User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 5:02:48 PM EDT
[#1]
The federal government shouldn't be involved in the issue.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 5:04:09 PM EDT
[#2]
How about we stop welfare for paying for 18 years of kids with no parents.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 5:10:22 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The federal government isn't and shouldn't be involved in the issue. Next, mothers didn't like that a man could have a pay cut and ask the court to reduce his child support accordingly. The Mothers' Rights groups pushed Congress further. So, Congress told the states, "enact laws preventing child support from being reduced retroactively back to the date the dad got his pay cut, or you don't get Federal funding for XYZ." So all states did that, and now judges can only reduce child support going forward from the date the judge enters the order. If mom can delay, delay, delay that court hearing for months, she continues to get the higher child support during that time. There is more, a lot more, but I'm not researching it right now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 5:53:36 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually, the federal government has been involved in child support for a while. Years ago, in many states the judges had complete discretion to set child support without any guidelines. Mothers believed they weren't getting their "fair share," so Mothers' Rights groups pushed Congress to "do something about it!" So, Congress told the states, "enact laws creating standardized child support guidelines and require family court judges to follow them, or you don't get Federal funding for XYZ." So all states implemented standard guidelines within their state for the judges to abide by. Next, mothers didn't like that a man could have a pay cut and ask the court to reduce his child support accordingly. The Mothers' Rights groups pushed Congress further. So, Congress told the states, "enact laws preventing child support from being reduced retroactively back to the date the dad got his pay cut, or you don't get Federal funding for XYZ." So all states did that, and now judges can only reduce child support going forward from the date the judge enters the order. If mom can delay, delay, delay that court hearing for months, she continues to get the higher child support during that time. There is more, a lot more, but I'm not researching it right now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 5:54:54 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How about we stop welfare for paying for 18 years of kids with no parents. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 5:56:12 PM EDT
[#6]
There is zero accountability for what happens with a child support check. That is my biggest gripe.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 5:57:18 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess there might be more father's rights groups if they weren't all busy slaving away to make their extortion payments. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 6:07:40 PM EDT
[#8]
End child support for all children born out of wed lock.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 6:10:27 PM EDT
[#9]
The whole system is f**ked.....totally f**ked.
Really makes you think long and hard about getting married or even laid for that matter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 6:10:29 PM EDT
[#10]
"Child support" is welfare for women.
If it was not, there WOULD be accountability. Imagine instead of "child" support, fathers had to pay "coffee" support. They had to pay for their ex-wive's coffee. Coffee costs a certain amount....regardless of who the father is. However, some fathers have to pay a lot more for their coffee support than other fathers. Why? Because those fathers HAVE more money. Do those fathers get receipts showing that their ex-wives are guzzling 28 cups of Starbucks everyday? No. The amount of coffee and the price of the coffee consumed is completely irrelevant. Because as far as the court system, the government, feminists, society at large, and even the average woman are concerned, "child" support is as arbitrary as "coffee" support. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything except how much money can and will be transferred to women. If what I've typed was incorrect, there would be accountability. The government, feminists, society at large, and even the average woman would expect it. But there is no accountability nor will there ever be. Because child/coffee support is welfare for women. And way down deep inside, everybody knows it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 6:28:06 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually, the federal government has been involved in child support for a while. Years ago, in many states the judges had complete discretion to set child support without any guidelines. Mothers believed they weren't getting their "fair share," so Mothers' Rights groups pushed Congress to "do something about it!" So, Congress told the states, "enact laws creating standardized child support guidelines and require family court judges to follow them, or you don't get Federal funding for XYZ." So all states implemented standard guidelines within their state for the judges to abide by. Next, mothers didn't like that a man could have a pay cut and ask the court to reduce his child support accordingly. The Mothers' Rights groups pushed Congress further. So, Congress told the states, "enact laws preventing child support from being reduced retroactively back to the date the dad got his pay cut, or you don't get Federal funding for XYZ." So all states did that, and now judges can only reduce child support going forward from the date the judge enters the order. If mom can delay, delay, delay that court hearing for months, she continues to get the higher child support during that time. There is more, a lot more, but I'm not researching it right now. Just to piss you guys off, as a CS hearing officer, I have personally added over $35,000 in arrears to a payor (father) after learning that he had a significant increase in his income that he had not disclosed to the CS agency or the pltf in the action, which was under order to do. At the hearing, which had to be continued for him to be compelled to produce 5 years of tax returns, I ran all the calculations for a 5 year retroactive period, the period for which his pay increase had not been disclosed. Deft appealed to the court and it was affirmed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 6:35:20 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
CS guidelines are still determined by state rules in each state, federal guidelines are very general and are far more concerned with collection and enforcement than establishment. Modifications of support orders, which are an establishment function, are effective as of the date of filing of a petition or motion, not as of the hearing date; at least not in my jurisdiction. Just to piss you guys off, as a CS hearing officer, I have personally added over $35,000 in arrears to a payor (father) after learning that he had a significant increase in his income that he had not disclosed to the CS agency or the pltf in the action, which was under order to do. At the hearing, which had to be continued for him to be compelled to produce 5 years of tax returns, I ran all the calculations for a 5 year retroactive period, the period for which his pay increase had not been disclosed. Deft appealed to the court and it was affirmed. Ever audited a woman receiving support? Let me guess... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 6:36:50 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is zero accountability for what happens with a child support check. That is my biggest gripe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 6:45:27 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
CS guidelines are still determined by state rules in each state, federal guidelines are very general and are far more concerned with collection and enforcement than establishment. Modifications of support orders, which are an establishment function, are effective as of the date of filing of a petition or motion, not as of the hearing date; at least not in my jurisdiction. Just to piss you guys off, as a CS hearing officer, I have personally added over $35,000 in arrears to a payor (father) after learning that he had a significant increase in his income that he had not disclosed to the CS agency or the pltf in the action, which was under order to do. At the hearing, which had to be continued for him to be compelled to produce 5 years of tax returns, I ran all the calculations for a 5 year retroactive period, the period for which his pay increase had not been disclosed. Deft appealed to the court and it was affirmed. But if I were ever to find myself doing something like what you described, I would consider myself the absolute worst of the scum that comprises the scummiest part of the overall legal system. But that's just me. Thankfully, I never have to worry about that level of self-loathing because in my long life, I have always aspired to more noble, meaningful callings, rather than participate in evil & destructive things like being a serial rapist, abortion doctor, or child support agent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 6:50:35 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryCS guidelines are still determined by state rules in each state, federal guidelines are very general and are far more concerned with collection and enforcement than establishment. Modifications of support orders, which are an establishment function, are effective as of the date of filing of a petition or motion, not as of the hearing date; at least not in my jurisdiction. Just to piss you guys off, as a CS hearing officer, I have personally added over $35,000 in arrears to a payor (father) after learning that he had a significant increase in his income that he had not disclosed to the CS agency or the pltf in the action, which was under order to do. At the hearing, which had to be continued for him to be compelled to produce 5 years of tax returns, I ran all the calculations for a 5 year retroactive period, the period for which his pay increase had not been disclosed. Deft appealed to the court and it was affirmed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 6:50:44 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks for your service. A real hero. Ever audited a woman receiving support? Let me guess... No court anywhere has the right to "audit" the manner in which a custodial parent disposes of support funds, absent proof of abuse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 6:50:55 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
CS guidelines are still determined by state rules in each state, federal guidelines are very general and are far more concerned with collection and enforcement than establishment. Modifications of support orders, which are an establishment function, are effective as of the date of filing of a petition or motion, not as of the hearing date; at least not in my jurisdiction. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Actually, the federal government has been involved in child support for a while. Years ago, in many states the judges had complete discretion to set child support without any guidelines. Mothers believed they weren't getting their "fair share," so Mothers' Rights groups pushed Congress to "do something about it!" So, Congress told the states, "enact laws creating standardized child support guidelines and require family court judges to follow them, or you don't get Federal funding for XYZ." So all states implemented standard guidelines within their state for the judges to abide by. Next, mothers didn't like that a man could have a pay cut and ask the court to reduce his child support accordingly. The Mothers' Rights groups pushed Congress further. So, Congress told the states, "enact laws preventing child support from being reduced retroactively back to the date the dad got his pay cut, or you don't get Federal funding for XYZ." So all states did that, and now judges can only reduce child support going forward from the date the judge enters the order. If mom can delay, delay, delay that court hearing for months, she continues to get the higher child support during that time. There is more, a lot more, but I'm not researching it right now. Just to piss you guys off, as a CS hearing officer, I have personally added over $35,000 in arrears to a payor (father) after learning that he had a significant increase in his income that he had not disclosed to the CS agency or the pltf in the action, which was under order to do. At the hearing, which had to be continued for him to be compelled to produce 5 years of tax returns, I ran all the calculations for a 5 year retroactive period, the period for which his pay increase had not been disclosed. Deft appealed to the court and it was affirmed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 6:52:46 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No court anywhere has the right to "audit" the manner in which a custodial parent disposes of support funds, absent proof of abuse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 6:55:53 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No hero. When a support order is based on a payor earning $50,000/yr and I learn more than 5 years later that he had been earning over $130,000 and he was under an affirmative duty to report changes in income and failed to do that, then I have an obligation as a court officer and a person who conducts himself with honor to go retro to when the significant increase in income began - sorry if you can't see the ethical implications there. No court anywhere has the right to "audit" the manner in which a custodial parent disposes of support funds, absent proof of abuse. Funny you'll happily fuck the guy over for progressing on in life and making more, but not give a second look to whether she was EVER accurately reporting income. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 6:57:22 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess there might be more father's rights groups if they weren't all busy slaving away to make their extortion payments. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Actually, the federal government has been involved in child support for a while. Years ago, in many states the judges had complete discretion to set child support without any guidelines. Mothers believed they weren't getting their "fair share," so Mothers' Rights groups pushed Congress to "do something about it!" So, Congress told the states, "enact laws creating standardized child support guidelines and require family court judges to follow them, or you don't get Federal funding for XYZ." So all states implemented standard guidelines within their state for the judges to abide by. Next, mothers didn't like that a man could have a pay cut and ask the court to reduce his child support accordingly. The Mothers' Rights groups pushed Congress further. So, Congress told the states, "enact laws preventing child support from being reduced retroactively back to the date the dad got his pay cut, or you don't get Federal funding for XYZ." So all states did that, and now judges can only reduce child support going forward from the date the judge enters the order. If mom can delay, delay, delay that court hearing for months, she continues to get the higher child support during that time. There is more, a lot more, but I'm not researching it right now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 7:02:52 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Women outnumber men and vote more reliably, good luck finding many that want to change the current system. Even if they aren't benefitting now they want to keep it this way just in case. Add on to them the standard pussy white knights who would cut their own balls off if a woman asked them to and there's no realistic prospect of fixing the family courts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 7:05:44 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
True. It's all about equality until it's time to pay the check. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Women outnumber men and vote more reliably, good luck finding many that want to change the current system. Even if they aren't benefitting now they want to keep it this way just in case. Add on to them the standard pussy white knights who would cut their own balls off if a woman asked them to and there's no realistic prospect of fixing the family courts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 7:12:48 PM EDT
[#23]
The power a woman has over a man when kids are involved is so out of control it isnt even funny.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 7:17:32 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Child support" is welfare for women. If it was not, there WOULD be accountability. Imagine instead of "child" support, fathers had to pay "coffee" support. They had to pay for their ex-wive's coffee. Coffee costs a certain amount....regardless of who the father is. However, some fathers have to pay a lot more for their coffee support than other fathers. Why? Because those fathers HAVE more money. Do those fathers get receipts showing that their ex-wives are guzzling 28 cups of Starbucks everyday? No. The amount of coffee and the price of the coffee consumed is completely irrelevant. Because as far as the court system, the government, feminists, society at large, and even the average woman are concerned, "child" support is as arbitrary as "coffee" support. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything except how much money can and will be transferred to women. If what I've typed was incorrect, there would be accountability. The government, feminists, society at large, and even the average woman would expect it. But there is no accountability nor will there ever be. Because child/coffee support is welfare for women. And way down deep inside, everybody knows it. it is an ingenious control mechanism incremently put in place over the last 30 years by .gov the state is using marriage and children to put men into a form of indentured servitude many many men live in absolute denial of this fact because to admit otherwise is to admit you are a slave |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 7:19:56 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
all per design it is an ingenious control mechanism incremently put in place over the last 30 years by .gov the state is using marriage and children to put men into a form of indentured servitude many many men live in absolute denial of this fact because to admit otherwise is to admit you are a slave 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 7:23:10 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When you look at all of the welfare and various wealth redistribution schemes at a societal level, it all basically boils down to taking money from men and giving it to single women. Women as a demographic aren't even net taxpayers, there are so many women on the dole that it wipes out all of the taxes that working women pay and then some. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Women outnumber men and vote more reliably, good luck finding many that want to change the current system. Even if they aren't benefitting now they want to keep it this way just in case. Add on to them the standard pussy white knights who would cut their own balls off if a woman asked them to and there's no realistic prospect of fixing the family courts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 7:23:46 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The federal government isn't and shouldn't be involved in the issue.  BigFed.gov is up to it's smelly crotch in CS issues. It's not about CS it's about control.....and there is nothing BigFed.gov likes more than control.
BigFed.gov "awards" states for CS collections. The "better" the states do with collection the more money from BigFed they get. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 7:25:30 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How about we stop welfare for paying for 18 years of kids with no parents. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 7:27:06 PM EDT
[#29]
Poor life choices often have costly consequences. The federal government should not be involved in protecting people from those consequences.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 7:31:46 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No hero. When a support order is based on a payor earning $50,000/yr and I learn more than 5 years later that he had been earning over $130,000 and he was under an affirmative duty to report changes in income and failed to do that, then I have an obligation as a court officer and a person who conducts himself with honor to go retro to when the significant increase in income began - sorry if you can't see the ethical implications there. No court anywhere has the right to "audit" the manner in which a custodial parent disposes of support funds, absent proof of abuse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 7:33:13 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks for your service. A real hero. Ever audited a woman receiving support? Let me guess... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 7:33:48 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No hero. When a support order is based on a payor earning $50,000/yr and I learn more than 5 years later that he had been earning over $130,000 and he was under an affirmative duty to report changes in income and failed to do that, then I have an obligation as a court officer and a person who conducts himself with honor to go retro to when the significant increase in income began - sorry if you can't see the ethical implications there. No court anywhere has the right to "audit" the manner in which a custodial parent disposes of support funds, absent proof of abuse. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Thanks for your service. A real hero. Ever audited a woman receiving support? Let me guess... No court anywhere has the right to "audit" the manner in which a custodial parent disposes of support funds, absent proof of abuse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 7:36:39 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is a system designed to materially incentivize the self-destruction of the two parent family and generate popular dependence on the State for basic existence. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Women outnumber men and vote more reliably, good luck finding many that want to change the current system. Even if they aren't benefitting now they want to keep it this way just in case. Add on to them the standard pussy white knights who would cut their own balls off if a woman asked them to and there's no realistic prospect of fixing the family courts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 7:38:02 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
True. It's all about equality until it's time to pay the check. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 7:40:50 PM EDT
[#35]
My wife left for another guy
I got the house and the kid, told her she could hire a attorney but it's not gonna help her as I wasn't gonna comply. She took her shit and left she didn't bring anything to the marriage so she left with nothing |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 7:42:21 PM EDT
[#36]
My niece is married to a worthless fuck and they have 2 kids. He is now into this polyamorous shit and told her she either agreed to it or he was kicking her out of the house and he and his new girlfriend were keeping the kids. Dickhead needs to be paying for full support of his children and the house as well.
Screw this crap of so called studs thinking they can walk away from their kids because they have other pussy to chase. Over and over again, GD harps about fathers being absent from their child rearing duties being the cause of violence and ignorance. Suck it up and act like men instead of hamsters. It's about personal responsibility. If the man can keep the kids, raise them, and have the mother pay child support, then they should go that way as well. Actions have consequences. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 7:44:18 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is zero accountability for what happens with a child support check. That is my biggest gripe. And it has to be cash. School supplies, food, clothes, baby shitt, everything kids need that costs a shit ton of money? Doesn't count towards child support. But mommy can blow all that money on booze, cigarettes, drugs, hotels, clothes for HER, and all sorts of assorted stupid shit. How the fuck does that make sense? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 7:50:57 PM EDT
[#38]
This problem will disappear when they perfect sex bots. And by "perfect" I mean a design which is physically very realistic, but with no ability for procreation, and no female drive for revenge or exploitation.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 7:52:55 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Same kind of person who turns a blind eye to a woman who runs a business but reports no job or income to fuck over a guy. Because as a gov't drone it's not "my job" to check and see what is on the paperwork is true. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No hero. When a support order is based on a payor earning $50,000/yr and I learn more than 5 years later that he had been earning over $130,000 and he was under an affirmative duty to report changes in income and failed to do that, then I have an obligation as a court officer and a person who conducts himself with honor to go retro to when the significant increase in income began - sorry if you can't see the ethical implications there. No court anywhere has the right to "audit" the manner in which a custodial parent disposes of support funds, absent proof of abuse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 7:58:41 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Same kind of person who turns a blind eye to a woman who runs a business but reports no job or income to fuck over a guy. Because as a gov't drone it's not "my job" to check and see what is on the paperwork is true.  Perhaps you should have hired a PI.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 8:02:32 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wtaf? I'm not sure that word honor means what you think it means. You are right about not being a hero through. Thanks for playing! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 8:04:22 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So intentionally violating a court order in order to cheat your dependent children out of support funds is alright by you? Thanks for playing! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wtaf? I'm not sure that word honor means what you think it means. You are right about not being a hero through. Thanks for playing! That extra cash usually goes into the mom's fun money account, maybe buys her some new tits so she go whore it up with the local scum bags. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 8:07:08 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My niece is married to a worthless fuck and they have 2 kids. He is now into this polyamorous shit and told her she either agreed to it or he was kicking her out of the house and he and his new girlfriend were keeping the kids. Dickhead needs to be paying for full support of his children and the house as well. Screw this crap of so called studs thinking they can walk away from their kids because they have other pussy to chase. Over and over again, GD harps about fathers being absent from their child rearing duties being the cause of violence and ignorance. Suck it up and act like men instead of hamsters. It's about personal responsibility. If the man can keep the kids, raise them, and have the mother pay child support, then they should go that way as well. Actions have consequences. I am in fear for my life, i am in fear of my kid's lives, and i believe my husband is molesting my children. Thats all it takes for the state to award full custody to the mother. She'll get a massive CS payment, and the guy above will make damn sure of it. And she will have uncontested time with the kids to make sure they tell their case workers, forensic psychologists, and social works everything they need to hear. If the guy can afford the high powered attorney needed he might be able to see his kids 8 or 9 months after he is servered with the initial restraining order. But he will still have a year or more before his rights are restored. Best part is, even after everything is proven false, mom just laughs it off. No charges for her. Here is your check. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 8:07:40 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry to hear about your personal problems Perhaps you should have hired a PI.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 8:12:28 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
CS guidelines are still determined by state rules in each state, federal guidelines are very general and are far more concerned with collection and enforcement than establishment. Modifications of support orders, which are an establishment function, are effective as of the date of filing of a petition or motion, not as of the hearing date; at least not in my jurisdiction. Just to piss you guys off, as a CS hearing officer, I have personally added over $35,000 in arrears to a payor (father) after learning that he had a significant increase in his income that he had not disclosed to the CS agency or the pltf in the action, which was under order to do. At the hearing, which had to be continued for him to be compelled to produce 5 years of tax returns, I ran all the calculations for a 5 year retroactive period, the period for which his pay increase had not been disclosed. Deft appealed to the court and it was affirmed. How can you live with yourself? I'd bury myself out of pure shame. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 8:13:22 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol, was the child going hungry or something? That extra cash usually goes into the mom's fun money account, maybe buys her some new tits so she go whore it up with the local scum bags. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 8:14:58 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It really is brilliant, marxists are evil as shit but the ones at the top who are engineering it all are dangerously smart and adept manipulators of human nature. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Women outnumber men and vote more reliably, good luck finding many that want to change the current system. Even if they aren't benefitting now they want to keep it this way just in case. Add on to them the standard pussy white knights who would cut their own balls off if a woman asked them to and there's no realistic prospect of fixing the family courts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 8:20:16 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just to piss you guys off, as a CS hearing officer, I have personally added over $35,000 in arrears to a payor (father) after learning that he had a significant increase in his income that he had not disclosed to the CS agency or the pltf in the action, which was under order to do. At the hearing, which had to be continued for him to be compelled to produce 5 years of tax returns, I ran all the calculations for a 5 year retroactive period, the period for which his pay increase had not been disclosed. Deft appealed to the court and it was affirmed. 
injustice exists in many forms |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 8:20:22 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually in this case it's quite likely all funds were saved for college because in some jurisdiction there is no such thing as college support nad given the character of the payor involved, it's unlikely he would help with college. That's another thing I've seen for all of you who have a deep seated hatred of women, many men who are no longer obligated to pay support after age 18 will not help with college expenses and it becomes, by default, the mothers responsibily to help the kids get through college. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Lol, was the child going hungry or something? That extra cash usually goes into the mom's fun money account, maybe buys her some new tits so she go whore it up with the local scum bags. 
You are a perfect example of the stereotypical family court worker. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2017 8:23:49 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually in this case it's quite likely all funds were saved for college because in some jurisdiction there is no such thing as college support nad given the character of the payor involved, it's unlikely he would help with college. That's another thing I've seen for all of you who have a deep seated hatred of women, many men who are no longer obligated to pay support after age 18 will not help with college expenses and it becomes, by default, the mothers responsibily to help the kids get through college. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Lol, was the child going hungry or something? That extra cash usually goes into the mom's fun money account, maybe buys her some new tits so she go whore it up with the local scum bags. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
