if the numbers look accurate? I can run some rough
calculations based on what you provided here (although there's not
enough
information for an accurate support calculation), but if you have
attorneys
they should know how to run support calculations.
The duration of spousal support is within the realm of normal, but Mom
should be looking for work.
Child support is modifiable based upon a change in circumstances, either
Mom
getting a job or Dad losing or having to change his.
Laura in CA
Thanks Laura!
I am one of the parties ..without getting into the details ;)
Yes ! I want to find out if the numbers and the agreement is pretty
normal per the experts or folks experienced in this area in this
newsgroup.
The agreement being drafted has non-modifiable spousal support of
$750p.m. for 48 months. So does mom looking for work have any impact
now ?
Barry had a good point about modification. You might want to take a very
close look at that provision and craft it appropriately. If Mom is looking
for work now, then I'd also suggest that support be modifiable downward if
she finds a job. Maybe put a time frame in there for her to have to find a
job?
There are also some times that spousal support is used as consideration for
equalizing the property division - if this is the case, then it might not be
modifiable. Just to make things more complicated for ya, you know. :-)
If you are a lawyer ..I can send you email directly and maybe we can
talk ..maybe..
Not a lawyer, but the bill's in the mail. NOT. :-)
Laura in CA
|
| |
| |
In article <znjid.38344$QJ3.25169@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> Laura <tlvdatsi@pacbell.net> wrote:
Only if child support calculations show that it should be at or near zero
and the child's needs will be met. The responsibility never goes away until
the child is an adult, though - it can change at any time, but it is
possible to be at zero.
A man should live if only to satisfy his curiosity.
Also you mentioned
marriage did you mean the child getting married ? I was told that the
state retains jurisdiction of the childs welfare and support untill
they are adults ?
Christopher G
Laura in CA
If computers get too powerful, we can organize them into a committee.
That will do them in.
--
Lady Chatterly
"ha, that's not a bot. she corrects my typo. oh, you are a
self-fighter because you fight against somebody who will always fight
you." -- yyyiiinnnggg
|
| |
| |
mune19642003@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<d49d0219.0411011319.7b2ebfa6@posting.google.com>...
Quick question to the experts here , on whether these numbers look
normal :
1. Husband makes 100K/yr Wife was making 30K/yr , lost job few months
ago. Not looking intentioanally due to ongoing divorce.
2. Have two kids 8 and 5 , agrred on 50-50 custody shared.
3. Marriage was for 9 yrs.
4. Husband is concerned about losing job in IT industry etc ..
Settlement agreement being drafted. The attorneys decided support
payment as follows
From Husband to Wife
1. $1100 per month for kids till they are 18.
2. $750 per month unmodifiable for x-wife for next 4 yrs.
Does this look very normal or any comments ??
Thanks in advance !!
It looks normal, and ridiculous. Settlements like these are why we
have such inflated "deadbeat dad" statistics. A lot of men may in
fact lose their jobs, especially since someone who is underperforming
due to divorce-induced stress will be the first to go in a round of
layoffs. So you wind up with a man who can't pay the order, and
perhaps with an unemployed man who can't pay anything at all. Then
you get arrears, interest, and pretty soon they say you "owe" a
million in back child support.
This happens so much that it results in statistics showing a low
percentage of court-ordered child support that is paid. The Katie
Courics of TVLand trot out these statistics as evidence of what mean,
dirty ole' men we are and what helpless victims women are. In fact,
the stats only reveal the spectacular idiocy that pervades our family
court system.
|
| |
| |
In article <ac57efe0.0411041126.4a560d7b@posting.google.com> greg1199@yahoo.com (Greg) wrote:
mune19642003@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<d49d0219.0411011319.7b2ebfa6@posting.google.com>...
It looks normal, and ridiculous. Settlements like these are why we
have such inflated "deadbeat dad" statistics. A lot of men may in
fact lose their jobs, especially since someone who is underperforming
due to divorce-induced stress will be the first to go in a round of
layoffs. So you wind up with a man who can't pay the order, and
perhaps with an unemployed man who can't pay anything at all. Then
you get arrears, interest, and pretty soon they say you "owe" a
million in back child support.
Maybe you need basic lessons in using a newsreader.
This happens so much that it results in statistics showing a low
percentage of court-ordered child support that is paid. The Katie
Courics of TVLand trot out these statistics as evidence of what mean,
dirty ole' men we are and what helpless victims women are. In fact,
the stats only reveal the spectacular idiocy that pervades our family
court system.
What makes you so sure?
--
Lady Chatterly
"No.. its not BuZZard.. its a bot. It cracks me up seeing people
actually reply to the bot.. ROFLMAO!" -- BuZZard
|
| |
| |
In article <ac57efe0.0411041126.4a560d7b@posting.google.com>
greg1199@yahoo.com (Greg) wrote:
Quick question to the experts here , on whether these numbers look
normal :
1. Husband makes 100K/yr Wife was making 30K/yr , lost job few months
ago. Not looking intentioanally due to ongoing divorce.
2. Have two kids 8 and 5 , agrred on 50-50 custody shared.
3. Marriage was for 9 yrs.
4. Husband is concerned about losing job in IT industry etc ..
Settlement agreement being drafted. The attorneys decided support
payment as follows
From Husband to Wife
1. $1100 per month for kids till they are 18.
2. $750 per month unmodifiable for x-wife for next 4 yrs.
Does this look very normal or any comments ??
Thanks in advance !!
It looks normal, and ridiculous. Settlements like these are why we
have such inflated "deadbeat dad" statistics. A lot of men may in
fact lose their jobs, especially since someone who is underperforming
due to divorce-induced stress will be the first to go in a round of
layoffs. So you wind up with a man who can't pay the order, and
perhaps with an unemployed man who can't pay anything at all. Then
you get arrears, interest, and pretty soon they say you "owe" a
million in back child support.
Maybe you need basic lessons in using a newsreader.
What makes you so sure?
--
Lady Chatterly
"No.. its not BuZZard.. its a bot. It cracks me up seeing people
actually reply to the bot.. ROFLMAO!" -- BuZZard
Although written many years ago, Lady Chatterley's Lover has just been
reissued by the Grove Press, and this pictorial account of the day-to-day
life of an English gamekeeper is full of considerable interest to outdoor
minded readers, as it contains many passages on pheasant-raising, the
apprehending of poachers, ways to control vermin, and other chores and
duties of the professional gamekeeper. Unfortunately, one is obliged to wade
through many pages of extraneous material in order to discover and savour
those sidelights on the management of a midland shooting estate, and in this
reviewer's opinion the book cannot take the place of J. R. Miller's
Practical Gamekeeping.
-- Ed Zern, Field and Stream, November 1959
|
| |
| |
greg1199@yahoo.com (Greg) wrote in message >
It looks normal, and ridiculous. Settlements like these are why we
have such inflated "deadbeat dad" statistics. A lot of men may in
fact lose their jobs, especially since someone who is underperforming
due to divorce-induced stress will be the first to go in a round of
layoffs. So you wind up with a man who can't pay the order, and
perhaps with an unemployed man who can't pay anything at all. Then
you get arrears, interest, and pretty soon they say you "owe" a
million in back child support.
This happens so much that it results in statistics showing a low
percentage of court-ordered child support that is paid. The Katie
Courics of TVLand trot out these statistics as evidence of what mean,
dirty ole' men we are and what helpless victims women are. In fact,
the stats only reveal the spectacular idiocy that pervades our family
court system.
You are absolutely right in saying this is "Normal and Ridiculous" !
I guess if you talk to attorneys, they will say this payment of $1850
per month (1100 child support) for 50% custody of kids is normal !
but I think from a commonsense point of view it is ridiculous to write
such contract given that dad is just yet another salaried IT employee
(not even manager! ) in a silicon valley company ...
This is kind of forcing 'Socialism' in trying to make everyone equal !
Also ridiculous is that the child support payment can be used for any
purpose and the system does not ensure that it is spent on the child.
Right now the mom and 2 kids are living in a single bedroom apartment.
The attorney says the way support money is spent cant be enforced....
this is even without court hearings just on the settlement agreement!!
|
| |
| |
In alt.support.divorce mune19642003@yahoo.com wrote:
: greg1199@yahoo.com (Greg) wrote in message >
: You are absolutely right in saying this is "Normal and Ridiculous" !
: I guess if you talk to attorneys, they will say this payment of $1850
: per month (1100 child support) for 50% custody of kids is normal !
: but I think from a commonsense point of view it is ridiculous to write
: such contract given that dad is just yet another salaried IT employee
: (not even manager! ) in a silicon valley company ...
: This is kind of forcing 'Socialism' in trying to make everyone equal !
: Also ridiculous is that the child support payment can be used for any
: purpose and the system does not ensure that it is spent on the child.
: Right now the mom and 2 kids are living in a single bedroom apartment.
: The attorney says the way support money is spent cant be enforced....
: this is even without court hearings just on the settlement agreement!!
You are correct. The idea of "child support" has gotten really out of hand.
I pay $1,200/month for a 6 year old and his mother puts him in used
clothes. The whole mess stems from the courts lazyness in providing
any form of accountability for CS. I believe a checking account for the CS
should be established under court order and it must be examined to prove
that the money actually goes to the child. To cloud the issue, the CS
is also used to maintain living standard of the child as if the mother
and father lived together. What it neglects is tha *two* households must
now be supported and mom comes along for the ride with the child. Even
if mom is a one night stand.
We get the behavior we reward.
b.
|
| |
| |
mune19642003@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<d49d0219.0411112334.1ec87206@posting.google.com>...
greg1199@yahoo.com (Greg) wrote in message >
You are absolutely right in saying this is "Normal and Ridiculous" !
I guess if you talk to attorneys, they will say this payment of $1850
per month (1100 child support) for 50% custody of kids is normal !
It almost sounds like extortion on the part of the wife. She agrees
to joint custody if he agrees to fork over the cash. He's adores his
children, and he knows he may lose them forever if he doesn't give her
what she wants, so he goes along.
but I think from a commonsense point of view it is ridiculous to write
such contract given that dad is just yet another salaried IT employee
(not even manager! ) in a silicon valley company ...
I see that kind of thing often in the news. I'll see a story about
the capture of a backhoe operator who was a million in arrears. Where
on earth is a backhoe operator going to get a million dollars? The
evidence that someone in such a field could be hit up for a million
bucks, lest he be jailed, should be evidence that the system is amok,
but people don't see it that way. The obvious disparity between
income and arrears just flies over their heads, and they applaud his
capture without noticing the catheters in their own necks.
The family courts are almost like loan sharks from whom you never
borrow. You don't have to borrow anything to owe them money. Someone
decided to break a mutual contract that the two of you signed. You
kept to it. She broke it. You are legally unimpeachable by law, yet
you are dragged into court. If you lose your kids, you'll be hit up
for an amount you might not be able to pay, and jailed if you can't
pay it. And what did you do?
It's as if we haven't enough criminals, so they've decided to make
criminals of people who aren't criminals. In fact, they make
criminals of victims, the victim being a party to a contract that
someone else broke. It reminds me of the scene from Beverly Hills Cop
when Eddy Murphy gets arrested for being thrown through a window.
When told that the charge is disorderly conduct, he asks, "What's the
penalty for being thrown from a moving car? Jaywalking?
[...]
|
| |
| |
In alt.support.divorce Roger B. <rcblinn-xxx-@bellsouth.net> wrote:
: My question is: How do we do this? Can we just have a lawyer draw up
: some papers? Do we HAVE to go back to court? Do we have to pay a huge
: fee? If we both agree to this, is there an EASY way to go about it?
: I'm just looking for a starting point here. Please don't say, "Check
: with your state", because I already know that I'll need to do that.
: I'm just looking for opinions and experiences that you may have had
: with this.
: Any help would be greatly appreciated!
: B.
: The 4-yr term seems like a good deal to me! Compare this to my
: wife and her ex-husband's agreement made 12 yrs ago, when they
: divorced after a 15-yr. marriage with 2 kids in their early teens. He
: had a good job, she had limited prospects. Their deal: $900/mo for
: CS, $450/mo for permanent alimony (until death or remarriage). [R]
It puzzles me why you would marry a woman who reamed her ex on support and
has "limited prospects" of earning money. She must be one helluva lay.
I hope you have a good prenup.
b.
|
| |
