Taking Advantage of Child Support

[Lawrence084]

because it takes the same amount of money to raise each child and since the amount of support is determined by a comparison of the two parents income, if the fathers and mothers incomes are equal in each situation, the amount of CS should be identical. It doesn't make any difference to the child if they are bastards from a one night stand or children from a 20 year marriage. They each deserve support from each parent.

oh, in the first situation, although there are some screwed up states that make refuting parentage very difficult, the father has to dispute parentage as required by the germane states laws. If he refuses to do so, he is the father.

I would agree with you 100% if the courts came up with an way to have the mother put her share of support in the care of the child. There is no way you are going to tell me that my child is receiving $1500 ($1000 from me and let say for sake of argument $500 from the mother) a month in support.

But you did make a good point. Should I try to get my CS reduced now that my daughter is working part-time? If the court think that way, it would make logical sense to try. It is three income involved now. Is my thinking right or do the courts don't include the child income? I bet she paying her mother rent.....I have to find out.

[jk]

Lawrence084;287593]
Should I try to get my CS reduced now that my daughter is working part-time?

I know of no state that takes the minors income into account. This is between you and mom.

If the court think that way, it would make logical sense to try. It is three income involved now

but you and mom are required to support the child. The child is not required to support herself.
[QUOTE]

[Lawrence084]

I know of no state that takes the minors income into account. This is between you and mom.

but you and mom are required to support the child. The child is not required to support herself.

Yes, but the "child" we a referring too, is 18 years old and technically she has filled all her requirements from High School. So at some point her income is a factor. If she 18 and working and both parents are suppose to provide the same percentage of pay. Why don't both parent get an reduction? It doesn't take a rocket science to know that an heathly 18 with car and part-time job, isn't spending the same amount of money she did her previous years. And both parents should get a reduction, not just the mother. If the CS system was true to form. But it not. It strickly penalizing the father.

There is not one good thing that the system does for the father. The father loses his job, misses a few payment, faces jail time. Mother leaves child over grandparent house for a few months but still collect CS payments..nothing. Mother recieve more money than she willing to spend on child every month and claims child every year on income for all 18+ years. Father pays a third of take home pay, the same amount for 216+ straight month, he never even get a sniff at claiming his child on income taxes.

And you find that the court find this fair treatment?

I am not debating you, what you are saying is true.

I am debating the CS Court System.

[jk]

=Lawrence084;287858]Yes, but the "child" we a referring too, is 18 years old and technically she has filled all her requirements from High School.

where did it say the child was 18?

So at some point her income is a factor.

No it isn't. The parents are required to support their child until emancipation or, in some cases, until the courts say whoa.

If she 18 and working and both parents are suppose to provide the same percentage of pay. Why don't both parent get an reduction?

I still have not found the age listed.

If the child is beyond the age of majority and she is not attending college, by all means dad should file for modification or even termination of the order.

my mother graduated at 16 so I do not take graduation as a dependable method of determining age.

[Lawrence084]

where did it say the child was 18?

No it isn't. The parents are required to support their child until emancipation or, in some cases, until the courts say whoa.

I still have not found the age listed.

If the child is beyond the age of majority and she is not attending college, by all means dad should file for modification or even termination of the order.

my mother graduated at 16 so I do not take graduation as a dependable method of determining age.

I am sorry, I explain my situation on another thread. Yes, my daughter is 18.

I understand what you are saying, and we can go back and forth all day. Bottomline in my humble opinion, the father get "rape" through the system. He get treated like a babysitter. he is not listen too when any decision have to be made. He has absolutely no flexiblity on how the money he pays every month get spent. The father has to file paper work to stop payment. (It should stop at an age....no excuses) If I am correct, when my daughter goes to college, I still have to pay the exact same amount until she graduates, and to top that off, it still goes straight to her mother. So not only am I NOT paying for her schooling, but her mother is getting all her bills paid off, while my daughter racks up student loans. And the more I think about it, the more I am realizing that there nothing in the system, that protects the child or the father. Just the mother.

I just don't see any fairness at all....All the reasons you giving are justified in a perfect world. Bad part is, it not even close to being perfect.

Okay here is a fair-er system:

If every guy pays a third (or what ever percentage it is currently) of his take home pay, and put it in a pot and call it (Child Support Pool). Every women would get $750.00/month, until the child turn 18. Then child get the $750.00/month, until they finish high school and if they go straight to college they keep recieving the $750.00/month, but the guy stop paying at 18, only if he owes nothing, on the child 18 birthday, (or high school graduation). This way the women who recieve little or none, now get more and the ones that would be getting more, now get a fair amount. And only the bio-father have to pay.

Just a thought...that just came to me...got to put more thought in to it. But it is a start.

[1parent]

My question involves child support in the State of Maryland

I have recently been ordered to pay child support to the custodial parent of my 4 year old daughter in the amount of $642 per month. Her mother hasn't worked in years, and her mother's fiance hasn't worked in months.

what was her income used in calculating the support?

Her mother currently collects on welfare, food assistance, temporary cash assistance, energy assistance, and daycare assistance. She has also just bought a four bedroom house in a very nice neighborhood as well as a $500 dog ( prove of this if necessary: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm...endID=57438503)

If she is on public assistance, you will be required to reimburse the state for what she is getting from the state.

I am currently a bartender working on average 40/50 hours a week, and just had another child who is now just one month old. The new child's mother had a cesarean and is unable to work for atleast the next few months. Understandably, i am now fighting a losing battle with finances, While the ex can afford an expensive pet and a new house without having to lift a finger.

You having another child knowing you already had a child you can barely support is the worse excuse to use if you are planning to take this back to court. I suggest you get another job to support your kids, or see if its worth it to have the child support for your first child modified. you need to see what they would impute moms income at. YOu need to use the child support calculator.

My question is: is this state that flawed with thier child support/welfare program, or is there some type of recourse i can now take.

Thanks in advanced for any help in this matter...

This is really about your unique situation. Now, you need to get busy to figure out how to address this. She may be comitting fraud by getting CS from you and double dipping in to state funds, unless the CS you pay is being kept by the state.

use the MD CS calculator. Was she working when your CS was first calculated?

[jk]

Lawrence084;287881]I am sorry, I explain my situation on another thread. Yes, my daughter is 18.

gee, it's real nice if you include all the pertinent facts in the thread you are in. I don;t research all a persons other threads to glean details.

I understand what you are saying, and we can go back and forth all day. Bottomline in my humble opinion, the father get "rape" through the system.

then write your state legislators.

He get treated like a babysitter.

not if you refuse to be treated as such. A father has rights but he also has duties, like paying for the support of his child.

he is not listen too when any decision have to be made.

if you are speaking about the mother making decisions. This is based on who the courts hace conferred legal custody to. If you disagree with hoe legal custody has been established, argue that with the courts but that does not change anything concerning CS.

He has absolutely no flexiblity on how the money he pays every month get spent.

You are correct and rightfully so. A custodial pays all sorts of intangibles and non-specifics that is is difficult, if not impossible to quantify.

The father has to file paper work to stop payment. (It should stop at an age....no excuses)

in some cases it does. This is very case specific so you are wrong here.

If I am correct, when my daughter goes to college, I still have to pay the exact same amount until she graduates

that depends on what the court order states.

, and to top that off, it still goes straight to her mother.

only if mom is still providing the child with a place to call home.

So not only am I NOT paying for her schooling, but her mother is getting all her bills paid off, while my daughter racks up student loans. And the more I think about it, the more I am realizing that there nothing in the system, that protects the child or the father. Just the mother.

very far from the truth

I just don't see any fairness at all....All the reasons you giving are justified in a perfect world. Bad part is, it not even close to being perfect.

then write your legislator and seek a change.

Okay here is a fair-er system:

Not even close to fairer. What you are suggesting is a welfare system funded by the non-custodial parents. One huge problem with this is; no two situations are the same. There are many facts that go in to setting child support. You are wanting to paint with a 4"brush when a fine detail brush is more appropriate.