JP Cusick and Child Support

[ConHog]

if non custodial is unemployed, they still have to pay?

care to cite the law?

If non custodial is unemployed the child support obligation doesn't go away, it is merely added to the ledger until some point where it can be collected.

[LuvRPgrl]

If non custodial is unemployed the child support obligation doesn't go away, it is merely added to the ledger until some point where it can be collected.

so you are saying , if no fault of their own, they are making $0 for a stretch of time, they are still required to pay CS?

again, citation?

[ConHog]

so you are saying , if no fault of their own, they are making $0 for a stretch of time, they are still required to pay CS?

again, citation?

Yes, I am saying that absent a court order temporarily lowering child support payments that the amount owed by order accrues if the payments aren't made. Regardless of employment status.

[LuvRPgrl]

That's federal law. Now each state IS left to their own devices to figure out how much each should pay. But FEDERAL law is that each parent is financially responsible for helping raise their children regardless of the financial situation of the other parent..

Ok, what you said above is all inclusive.At all times, under all circumstances.


If one of them is unemployed, and they go back to court to have the support amended, do they have to pay any support at all if they do in fact have any income whatsoever.

still waiting on the federal citation

[ConHog]

.

Ok, what you said above is all inclusive.At all times, under all circumstances.


If one of them is unemployed, and they go back to court to have the support amended, do they have to pay any support at all if they do in fact have any income whatsoever.

still waiting on the federal citation



Read what you just wrote and see how that differs from what I wrote. The above post of yours was the first mention of going back to court. I was very clear, if a parent becomes unemployed they CAN go back to family court and get their child support reduced. To be honest I don't know if it would be stopped completely if a person had no income. I doubt it.

However, a person can't just say "fuck it, I aint gotta job, I aint paying" and stop paying. The debt will simply accrue. And that is how you first made it sound you were going about things. You said NOTHING about getting an adjustment from the courts.

[LuvRPgrl]

Read what you just wrote and see how that differs from what I wrote. The above post of yours was the first mention of going back to court. I was very clear, if a parent becomes unemployed they CAN go back to family court and get their child support reduced. To be honest I don't know if it would be stopped completely if a person had no income. I doubt it.

However, a person can't just say "fuck it, I aint gotta job, I aint paying" and stop paying. The debt will simply accrue. And that is how you first made it sound you were going about things. You said NOTHING about getting an adjustment from the courts.

and you made an assumption that there already was an order in place. Ya know, everey divorce has a start when there is no order yet.
You said that no matter what, some amount would be ordered to be paid, and I was showing the scenario whereas one wasnt making any money whatsover. Would they still be ordered to pay something?

[Kathianne]

and you made an assumption that there already was an order in place. Ya know, everey divorce has a start when there is no order yet.
You said that no matter what, some amount would be ordered to be paid, and I was showing the scenario whereas one wasnt making any money whatsover. Would they still be ordered to pay something?

Both of you! I'm flying by the seat of my pants here, but will use my own anecdote knowledge here. My ex's income suddenly went up fourfold within two weeks of getting the divorce.

Of course it was an utter surprise to him, no waiting for the court for certain. Did i take him back to court? No. Why? It would have made a bad situation worse.

OTOH, seems there are a lot of men, probably women too that choose to quit their jobs rather than pay child support. Seems to me that if they can prove that they were fired or laid off, they should ask for a reduction. If however they just choose not to work? Jail or garnishing of any income at all.

[ConHog]

Both of you! I'm flying by the seat of my pants here, but will use my own anecdote knowledge here. My ex's income suddenly went up fourfold within two weeks of getting the divorce.

Of course it was an utter surprise to him, no waiting for the court for certain. Did i take him back to court? No. Why? It would have made a bad situation worse.

OTOH, seems there are a lot of men, probably women too that choose to quit their jobs rather than pay child support. Seems to me that if they can prove that they were fired or laid off, they should ask for a reduction. If however they just choose not to work? Jail or garnishing of any income at all.

I think you would be SHOCKED to find out how many non custodial parents would rather start a new job every 6 months or so rather than paying child support. It's pathetic.

[Kathianne]

I think you would be SHOCKED to find out how many non custodial parents would rather start a new job every 6 months or so rather than paying child support. It's pathetic.

Yeah, I do know. Neither my lawyer or myself were surprised by his promotion, indeed we figured the actual change happened much earlier, but officially posted by Crain's Chicago came literally days after the divorce was granted.

[ConHog]

Yeah, I do know. Neither my lawyer or myself were surprised by his promotion, indeed we figured the actual change happened much earlier, but officially posted by Crain's Chicago came literally days after the divorce was granted.


Yeah, but good luck proving that. That's one thing that has always bothered me about the child support. They have built in delays for this or that. well that just basically gives the non custodial parent fair warning that CSE is onto them

"dear sir, in 60 days we will start garnishing your wages" really means "dear dirtbag you have 50 days to find a new job" because the process starts anew every time a new employer is tracked down.

[Gunny]

so you are saying , if no fault of their own, they are making $0 for a stretch of time, they are still required to pay CS?

again, citation?

The "citation" is that is EXACTLY how the judge ruled in my ex-SIL's case. The responsibility to the child does not go away. He went back and got the monthly amount temporarily lowered; however, he STILL in the end has to pay the total amount.

[LuvRPgrl]

The "citation" is that is EXACTLY how the judge ruled in my ex-SIL's case. The responsibility to the child does not go away. He went back and got the monthly amount temporarily lowered; however, he STILL in the end has to pay the total amount.AL

the point Iim trying to make is this.
conman said that the party responsable for CS, will ALWAYS have to pay something, but Im saying there are lots of circumstances in which they wont be responsable.
what if the guy got in an accident, and
cant work
or, is homeless

been committed to a psychiatric facility
is in prison

[ConHog]

AL

the point Iim trying to make is this.
conman said that the party responsable for CS, will ALWAYS have to pay something, but Im saying there are lots of circumstances in which they wont be responsable.
what if the guy got in an accident, and
cant work
or, is homeless

been committed to a psychiatric facility
is in prison

and in ALL of those cases if there is an outstanding child support order the non custodial will owe. Even if they can't pay, the amount accrues (that means adds up)

Even if there is no child support order, do you realize the custodial parent can later go to court and get a court order that retroactively applies CS and the non custodial will have to pay it.

[LuvRPgrl]

and in ALL of those cases if there is an outstanding child support order the non custodial will owe. Even if they can't pay, the amount accrues (that means adds up).
did YOU not read the part that says there is no current order, and retro pay isnt asked. Not to mention, Im not talking about arrearages, Im talking about the amount the judge will order.


Even if there is no child support order, do you realize the custodial parent can later go to court and get a court order that retroactively applies CS and the non custodial will have to pay it.

Usually the retro pay ordered will only go back to the date of the current filing for the CS.

SO, AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN,
CAN A judge order no payments required under any circums.tances?

still waiting for that citation

[ConHog]

did YOU not read the part that says there is no current order, and retro pay isnt asked. Not to mention, Im not talking about arrearages, Im talking about the amount the judge will order.



Usually the retro pay ordered will only go back to the date of the current filing for the CS.

SO, AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN,
CAN A judge order no payments required under any circums.tances?

still waiting for that citation

Asked and answered sir. First of all your original argument NEVER mentioned a court order. Second of all , I said I don't know if they would order zero child support do under any circumstances, but I doubt it.