JP Cusick and Child Support

[jimnyc]

I am DYING to hear our new members take on child support and why he thinks it's the worst thing in the world. This is a man running for "actual office", and apparently doesn't believe parents should be financially responsible for their kids. My ONLY issue, ever, is WAY off topic - and that it irritates me that a man MUST pay CS even if he didn't want a kid.... You know, the whole abortion / have child and man having little input. But anyway, what is done is done and at that point BOTH parents need to take responsibility.

JP - as a man running for office, which would include all financials being disclosed... I'd be very curious to hear if you currently pay CS or ever did. Additionally, were you EVER behind on said payments?

Then explain to us what the horror is in CS...

[JP Cusick]

I am DYING to hear our new members take on child support and why he thinks it's the worst thing in the world. This is a man running for "actual office", and apparently doesn't believe parents should be financially responsible for their kids.


I am not really saying that I do not like it when both the biological parents raise their own children, as I am only against the evil Child Support and Custody laws which interfere with the parents doing their own parenting.

It is the laws which are wrong, and the laws make the 2 parents wrong.




My ONLY issue, ever, is WAY off topic - and that it irritates me that a man MUST pay CS even if he didn't want a kid.... You know, the whole abortion / have child and man having little input. But anyway, what is done is done and at that point BOTH parents need to take responsibility.


I very much disagree with that horrible stance that the father might want an abortion so then the mother has no claim on the father who did not want the baby.

That argument is sound and sensible except at the same time it is a cruel and inhuman stance too.

I find that many abortions really are done based on the 2 parents being worried about the Child Support and Custody laws which the 2 parents know that those laws will attack them as parents so they chose an abortion instead, which is another example of those laws being evil.




JP - as a man running for office, which would include all financials being disclosed... I'd be very curious to hear if you currently pay CS or ever did. Additionally, were you EVER behind on said payments?


I give all that info on my website of my finances and my own Child Support history, and I am told that some time after 5 posting then I can start putting links onto this forum.

To copy paste it onto here would not be cool, and to summarize the info is done on the website.




Then explain to us what the horror is in CS...


The Child Support and Custody laws have turned parenting into a crime, and has turned millions of parents into criminals and the laws alienate the children from their parents, and creates an unnatural barrier between the two parents.

So that makes the Child Support and Custody laws as evil.

[avatar4321]

And what crime has it turned parenting into?

[JP Cusick]

And what crime has it turned parenting into?


I see that as a sensible question because there is no real crime at all.

The parents are persecuted and insulted, degraded, incarcerated, and more when their only crime is being a parent.

Of course the parents are put into jails for being too poor to pay the thieving Child Support, but being poor (or a parents being poor) is not a real crime either.

The answer to the question is that there is no crime at all by the parents involved.

There is the State crimes against its citizens as in persecuting the parents under the evil Child Support and Custody laws.

[fj1200]

... thieving Child Support...

So the child who didn't ask to be born is stealing from his/her parents?

[avatar4321]

I don't see how being expected to support your children is thievery.

Taking from one person to give to another who has no right to it is robbery.

Taking from a person in order to pay a debt they are failing to pay to another is not.

[darin]

If the support-receiving parent had to show the money was ACTUALLY going to 'support the child', I'd be thrilled. Child-support is generally 'male-thievery'; that is to say, women often get thousands of dollars per year to 'support a kid' bills that are only perhaps half that.

Child support should be this, for one child, for a 100% custodial parent:

Add HALF the amount of the difference between a 1 bedroom place and a 2.

Every other dollar spent should be annotated, with half the total awarded to the custodial parent.

Here's what happens: Woman gets custody, and gets awarded 'child support' to the point the father lives in poverty, while she blows money on nails and hair. (shrug).

Child support audits and record keeping.

I'd also love if a politician had enough guts to throw out 'pay or go to jail' laws.

...but don't get me started....



To quote the poet, Kanye..


18 years, 18 years
She got one of yo' kids, got you for 18 years
I know somebody payin' child support for one of his kids
His baby momma's car crib is bigger than his
You will see him on TV, any given Sunday
Win the Superbowl and drive off in a Hyundai

[fj1200]

^That was better said than from an actual "politician."

[ConHog]

I am DYING to hear our new members take on child support and why he thinks it's the worst thing in the world. This is a man running for "actual office", and apparently doesn't believe parents should be financially responsible for their kids. My ONLY issue, ever, is WAY off topic - and that it irritates me that a man MUST pay CS even if he didn't want a kid.... You know, the whole abortion / have child and man having little input. But anyway, what is done is done and at that point BOTH parents need to take responsibility.

JP - as a man running for office, which would include all financials being disclosed... I'd be very curious to hear if you currently pay CS or ever did. Additionally, were you EVER behind on said payments?

Then explain to us what the horror is in CS...


I am with you 100% on the forcing a man to pay child support if the woman decides to have the child , but not giving him ANY say so when it comes to deciding on abortion or not.

Full disclosure, my ex wife is over $50K behind in child support and will in all likelihood NEVER be required to pay any of it since my son is now over 18 years gold. Yes it's on the books, but not likely to be collected.

[ConHog]

I see that as a sensible question because there is no real crime at all.

The parents are persecuted and insulted, degraded, incarcerated, and more when their only crime is being a parent.

Of course the parents are put into jails for being too poor to pay the thieving Child Support, but being poor (or a parents being poor) is not a real crime either.

The answer to the question is that there is no crime at all by the parents involved.

There is the State crimes against its citizens as in persecuting the parents under the evil Child Support and Custody laws.

Among the MANY things you have wrong here. If you don't support your offspring, financially or otherwise, you are not a parent, you are a DNA donor and nothing more.

[JP Cusick]

So the child who didn't ask to be born is stealing from his/her parents?


I am not saying that the children are stealing from their parents, as that is your own projection.

What I say is that the children are stolen from their other parent by the Custody laws which are effectively kidnapping the children from their noncustodial parent.

And it could be said that the Custodial is stealing the Child Support, but in fact the Custodial is only receiving the extorted and stolen Child Support cash.

The true thief in this regard is the State laws which steal the children and then steal the Child Support as the State is the thief.

[ConHog]

I am not saying that the children are stealing from their parents, as that is your own projection.

What I say is that the children are stolen from their other parent by the Custody laws which are effectively kidnapping the children from their noncustodial parent.

And it could be said that the Custodial is stealing the Child Support, but in fact the Custodial is only receiving the extorted and stolen Child Support cash.

The true thief in this regard is the State laws which steal the children and then steal the Child Support as the State is the thief.



Am I too understand that you are actually running for an elected office?

You're beyond ridiculous, the above post by you makes no sense whatsoever.

[darin]

I am not saying that the children are stealing from their parents, as that is your own projection.

What I say is that the children are stolen from their other parent by the Custody laws which are effectively kidnapping the children from their noncustodial parent.

And it could be said that the Custodial is stealing the Child Support, but in fact the Custodial is only receiving the extorted and stolen Child Support cash.

The true thief in this regard is the State laws which steal the children and then steal the Child Support as the State is the thief.

I agree with that.

[fj1200]

I am not saying that the children are stealing from their parents, as that is your own projection.

It's not my projection, it's your inability to explain in words WTF you're talking about.

[Little-Acorn]

When parents have kids, the parents owe those kids a decent upbringing, to the extent those parents can provide. (and when the kids grow up and have their own kids, they will owe THEIR kids the same, etc. etc.).

When parents with kids divorce, they are renegging on the debt they owe their kids. Even if the divorce was justified, even inevitable, they still owe that debt to their kids... and the divorce interferes in major ways with its settlement, regardless of the circumstances of the divorce.

How SHOULD the parents fulfill the debt they owe to their kids, after they divorce? Child support payments are part of the way. Visitation is another, etc. What exactly SHOULD the judge decide?

In California (divorce rulings vary by state), the judge will set support payments based on what each parent earns, and on what each parent needs to support himself. If later one of them loses a job, or has unexpected large expenses (car wreck, illness etc.), the judge will adjust payments accordingly. His goal is to achieve what is best for the child, and "not impossible" for the parents. He will not leave a payment schedule that totally strips one parent beyond his means.

I don't know how it goes in other states. That's how it is in California.

Is someone here, saying this is "wrong", and that it should be done some other way instead?

[Kathianne]

When parents have kids, the parents owe those kids a decent upbringing, to the extent those parents can provide. (and when the kids grow up and have their own kids, they will owe THEIR kids the same, etc. etc.).

When parents with kids divorce, they are renegging on the debt they owe their kids. Even if the divorce was justified, even inevitable, they still owe that debt to their kids... and the divorce interferes in major ways with its settlement, regardless of the circumstances of the divorce.

How SHOULD the parents fulfill the debt they owe to their kids, after they divorce? Child support payments are part of the way. Visitation is another, etc. What exactly SHOULD the judge decide?

Yep. Majority of divorces now end in joint custody. When there is sole custody it's usually because of one parent being deemed much more functional as a parent or the parent giving up joint custody, doesn't want the responsibility.

Child support is for the children. Dmp's point of splitting the costs of housing, food, etc., when custodial parent isn't able to make 1/2 of the costs of keeping the children in the lifestyle they had previously, doesn't make sense. This is especially true when the major earner just wants to walk away.

Take a good look at J.P.'s bio. After the divorce and the 'awarding' of child support, he took off to live the life of the happy traveler. No kids, no wife, no job. When that caught up with him, he went goofy and started spray painting graffiti on public buildings. That was the cause of incarceration and may be why he had limited/restricted visitation after.

[DragonStryk72]

I am not saying that the children are stealing from their parents, as that is your own projection.

What I say is that the children are stolen from their other parent by the Custody laws which are effectively kidnapping the children from their noncustodial parent.

So what you're saying in essence here is that both parents should have their liberty and pursuit of happiness stripped off of them, so that they can be shackled together for the rest of their lives? Cause that's the only way that works.

And it could be said that the Custodial is stealing the Child Support, but in fact the Custodial is only receiving the extorted and stolen Child Support cash.

The true thief in this regard is the State laws which steal the children and then steal the Child Support as the State is the thief.

The State is doing two thing, and two things only: It is making certain that a) the child has a basically safe place to live, and b) making certain that both parents put in for the kid's upbringing.

Child support money most usually goes into a pile with the rest of the money that comes in from jobs and such. This means that the expenses of the month may be getting paid out of pocket depending on when CS payments arrive. Say you're supposed to do CS on the 1st and 15th, this means that the custodial parent is likely still paying for things for the kid, in the in-between times, since the individual payments may not be enough to cover the bills that come up.

Yes, I know, there are abuses, but you know what, there always will be people abusing the system no matter what system we use. Even an annotated system can get abused easily.

Now, if you really don't want to pay child support, then here is my advice to you: STOP FUCKING! It's simple, fucking leads to pregnancy, which leads to children, so if you're so gung ho, either stop fucking, or stop fucking without protection for both parties. Not just one of you, both of you.

[ConHog]

Yep. Majority of divorces now end in joint custody. When there is sole custody it's usually because of one parent being deemed much more functional as a parent or the parent giving up joint custody, doesn't want the responsibility.

Child support is for the children. Dmp's point of splitting the costs of housing, food, etc., when custodial parent isn't able to make 1/2 of the costs of keeping the children in the lifestyle they had previously, doesn't make sense. This is especially true when the major earner just wants to walk away.

Take a good look at J.P.'s bio. After the divorce and the 'awarding' of child support, he took off to live the life of the happy traveler. No kids, no wife, no job. When that caught up with him, he went goofy and started spray painting graffiti on public buildings. That was the cause of incarceration and may be why he had limited/restricted visitation after.

What the ?? Are you suggesting that JP's actions led directly to adverse consequences? What kind of bullshit is that?:laugh2:

[JP Cusick]

When parents have kids, the parents owe those kids a decent upbringing, to the extent those parents can provide. (and when the kids grow up and have their own kids, they will owe THEIR kids the same, etc. etc.).

When parents with kids divorce, they are renegging on the debt they owe their kids. Even if the divorce was justified, even inevitable, they still owe that debt to their kids... and the divorce interferes in major ways with its settlement, regardless of the circumstances of the divorce.

How SHOULD the parents fulfill the debt they owe to their kids, after they divorce? Child support payments are part of the way. Visitation is another, etc. What exactly SHOULD the judge decide?

In California (divorce rulings vary by state), the judge will set support payments based on what each parent earns, and on what each parent needs to support himself. If later one of them loses a job, or has unexpected large expenses (car wreck, illness etc.), the judge will adjust payments accordingly. His goal is to achieve what is best for the child, and "not impossible" for the parents. He will not leave a payment schedule that totally strips one parent beyond his means.

I don't know how it goes in other states. That's how it is in California.

Is someone here, saying this is "wrong", and that it should be done some other way instead?


I say you are wrong, but more so is that you are being belligerent and violating your own boundaries by stepping into the business of other people.

A parent or both parents raise their own child or children because they want to do so, as human parents all love and care about their own natural offspring.

As such no parent(s) "owes" their children anything, and it is a violation of their family for people like your self or for the laws to step in claiming the parents "owe" their children when the parents owe nothing.

[JP Cusick]

What the ?? Are you suggesting that JP's actions led directly to adverse consequences? What kind of xxxxxx is that?:laugh2:


I do not argue against my own situation, as if you read my biography page then it is NOT a crying story as I am very proud of my acts of civil disobedience against the evil Child Support and Custody laws.

My experiences were very enlightening and empowering and a fun adventure too.

[Little-Acorn]

A parent or both parents raise their own child or children because they want to do so, as human parents all love and care about their own natural offspring.


This is true in many case, hopefully most of them. But I have seen cases where this is not so. So have judges. That is the reason for the various Child Support laws - in some cases kids will be virtually abandoned by at least one parent, and will be relegated to poverty status or worse.

If what you said was true in all cases, than there would be no need for any of those laws. Unfortunately there are a significant number of cases where it is not.

[avatar4321]

I am not saying that the children are stealing from their parents, as that is your own projection.

What I say is that the children are stolen from their other parent by the Custody laws which are effectively kidnapping the children from their noncustodial parent.

And it could be said that the Custodial is stealing the Child Support, but in fact the Custodial is only receiving the extorted and stolen Child Support cash.

The true thief in this regard is the State laws which steal the children and then steal the Child Support as the State is the thief.

That made less sense than the previous post. What's the crime? Who is committing it? Who is the victim?

[Little-Acorn]

I do not argue against my own situation, as if you read my biography page then it is NOT a crying story as I am very proud of my acts of civil disobedience against the evil Child Support and Custody laws.

My experiences were very enlightening and empowering and a fun adventure too.

Vandalism is not civil disobedience.

[Kathianne]

I do not argue against my own situation, as if you read my biography page then it is NOT a crying story as I am very proud of my acts of civil disobedience against the evil Child Support and Custody laws.

My experiences were very enlightening and empowering and a fun adventure too.

Right, you fixed those 'problems' right up. "A parent or both parents raise their own child or children because they want to do so, as human parents all love and care about their own natural offspring." Uh huh, which is why you took off for mega state tour, leaving the kids and payments behind. Then committed criminal acts, then claimed you couldn't pay child support because you were in jail! Your kids, adults now I'm sure, should sue your a**.

[Gunny]

I see that as a sensible question because there is no real crime at all.

The parents are persecuted and insulted, degraded, incarcerated, and more when their only crime is being a parent.

Of course the parents are put into jails for being too poor to pay the thieving Child Support, but being poor (or a parents being poor) is not a real crime either.

The answer to the question is that there is no crime at all by the parents involved.

There is the State crimes against its citizens as in persecuting the parents under the evil Child Support and Custody laws.

Incorrect. Parents are jailed for not paying child support. Even if they are on unemployment, all they have to do is return to court and have the amount amended. So long as ANY attempt is being made, the payer will not be jailed and the payee will have no redress.

It is not a crime for the state to regulate child support. I personally know a woman who has been given NO support, custody of the children and it's been going for almost 2 years. He makes $80K a year and she was a stay at home mom with no professional skills. He hasn't voluntarily given up a dime in support for HIS 3 boys. THAT is the crime.

My daughter is in similar circumstances so it isn't like it doesn't happen. If the law doesn't force the bonehead(s) to pay, in these two cases, they don't.

[jimnyc]

Take a good look at J.P.'s bio. After the divorce and the 'awarding' of child support, he took off to live the life of the happy traveler. No kids, no wife, no job. When that caught up with him, he went goofy and started spray painting graffiti on public buildings. That was the cause of incarceration and may be why he had limited/restricted visitation after.

JP never did clearly answer my question earlier...

JP - Did you in fact bail on your family, split, divorce, whatever ya wanna call it, refuse to pay support, get in trouble for not paying, graffiti public buildings, limited/restricted visits - and now you're running for political office pretty much based solely on YOUR ideas of how to change CS laws? LOL

Sounds to me like an angry man who got busted for not being a decent person and doing the right thing by helping raise your child. I hope you had a fantastic reason if you expect the public to understand how you walked out on your family and refused to assist them financially.

But I'll reserve other judgment until I hear JP's side of why he left home and why he refused to help his child.

JP, do you think a man or woman, because both can be held to pay CS, should NOT have to support the child they helped create because you think they just don't really owe them anything? You do OWE them as you found out the hard way. If you bring a child into this world, especially as a man, you should have the nads to do the right thing and help this child that YOU brought into this world. Any man/woman that could walk away, or think they are in no way responsible for their child, should be ashamed of themselves.

And most certainly not running for public office - on the very issue that fucked up your life and sounds like will have you listed as "dead beat dad". Good luck getting elected as a Vandal who walked out on his family and responsibilities. I hate to be so harsh and "personal" towards someone, but you are running for office and should likely expect worse. But if I never heard of you, and you knocked on my door looking for a vote - I'd have laughed and shut the door.

[Kathianne]

Incorrect. Parents are jailed for not paying child support. Even if they are on unemployment, all they have to do is return to court and have the amount amended. So long as ANY attempt is being made, the payer will not be jailed and the payee will have no redress.

It is not a crime for the state to regulate child support. I personally know a woman who has been given NO support, custody of the children and it's been going for almost 2 years. He makes $80K a year and she was a stay at home mom with no professional skills. He hasn't voluntarily given up a dime in support for HIS 3 boys. THAT is the crime.

My daughter is in similar circumstances so it isn't like it doesn't happen. If the law doesn't force the bonehead(s) to pay, in these two cases, they don't.

Indeed. I was lucky in that their father really cared that people thought him a 'good father' which is why he always paid. That he caused other types of serious harm is why joint custody was taken off the table, by the judge. Now there are women that also act in such manner, they don't seem to be in as great of number. Probably because the fathers are 'working' and the kids are at home. It takes a certain type of female bonehead to walk away from her kids.

[avatar4321]

Indeed. I was lucky in that their father really cared that people thought him a 'good father' which is why he always paid. That he caused other types of serious harm is why joint custody was taken off the table, by the judge. Now there are women that also act in such manner, they don't seem to be in as great of number. Probably because the fathers are 'working' and the kids are at home. It takes a certain type of female bonehead to walk away from her kids.

Unfortunately, I know of some.

[Kathianne]

Unfortunately, I know of some.

As I said, there are some out there. If I 'knew' someone like that, I'd try and help the kids and dad, I'd have no use for that woman.

[Gunny]

Unfortunately, I know of some.

I do as well, but it isn't the issue. My daughter's mother had no business around children and the judge saw it that way as well. Point is, the children exist even when the marriage goes bad. They shouldn't suffer because of some selfish parent who believes if he/she isn't in control, then they aren't paying. Or the ones that see it as having to pay the former spouse, not for their children.

[ConHog]

Indeed. I was lucky in that their father really cared that people thought him a 'good father' which is why he always paid. That he caused other types of serious harm is why joint custody was taken off the table, by the judge. Now there are women that also act in such manner, they don't seem to be in as great of number. Probably because the fathers are 'working' and the kids are at home. It takes a certain type of female bonehead to walk away from her kids.



True story. When my son was 2 years old. I walked in on his mom and another man. He ran ( I don't know , just because a 6'1" 190 lb man in camo wearing a pistol on his hip walked in on you porking his wife LOL) anyway I grabbed her by hair and heel and through her into the street. No clothes, no nothing. Fuck her. She never even came to divorce court. My kid is 19 now and has no recollection of his mom, he's never talked to her, he's never seen her, he's never received a dime from her. She's moved away now but for years she lived within an hour of us, and didn't make a single effort to be a part of her kid's life.

Here's another one. My sons' best friend is the same age as he is. When they were 15 the dad got locked up for drugs , within 2 weeks the mom had moved in with a boyfriend and told my kid's friend that he had to find another place to live because her boyfriend didn't like him.

yeah being a shit head parent has NOTHING to do with sex

Now on the plus side. My current wife is mom to my son, she didn't ask him to call her mom, he did on his own and she loves it, and when we found out that my kid's friend was living in the community center it was she who went and got him and brought him home. Proving their is more to being a parent than DNA.

[Kathianne]

True story. When my son was 2 years old. I walked in on his mom and another man. He ran ( I don't know , just because a 6'1" 190 lb man in camo wearing a pistol on his hip walked in on you porking his wife LOL) anyway I grabbed her by hair and heel and through her into the street. No clothes, no nothing. Fuck her. She never even came to divorce court. My kid is 19 now and has no recollection of his mom, he's never talked to her, he's never seen her, he's never received a dime from her. She's moved away now but for years she lived within an hour of us, and didn't make a single effort to be a part of her kid's life.

Here's another one. My sons' best friend is the same age as he is. When they were 15 the dad got locked up for drugs , within 2 weeks the mom had moved in with a boyfriend and told my kid's friend that he had to find another place to live because her boyfriend didn't like him.

yeah being a shit head parent has NOTHING to do with sex

Now on the plus side. My current wife is mom to my son, she didn't ask him to call her mom, he did on his own and she loves it, and when we found out that my kid's friend was living in the community center it was she who went and got him and brought him home. Proving their is more to being a parent than DNA.

Yep, we are in agreement here. Can't stand a guy like J.P. that chose all the wrong things, then blames the courts for 'destroying families.' Toad.

[darin]

Indeed. I was lucky in that their father really cared that people thought him a 'good father' which is why he always paid.

Contained in that statement is an idea that makes my skin crawl. Our society is fucked when we create the label of 'good father' by a father agreeing with extortion; going along with it.

Let me get divorced, and you'd see my wife with the house, and half my pay as "child support". It's a travesty of justice. For every ONE story of a wife skipping out on child support, I bet I can find 50 of men being financially raped "in the interest of their offspring". All so they can be a 'good father'. I am NOT saying your ex was financially molested in whatever the courts or state thought was reasonable - I'm saying our definitions of 'reasonable' today are 1000000% slanted against the father.

[Kathianne]

Contained in that statement is an idea that makes my skin crawl. Our society is fucked when we create the label of 'good father' by a father agreeing with extortion; going along with it.

Let me get divorced, and you'd see my wife with the house, and half my pay as "child support". It's a travesty of justice. For every ONE story of a wife skipping out on child support, I bet I can find 50 of men being financially raped "in the interest of their offspring". All so they can be a 'good father'. I am NOT saying your ex was financially molested in whatever the courts or state thought was reasonable - I'm saying our definitions of 'reasonable' today are 1000000% slanted against the father.

You'd be so wrong there. In our case I declined alimony, it would have prolonged the divorce, which took nearly 4 years to begin with. If I 'took' the house, I couldn't have made the payments, I wasn't working and hadn't for 14 years. In retrospect, considering the hearing and such, probably should have taken it, but spilt milk and all that.

In fact, to avoid the fights that would have ensued, I agreed to let child support stop at 18, though the court appointed children's lawyer added some stipulation that at 18 they child(ren) could choose to sue him for college tuition, none did.

My kids went from living in 5 BD, 3 story with subasement, to a 2 bd apartment for nearly a year. My folks paid for that, since we were in process of divorce and he decided that $150 a month was plenty for 3 kids. LOL! When all was said and done, he had to pay $36k a year, until the oldest was 18, then it was reduced by a 1/3 and so on.

They never got braces, they couldn't be in traveling leagues, they couldn't take class trips that cost over $15. Meanwhile their dad bought a 6 BD house, with a sub basement, (he really likes that feature I guess). His 'new kids' have a nanny and have already been to Europe and Hawaii, twice. So yeah, he screwed his kids over financially, considering what he had.

Nevertheless, as they finished college, they've pretty much all made up with him, though they know he is really all about him. The weirdest thing is at my daughter's wedding, his 'not so new wife' basically apologized-for what? He's now doing the same to her. The kids get screwed.

I'm not even touching what they man did psychologically to all of us. Should have left him in second month of marriage, that would have been smart.

[darin]

I'm not talking about your case, Kath - I'm talking about, without ANY exceptions, every case of divorce w/ children I've encountered in real life. I'm talking about probably 10 guys I know who are completely screwed by the 'system'. I don't know one woman without custody who was likewise hosed over "in the name of the kids". Our society is blatantly anti-male, anti-father, anti-white, and if the man is male, white, and, say, Christian? There's no hope.

[jimnyc]

I'm not talking about your case, Kath - I'm talking about, without ANY exceptions, every case of divorce w/ children I've encountered in real life. I'm talking about probably 10 guys I know who are completely screwed by the 'system'. I don't know one woman without custody who was likewise hosed over "in the name of the kids". Our society is blatantly anti-male, anti-father, anti-white, and if the man is male, white, and, say, Christian? There's no hope.

My parents divorced when I was 11 and had 4 children. Many would say my Mom was "screwed" by the system, as my Dad got custody of all 4 children and the house...

Now, since Mom wasn't making barely any money, and Dad did, and even though he had 4 kids to raise - no CS was awarded. And he also didn't have to pay her anything (half the value of the house when I turned 18).

Now, my eldest brother divorced his 1st wife when he had 2 children. They split their belongings and the children stayed with their Mom. My brother had to pay CS. Being that he made a minimal amount of money, he only had to pay a percentage of that minimum that he made - which he has done faithfully.

The courts are supposed to have the children in the home that is best for their future. CS should be based on the needs of the children and then the amount made by the payee figured in. In many cases there isn't even CS at all.

But back to the topic - and JP - he's not arguing over the fairness of the courts, or whether or not women win more such cases than men. He's simply arguing that ANY parent, who is no longer with their children - shouldn't have to pay anything or bear any responsibility towards the upbringing of the child they brought into this world. I think that argument appears to be towards both sexes, and directly towards CS laws regardless of whether it's a man or woman directed to pay. THAT'S where I have an issue. BOTH parents should know the day they agree to have a baby that they are both responsible regardless of what happens. So JP, or others, should KNOW the minute they walk away that they will/should be paying something towards that child - but some like JP feel they should be able to cut the ties and run away from their responsibilities. I say that's a bunch of horseshit.

[JP Cusick]

Contained in that statement is an idea that makes my skin crawl. Our society is xxxxed when we create the label of 'good father' by a father agreeing with extortion; going along with it.

Let me get divorced, and you'd see my wife with the house, and half my pay as "child support". It's a travesty of justice. For every ONE story of a wife skipping out on child support, I bet I can find 50 of men being financially raped "in the interest of their offspring". All so they can be a 'good father'. I am NOT saying your ex was financially molested in whatever the courts or state thought was reasonable - I'm saying our definitions of 'reasonable' today are 1000000% slanted against the father.

:salute:




I'm not talking about your case, Kath - I'm talking about, without ANY exceptions, every case of divorce w/ children I've encountered in real life. I'm talking about probably 10 guys I know who are completely screwed by the 'system'. I don't know one woman without custody who was likewise hosed over "in the name of the kids". Our society is blatantly anti-male, anti-father, anti-white, and if the man is male, white, and, say, Christian? There's no hope.


You are totally correct, and the reason you must explain it to people as like "Kath" is because they try to make it into a personal affront instead of addressing the real issues involved.

People like "Kathianne" use their own case because she can then control the so called facts and she can win since the other persons involved in her case are not here to contradict here.

This is why I never reference my own case, and I try to get away from my own case when people try to attack me in that way.

I say the evil Child Support and Custody laws did start out as totally anti-male and many people still today want just to trash the Men and fathers, but it is like a sickness or disease which is growing as it is now anti-parent and they trash a few mothers too as if the self righteous want to give equal rights in their dirty hateful ways.

[JP Cusick]

That made less sense than the previous post. What's the crime? Who is committing it? Who is the victim?


The crime is the State persecuting parents and destroying families and interfering where the State does not belong - it is a State crime against our population.

The victims are the parents and the children and the family unit and our society is a victim of those ignorant and evil Child Support and Custody laws.

The accused parents have NOT committed any crime and there is no victim accordingly.

[Kathianne]

:salute:



You are totally correct, and the reason you must explain it to people as like "Kath" is because they try to make it into a personal affront instead of addressing the real issues involved.

People like "Kathianne" use their own case because she can then control the so called facts and she can win since the other persons involved in her case are not here to contradict here.

This is why I never reference my own case, and I try to get away from my own case when people try to attack me in that way.

I say the evil Child Support and Custody laws did start out as totally anti-male and many people still today want just to trash the Men and fathers, but it is like a sickness or disease which is growing as it is now anti-parent and they trash a few mothers too as if the self righteous want to give equal rights in their dirty hateful ways.

You never reference your case, because you acted irresponsibly. Indeed if any wish to find out what you have 'referenced to yourself' on other boards, is that you acted 'badly' as a husband and father, but later, when you wished to 'have a relationship' and for some reason-like perhaps being gone for years, then returning and refusing to meet your obligations, then having the debt threatened to be taken from pay, went on your 'adventurerous and fun' graffiti rampage against government buildings. Then to jail. Hmmm, it was the courts standing in your way?

You haven't a clue to why dmp feels the way he does. I don't know either, but have some clues from knowing him over the years. If he felt 'trapped' and needed to escape he'd do so in a way to try and help his family, to the best of his ability.

You claim the system 'interferes with families' in his case there may be an argument that in his case, the system makes him try and hold onto his family, by its very existence. He does not want to pay the price perhaps in relationships or finances. That's an adult decision on his part, not without personal costs. You know, how parents should act when in tight places.

dmp has made clear his feelings regarding alimony/child support, etc over the years. They are very different than yours though. He'd never go for getting on disability to avoid debt and certainly not make a career of running for offices on a platform such as your nonsense. You haven't any intention of 'winning a race' you just want your own internet graffiti in place.

You pity yourself and your own created stupid life. dmp wouldn't do that.

[jimnyc]

You are totally correct, and the reason you must explain it to people as like "Kath" is because they try to make it into a personal affront instead of addressing the real issues involved.

People like "Kathianne" use their own case because she can then control the so called facts and she can win since the other persons involved in her case are not here to contradict here.

This is why I never reference my own case, and I try to get away from my own case when people try to attack me in that way.

I say the evil Child Support and Custody laws did start out as totally anti-male and many people still today want just to trash the Men and fathers, but it is like a sickness or disease which is growing as it is now anti-parent and they trash a few mothers too as if the self righteous want to give equal rights in their dirty hateful ways.

JP - why do you keep blaming things on others and dance around the direct questions asked of you? YOU are the one running for office, no one else on this board.

So I'll ask again - DID you walk away from your family and then refuse to pay anything financially to support your child? DID you vandalize aka paint public buildings? Did you pay a price when and if the state caught up to you for not paying CS? WHY do you think you shouldn't help pay for a child YOU brought into this world?

Sorry, but this IS personal. You are running for office and will be representing people like many on this board. People will want to know your stance on issues, AND whether or not you have a stake in it based on EXPERIENCE.

One thing I see you have that will help you in politics is your ability to dance around DIRECT questions and/or just dodge questions. C'mon, you came here, at least finally directly answer my questions. If not, I guess I'll just assume the worst.

Or do you think people will blindly vote for a dead beat dad that refuses to be honest?

[jimnyc]

You never reference your case, because you acted irresponsibly. Indeed if any wish to find out what you have 'referenced to yourself' on other boards, is that you acted 'badly' as a husband and father, but later, when you wished to 'have a relationship' and for some reason-like perhaps being gone for years, then returning and refusing to meet your obligations, then having the debt threatened to be taken from pay, went on your 'adventurerous and fun' graffiti rampage against government buildings. Then to jail. Hmmm, it was the courts standing in your way?

You haven't a clue to why dmp feels the way he does. I don't know either, but have some clues from knowing him over the years. If he felt 'trapped' and needed to escape he'd do so in a way to try and help his family, to the best of his ability.

You claim the system 'interferes with families' in his case there may be an argument that in his case, the system makes him try and hold onto his family, by its very existence. He does not want to pay the price perhaps in relationships or finances. That's an adult decision on his part, not without personal costs. You know, how parents should act when in tight places.

dmp has made clear his feelings regarding alimony/child support, etc over the years. They are very different than yours though. He'd never go for getting on disability to avoid debt and certainly not make a career of running for offices on a platform such as your nonsense. You haven't any intention of 'winning a race' you just want your own internet graffiti in place.

You pity yourself and your own created stupid life. dmp wouldn't do that.

DMP and I obviously look at the CS a little differently - but I'll guarantee you that if he and his wife divorced, he would do his VERY best to be a part of his kids life and make sure they have everything they need. He may not be happy with how courts intervene, or their "demands", but he wouldn't turn his back on his kids and his responsibilities either. There is a HUGE difference between DMP's stance, and what JP did to his family and is now running on as a political stance.

[jimnyc]

Ok, I am seeing the light.... LOL I think I have an idea why JP is "angry". I guess JAIL and being a VANDAL simply because you can't do the right thing will make you a little upset! I'd probably be embarrassed about answering direct questions too... VERY VERY SAD that someone would go this low....


Mr. Cusick proceeded to spray paint the 4 pillars on the front of the Circuit Court house in Leonardtown with green spray paint writing out the words "Child Support is Legalized Stealing", and, "Thou Shalt Not Steal", and, "Michael Harris Thief Master", and, "Inside this Court is a Den of Thieves". No other damage was done. He just wanted others to know what was going on. He was arrested, pleaded guilty, served 18 months in the County Detention Center. Then 1998 Mr. Cusick went and painted the 2 pillars in front of the child support enforcement office in Leonardtown with similar words of, Child Support Thieves, and, "Thou shalt Not Steal". Got arrested, pleaded guilty again, served 14 months in County Detention Center.

It was reasoned then that the local Courts just enforce the unjust child support laws and do not make the laws so after release in July 2000, Mr. Cusick traveled to Annapolis and spray painted the two pillars of the Maryland State House with red spray paint saying, "Child Support Thieves", and, "Thou Shalt Not Steal". Got arrested, refused to enter plea, had jury trial, sentenced to 3 years in State prison for the misdemeanor. There was no other damage done. Mr. Cusick does not have any felony, these actions were all minor offenses. He considers the actions to have been political crimes and thus he was a political prisoner. He was released from the Maryland D.O.C (prison) in August 2003, and his child support case is closed.

[ConHog]

DMP and I obviously look at the CS a little differently - but I'll guarantee you that if he and his wife divorced, he would do his VERY best to be a part of his kids life and make sure they have everything they need. He may not be happy with how courts intervene, or their "demands", but he wouldn't turn his back on his kids and his responsibilities either. There is a HUGE difference between DMP's stance, and what JP did to his family and is now running on as a political stance.

From what little I know of DMP I would concur. Unfortunately , most in this country are not as honorable and yes I believe that when it comes to children the state should absolutely intervene when a parent isn't meeting their obligations. Obviously you can't force them to be good parents, but you can force them to financially support their children.

And I am QUITE sympathetic to those who are fathers even though they didn't want to be as well as to those who wish they had became fathers but that choice was taken away from them, but the simple fact of the matter is that a little self control and or prevention would have kept them from being in that position in the first place.

[Kathianne]

From what little I know of DMP I would concur. Unfortunately , most in this country are not as honorable and yes I believe that when it comes to children the state should absolutely intervene when a parent isn't meeting their obligations. Obviously you can't force them to be good parents, but you can force them to financially support their children.

And I am QUITE sympathetic to those who are fathers even though they didn't want to be as well as to those who wish they had became fathers but that choice was taken away from them, but the simple fact of the matter is that a little self control and or prevention would have kept them from being in that position in the first place.

In reality the courts don't imprison anyone who makes some token effort to pay the support. What they can do though is keep those that don't 'feel like paying' from getting ahead themselves by garnishing their wages. Some like J.P. think, 'fine, I won't work.' He took off on his 'adventures' and doesn't regret them at all. Wonder how that worked out for his kids? Indeed he's now on disability or was the last time I encountered him. Considering his posting schedule, likely still is.

[darin]

The problems I have with the current CS laws is this: They want to throw money at custodial parents - if that parent is female - without regard to the oppressive nature of the paying parent, AND without regard to the custodial parent NOT SPENDING the money on/towards the kids' benefit .

If my wife and I divorce, my support to her and the kids will not be defined by how much money the state extorts from me. I'll support her as best I can because I love her. The problem will happen when the state mandates I give her $2000/month for "child support" and her not having to account for a single dime.

[Kathianne]

The problems I have with the current CS laws is this: They want to throw money at custodial parents - if that parent is female - without regard to the oppressive nature of the paying parent, AND without regard to the custodial parent NOT SPENDING the money on/towards the kids' benefit .

If my wife and I divorce, my support to her and the kids will not be defined by how much money the state extorts from me. I'll support her as best I can because I love her. The problem will happen when the state mandates I give her $2000/month for "child support" and her not having to account for a single dime.

However, the truth is that if you were ordered to pay $2000 a month in CS and your wife wasn't using it to care for the kids, you could take her to court and she would face serious repercussions. If she spent it on clothes for herself, a car beyond her means, etc.

Now if she had sole custody, which from what I know would be unlikely, and decided that the kids would be schooled differently or practice a different religion, or whatever? Your voice wouldn't count. That would be wrong, IMO. However, sole custody isn't easily granted in most states, in IL if a parent wants joint custody and the courts find no reason to deny it, you will have it.

One more thing, in these times it's very possible, likely even that CS could become a burden to the person ordered to pay it. If one gets behind or it's lowered by the court, using the kids to 'get back' at the parent paying, is wrong. Period. Kids shouldn't be weapons.

They also shouldn't have to dramatically have their lives economically shattered over one parent wanting 'a new lifestyle.'

[Kathianne]

The problems I have with the current CS laws is this: They want to throw money at custodial parents - if that parent is female - without regard to the oppressive nature of the paying parent, AND without regard to the custodial parent NOT SPENDING the money on/towards the kids' benefit .

If my wife and I divorce, my support to her and the kids will not be defined by how much money the state extorts from me. I'll support her as best I can because I love her. The problem will happen when the state mandates I give her $2000/month for "child support" and her not having to account for a single dime.

What if you didn't 'love her?' Many don't love the person they are divorcing, in fact they want that person to suffer.

The implication here is that you would go beyond what the court ordered, however what if you disagreed with the other parent? You could then use cutting off the support, to force your opinion. That isn't 'joint custody,' that's coercion, with the children paying the price for parents disagreement.

[darin]

However, the truth is that if you were ordered to pay $2000 a month in CS and your wife wasn't using it to care for the kids, you could take her to court and she would face serious repercussions. If she spent it on clothes for herself, a car beyond her means, etc.

I doubt there is legal precedent for that. In the three states i've lived; the parent w/ custody and support are under absolutely NO obligation to show how CS is being used for children.


Now if she had sole custody, which from what I know would be unlikely, and decided that the kids would be schooled differently or practice a different religion, or whatever? Your voice wouldn't count. That would be wrong, IMO. However, sole custody isn't easily granted in most states, in IL if a parent wants joint custody and the courts find no reason to deny it, you will have it.

I believe the opposite is true; I believe men have to seriously make a huge case to have even joint custody - and get this...she STILL wouldn't have to cover 'child expenses' for when she has custody. That is to say, if we split custody 50-50, I'd STILL have to pay for her time w/ the kids - and get NO support for when I have them.


One more thing, in these times it's very possible, likely even that CS could become a burden to the person ordered to pay it. If one gets behind or it's lowered by the court, using the kids to 'get back' at the parent paying, is wrong. Period. Kids shouldn't be weapons.

They also shouldn't have to dramatically have their lives economically shattered over one parent wanting 'a new lifestyle.'

...but kids ARE tools for women to extort money from the father of the kids. It happens every day. The courts re-enforce and reward women who do it.

[Kathianne]

I doubt there is legal precedent for that. In the three states i've lived; the parent w/ custody and support are under absolutely NO obligation to show how CS is being used for children.



I believe the opposite is true; I believe men have to seriously make a huge case to have even joint custody - and get this...she STILL wouldn't have to cover 'child expenses' for when she has custody. That is to say, if we split custody 50-50, I'd STILL have to pay for her time w/ the kids - and get NO support for when I have them.



...but kids ARE tools for women to extort money from the father of the kids. It happens every day. The courts re-enforce and reward women who do it.

1. I said, 'you could take her to court' if she was using the money on herself. If instead she's using it for the kids, housing, food, utilities, no.

2. The money that is ordered for CS is not for the 'parent with custody' to be paid. That doesn't matter if it's the custodial parent or the parent with visitation. Time with the kids isn't a 'job,' indeed it often costs money. So no, if you are 'visiting' and wish to take the kids to a movie or zoo or whatever, their mother wouldn't have to give you the costs for their admissions. Is that what you were implying? Of course, you could be like many and just drop them off at your mom's or whomever or take them to a park.

3. If one parent wants sole custody and the other doesn't, they basically must prove a compelling reason not to grant joint custody, it's been like that in IL for well over 20 years.

4. With all the discussion of $$, which are important; how much of it is a desire to have freedom and still maintain control of the other parent and kids through 'contributing to their welfare?' That's right there with parent denying visitation as a weapon.

[ConHog]

The problems I have with the current CS laws is this: They want to throw money at custodial parents - if that parent is female - without regard to the oppressive nature of the paying parent, AND without regard to the custodial parent NOT SPENDING the money on/towards the kids' benefit .

If my wife and I divorce, my support to her and the kids will not be defined by how much money the state extorts from me. I'll support her as best I can because I love her. The problem will happen when the state mandates I give her $2000/month for "child support" and her not having to account for a single dime.







I can tell that luckily for you you've never been involved in a child support case, because it is apparent that you're not overly familiar with how the system works.

The state issues a decree of course, but they will NEVER enforce it unless the custodial parent complains, and even then they don't do much. You have to $5K behind before it anything more than a misdemeanor and even then they don't move overly quickly to do anything.

So it wouldn't matter if on paper you were a million dollars behind in child support the state simply doesn't care unless and until a parent complains.

[Kathianne]

I can tell that luckily for you you've never been involved in a child support case, because it is apparent that you're not overly familiar with how the system works.

The state issues a decree of course, but they will NEVER enforce it unless the custodial parent complains, and even then they don't do much. You have to $5K behind before it anything more than a misdemeanor and even then they don't move overly quickly to do anything.

So it wouldn't matter if on paper you were a million dollars behind in child support the state simply doesn't care unless and until a parent complains.

Indeed. Not too mention the machinations some go through before the divorce is ever granted. Money is hid, equity taken out of the house by forging the other parent's signature, etc. Oh you could press them for fraud, but exactly how is that going to help? So you take 1/2 of what is left there when the property is sold.

I'm using my own anecdotes, so as not to generalize. Our divorce took nearly 4 years, first he wanted to contest it, then argue on money issues, then parental issues...

His salary nearly doubled within a month of the divorce, took golden parachute and went to new company. Did I ever return to court, for CS? No. It was bad enough with what was going on with visitation and kids acting out. We needed to get on with our lives, we'd already been in hell for nearly 1/2 a decade. Money though wasn't the big issue, nope it was what was happening with the kids. That was the reason that a guardian ad litem was ordered by the courts and the reason that discussion of joint custody was removed from possible discussion. He didn't ask for joint custody, I assumed he'd want it. It became moot. We still spent the next years in court over visitation-the court eventually removing his right totally for one child due to doctors reports, made optional for another, the oldest who didn't want to see him. The middle child had restricted visitation, until the restrictions were removed after the father underwent parental counseling.

All the kids are now in 20's, one 30. They do have a decent relationship with their dad, though they see his faults and what he can do for them. I'm glad that they have the chance to begin their families with all the parents in, it's better for them.

[JP Cusick]

JP - why do you keep blaming things on others and dance around the direct questions asked of you? YOU are the one running for office, no one else on this board.

So I'll ask again - DID you walk away from your family and then refuse to pay anything financially to support your child? DID you vandalize aka paint public buildings? Did you pay a price when and if the state caught up to you for not paying CS? WHY do you think you shouldn't help pay for a child YOU brought into this world?

Sorry, but this IS personal. You are running for office and will be representing people like many on this board. People will want to know your stance on issues, AND whether or not you have a stake in it based on EXPERIENCE.

One thing I see you have that will help you in politics is your ability to dance around DIRECT questions and/or just dodge questions. C'mon, you came here, at least finally directly answer my questions. If not, I guess I'll just assume the worst.

Or do you think people will blindly vote for a dead beat dad that refuses to be honest?


I do not believe I danced around anything, as I put all of that info in vivid detail on my Biography Page (http://www.VoteJP.Webs.com), and surely I am giving out far more info then what I really have to give out.

And I am happy if you or others assume the worse about me since I do take full blame for my failed marriage, and I was a rotten scoundrel of a husband, and I am proud of my civil disobedience of spray painting the buildings of the Child Support thieves.

I am not trying to present myself as some Angel or Saint but I am presenting the Child Support and Custody laws as being evil.

[JP Cusick]

Ok, I am seeing the light.... LOL I think I have an idea why JP is "angry". I guess JAIL and being a VANDAL simply because you can't do the right thing will make you a little upset! I'd probably be embarrassed about answering direct questions too... VERY VERY SAD that someone would go this low....


I confess that I am angry about the ugly evils in the Child Support and Custody laws, but otherwise I am a rather happy and carefree person.

My position has nothing to do with myself as I am only trying to help other families and other parents against those evil laws.

[jimnyc]

I do not believe I danced around anything, as I put all of that info in vivid detail on my Biography Page (http://www.VoteJP.Webs.com), and surely I am giving out far more info then what I really have to give out.

And I am happy if you or others assume the worse about me since I do take full blame for my failed marriage, and I was a rotten scoundrel of a husband, and I am proud of my civil disobedience of spray painting the buildings of the Child Support thieves.

I am not trying to present myself as some Angel or Saint but I am presenting the Child Support and Custody laws as being evil.

Well, no personal offense to you, but if you are an admitted dead beat Dad, I would never vote for you almost on that alone. It tells me you aren't responsible enough to hold office. I say almost.... The other is you stating you use a free website for your campaign as it's "one less thing" you have to deal with. Considering your history, it leads me to believe you can't afford it or are just too cheap. Additionally, if you can't be troubled to have a legit site, which would take less than one minute per month to maintain, and would certainly be more professional - than what will you do when in office and become inundated with requests?

[JP Cusick]

Well, no personal offense to you, but if you are an admitted dead beat Dad, I would never vote for you almost on that alone. It tells me you aren't responsible enough to hold office. I say almost.... The other is you stating you use a free website for your campaign as it's "one less thing" you have to deal with. Considering your history, it leads me to believe you can't afford it or are just too cheap. Additionally, if you can't be troubled to have a legit site, which would take less than one minute per month to maintain, and would certainly be more professional - than what will you do when in office and become inundated with requests?


Well you and anyone can criticize all you want, but I myself happen to like my free website just fine.

Some people might view richer people and richer stuff as being a sign of superiority or of higher merit but I do not.

[jimnyc]

Well you and anyone can criticize all you want, but I myself happen to like my free website just fine.

Some people might view richer people and richer stuff as being a sign of superiority or of higher merit but I do not.

Umm, JP, for example, you could get something like "jpcusick2012.com" - It would cost less than $10 per year to own the name and you can have the content you currently have, hosted for about .99 per month. I think even you might agree that $.99 cents per month isn't that expensive, and not "richer stuff for richer people".

Then instead of a lame yahoo address for a political candidate - it would be more like "jp@jpcusick2012.com" - which for 99 cents per months IS MUCH MORE professional and even poor people can do it.

Just a tip, if you truly do wish to be taken seriously.

[darin]

1. I said, 'you could take her to court' if she was using the money on herself. If instead she's using it for the kids, housing, food, utilities, no.


...but as she has no responsibility to account for the money, it's a silly court case.



2. The money that is ordered for CS is not for the 'parent with custody' to be paid. That doesn't matter if it's the custodial parent or the parent with visitation. Time with the kids isn't a 'job,' indeed it often costs money. So no, if you are 'visiting' and wish to take the kids to a movie or zoo or whatever, their mother wouldn't have to give you the costs for their admissions. Is that what you were implying? Of course, you could be like many and just drop them off at your mom's or whomever or take them to a park.

It's absolutely (as defined by reality) what's its for - CS is payment to the custodial spouse. I'm saying, if we split custody, I'd have to pay her $$$ for the two weeks she has them, and she'd pay me $0 for the two weeks I have them. That's extortion. The extra room I pay for, the extra utilities and food - ALL my expense.



3. If one parent wants sole custody and the other doesn't, they basically must prove a compelling reason not to grant joint custody, it's been like that in IL for well over 20 years.


Not in WA, AL, or MI. Not in practice.



4. With all the discussion of $$, which are important; how much of it is a desire to have freedom and still maintain control of the other parent and kids through 'contributing to their welfare?' That's right there with parent denying visitation as a weapon.

Righto - my anecdotal evidence screams: By a LARGE margin, women with custody use the kids as pawns to extort money from the Father. Women use visitation like they used sex in the marriage; dangling it and yanking it away as it suits their agenda.

[Little-Acorn]

I do not believe I danced around anything,
1.) Did you make the payments ordered by the court?

2.) If you believed those payments unfair or otherwise corrupted, did you appeal to the next higher court? And the one after that... since you clearly want to fight this issue?

3.) When you went travelling through the many states you listed in your bio, where did that travel fall in time, relative to the court judgments?


I am proud of my civil disobedience of spray painting the buildings of
Vandalism is not "civil disobedience".

It is simply vandalism.

[Kathianne]

...but as she has no responsibility to account for the money, it's a silly court case.



It's absolutely (as defined by reality) what's its for - CS is payment to the custodial spouse. I'm saying, if we split custody, I'd have to pay her $$$ for the two weeks she has them, and she'd pay me $0 for the two weeks I have them. That's extortion. The extra room I pay for, the extra utilities and food - ALL my expense.



Not in WA, AL, or MI. Not in practice.



Righto - my anecdotal evidence screams: By a LARGE margin, women with custody use the kids as pawns to extort money from the Father. Women use visitation like they used sex in the marriage; dangling it and yanking it away as it suits their agenda.

Not necessarily so, on any of the money or sex, you may be projecting here. That most women have custody may well be customs, though I'd say for most families that also holds for 'primary care' divisions in most families.

In any case D, just don't divorce and you won't face the problems.

[Kathianne]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/03/AR2008020302821_pf.html

James P Cusick Sr.

Interesting. His ex-wife died, so he thought things were done. But Nnnnoooo, those bad courts wanted child support to go to the man who actually parented the boy:


A Maverick Proud of His Jail Time Takes on Steny Hoyer in Primary
By Megan Greenwell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 4, 2008



Some people say that James P. Cusick Sr.'s five trips to jail in the past 14 years make him unlikely to unseat one of Maryland's most powerful politicians. Only his most ardent backers have kept the faith, and they're not talking.


"Oh, nobody would say good things about me in the newspaper," Cusick said when asked about key supporters. "They don't want to be laughed at like I am."


To call Cusick a laughingstock over his run for office might overstate his name recognition in Maryland's 5th District, where conversations about congressional representation have begun and ended with Steny H. Hoyer (D) for 27 years. And with Cusick forgoing any efforts at fundraising or introducing himself to voters, he acknowledges that it would take a miracle to beat the U.S. House majority leader in the Feb. 12 Democratic primary.


...

Cusick, 51, is convinced he can, however, pull the ultimate David vs. Goliath upset if voters concentrate on his key issues -- eliminating abortion and ending the war in Iraq. But residents who have heard of him tend to focus more on his biography. His Web site, after breezing through the dates he received his GED and got married, the birth of his son and his divorce (1975, '76, '77 and '83, respectively) states: "In 1994 was the first time incarceration 3 months for child support and again 6 months in 1997." Farther down, the narrative continues: "Mr. Cusick proceeded to spray paint the 4 pillars on the front of the Circuit Court house in Leonardtown with green spray paint."


"Child support is legalized stealing," he wrote on the pillars, along with "Thou shall not steal" and "Inside this court is a den of thieves."


Cusick admits that eliminating child support may not be a traditional platform for a congressional candidate, but he is adamant in his belief that the system of one parent paying another is corrupt and unjust. His answer: Let the parents work out a solution themselves.

And if they can't?


"They'll have to," he said. "If the state refuses to get involved, they won't have any choice."


When Cusick divorced his wife at age 25, after six years of marriage, he said despair and confusion pushed him to leave St. Mary's County for the first time in his life. He bounced from job to job in Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, California, Wyoming, Illinois and New York. With no job prospects, he missed making child support payments for several years. He said he filed several petitions to delay his payments, but "corrupt" judges wouldn't accept his arguments, even after his wife died of cancer and he was required to pay her second husband.
"It's unacceptable, oppressive, tyrannical to make people continue to pay when they don't have money," Cusick said.


So he slept in his car in the St. Mary's County Government Center parking lot and dreamed of ways to protest a child-support system he believed to be robbing destitute fathers. (His son could not be reached to comment.)


The spray painting led to his third trip to jail, for 18 months, which led to more spray painting. After 14 months at the St. Mary's County Detention Center, he turned his aerosol can on the Maryland State House in 2000. Vandalizing state property earned him three years, the maximum punishment allowable for a misdemeanor. When he was released in 2003, he decided running for office was more effective than spending another five bucks on a can of paint.


...



Cusick's plans have brought scorn from the local blogosphere, where Southern Maryland residents routinely pillory him for his criminal record as well as his unorthodox political beliefs.
Cusick said some of the attacks hurt his feelings, although he admitted he has said and done things he regrets, if for no other reason than because they make it more difficult to win election.


Does that include the trips to jail?


"Oh, no, I'm quite pleased about that," he said with a thoughtful nod. "Particularly for the spray painting."

[Abbey Marie]

At least JP really cares about his issues. He doesn't appear to be just running to get elected to a cushy job, and re-elected, and re-elected.

[Kathianne]

At least JP really cares about his issues. He doesn't appear to be just running to get elected to a cushy job, and re-elected, and re-elected.

Ok, he really believes he shouldn't have to pay, nor should anyone for the children they create and leave behind. If the courts disagree or a governor won't write him back, he'll deface the courts for their attention.

He has threatened gays and applauded bin Laden. Yep, all the makings for the finest politician, though would his salary mean that he isn't disabled? Would he collect both? What about his pension from nuclear facility?

[Abbey Marie]

Ok, he really believes he shouldn't have to pay, nor should anyone for the children they create and leave behind. If the courts disagree or a governor won't write him back, he'll deface the courts for their attention.

He has threatened gays and applauded bin Laden. Yep, all the makings for the finest politician, though would his salary mean that he isn't disabled? Would he collect both? What about his pension from nuclear facility?

I wasn't referring to his beliefs one way or the other. Just that he seems to be sincere about them. I am tired of pols who are just in it for the fame and nice amenities.

[Kathianne]

I wasn't referring to his beliefs one way or the other. Just that he seems to be sincere about them. I am tired of pols who are just in it for the fame and nice amenities.

Again, ok. This is far from a person I could support, he's proud of his crimes-all of them.

[Abbey Marie]

Again, ok. This is far from a person I could support, he's proud of his crimes-all of them.

I'm not supporting him.

[JP Cusick]

Umm, JP, for example, you could get something like "jpcusick2012.com" - It would cost less than $10 per year to own the name and you can have the content you currently have, hosted for about .99 per month. I think even you might agree that $.99 cents per month isn't that expensive, and not "richer stuff for richer people".

Then instead of a lame yahoo address for a political candidate - it would be more like "jp@jpcusick2012.com" - which for 99 cents per months IS MUCH MORE professional and even poor people can do it.


I do know about that as the free websites keep sending me offers to upgrade, and I even do have a paid web address provided through GoDaddy linked HERE (http://www.universalpublicforum.com/), and it was a waste of money.

I believe that in due time the idea of those paid sites will fade away as did the VHS when DVD came in, because the free sites give me far better service as in I do not need to create any coding, and they provide storage space, and the free site will remain active for years and maybe longer as it is profitable for the free providers to keep everything active, while a paid site will disappear in one (1) year if the price is not paid.

And the free email is guaranteed by Yahoo and it has no ending deadline since there is no bill to be paid, so the email too last forever as long as Yahoo is around.

Plus the free sites give a certain web presence which we otherwise have to buy from the big search engine, and I highly recommend my completely free server of www.Webs.com and we can even get a Credit Card system installed and other features too.

There are companies and businesses in my area where I try to tell them to get onto the Internet and they say it costs so much to build a website and to maintain the website, while in reality it can all be done for free and easy with just a few clicks.




Just a tip, if you truly do wish to be taken seriously.


I really am taken seriously.

In the 2010 election I got 46,411 votes and that is no joke.

This election I will be on the 2012 election ballot Statewide and that is a fact.

People on the Internet are just discussing the issues with me and hostilities are natural and healthy in such a case.

It is a mistake to judge me and my position by this standard as it is very deceptive.

I am one of those weird people who study psychology in extremes, so that I can interpret such things better than can most other people, as like this forum here is very nice with informed and passionate members and it radiates.

There are many other Internet forums that do not stack up to this one here, and you have my compliments here.

[JP Cusick]

1.) Did you make the payments ordered by the court?


Over the course of many years then at some times I did make the payments, and at other times I did not make the payments, and some times I could not make the payments, while other times I refused to pay it, and some times they got partial payments.

I did not become radical and fanatical in defiance of the dirty thievery until the time when my case was nearly closed.

At the end my case was closed with me in arrears by some $27,000 which went unpaid and closed along with the case.




2.) If you believed those payments unfair or otherwise corrupted, did you appeal to the next higher court? And the one after that... since you clearly want to fight this issue?


I did not appeal, as I am like most Men as we do not believe in hanging our dirty laundry out into a public Court room.

Women apparently go to Court as if it is some kind of sporting event, and then come out claiming they are a "winner" when their children's father does not fight back.

I do NOT blame the Women as it is the Courts and the laws which degrade and insult everyone involved.

If I had appealed then it would be seen as against my wife and child instead of rightly against the evil laws, so I was defenseless as are all other noncustodial parents.




3.) When you went traveling through the many states you listed in your bio, where did that travel fall in time, relative to the court judgments?


I have no idea, and I have no desire to try and research such meaningless info.




Vandalism is not "civil disobedience".

It is simply vandalism.


Of course it was civil disobedience, and it was nonviolent too.

In the case of the evil Child Support and Custody laws then I say a far more aggressive resistance and defiance is merited and justified.

[ConHog]

I do not believe I danced around anything, as I put all of that info in vivid detail on my Biography Page (http://www.VoteJP.Webs.com), and surely I am giving out far more info then what I really have to give out.

And I am happy if you or others assume the worse about me since I do take full blame for my failed marriage, and I was a rotten scoundrel of a husband, and I am proud of my civil disobedience of spray painting the buildings of the Child Support thieves.

I am not trying to present myself as some Angel or Saint but I am presenting the Child Support and Custody laws as being evil.

You're a piece of crap and i'd gladly stick a boot in your ass for failing to support your children.

Civil disobedience my ass, you're a common vandal, nothing more, and a dead beat dad.

Any lunatic who would vote for you for dogcatcher should likewise have their asses kicked.

Seriously, if you're the best candidate your area can come up, this republic is in deeper shit than I previously thought.

I have ZERO respect for anyone who won't even meet their financial obligations as a parent. And don't give me any of your fucking boohoo about how you didn't pay out of protest to the child support laws. You didn't pay b/c you're a scumbag. End of story.

[ConHog]

However, the truth is that if you were ordered to pay $2000 a month in CS and your wife wasn't using it to care for the kids, you could take her to court and she would face serious repercussions. If she spent it on clothes for herself, a car beyond her means, etc.

Now if she had sole custody, which from what I know would be unlikely, and decided that the kids would be schooled differently or practice a different religion, or whatever? Your voice wouldn't count. That would be wrong, IMO. However, sole custody isn't easily granted in most states, in IL if a parent wants joint custody and the courts find no reason to deny it, you will have it.

One more thing, in these times it's very possible, likely even that CS could become a burden to the person ordered to pay it. If one gets behind or it's lowered by the court, using the kids to 'get back' at the parent paying, is wrong. Period. Kids shouldn't be weapons.

They also shouldn't have to dramatically have their lives economically shattered over one parent wanting 'a new lifestyle.'

That's not ENTIRELY true Kath. The non custodial parent has exactly NO say in how child support is spent. Now what you CAN sue for is if the custodial parent isn't providing adequate care for the child.

But to the topic of the custodial parent having to justify their expenditures of child support to the non custodial parent. Negatory. If a custodial parent could afford to stick all the money they receive in child support in a bank account and still provide the child with the basic necessities, the custodial parents owes not even an explanation to the non custodial parent. I've seen MANY fathers try to go that route and it always gets shut down.

[SassyLady]

I do not argue against my own situation, as if you read my biography page then it is NOT a crying story as I am very proud of my acts of civil disobedience against the evil Child Support and Custody laws.

My experiences were very enlightening and empowering and a fun adventure too.

When you are committing your acts of civil disobedience are you destroying/defacing another person's property? If so, then you are stealing from them just as you argue the state is stealing from you by using child custody laws.

And, if you state the civil disobedience is against the government, then you are committing those acts against your neighbors because they are ultimately the ones paying for cleaning up after your acts of civil disobedience.

[red states rule]

When you are committing your acts of civil disobedience are you destroying/defacing another person's property? If so, then you are stealing from them just as you argue the state is stealing from you by using child custody laws.

And, if you state the civil disobedience is against the government, then you are committing those acts against your neighbors because they are ultimately the ones paying for cleaning up after your acts of civil disobedience.

You mean like the OWS hippies are doing across the nation?

[Psycho Doc]

But, but, but he's a repub. Are you people willingly violating the repub 11th commandment? Never speak poorly of a fellow repub?

[Kathianne]

That's not ENTIRELY true Kath. The non custodial parent has exactly NO say in how child support is spent. Now what you CAN sue for is if the custodial parent isn't providing adequate care for the child.

But to the topic of the custodial parent having to justify their expenditures of child support to the non custodial parent. Negatory. If a custodial parent could afford to stick all the money they receive in child support in a bank account and still provide the child with the basic necessities, the custodial parents owes not even an explanation to the non custodial parent. I've seen MANY fathers try to go that route and it always gets shut down.

Alright, that I'll agree with. In the event that the custodial parent does earn enough to care for the children, in the manner that would be expected if CS were the means, yes, then the CS would be 'over and above.' That I suppose would fall under the 'paying parent' being obligated to pay % per child of their income as a contributing factor of their care.

In such circumstances, if CS were a hardship on the 'paying parent' then I could see the point of reduction. Funny thing but in these circumstances both parents tend to have larger than average incomes. Alimony is usually included here too.

[darin]

But, but, but he's a repub. Are you people willingly violating the repub 11th commandment? Never speak poorly of a fellow repub?

Until we start having little (R)'s or (D)'s or (I)'s after our screen names, it's stupid to assume party affiliation. Do you have anything to add to the discussion, or do you simply wish to reply with a jab at folks you don't know?


Alright, that I'll agree with. In the event that the custodial parent does earn enough to care for the children, in the manner that would be expected if CS were the means, yes, then the CS would be 'over and above.' That I suppose would fall under the 'paying parent' being obligated to pay % per child of their income as a contributing factor of their care.

In such circumstances, if CS were a hardship on the 'paying parent' then I could see the point of reduction. Funny thing but in these circumstances both parents tend to have larger than average incomes. Alimony is usually included here too.

We'd have to find out what 'earn enough' means, I guess.

In the states i've lived - 'enough' meant 'the father (usual non-custodial) pays through the nose.

[Kathianne]

Until we start having little (R)'s or (D)'s or (I)'s after our screen names, it's stupid to assume party affiliation. Do you have anything to add to the discussion, or do you simply wish to reply with a jab at folks you don't know?



We'd have to find out what 'earn enough' means, I guess.

In the states i've lived - 'enough' meant 'the father (usual non-custodial) pays through the nose.

However imperfect the reality it means that the child's life economically should be impacted as little as possible or not at all. If they had their own bedroom before, the goal is to keep that. If they were able to participate in a sport or whatever, they'd be able to maintain that and all it means. If they were able to give birthday presents of certain amount at parties, etc., that would be maintained.

Goals and reality are not the same. For most children, the breakup of the marriage means there will be a drastic reduction in what they'll have. What CH brought up was the situation where the custodial parent earns enough to maintain the child's expectations, then CS becomes 'extra.'

[darin]

However imperfect the reality it means that the child's life economically should be impacted as little as possible or not at all. If they had their own bedroom before, the goal is to keep that. If they were able to participate in a sport or whatever, they'd be able to maintain that and all it means. If they were able to give birthday presents of certain amount at parties, etc., that would be maintained.

I disagree.

[Kathianne]

I disagree.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

[jimnyc]

But, but, but he's a repub. Are you people willingly violating the repub 11th commandment? Never speak poorly of a fellow repub?

Unlike some drunken liberals on benders, most of us here don't look at issues based on who the person is behind them. Some of us (R) supporters can still smell shit if it comes from another (R) as well as if it came from a falling of the wagon liberal...

[JP Cusick]

the custodial parents owes not even an explanation to the non custodial parent. I've seen MANY fathers try to go that route and it always gets shut down.


There is an important message in this quote above in that here is an eye witness account of MANY (that is MANY) fathers who do pay the thieving Child Support and those father who do comply are "shut down" (that is "shut down") when they seek an explanation concerning the custody of their own children.

The laws and the Courts do this - in that they shut down and shut out the noncustodial parents, and then they play dumb as they do not know while millions of children nationwide have to grow up without their father.

Those ignorant Child Support and Custody laws violate the family unit and destroy the family and those laws are in fact evil.

The anonymous poster above is giving the testimony, and I too testify that the accounting is correct.

And why would we NOT believe or respect those "MANY" fathers? especially since those MANY fathers are the ones who actually do pay the thieving Child Support so those are the fathers who do obey the evil laws.

The morally right thing for all of us to do is to help fight and help stop those inhuman home wrecker laws from continuing.

[Abbey Marie]

JP, I don't really want to go back and read all of your posts on child support. Can you sum up for me in a paragraph or so what it is you see as the best change in support laws we could have? Thanks.

[JP Cusick]

However imperfect the reality it means that the child's life economically should be impacted as little as possible or not at all. If they had their own bedroom before, the goal is to keep that. If they were able to participate in a sport or whatever, they'd be able to maintain that and all it means. If they were able to give birthday presents of certain amount at parties, etc., that would be maintained.


I disagree.


You are correct "dmp" and she is being belligerent.

It is an inhuman and uncivil concept that the children need to be kept comfortable when their own parent(s) are not comfortable.

How could a boy or girl child grow up healthy when they are raised in a condition while their father (or their Mom) is living within an inferior condition?

If a parent is poor or downtrodden then the child's proper place is with their parent and not being superior to their own parent.

That is the twisted mentality of the performer Madonna who takes an African child away from their father because her rich American privileged self is some how better for the child then for the child to be raised by their own natural father.

The claim that the children are not to be impacted by the economic circumstances (or as little as possible) is just inhuman nonsense.




JP, I don't really want to go back and read all of your posts on child support. Can you sum up for me in a paragraph or so what it is you see as the best change in support laws we could have? Thanks.


There are some smaller improvements which could be done to improve the laws, but the "best" change would be to completely end the Child Support orders completely and get the laws and the Courts out of the parenting business.

Truly - the 2 parents (all parents worldwide) can and would do just fine without the State or laws violating their relationship or their parenting.

Of course if there is physical abuse or harmful neglect or parental incompetence then that is a totally different subject.

That is a direct summary.

[Little-Acorn]

BTW, as I understand it, nearly all child-support laws are state laws, and county/city laws.

Yet you are running for U.S. Senator, for a seat currently held by Steny Hoyer.

I don't recall any authority in the Constitution for the Federal government to have anything to do with Child Support and similar issues. They are reserved to the states and the people.

What effect can you have on these state and local laws, if you are in the U.S. Senate?

[LuvRPgrl]

Am I too understand that you are actually running for an elected office?

You're beyond ridiculous, the above post by you makes no sense whatsoever. makes complete sense to me.

[Little-Acorn]

3.) When you went traveling through the many states you listed in your bio, where did that travel fall in time, relative to the court judgments?
I have no idea, and I have no desire to try and research such meaningless info.
Well, it is meaningful.

To elaborate: Once the court judgments against you were made (specifying payments based on your income and visitation for your children), did you quit your job to avoid having to make those payments, and then go travelling around the country for purposes that included (a) evading any authorities who might try to enforce the payments ordered by the court(s), and (b) without regard for the needs of your children who might have benefitted from having their father present in their lives?

I hope this helps you to understand why my initial question was not "meaningless". If it is still not clear, I can elaborate further if needed.


Originally Posted by Little-Acorn



Vandalism is not "civil disobedience".

It is simply vandalism.

Of course it was civil disobedience, and it was nonviolent too.


"Civil Disobedience" is the act of deliberately violating a law one disagrees with, for the purpose of airing the disagreement publicly and/or bringing that law before a court for judgement.

You disagreed with laws regarding child support. Yet you violated a law forbidding defacement of public property, a law that had nothing to do with child support.

Your spray-painting of public buildings was not "civil disobedience". It was merely vandalism.

[ConHog]

BTW, as I understand it, nearly all child-support laws are state laws, and county/city laws.

Yet you are running for U.S. Senator, for a seat currently held by Steny Hoyer.

I don't recall any authority in the Constitution for the Federal government to have anything to do with Child Support and similar issues. They are reserved to the states and the people.

What effect can you have on these state and local laws, if you are in the U.S. Senate?

JP the jackass aside the feds are in charge of child support collection as in they set standards and help finance the individual state CSE's . So yes, Congress COULD affect that.


There are some smaller improvements which could be done to improve the laws, but the "best" change would be to completely end the Child Support orders completely and get the laws and the Courts out of the parenting business.

Truly - the 2 parents (all parents worldwide) can and would do just fine without the State or laws violating their relationship or their parenting.

Of course if there is physical abuse or harmful neglect or parental incompetence then that is a totally different subject.

That is a direct summary.

Failing to help support your children financially IS harmful neglect (by the way is there a neglect that isn't harmful?) you fucking idiot.

I apologize to the rest of the board for my harsh attitude towards this fucking douchebag, but I react STRONGLY to people who abdicate their responsibilities towards their children.

[JP Cusick]

BTW, as I understand it, nearly all child-support laws are state laws, and county/city laws.

I don't recall any authority in the Constitution for the Federal government to have anything to do with Child Support and similar issues. They are reserved to the states and the people.

What effect can you have on these state and local laws, if you are in the U.S. Senate?


Link #1 here = THE FEDERAL CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION ACT AND GARNISHMENT FOR CHILD SUPPORT (http://www.childsupportguidelines.com/articles/art200110.html).

Link #2 here = Code of Federal Regulations Title 45 (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title45/45cfr302_main_02.tpl).

:dunno:

[JP Cusick]

"Civil Disobedience" is the act of deliberately violating a law one disagrees with, for the purpose of airing the disagreement publicly and/or bringing that law before a court for judgement.

You disagreed with laws regarding child support. Yet you violated a law forbidding defacement of public property, a law that had nothing to do with child support.

Your spray-painting of public buildings was not "civil disobedience". It was merely vandalism.


Fortunately for me that you do not get to define the "civil disobedience" for me.

And if you must cling to the old interpretation, then mine is a new improved version of the concept of civil disobedience.

Also Gandhi and MLK used non-violence but I say we Americans have the right to seek a 2nd Amendment solution when our Gov enforces such evil laws.

Plus - at that time my local Newspaper gave me the front-page-headline calling me as "the Courthouse Vandal" and I always felt proud of that title.

[ConHog]

Link #1 here = THE FEDERAL CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION ACT AND GARNISHMENT FOR CHILD SUPPORT (http://www.childsupportguidelines.com/articles/art200110.html).

Link #2 here = Code of Federal Regulations Title 45 (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title45/45cfr302_main_02.tpl).

:dunno:


Irrelevant you fuck. Your children are doing without YOUR support. You shouldn't NEED to be told by ANYONE that you need to help support your kids. You worthless pile of shit.

[JP Cusick]

Irrelevant you xxxxx. Your children are doing without YOUR support. You shouldn't NEED to be told by ANYONE that you need to help support your kids. You worthless pile of xxxxxx.


So you are an immature dirty mouthed person.

I say you need to control your out of control emotions.

[ConHog]

So you are an immature dirty mouthed person.

I say you need to control your out of control emotions.

Yes so immature that I raised my son without any support from his mother AND took on the responsibility of raising another young man when both his parents flaked out oh him. You meanwhile ran out on your own children and somehow think you did the right thing.


Excuse me for becoming emotional when I hear of children who have been NEGLECTED by their so called father.

[Abbey Marie]

...
There are some smaller improvements which could be done to improve the laws, but the "best" change would be to completely end the Child Support orders completely and get the laws and the Courts out of the parenting business.

Truly - the 2 parents (all parents worldwide) can and would do just fine without the State or laws violating their relationship or their parenting.

Of course if there is physical abuse or harmful neglect or parental incompetence then that is a totally different subject.

That is a direct summary.

I guess you believe in the goodness of people more than I do.

[red states rule]

Fortunately for me that you do not get to define the "civil disobedience" for me.

And if you must cling to the old interpretation, then mine is a new improved version of the concept of civil disobedience.

Also Gandhi and MLK used non-violence but I say we Americans have the right to seek a 2nd Amendment solution when our Gov enforces such evil laws.

Plus - at that time my local Newspaper gave me the front-page-headline calling me as "the Courthouse Vandal" and I always felt proud of that title.

You are NOT what Maryland needs right now. There are enough liberals in elected office who think they can do whatever they want whenever they want

You would fit in fine with the hippies rioting in the streets, and destroying private property to get what they want

Your arrogance comes thru as you take pride in the destruction of private property. Something else the Dems in Annapolis Md have an over abundance of

[LuvRPgrl]

Yep. Majority of divorces now end in joint custody.. I dont know which universe you live in, but its not so in my universe . Also, there is a further breakdown of custody in to two categories, physical and legal custody. Mostly they get joint legal custody, which really means virtually nothing, and physiccal custody, which means the person who has the kids most of the time.

When there is sole custody it's usually because of one parent being deemed much more functional as a parent. In ca. it is who has spent the most time with the kids prior to the seperation or divorce

or the parent giving up joint custody, doesn't want the responsibility..which is very rare


Child support is for the children. Dmp's point of splitting the costs of housing, food, etc., when custodial parent isn't able to make 1/2 of the costs of keeping the children in the lifestyle they had previously, doesn't make sense..It makes sense, just needs a tweeaking on the percentages, nobody remains living in the lifestyle they were accustomed to.

This is especially true when the major earner just wants to walk away.. again, very rare.


Take a good look at J.P.'s bio. After the divorce and the 'awarding' of child support, he took off to live the life of the happy traveler. No kids, no wife, no job. When that caught up with him, he went goofy and started spray painting graffiti on public buildings. That was the cause of incarceration and may be why he had limited/restricted visitation after. I would never pass judgement on anyone until b oth sides of the story were heard.

[ConHog]

Not in my universe
In ca. it is who has spent the most time with the kids prior to the seperation or divorce
which is very rare

It makes sense, just needs a tweeaking on the percentages, nobody remains living in the lifestyle they were accustomed to.
again, very rare.

I would never pass judgement on anyone until b oth sides of the story were heard.

I agree with you on most of this.

In US courts most custody cases are automatically awarded to the mother unless the father can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the mother is unfit. Kath is wrong in her assumption that most cases end with joint custody, sort of. Most do end in joint physical custody, but not joint legal custody. Those are two different terms and in the case of joint physical custody one parent pays child support while in joint legal custody neither parent pays child support.

You're also correct that the courts don't care about making sure anyone maintains the same lifestyle as they did prior to the divorce. All they concern themselves with is that the children are provided the basics and that both parents help fund that.

You are wrong about JP's situation though; he's a douchebag for bailing on his kids , I don't care what his reasons are.

[LuvRPgrl]

True story. When my son was 2 years old. I walked in on his mom and another man. He ran ( I don't know , just because a 6'1" 190 lb man in camo wearing a pistol on his hip walked in on you porking his wife LOL) anyway I grabbed her by hair and heel and through her into the street. No clothes, no nothing. Fuck her..
Sounds to me like you made a very foolish choice in the beginning by deciding to marry her. Which is actually encouraGEd by our society .
I also am quite sure there is more to the story than what you have given us.

[ConHog]

Sounds to me like you made a very foolish choice in the beginning by deciding to marry her. I also am quite sure there is more to the story than what you have given us.

Oh, I definitely made a foolish choice when I married her. She was very beautiful at 19 and at 19 I thought that was enough.

No, there really isn't more than that. We never fought, or argued, I just happened to come home from work early one day and there she was cheating. I haven't spoken a word to her since that day . Like I said, her loss. I have a great new wife and the past is the past.

[Gunny]

:salute:



You are totally correct, and the reason you must explain it to people as like "Kath" is because they try to make it into a personal affront instead of addressing the real issues involved.

People like "Kathianne" use their own case because she can then control the so called facts and she can win since the other persons involved in her case are not here to contradict here.

This is why I never reference my own case, and I try to get away from my own case when people try to attack me in that way.

I say the evil Child Support and Custody laws did start out as totally anti-male and many people still today want just to trash the Men and fathers, but it is like a sickness or disease which is growing as it is now anti-parent and they trash a few mothers too as if the self righteous want to give equal rights in their dirty hateful ways.

Really. Whose facts are YOU using? The courts and laws are set up to decide what's fair. The problem is "who" is doing the deciding. Ty blaming what's really at fault here. It isn't the law. It's the judge and they're like assholes -- everybody's got one. You get just as much justice in this country as you can afford to buy. That's the way it is, the way it's been, and I don't see it changing.

Might want to get off your holier-than-thou, I wish I was an intellectual high horse and work on your big picture viewmaster.

[LuvRPgrl]

I can tell that luckily for you you've never been involved in a child support case, because it is apparent that you're not overly familiar with how the system works.

The state issues a decree of course, but they will NEVER enforce it unless the custodial parent complains, and even then they don't do much. You have to $5K behind before it anything more than a misdemeanor and even then they don't move overly quickly to do anything.

So it wouldn't matter if on paper you were a million dollars behind in child support the state simply doesn't care unless and until a parent complains.
thats one of the funniest things I ever heard.

[ConHog]

thats one of the funniest things I ever heard.



Why is it funny? It absolute, 100% factual. Child Support Enforcement simply doesn't act on a case unless the custodial parent complains. The logic is simple. Why waste the resources prosecuting a case if the injured party doesn't care enough to register a complaint. Especially when they are swamped with cases anyway?

[Gunny]

Why is it funny? It absolute, 100% factual. Child Support Enforcement simply doesn't act on a case unless the custodial parent complains. The logic is simple. Why waste the resources prosecuting a case if the injured party doesn't care enough to register a complaint. Especially when they are swamped with cases anyway?

Hell, they don't do much half the time if even if the custodial parent complains.

[ConHog]

Hell, they don't do much half the time if even if the custodial parent complains.

Got that right, my ex wife is over $50K behind and when I opened a case with the Missouri CES the lady flat told me that they simply won't be doing anything about it if she doesn't pay.

[Abbey Marie]

Just a thought: Was child support involved in the beauty salon shooting?

[ConHog]

Just a thought: Was child support involved in the beauty salon shooting?



If it did, I'm sure that JP applauds the shooter's "civil disobedience"

[LuvRPgrl]

A few caveats. What I post is relevant to Ca. The laws vary state to state, BUT they are mostly the same in each state, but not always.
When I refer to the "man", in fact it means 90% the man and 10% the woman the woman, or thereabouts.
......The real issues isnt what is ordered in court, but in fact is, what court orders the state is willing to enforce.
Divorce laws are much different today than even 10 years ago, much less 20, and the law and reality dont always match, so if you have an issue with what I post, dont
............ quote me .any laws, show me the facts of what is being enforced. Judges routinely ignore the law, and appealing is expensive.
Lastly, how the law is enforced, depends very much on who it is being enforced against, the man or the woman.

The single most important issue is being ignored, which is being proven by this thread. Visitation is soooo much more important than CS. I know, the thread is about CS, but you
cant.......... discuss one without the other, cuz it is extremely common for the mothers to refuse visitation if child support isnt paid.
Kids suffer much more from lack of a father than from a downgrade in economics.


Why is it funny? It absolute, 100% factual. Child Support Enforcement simply doesn't act on a case unless the custodial parent complains. The logic is simple. Why waste the resources prosecuting a case if the injured party doesn't care enough to register a complaint. Especially when they are swamped with cases anyway?
Its infinitaley more complicated than that.
But the issue I have a problem with is you say they act slowly when they receive a complaint about it.

Just for starters, very often women use the county services for collection, and they IMMEDIATELY jump on the case if a man misses one payment, whether the woman complains or not.. But if the woman denies visitation, the men have to spend thousands of dollars on attorney and court costs, and its a long time before they get any relief, if any at all.
.........The police refuse to enforce a court order if it entails them going into a building and removing the kids so the father can have visitation, but not a blink goes by before they are willing to go into the mans wallet and enforce CS under the threat of physical violence with a gun. And this is irrelevant if the man is a great father or bad, making lots of money or collecting unemployment.
.
And they will imprison a man for failing to pay, prison over a debt, which is unconstitutional.
You think the IRS is harsh on collection enforcement, they are kitty cats compared to the panther of Child Support.
.
They will take your passport and drivers license without hearing a word from you on why you cant or arent paying.
.I
f someone wants to get their amount lowered, it will cost them thousands of dollars, many times they dont have it. And dont give me that shit about being able to do it yourself, when a person represents themselves, there are so many technicalities and tricks only an experienced lawyer knows, not to mention the attitude and scowl the judge immedetley gets when they read IN PRO PER.

[ConHog]

A few caveats. What I post is relevant to Ca. The laws vary state to state, BUT they are mostly the same in each state, but not always.
When I refer to the "man", in fact it means 90% the man and 10% the woman the woman, or thereabouts.
The real issues isnt what is ordered in court, but in fact is, what court orders the state is willing to enforce.
Divorce laws are much different today than even 10 years ago, much less 20, and the law and reality dont always match, so if you have an issue with what I post, dont quote me any laws, show me the facts of what is being enforced. Judges routinely ignore the law, and appealing is expensive.
Lastly, how the law is enforced, depends very much on who it is being enforced against, the man or the woman.

The single most important issue is being ignored, which is being proven by this thread. Visitation is soooo much more important than CS. I know, the thread is about CS, but you cant discuss one without the other, cuz it is extremely common for the mothers to refuse visitation if child support isnt paid.
Kids suffer much more from lack of a father than from a downgrade in economics.

Its infinitaley more complicated than that.
But the issue I have a problem with is you say they act slowly when they receive a complaint about it.

Just for starters, very often women use the county services for collection, and they IMMEDIATELY jump on the case if a man misses one payment, whether the woman complains or not.. But if the woman denies visitation, the men have to spend thousands of dollars on attorney and court costs, and its a long time before they get any relief, if any at all.
The police refuse to enforce a court order if it entails them going into a building and removing the kids so the father can have visitation, but not a blink goes by before they are willing to go into the mans wallet and enforce CS under the threat of physical violence with a gun. And this is irrelevant if the man is a great father or bad, making lots of money or collecting unemployment.
.
And they will imprison a man for failing to pay, prison over a debt, which is unconstitutional.
You think the IRS is harsh on collection enforcement, they are kitty cats compared to the panther of Child Support.
.
They will take your passport and drivers license without hearing a word from you on why you cant or arent paying.
.I
f someone wants to get their amount lowered, it will cost them thousands of dollars, many times they dont have it. And dont give me that shit about being able to do it yourself, when a person represents themselves, there are so many technicalities and tricks only an experienced lawyer knows, not to mention the attitude and scowl the judge immedetley gets when they read IN PRO PER.


You are as wrong as wrong can be on this. Now I do believe that some CES employees are more sympathetic towards women then they are towards men; but you don't have an understanding of how the system works.

For many years I chaired the Arkansas chapter of a national father's rights group and became involved with MANY cases.

County employees have exactly ZERO ability to prosecute a person for failure to pay child support. They can't even send a letter. NOTHING. ANd that is true in EVERY state. Each state has a Child Support Enforcement Agency, which works in conjunction with the federal government to collect child support that hasn't been paid. A case does not automatically go to them just becuase a child support order has been issued, nor do they automatically jump on a case if a parent gets behind on child support. Not EVER, regardless of the sex of the parent. You know why? Because in say CA there are about 50K child support decrees at any one time. The state doesn't have the manpower to be eyeballing all of those cases . They rely on the CUSTODIAL parent to make them aware of a parent who has fallen behind.

Here is how the system works.

Non custodial parent misses a child support payment
Custodial parent calls county employee and complains
County employee gives custodial parent the hotline phone number for the CES
Custodial parent calls the hotline
Hotline employee asks if it has been 30 days since the last payment. If the answer is no, custodial parent is informed to call back if it gets to thirty days without a payment

Now let's assume it DOES get to thirty days.

Custodial Parent calls hotline again
Hotline asks for address of Custodial Parent and informs them that they will mail them a form to fill out requesting a case be opened. Fill out form and return
Custodial parent receives form, fills it out and returns it.
Hotline calls custodial parent to inform them that they have located the non custodial parent and send them a letter stating that they are $X behind in child support and that they have 30 days to either dispute the claim in writing or start making payments.

Now at this point one of three things happens. Either the parent disputes the claim (rare) the parent starts paying CS ( even rarer) or the parent ignores the letter (most likely)

If the non custodial disputes the claim then you're going back to court

If the non custodial starts paying CS within 30 days your case is closed unless and until they miss 30 days again and you open another case.

If the non custodial ignores the letter and does nothing then CSE takes the next step

Hotline goes through IRS to locate non custodial's employer (if they don't have an employer you're pretty much screwed as they aren't going to throw people in jail for being unemployed and unable to pay child support)

Once employer is located ANOTHER letter is mailed informing the employer of the garnishment and instructing them to deduct the amount owed in child support (up to a maximum of 25% of their net pay per federal law) from their paycheck. They have 60 days to comply.

During that 60 days , exactly NO action will be taken against the non custodial.

Now here's where non custodial parents usually show how shitty they really are and they quit that job so as to avoid the garnishment. Guess what that means? The process starts all over. Locate new employer, send letter, give 60 days to comply.

Now we are at minimum 3 months into the process and no one has went to jail. Nor even had their license revoked.

Now after that there are other options, including the state confiscating income tax refunds, lottery winnings etc etc. And those are always taken before any legal procedures to punish a non custodial.

Bottom line, as long as a parent is making SOME attempt to pay child support they will NEVER be prosecuted. Hell in many cases they aren't prosecuted even when they make NO effort.

[LuvRPgrl]

why he thinks it's the worst thing in the world. This is a man running for "actual office", and apparently doesn't believe parents should be financially responsible for their kids...
Please dont confuse" shouldnt be responsable for", and "the current child support system sucks"

.
My ONLY issue, ever, is WAY off topic - and that it irritates me that a man MUST pay CS even if he didn't want a kid.... You know, the whole abortion / have child and man having little input....

Yep, I agreee totally
a few things about that. It starts with, if a man doesnt want to pay child support, dont get the woman pregnant, its his best and only sure defense.
...Although I oppose abortion, it is a reality of our society. If woman wants abortion, man should be given choice of raising the kid without anything from the woman.
If man wants abortion, but woman keeps the kid, man should be exempt form CS and visitation. If the woman doesnt want to raise a kid without financial support, again, dont get pregnant.

If married, who ever files for divorce loses physical custody, primary, unless both want the divorce, or the Plaintiff (the one filing) can show an extremely good reason for divorcing, and not just irreconcilable differences (an absolutely destructive force on our society)

[JP Cusick]

Yes so immature that I raised my son without any support from his mother AND took on the responsibility of raising another young man when both his parents flaked out oh him. You meanwhile ran out on your own children and somehow think you did the right thing.

Excuse me for becoming emotional when I hear of children who have been NEGLECTED by their so called father.


Since you did do such noble things then you have every right to be proud of your actions.

I do NOT say that I did right for my son as I confess that I failed him miserably and I live every day with my regrets and with the results.

My only point is that the Child Support and Custody laws are evil, and those evil laws do need to be fought and stopped.

[LuvRPgrl]

You are as wrong as wrong can be on this. Now I do believe that some CES employees are more sympathetic towards women then they are towards men; but you don't have an understanding of how the system works..
Not only is my dick bigger than yours, but I'm willing to bet that I havef more personal experience about the system than you do. What you posted above is pure bullshit. How can you say I dont have an understanding how it works, when you dont even know me.




County employees have exactly ZERO ability to prosecute a person for failure to pay child support.
Prosecute is a very vague term.


1They can't even send a letter. NOTHING. ANd that is true in EVERY state..
. A case does not automatically go to them just becuase a child support order has been issued, nor do they automatically jump on a case if a parent gets behind on child support..
Part of your problem is you dont even read accurately. I never said any such thing,I said if the woman chooses to use the county to collect for her, then they will act on failure to pay immediately.


1Here is how the system works.Non custodial parent misses a child support payment
Custodial parent calls the hotline

Now let's assume it DOES get to thirty days.

... and send them a letter stating that they are $X behind in child support and that they have 30 days to either dispute the claim in writing or start making payments..
And yet above, you stated: The y can't even send a letter. NOTHING. ANd that is true in EVERY state..


Now here's where non custodial parents usually show how shitty they really are and they quit that job so as to avoid the garnishment....
If you start with the total number of men paying child support, your number is almost insignificant.


Now after that there are other options, including the state income tax refunds, lottery winnings etc etc. And those are always taken before any legal procedures to punish a non custodial.....
You left out confiscating their passport, drivers license, garnish their paycheck, AND,,,FREEZE AND CONFISCATE THE FUNDS IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNT.
...AND, THAT OCCURS RANDOMLY IF THE MAN IS SELF EMPLOYED, REGARDLESS IF HE IS CURRENT ON HIS PAYMENTS OR NOT.


I am currently about thirty grand behind in my payments, does that make me a scumbag?




?

[fj1200]

There are some smaller improvements which could be done to improve the laws, but the "best" change would be to completely end the Child Support orders completely and get the laws and the Courts out of the parenting business.

Truly - the 2 parents (all parents worldwide) can and would do just fine without the State or laws violating their relationship or their parenting.

And your child should be able to sue you in court for abandoning their needs.

[ConHog]

Not only is my dick bigger than yours, but I'm willing to bet that I havef more personal experience about the system than you do. What you posted above is pure bullshit. How can you say I dont have an understanding how it works, when you dont even know me.




Prosecute is a very vague term.


Part of your problem is you dont even read accurately. I never said any such thing,I said if the woman chooses to use the county to collect for her, then they will act on failure to pay immediately.


And yet above, you stated: The y can't even send a letter. NOTHING. ANd that is true in EVERY state..


If you start with the total number of men paying child support, your number is almost insignificant.


You left out confiscating their passport, drivers license, garnish their paycheck, AND,,,FREEZE AND CONFISCATE THE FUNDS IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNT.
...AND, THAT OCCURS RANDOMLY IF THE MAN IS SELF EMPLOYED, REGARDLESS IF HE IS CURRENT ON HIS PAYMENTS OR NOT.


I am currently about thirty grand behind in my payments, does that make me a scumbag?




?


You're goddamned right it does.


And that doesn't even address the ignorant lies you are telling in this thread. County employees have ZILCH to do with child support.

[Little-Acorn]

Well, it is meaningful.

To elaborate: Once the court judgments against you were made (specifying payments based on your income and visitation for your children), did you quit your job to avoid having to make those payments, and then go travelling around the country for purposes that included (a) evading any authorities who might try to enforce the payments ordered by the court(s), and (b) without regard for the needs of your children who might have benefitted from having their father present in their lives?

I hope this helps you to understand why my initial question was not "meaningless". If it is still not clear, I can elaborate further if needed.


JP, did you not see this question?

Or did you see it and decide you didn't want to reply?

[LuvRPgrl]

You're goddamned right it does.


And that doesn't even address the ignorant lies you are telling in this thread. County employees have ZILCH to do with child support.

Thanks for the premature judgement.
You are talking out your ass.

In 1985 , ex files for divorce and gets a $400 a month CS order.
A year later, she has moved to another county, but takes me back to court in the original county and has it raised to $650.
I send a ck for $650, the county refuses it, saying I only owe $410. I send anther check for $650 with a note telling them it has been raised.
They refuse it saying they need to see the order.
I send another $650 the next month, with a copy of the order.
They refuse it saying they need to receive it from the county.
A year goes by and I am unable to get county A to send county B a copy of the order.
I pay $2000 (1985 dollars) to an attorney so I can figure out how to pay the CS.
In the meantime, mom moves to another state.
The judges only ruling was the travel expenses be shared 50/50.
My attorney tells me to send county B a check for $410 and the balance to the mother until they can get it straightened out.
I do so, and deduct 1/2 the travel expenses from the ck I send her.
Years later, son turns 18, county still sends bill. I send them a letter telling them the order is only until he turns 18.
They say they need to see the order.
Again I send them a copy.
They send me a notice that I have only been paying $410 a month all these years, and I was suppose to be paying $650, so now I owe them $37,000.
I send them a letter telling them I paid it directly to her.
They say I have to prove I paid her.
For variouis reasons out of my control, I cant.

They confiscate my license, Im a self employed landscaper, good luck working like that
They confiscate my passport.
They intercept any tax returns me or my wife get whether state, county, felderal or anything.
I dont even know they took my license away and I get pulled over for a fictiscous tail light being out.
They say the car I was driving, which I had just bought, was registered to a sex offender in Riverside, it wasnt, I bought it from a business.
They send me to prison for a year, and confiscate my car, which I had just paid for.
I am still making monthly payments on the fine, for driving without a suspended license, which is more of a crime than not having one at all.

So now mr fuckhead, what do I do?

And, I get a bill from the COUNTY, it says it right on the invoice, you want me to send you a copy of it, or are you only willing to accept one directly from the county.

This whole thing has alot of other twists and turns that are bizarre and cause me all kinds of problems, but it would be a long post.
VIVA LA CHILD SUPPORT.

NOT TO MENTION THE COUNTY REFUSED TO ENFORCE THE VISISTATION THAT THE COURT ORDERED FOR ME.

Now, bring that skinny 6-1 frame over to SD and we will see how you can ATTEMPT to kick my a................
But let me warn you, Ive taken down guys bigger than you who thought it was allright to beat up on a woman.
I have a lifetime of training, great instructors, a lifetime of real world street experience, AND A TON OF FURY.
Not to mention, you aint bigger than me, every fight I have ever been in I was scared, so you cant intimidate me, you cant use a gun like when you were an MP, and you will have to ATTEMPT to throw the first blow, I NEVER start a fight.

[LuvRPgrl]

JP, did you not see this question?

Or did you see it and decide you didn't want to reply?

Even though I support his attempts to get child support, as it is, changed or eliminated, almost everything else he does or thinks, I dont agree with.

And a note to Conhoggy, if you dont believe me, then maybe after Lil acorn and I meet up some day, he will verify what I have said about myself.

[Gunny]

Since you did do such noble things then you have every right to be proud of your actions.

I do NOT say that I did right for my son as I confess that I failed him miserably and I live every day with my regrets and with the results.

My only point is that the Child Support and Custody laws are evil, and those evil laws do need to be fought and stopped.

You sound much as a cat chasing its tail looks.

Not to mention your cherrypicking. No response to MY post? Once again, it isn't the laws that are the problems. Try reading them. Pretty benign.

The problem is with those empowered to enforce the laws and the inconsistencies from one agency to the next, one judge to the next.

[jimnyc]

You sound much as a cat chasing its tail looks.

Not to mention your cherrypicking. No response to MY post? Once again, it isn't the laws that are the problems. Try reading them. Pretty benign.

The problem is with those empowered to enforce the laws and the inconsistencies from one agency to the next, one judge to the next.

The agencies can certainly use a bit of wrangling to fit modern needs and handle outstanding issues much faster.

But the BIGGEST problem with child support? The "fathers" who run out on their family and refuse to support a human being they brought into this world. There's lots of room for improvement on many avenues, but not a single reason for a father not to help at all.

Complain about how much, pay less and get in trouble, and I can sort of see your side. Think the amount is unfair because of custody agreement, talk to her/him and pay less for all I care. Unemployed or have a valid reason why you can't pay an amount or pay at all? Absolutely, no reason why you should be forced into the streets. But to walk away and not pay, or dodge the responsibility, go awol, not pay a dime, become a "dead beat dad" in the eyes of the law. Those people are the biggest problem, IMO.

[Abbey Marie]

Does the fact that the ex is living with her new boyfriend make it galling to pay support? Do you wonder how much of that money is going for fun times for her and the new lover? I must claim very little knowledge on the subject, so these are legit questions.

It would be nice if dads could pay the money into an account that can only be spent on food and kids' clothing, etc. Like a very limited trust where the trustees include an objective third party. Is that ever done? Or does the custodial parent have free rein to spend as they wish?

[jimnyc]

Does the fact that the ex is living with her new boyfriend make it galling to pay support? Do you wonder how much of that money is going for fun times for her and the new lover? I must claim very little knowledge on the subject, so these are legit questions.

It would be nice if dads could pay the money into an account that can only be spent on food and kids' clothing, etc. Like a very limited trust where the trustees include an objective third party. Is that ever done? Or does the custodial parent have free rein to spend as they wish?

That's definitely an issue, and one that is taken advantage of. I've seen it all before, and I've seen the couples receiving support that didn't need it. It would be nice if it were set into an account like the state does in NJ for welfare recipients, maybe at least ensure it's not used for alcohol, cigarettes, drugs.... Right now they pretty much do have free reign, so long as there are no issues with the child's well being.

[Abbey Marie]

That's definitely an issue, and one that is taken advantage of. I've seen it all before, and I've seen the couples receiving support that didn't need it. It would be nice if it were set into an account like the state does in NJ for welfare recipients, maybe at least ensure it's not used for alcohol, cigarettes, drugs.... Right now they pretty much do have free reign, so long as there are no issues with the child's well being.

This system just begs for abuse. People that use kids as pawns in any way are a disgrace.

[jimnyc]

This system just begs for abuse. People that use kids as pawns in any way are a disgrace.

Yep, and the majority of the time it is the child who pays the price.

[ConHog]

Thanks for the premature judgement.
You are talking out your ass.

In 1985 , ex files for divorce and gets a $400 a month CS order.
A year later, she has moved to another county, but takes me back to court in the original county and has it raised to $650.
I send a ck for $650, the county refuses it, saying I only owe $410. I send anther check for $650 with a note telling them it has been raised.
They refuse it saying they need to see the order.
I send another $650 the next month, with a copy of the order.
They refuse it saying they need to receive it from the county.
A year goes by and I am unable to get county A to send county B a copy of the order.
I pay $2000 (1985 dollars) to an attorney so I can figure out how to pay the CS.
In the meantime, mom moves to another state.
The judges only ruling was the travel expenses be shared 50/50.
My attorney tells me to send county B a check for $410 and the balance to the mother until they can get it straightened out.
I do so, and deduct 1/2 the travel expenses from the ck I send her.
Years later, son turns 18, county still sends bill. I send them a letter telling them the order is only until he turns 18.
They say they need to see the order.
Again I send them a copy.
They send me a notice that I have only been paying $410 a month all these years, and I was suppose to be paying $650, so now I owe them $37,000.
I send them a letter telling them I paid it directly to her.
They say I have to prove I paid her.
For variouis reasons out of my control, I cant.

They confiscate my license, Im a self employed landscaper, good luck working like that
They confiscate my passport.
They intercept any tax returns me or my wife get whether state, county, felderal or anything.
I dont even know they took my license away and I get pulled over for a fictiscous tail light being out.
They say the car I was driving, which I had just bought, was registered to a sex offender in Riverside, it wasnt, I bought it from a business.
They send me to prison for a year, and confiscate my car, which I had just paid for.
I am still making monthly payments on the fine, for driving without a suspended license, which is more of a crime than not having one at all.

So now mr fuckhead, what do I do?

And, I get a bill from the COUNTY, it says it right on the invoice, you want me to send you a copy of it, or are you only willing to accept one directly from the county.

This whole thing has alot of other twists and turns that are bizarre and cause me all kinds of problems, but it would be a long post.
VIVA LA CHILD SUPPORT.

NOT TO MENTION THE COUNTY REFUSED TO ENFORCE THE VISISTATION THAT THE COURT ORDERED FOR ME.

Now, bring that skinny 6-1 frame over to SD and we will see how you can ATTEMPT to kick my a................
But let me warn you, Ive taken down guys bigger than you who thought it was allright to beat up on a woman.
I have a lifetime of training, great instructors, a lifetime of real world street experience, AND A TON OF FURY.
Not to mention, you aint bigger than me, every fight I have ever been in I was scared, so you cant intimidate me, you cant use a gun like when you were an MP, and you will have to ATTEMPT to throw the first blow, I NEVER start a fight.



How has this type bullshit posts made it past Jimmy,Abby,Dmp, and Gunny? Seriously online threats? Good grief dude, grow up.


And I don't even know what you're takling about with the thinks it's alright to beat up women bit.

[ConHog]

That's definitely an issue, and one that is taken advantage of. I've seen it all before, and I've seen the couples receiving support that didn't need it. It would be nice if it were set into an account like the state does in NJ for welfare recipients, maybe at least ensure it's not used for alcohol, cigarettes, drugs.... Right now they pretty much do have free reign, so long as there are no issues with the child's well being.

That's irrelevant Jim. Why should my ex not have to help support her son just because I happen to be able to afford it without her? Just as an example.

[Abbey Marie]

That's irrelevant Jim. Why should my ex not have to help support her son just because I happen to be able to afford it without her? Just as an example.

Shouldn't everything above "needs" (as defined by the courts/legislature, I assume) be given voluntarilyy, as it would be in an intact family?

[ConHog]

Shouldn't everything above "needs" (as defined by the courts/legislature, I assume) be given voluntarilyy, as it would be in an intact family?

Sure, if you live in Polyanna where everyone does the right thing. Unfortunately, here on Earth people are assholes and douchebags. Should a fuck like JP be allowed to choose to just walk away from his /her responsibilities?

[Abbey Marie]

Sure, if you live in Polyanna where everyone does the right thing. Unfortunately, here on Earth people are assholes and douchebags. Should a fuck like JP be allowed to choose to just walk away from his /her responsibilities?

No, that's why I specificed "above needs". I don't know what JP's deal is, but in general, should anyone be forced to pay for luxuries? Maybe I am missing something here.

(Btw, I don't know why I cannot post a comment in this thread without people dragging JP straight into it. I am trying to have a broader discussion. Por favor). :cool:

[ConHog]

No, that's why I specificed "above needs". I don't know what JP's deal is, but in general, should anyone be forced to pay for luxuries? Maybe I am missing something here.

(Btw, I don't know why I cannot post a comment in this thread without people dragging JP straight into it. I am trying to have a broader discussion. Por favor). :cool:



JP get's dragged into it because he is a textbook example of why we MUST have child support laws.

Okay let me tell you this story Abbey.

Back in the early 1990s there was this kid who played basketball for the University of Arkansas. His name is Corliss Williamson. He was a great college basketball player and a pretty good guy. While in college he got a girl pregnant and married her. After college he was drafted into the NBA and got rich, about 4 years into the marriage he and his wife divorced. He had just a signed a contract paying him $12M a year guaranteed for 5 years. He agreed to pay his ex wife $10K a month in child support. She sued him family court demanding $500K a month in child support , claiming that any less and she wouldn't be able to maintain the lifestyle her kid had been accustomed to. The court told her tough shit that the father was in noway obligated to maintain her previous lifestyle and in fact issued an order for child support in the amount of $5K a month.

That's just an illustration of how things SHOULD be done. Are they always done that way? Of course not, but that is the norm.

[Abbey Marie]

JP get's dragged into it because he is a textbook example of why we MUST have child support laws.

Okay let me tell you this story Abbey.

Back in the early 1990s there was this kid who played basketball for the University of Arkansas. His name is Corliss Williamson. He was a great college basketball player and a pretty good guy. While in college he got a girl pregnant and married her. After college he was drafted into the NBA and got rich, about 4 years into the marriage he and his wife divorced. He had just a signed a contract paying him $12M a year guaranteed for 5 years. He agreed to pay his ex wife $10K a month in child support. She sued him family court demanding $500K a month in child support , claiming that any less and she wouldn't be able to maintain the lifestyle her kid had been accustomed to. The court told her tough shit that the father was in noway obligated to maintain her previous lifestyle and in fact issued an order for child support in the amount of $5K a month.

That's just an illustration of how things SHOULD be done. Are they always done that way? Of course not, but that is the norm.

The "maintaing lifestyle" argument is usually for alimony, not child support. But anyway, you feel that very few fathers get ripped off by the system?
I am not disagreeing; I just have heard a lot of people saying otherwise.

[ConHog]

The "maintaing lifestyle" argument is usually for alimony, not child support. But anyway, you feel that very few fathers get ripped off by the system?
I am not disagreeing; I just have heard a lot of people saying otherwise.

No, I don't . In fact that is why I got involved with the Father's rights movement. But in the last 10 years things have changed dramatically. Child support is no longer used as a punitive tool, and it's not so much "the mother is always the best option" as it once was. More and more you are seeing courts recognize that fathers have a role in raising a child beyond just being a wallet.

But your question about how many fathers get screwed by the system? I would say that quite a few do in terms of numbers, but in terms of percentage no most non custodial fathers do not every have any troubles with CSE.

Now are there still some hold out judges who can't move on? You bet there are. But that is NO reason to do away with laws that require a person to help support a baby that THEY helped create.

There is also the fact that most of the people who find themselves in trouble with the child support laws are mostly themselves responsible for being there. Be a decent person and you don't need someone else telling you to help fund your child's very existence.

[Gunny]

The agencies can certainly use a bit of wrangling to fit modern needs and handle outstanding issues much faster.

But the BIGGEST problem with child support? The "fathers" who run out on their family and refuse to support a human being they brought into this world. There's lots of room for improvement on many avenues, but not a single reason for a father not to help at all.

Complain about how much, pay less and get in trouble, and I can sort of see your side. Think the amount is unfair because of custody agreement, talk to her/him and pay less for all I care. Unemployed or have a valid reason why you can't pay an amount or pay at all? Absolutely, no reason why you should be forced into the streets. But to walk away and not pay, or dodge the responsibility, go awol, not pay a dime, become a "dead beat dad" in the eyes of the law. Those people are the biggest problem, IMO.

I agree. There is no excuse for fathers running out on their children. Now I will pose this question; which, crosses many arguments.

If a woman wants an abortion, the man has no say. Her choice. What if the father wants to keep the child? AND she STILL has the abortion? Her choice. He has no say.

Put it in reverse. He's willing to pay for the abortion but she wants the kid. Why shouldn't he be allowed to be absolved of all legal responsibility? After all, it's still HER choice. He has no say. A lot of "deadbeat dads" are victims of circumstance and a law that caters solely to the woman because chicks with dicks have found a home with the left and get their agenda pushed.

I'm not absolving the man of his responsibility. However, I refuse to absolve the woman who spread her legs either. A "deadbeat dad" to me is a father of children he had in good faith during an alleged good relationship and ran out on. They have no excuse.

It STILL all boils down to the unequal application of law, and/or one-sided laws. The whole Femi-Nazi agenda is bullshit and does nothing but victimize and emasculate the man.

[ConHog]

I agree. There is no excuse for fathers running out on their children. Now I will pose this question; which, crosses many arguments.

If a woman wants an abortion, the man has no say. Her choice. What if the father wants to keep the child? AND she STILL has the abortion? Her choice. He has no say.

Put it in reverse. He's willing to pay for the abortion but she wants the kid. Why shouldn't he be allowed to be absolved of all legal responsibility? After all, it's still HER choice. He has no say. A lot of "deadbeat dads" are victims of circumstance and a law that caters solely to the woman because chicks with dicks have found a home with the left and get their agenda pushed.

I'm not absolving the man of his responsibility. However, I refuse to absolve the woman who spread her legs either. A "deadbeat dad" to me is a father of children he had in good faith during an alleged good relationship and ran out on. They have no excuse.

It STILL all boils down to the unequal application of law, and/or one-sided laws. The whole Femi-Nazi agenda is bullshit and does nothing but victimize and emasculate the man.


Honest question, Why were you silent when I made that EXACT same argument I 100% agree with you here. If a mother chooses to make a man a father against his wishes then she should also have to do without his money, that is an entirely different situation. And of course I also agree that a man should have a say in abortion to begin with.

[Gunny]

Honest question, Why were you silent when I made that EXACT same argument I 100% agree with you here. If a mother chooses to make a man a father against his wishes then she should also have to do without his money, that is an entirely different situation. And of course I also agree that a man should have a say in abortion to begin with.

I was probably at work or something. I've made the same argument for years. It usually kills the thread. Too logical and fair.:laugh:

[ConHog]

I was probably at work or something. I've made the same argument for years. It usually kills the thread. Too logical and fair.:laugh:


Fair enuff. By the by, I like the new Gunny lots more than the old Gunny, you seem much happier with your life, congrats on that.

Hope that doesn't embarrass you to have said in public.

[ConHog]

I was probably at work or something. I've made the same argument for years. It usually kills the thread. Too logical and fair.:laugh:

I always wondered because that thread was the beginning of my problems over at USMB, I crossed Queen Syrenn for the first time there and honestly never could see why more guys weren't in there posting the same thing you and I are saying here.

[LuvRPgrl]

JP get's dragged into it because he is a textbook example of why we MUST have child support laws.

.
but it didnt work. He is a textbook example of how it doesnt work.

[LuvRPgrl]

How has this type bullshit posts made it past Jimmy,Abby,Dmp, and Gunny? Seriously online threats? Good grief dude, grow up.


And I don't even know what you're takling about with the thinks it's alright to beat up women bit.

So you have no response about calling me a scumbag with0ut knowing the whole story"
You have no response about the fact that it is the county that does the collection and I have written proof, after you claimed the county has nothing to do with CS ?

the thing about beating up women was that I made a citizens arrest and stopped a guy bigger than me when he was doing that.
ALso, I didnt make a threat, I just told you that if....then....
as it seems like alot of the time you bring up how bad you are, intimidating, how you are going to punch this guy or that guy, your 20 years as an MP, and I was just cutting you off at the pass.

[LuvRPgrl]

see post 106


I agree. There is no excuse for fathers running out on their children. Now I will pose this question; which, crosses many arguments.

If a woman wants an abortion, the man has no say. Her choice. What if the father wants to keep the child? AND she STILL has the abortion? Her choice. He has no say.

Put it in reverse. He's willing to pay for the abortion but she wants the kid. Why shouldn't he be allowed to be absolved of all legal responsibility? After all, it's still HER choice. He has no say. A lot of "deadbeat dads" are victims of circumstance and a law that caters solely to the woman because chicks with dicks have found a home with the left and get their agenda pushed.

I'm not absolving the man of his responsibility. However, I refuse to absolve the woman who spread her legs either. A "deadbeat dad" to me is a father of children he had in good faith during an alleged good relationship and ran out on. They have no excuse.

It STILL all boils down to the unequal application of law, and/or one-sided laws. The whole Femi-Nazi agenda is bullshit and does nothing but victimize and emasculate the man.

[Kathianne]

The "maintaing lifestyle" argument is usually for alimony, not child support. But anyway, you feel that very few fathers get ripped off by the system?
I am not disagreeing; I just have heard a lot of people saying otherwise.

Perhaps the phrase, 'maintaining lifestyle' pertained to our lawyers and the judge using it for clarity? The case was made that it was reasonable for the children to maintain their activities and private schools, and clothing, etc., because the means were available without causing undue hardship on their father. Also taken into account was the fact that I waived alimony, though having been a stay-at-home mom for 14 years and was then currently enrolled full time in university.

It probably helped that the ex figured all expenses should be 'split down the middle,' though he acknowledge that at the time I couldn't pay half of anything. His response to the judges question, "So what should be done?" My ex, "Then they'll just go without until she finds a way to pay for them." Of course by that time there wasn't visitation due to court order, which he brought up, "Why should I have to pay for kids I get no benefits from?" Yes, there were reasons he was ordered to a shrink.

[ConHog]

Perhaps the phrase, 'maintaining lifestyle' pertained to our lawyers and the judge using it for clarity? The case was made that it was reasonable for the children to maintain their activities and private schools, and clothing, etc., because the means were available without causing undue hardship on their father. Also taken into account was the fact that I waived alimony, though having been a stay-at-home mom for 14 years and was then currently enrolled full time in university.

It probably helped that the ex figured all expenses should be 'split down the middle,' though he acknowledge that at the time I couldn't pay half of anything. His response to the judges question, "So what should be done?" My ex, "Then they'll just go without until she finds a way to pay for them." Of course by that time there wasn't visitation due to court order, which he brought up, "Why should I have to pay for kids I get no benefits from?" Yes, there were reasons he was ordered to a shrink.

I'm quite sure that he was informed at that point that visitation and child support are two completely different topics as far as the courts are concerned. Want real trouble with family court? Refuse visitation because the non custodial isn't paying child support, or conversely refuse to pay child support because the custodial isn't allowing visitation.

[Abbey Marie]

I sense a lack of common sense and understanding of human nature in some of these policies. But mostly, I just cannot imagine being a child in the situation where the parent who can pay for my needs refuses to. The feelings of rejection must run deep and permanent.

[ConHog]

I sense a lack of common sense and understanding of human nature in some of these policies. But mostly, I just cannot imagine being a child in the situation where the parent who can pay for my needs refuses to. The feelings of rejection must run deep and permanent.

And I think you are over estimating human nature . MOST parents would just haul ass and never help raise their children when a divorce happens if they didn't have laws preventing them from doing so. Sad , but true.

[Abbey Marie]

And I think you are over estimating human nature . MOST parents would just haul ass and never help raise their children when a divorce happens if they didn't have laws preventing them from doing so. Sad , but true.

Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion about me. {shrug}

[ConHog]

Not sure how you arrived at that conclusion about me. {shrug}

Not sure either. I'm usually at drawing better conclusions about women after I've seen them in the buff. PM for details.


:laugh2:

Just kidding

[JP Cusick]

And your child should be able to sue you in court for abandoning their needs.


The thing is that the children's needs are not abandoned and the children do have everything they need.

That is except the children do not have their own unrestricted access to their other parent, and there is the true need being denied away from the children, and that is being empowered by the evil Child Support and the evil Custody laws.


============================



JP, did you not see this question?

Or did you see it and decide you didn't want to reply?


I did see it, and I already replied that it as being meaningless.

The fact that you refuse to accept my reply does not mean that you did not get an answer since in fact you did.


===========================



That's irrelevant Jim. Why should my ex not have to help support her son just because I happen to be able to afford it without her? Just as an example.


The one big reason is that it makes the claim and justification for the thieving Child Support into the lie that it truly is.

It is NOT to support the children but just to pay off the likes of your self who has stolen the children away from their mother.

But even if we do give people like "ConHog" the right to make such inhuman claims - then it is still reprehensible that our laws and the State would enforce such an ignorant claim onto his children's mother.

[ConHog]

The thing is that the children's needs are not abandoned and the children do have everything they need.

That is except the children do not have their own unrestricted access to their other parent, and there is the true need being denied away from the children, and that is being empowered by the evil Child Support and the evil Custody laws.


============================


I did see it, and I already replied that it as being meaningless.

The fact that you refuse to accept my reply does not mean that you did not get an answer since in fact you did.


===========================


The one big reason is that it makes the claim and justification for the thieving Child Support into the lie that it truly is.

It is NOT to support the children but just to pay off the likes of your self who has stolen the children away from their mother.

But even if we do give people like "ConHog" the right to make such inhuman claims - then it is still reprehensible that our laws and the State would enforce such an ignorant claim onto his children's mother.

YOu don't get to just decide "hey my kids don't need my money, im out of here"


You fucking pussy. I'd love to meet you some time.

[ConHog]

The thing is that the children's needs are not abandoned and the children do have everything they need.

That is except the children do not have their own unrestricted access to their other parent, and there is the true need being denied away from the children, and that is being empowered by the evil Child Support and the evil Custody laws.


============================


I did see it, and I already replied that it as being meaningless.

The fact that you refuse to accept my reply does not mean that you did not get an answer since in fact you did.


===========================


The one big reason is that it makes the claim and justification for the thieving Child Support into the lie that it truly is.

It is NOT to support the children but just to pay off the likes of your self who has stolen the children away from their mother.

But even if we do give people like "ConHog" the right to make such inhuman claims - then it is still reprehensible that our laws and the State would enforce such an ignorant claim onto his children's mother.


You're a scumbag, and stupid to boot. My ex wife has CHOSEN not to be part of her son's life, I haven't kept him from her. And as I've already stated, the courts view visitation and child support as two separate issues. You are entitled to visitation even if you aren't current with your child support and the custodial parent can't prevent you from exercising that visitation if you wish.


There is NO excuse for you to not pay your child support. You're simply a slimy fuck. No surprise that you're running for Congress.

[DragonStryk72]

The thing is that the children's needs are not abandoned, and the children do have everything they need, except the children do not have their own unrestricted access to their other parent. There is the true need being denied away from the children, and that is being empowered by the evil Child Support and the evil Custody laws.

What makes them evil? How can laws be evil? They have no volition of their own, but are enforced by others. Custody does not mean you cannot see the child when you want. That is worked out between the parents. And yes, I corrected your horrific grammar. Lord, could you please write so that everyone can understand you? Senseless sentence structure only hurts your argument.


============================


I did see it, and I already replied that it as being meaningless.

The fact that you refuse to accept my reply does not mean that you did not get an answer since in fact you did.

When? Cause I have gone over the thread, and see no answer at all. Please clarify which post number was the response.


===========================


The one big reason is that it makes the claim and justification for the Child Support into the lie that it truly is.

It is NOT to support the children but just to pay off the likes of your self who has stolen the children away from their mother.

But even if we do give people like "ConHog" the right to make such inhuman claims - then it is still reprehensible that our laws and the State would enforce such an ignorant claim onto his children's mother.

So, basically, you have the inherent right to fuck whoever you want, and take no consequence on yourself? That's what you espouse here. Now, to Conhog's point, your wife should be paying child support, that's the whole point: She had 50% of the decision and act of creating the child, then she has her fair share of the cost. You should not be getting robbed of your hard earned money simply on the point that you are taking care of your kid.

[ConHog]

So, basically, you have the inherent right to fuck whoever you want, and take no consequence on yourself? That's what you espouse here. Now, to Conhog's point, your wife should be paying child support, that's the whole point: She had 50% of the decision and act of creating the child, then she has her fair share of the cost. You should not be getting robbed of your hard earned money simply on the point that you are taking care of your kid.



JP's statement seems to be " If the custodial parent doesn't NEED my money (and I guess he decides that?) then they don't get it.

Or more likely his statement is that he's a cowardly piece of shit who doesn't have the moral fiber to provide for his own children.


What a scumbag, and this is the kind of piece of shit who we have wanting to run our country folks.

[Little-Acorn]

I did see it, and I already replied that it as being meaningless.

The fact that you refuse to accept my reply does not mean that you did not get an answer since in fact you did.


OK, I'll note that you didn't want to answer the questions about whether you had quit your job and left town to avoid paying the child support the court had ordered, rather than appealing the judgement to the next court on grounds that the payments were unfair.

I guess that's all I needed to know. Thanks for your cooperation, such as it was.

Clearly you are simply a deadbeat dad who abandoned his children, quit his job to avoid court-ordered Child Support payments, and skipped town to dodge authorities who might try to enforce them and then tried to use high-flown rhetoric and pretended victimhood to try to hide that fact. You did not try any of the normal methods for seeking redress - which hints to me that you privately felt NO ONE would agree with your strident claims of unfairness. You simply ignored everything said to you and began vandalizing buildings when you didn't get your way.

If there is anyone who does NOT belong in public office, with any authority whatsoever, it is clearly you.

Thank you for coming to this forum to let us explore this matter, and for provding the evidence (one way or the other) that pointed to what our conclusions should be.

[ConHog]

OK, I'll note that you didn't want to answer the questions about whether you had quit your job and left town to avoid paying the child support the court had ordered, rather than appealing the judgement to the next court on grounds that the payments were unfair.

I guess that's all I needed to know. Thanks for your cooperation, such as it was.

Clearly you are simply a deadbeat dad who abandoned his children, quit his job to avoid court-ordered Child Support payments, and skipped town to dodge authorities who might try to enforce them and then tried to use high-flown rhetoric and pretended victimhood to try to hide that fact. You did not try any of the normal methods for seeking redress - which hints to me that you privately felt NO ONE would agree with your strident claims of unfairness. You simply ignored everything said to you and began vandalizing buildings when you didn't get your way.

If there is anyone who does NOT belong in public office, with any authority whatsoever, it is clearly you.

Thank you for coming to this forum to let us explore this matter, and for provding the evidence (one way or the other) that pointed to what our conclusions should be.

Sadly, the piece of shit probably WILL be elected.

[Little-Acorn]

Sadly, the piece of shit probably WILL be elected.

He's trying for Steny Hoyer's seat.

Ain't gonna happen.

[ConHog]

He's trying for Steny Hoyer's seat.

Ain't gonna happen.


Hope not, like you said this douchebag is the last person who needs to be put in charge of anything. May as well put PB in charge of the liquor cabinet while you're at it. :laugh2:

[Kathianne]

Sadly, the piece of shit probably WILL be elected.

This is at least his 4th attempt at some office. Seriously. He's never come close, for very good reasons.

[LuvRPgrl]

And I think you are over estimating human nature . MOST parents would just haul ass and never help raise their children when a divorce happens if they didn't have laws preventing them from doing so. Sad , but true.

sad you have such a neg attitude, and wrong

[Kathianne]

And I think you are over estimating human nature . MOST parents would just haul ass and never help raise their children when a divorce happens if they didn't have laws preventing them from doing so. Sad , but true.

I don't get where you think Abbey said anything like that. :dunno: I don't think most parents wish to abandon their children along with their spouse. I think most would want to economically support their child(ren) too. However, many think that the costs involved in setting up separate households leave them with an unfair burden when added to child support, especially those also paying alimony.

However, the number of divorces where one parent wishes out, often the one that dominated the choices made in the marriage, leads to the main 'breadwinner' deciding not to work or severely changing their income by other means. Of all presidents it was Clinton that recognized that by garnishing wages big time, suspending driver's licenses, many would pay up. The number of single parents and children on welfare dropped dramatically.

As I said, that wasn't one of the issues I faced, but many if not most do. One shouldn't have to beg for money from the other parent to take care of the kids.

Often the parent that wants the divorce, either by filing or by behavior that causes the divorce, wants control that they feel goes along with paying child support. Paying child support doesn't give one the right to call the tune on the other parent's behaviors, as long as those behaviors aren't negatively impacting the children. They also cannot say that 'such and such' school or activity is worthless and too expensive, after they have themselves been involved and supportive of such for years. That too, is abandoning their children.

[fj1200]

The thing is that the children's needs are not abandoned and the children do have everything they need.

That is except the children do not have their own unrestricted access to their other parent, and there is the true need being denied away from the children, and that is being empowered by the evil Child Support and the evil Custody laws.

Huge assumption. Besides, I said nothing about laws; if you, just as an example :rolleyes: , happen to abandon your children and in the absence of a CS law they should be able to sue you for support and they should be able to win.

[red states rule]

sad you have such a neg attitude, and wrong


It may come from trying to see both sides of every issue. He might be seeing the world like Clarence the Cross Eyed lion did

[Gunny]

Fair enuff. By the by, I like the new Gunny lots more than the old Gunny, you seem much happier with your life, congrats on that.

Hope that doesn't embarrass you to have said in public.

You just haven't known me long enough. I AM the "old" Gunny. Just had a few issues in the middle. ;)

[Gunny]

So you have no response about calling me a scumbag with0ut knowing the whole story"
You have no response about the fact that it is the county that does the collection and I have written proof, after you claimed the county has nothing to do with CS ?

the thing about beating up women was that I made a citizens arrest and stopped a guy bigger than me when he was doing that.
ALso, I didnt make a threat, I just told you that if....then....
as it seems like alot of the time you bring up how bad you are, intimidating, how you are going to punch this guy or that guy, your 20 years as an MP, and I was just cutting you off at the pass.

IIRC, the county DOES in San Diego. That doesn't mean it's that way in Arkansas. Each state handles it the way they choose. The Fed gov't hasn't taken that one away from the states yet and I DO know from living in quite a few states, the rules are different.

[Gunny]

I'm quite sure that he was informed at that point that visitation and child support are two completely different topics as far as the courts are concerned. Want real trouble with family court? Refuse visitation because the non custodial isn't paying child support, or conversely refuse to pay child support because the custodial isn't allowing visitation.

Which I think is BS. You ARE correct. Not disagreeing. However, if knucklehead ain't paying up, he should forfeit his right to visitation. Just my opinion.

[Kathianne]

Which I think is BS. You ARE correct. Not disagreeing. However, if knucklehead ain't paying up, he should forfeit his right to visitation. Just my opinion.

I agree, IF he/she are able to pay. Today's economy may well leave someone without a job, through no actions on their part; then to deny visitation would be wrong in every sense.

What burns most of us up though is when someone goes trotting off, leaving their job behind, because they want to be 'free and adventurous.'

[Gunny]

And I think you are over estimating human nature . MOST parents would just haul ass and never help raise their children when a divorce happens if they didn't have laws preventing them from doing so. Sad , but true.

Not sure I agree with this one. First and foremost, "human nature" has nothing to do with it. What I've seen a lot of is one not understanding they are not paying the other parent; rather, they are paying for the child's needs. They don't get it. They think they're having to pay their former spouse and no amount of common sense nor logic can get through their thick gourds. That's not "human nature". It's stupidity.

[Abbey Marie]

Not sure I agree with this one. First and foremost, "human nature" has nothing to do with it. What I've seen a lot of is one not understanding they are not paying the other parent; rather, they are paying for the child's needs. They don't get it. They think they're having to pay their former spouse and no amount of common sense nor logic can get through their thick gourds. That's not "human nature". It's stupidity.

That is why I asked in one of these threads if there are any constraints on how the custodial parent spends the $$. If it is truly required to go towards things that directly benefit the kids, anyone who balks at paying is a jerk at best. If ex-wifey is spending it on luxuries for herself, so she can look good for her new lover, not so good.

[Shadow]

I always wondered because that thread was the beginning of my problems over at USMB, I crossed Queen Syrenn for the first time there and honestly never could see why more guys weren't in there posting the same thing you and I are saying here.

Because they are pussy whipped. Probably thought they wouldn't get to see her fake nekkid ass or hear about her exploits/talent with the vibrator anymore. That and most SAY one thing and then DO another. First they "allegedly" hate women who use sex to get what they want...then they kiss their ass all over creation and back at the slightest chance they might get some. Same thing in "real life" too. No integrity.

I agreed with both you and Jon in that discussion...and had men actually slap my wrists for it in rep (and on the board) because I was challenging the skank. :rolleyes:

[Kathianne]

That is why I asked in one of these threads if there are any constraints on how the custodial parent spends the $$. If it is truly required to go towards things that directly benefit the kids, anyone who balks at paying is a jerk at best. If ex-wifey is spending it on luxuries for herself, so she can look good for her new lover, not so good.

For most families, splitting up results in less for everyone. Child support is not accounted for in the sense that perhaps you and definitely D are looking for. A running ledger of every cent spent. Perhaps each meal divided by the number of children and custodial parent, with 1 serving deducted? Toilet paper costs divided? Heat, electricity, etc.? When is buying mittens allowed? On sale in the spring? Only if below a certain temperature? Dates and times and stores listed?

[Gunny]

That is why I asked in one of these threads if there are any constraints on how the custodial parent spends the $$. If it is truly required to go towards things that directly benefit the kids, anyone who balks at paying is a jerk at best. If ex-wifey is spending it on luxuries for herself, so she can look good for her new lover, not so good.

Best I can tell, there really is no accountability. There used to be, at least in some cases. The custodial parent could be required to produce receipts. I haven't heard of that happening since the 70s though, but I don't know for sure.

[Gunny]

For most families, splitting up results in less for everyone. Child support is not accounted for in the sense that perhaps you and definitely D are looking for. A running ledger of every cent spent. Perhaps each meal divided by the number of children and custodial parent, with 1 serving deducted? Toilet paper costs divided? Heat, electricity, etc.? When is buying mittens allowed? On sale in the spring? Only if below a certain temperature? Dates and times and stores listed?

IIRC, it wasn't THAT detailed. Just things like daycare, grocery, clothing receipts ... stuff like that.

[Abbey Marie]

Best I can tell, there really is no accountability. There used to be, at least in some cases. The custodial parent could be required to produce receipts. I haven't heard of that happening since the 70s though, but I don't know for sure.

I guess it would be on the support-paying parent to prove something is amiss, but from what I've read here, the courts don't really seem to care anyway.

God bless the parents who put the children first.

[Jess]

Here in IL, as long as the custodial parent is seeing to the needs of the children, the non-custodial parent has no "right" to see specifically where the money is being spent. The kids are ok - the court doesn't care.

[ConHog]

You just haven't known me long enough. I AM the "old" Gunny. Just had a few issues in the middle. ;)

That's fair enough. Then I will change my statement to read I am glad the old Gunny that I heard was so awesome is back.

[ConHog]

IIRC, the county DOES in San Diego. That doesn't mean it's that way in Arkansas. Each state handles it the way they choose. The Fed gov't hasn't taken that one away from the states yet and I DO know from living in quite a few states, the rules are different.

Ah, I see the confusion now. We're all , meaning you , me and LuvPRgrl, all old fucks who got divorced long ago, before laws changed.

I got divorced in 1992 and the county I live in most assuredly was in charge of child support then. Things have changed extensively since then in all jurisdictions.


If you will look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_support_in_the_United_States#Federal you will see that every state except for some reason Oklahoma and Rhode Island have child support enforcement agencies. I challlenge anyone to call their local county courthouse and try to accomplish anything visa vie child support. It won't happen.

If you look here, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/ , you will also see that just as I said their IS a federal child support agency which sets the overall rules that states play within, they help fund the collection, and most importantly they provide state agencies with information that they would have a hard time collecting without cooperation from the federal governments. For instance IRS documents. As well as assuring cooperation between the state agencies.

This is one case where perhaps the feds being involved is a good thing.

[ConHog]

Not sure I agree with this one. First and foremost, "human nature" has nothing to do with it. What I've seen a lot of is one not understanding they are not paying the other parent; rather, they are paying for the child's needs. They don't get it. They think they're having to pay their former spouse and no amount of common sense nor logic can get through their thick gourds. That's not "human nature". It's stupidity.


Well, as you well know I am of the opinion that most people are stupid. So I really have no choice but to agree with you that this is a possibility.

[ConHog]

Which I think is BS. You ARE correct. Not disagreeing. However, if knucklehead ain't paying up, he should forfeit his right to visitation. Just my opinion.




Not sure I disagree with you at all Gunny. And in many cases the courts will tie the two together, as they have the authority to do, but as a general rule a parents aren't punished with losing visitation when they fall behind on child support payments.

[Gunny]

Ah, I see the confusion now. We're all , meaning you , me and LuvPRgrl, all old fucks who got divorced long ago, before laws changed.

I got divorced in 1992 and the county I live in most assuredly was in charge of child support then. Things have changed extensively since then in all jurisdictions.


If you will look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_support_in_the_United_States#Federal you will see that every state except for some reason Oklahoma and Rhode Island have child support enforcement agencies. I challlenge anyone to call their local county courthouse and try to accomplish anything visa vie child support. It won't happen.

If you look here, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/ , you will also see that just as I said their IS a federal child support agency which sets the overall rules that states play within, they help fund the collection, and most importantly they provide state agencies with information that they would have a hard time collecting without cooperation from the federal governments. For instance IRS documents. As well as assuring cooperation between the state agencies.

This is one case where perhaps the feds being involved is a good thing.

You're preaching to the choir. My granddaughter's deadbeat dad has paid a whole $50. in 2 years, but STILL gets visitation. Coincidentally, he hauled ass to Arkansas where he's sucking off YOUR unemployment dollars. He came back to TX just long enough to get his child support reduced since he's unemployed.

My point about child support and the Federal gov't is that states, not the Feds, are the enforcing agencies. There may be Federal guidelines; however, there is no pat Federal law. And as I mentioned more than once, it doesn't matter what the rules are. They aren't that different state-to-state. The fact that rulings are made based on the prejudices of judges is what makes the difference.

And ANYONE running for office who can't see THAT, wouldn't get my vote for shit.

[ConHog]

You're preaching to the choir. My granddaughter's deadbeat dad has paid a whole $50. in 2 years, but STILL gets visitation. Coincidentally, he hauled ass to Arkansas where he's sucking off YOUR unemployment dollars. He came back to TX just long enough to get his child support reduced since he's unemployed.

My point about child support and the Federal gov't is that states, not the Feds, are the enforcing agencies. There may be Federal guidelines; however, there is no pat Federal law. And as I mentioned more than once, it doesn't matter what the rules are. They aren't that different state-to-state. The fact that rulings are made based on the prejudices of judges is what makes the difference.

And ANYONE running for office who can't see THAT, wouldn't get my vote for shit.

He lives in Arkansas and refuses to pay child support? Interesting, my wife isn't home today, but when she gets back I will PM you the contact information for someone in the Arkansas Child Support Agency who will take care of that for you. Arkansas doesn't play, the process is slow but the collect.

As for their being no federal law. There ARE federal laws pertaining to child support. The thing is those very federal laws empower the states themselves to set the guidelines in each state and enforce collection even though the feds are helping fund the collections. It's a quite strange arrangement by federal government standards, they are actually doing the right thing.

[Gunny]

He lives in Arkansas and refuses to pay child support? Interesting, my wife isn't home today, but when she gets back I will PM you the contact information for someone in the Arkansas Child Support Agency who will take care of that for you. Arkansas doesn't play, the process is slow but the collect.

As for their being no federal law. There ARE federal laws pertaining to child support. The thing is those very federal laws empower the states themselves to set the guidelines in each state and enforce collection even though the feds are helping fund the collections. It's a quite strange arrangement by federal government standards, they are actually doing the right thing.

The thing is, I believe the enforcing agency is the State of Texas. I believe Arkansas IS playing ball. He's been jailed once. Then coughs up a few $ and off he goes. In Texas, so long as he pays even a thin dime, they won't go after him because he's making the attempt. He's also $2+K in arrears for not supporting his daughter the 2 years he dragged out the divorce proceedings.

[ConHog]

The thing is, I believe the enforcing agency is the State of Texas. I believe Arkansas IS playing ball. He's been jailed once. Then coughs up a few $ and off he goes. In Texas, so long as he pays even a thin dime, they won't go after him because he's making the attempt. He's also $2+K in arrears for not supporting his daughter the 2 years he dragged out the divorce proceedings.


You're wrong. The collecting agency is the state that HE lives in. Not the state that your granddaughter lives in. That is set up that way of course so that a parent can't move out of state to avoid child support. That's where the federal laws come into play with reciprocity. Now Texas COULD choose to help , but they don't have to. IOW someone in Texas probably should have referred the custodial parent to the Arkansas CSE.



Living in another state does make it more complicated though.

[Kathianne]

Best I can tell, there really is no accountability. There used to be, at least in some cases. The custodial parent could be required to produce receipts. I haven't heard of that happening since the 70s though, but I don't know for sure.

Here's my point, for most people in the income brackets of pre-divorce 40-150k, whatever child support is paid can pretty much be figured out if the kids are in school, in their lessons/sports/activities, decently clothed and shod, fed, housed, and receiving adequate medical and dental care. If indeed a parent is paying from 400-1200k per month, per child and those aren't being met, I'd bet it wouldn't take a lawyer long to call the custodial parent back to court.

[Gunny]

You're wrong. The collecting agency is the state that HE lives in. Not the state that your granddaughter lives in. That is set up that way of course so that a parent can't move out of state to avoid child support. That's where the federal laws come into play with reciprocity. Now Texas COULD choose to help , but they don't have to. IOW someone in Texas probably should have referred the custodial parent to the Arkansas CSE.



Living in another state does make it more complicated though.

I don't think I'm wrong. The Fed law is set up so that the non-custodial parent can't run off. It is however, up to the states to cooperate. The court ruling is from a Texas court, not an Arkansas one. It is incumbent on the State of Texas to pursue him to Arkansas. THEN Arkansas becomes the acting agency of enforcement.

BTW ... chump is $9+K in arrears. Just got the update.

[Gunny]

Here's my point, for most people in the income brackets of pre-divorce 40-150k, whatever child support is paid can pretty much be figured out if the kids are in school, in their lessons/sports/activities, decently clothed and shod, fed, housed, and receiving adequate medical and dental care. If indeed a parent is paying from 400-1200k per month, per child and those aren't being met, I'd bet it wouldn't take a lawyer long to call the custodial parent back to court.

Agreed.

[ConHog]

I don't think I'm wrong. The Fed law is set up so that the non-custodial parent can't run off. It is however, up to the states to cooperate. The court ruling is from a Texas court, not an Arkansas one. It is incumbent on the State of Texas to pursue him to Arkansas. THEN Arkansas becomes the acting agency of enforcement.



Nope, sorry to say the state of Texas will NOT pursue him to Arkansas bud. You must contact the Arkansas Child Support Enforcement Agency and request their aid. They will send you a form that you will complete and THEN they will contact the state of Texas for any relevant information (IE a copy of a the child support order) then they will move through their process to enforce the order. Texas obviously has no authority in Arkansas and THAT is why Arkansas is the state YOU need to contact.

I promise you this is how it works


501-682-8398 is the number to call .

[red states rule]

I did a little checking on JP Cusick, and what I found is not very surprising

If anyone is interested check out this link

http://jpcusickrunsagain.com/tag/jp-cusick-sr/

[actsnoblemartin]

i go back to, the whole welfare system is completely against men, dont even get me started on this bullshit:cool:

[JP Cusick]

You don't get to just decide "hey my kids don't need my money, im out of here"


I'd love to meet you some time.


Actually that is a perfectly normal and expected parental decision.

Each of the 2 parents do get to make their own decisions as a parent of their own children.

In fact it is your-self or other people or the laws who have no right and no business telling a parent how to raise or pay for their children.

It is their parenting and that makes it as none of your business and it is not proper for Gov law either.

[DragonStryk72]

Actually that is a perfectly normal and expected Douchebag decision.

Each of the 2 parents do get to make their own decisions as a parent of their own children.

In fact it is your-self or other people or the laws who have no right and no business telling a parent how to raise or pay for their children.

It is their parenting and that makes it as none of your business and it is not proper for Gov law either.

There, corrected to proper terminology

[actsnoblemartin]

last time i checked, roe v wade said it was her body her choice, so since men have no say, I say that unless married, women should pay exclusively for the child, because after all its her body her choice.

My point overall, divorce, domestic violence, child support/welfare are all skewed to women

which is anti man, and wrong, period.

[red states rule]

last time i checked, roe v wade said it was her body her choice, so since men have no say, I say that unless married, women should pay exclusively for the child, because after all its her body her choice.

My point overall, divorce, domestic violence, child support/welfare are all skewed to women

which is anti man, and wrong, period.


This will tell you alot about JP Martin

http://jpcusickrunsagain.com/2011/05/14/481/

[ConHog]

I did a little checking on JP Cusick, and what I found is not very surprising

If anyone is interested check out this link

http://jpcusickrunsagain.com/tag/jp-cusick-sr/


I know everything I need to know about that piece of shit.

[red states rule]

I know everything I need to know about that piece of shit.


He has posted more deranged things then perhaps Virgil, OCA, and PB combined

[DragonStryk72]

He has posted more deranged things then perhaps Virgil, OCA, and PB combined

And held to them more vehemently that any of them.

[LuvRPgrl]

You continue to make blanket statements that are neither right or wrong

Who enforces the collections depends on many things. If a custodial parent is collecting child support, then the county she lives in does the collection attempts.
when a divorce occurs, the county, state, where it occured continues to be where all court proceedings will continue unles one or both ask for a change in venue.

Laws and judge rulings are often just totally ignored by the officials. tHE cops will do absolutely nothing to enforce visitation
collecting past due however, they are like pit bulls.

and I am involved in it currently, I have 7 kids, and A mom who kidnapped the 3 I had with her and I had to hire private detectives and track her tao Indiana and have an officer pull her over and get her out of the car by herself, so I could remove my kids from her car. We initially located her at her apt, but the cops rrefused to go inside.


You're wrong. The collecting agency is the state that HE lives in. Not the state that your granddaughter lives in. That is set up that way of course so that a parent can't move out of state to avoid child support. That's where the federal laws come into play with reciprocity. Now Texas COULD choose to help , but they don't have to. IOW someone in Texas probably should have referred the custodial parent to the Arkansas CSE.



Living in another state does make it more complicated though.
and I could show you a statement I recd last week from THE COUNTY, but I tried to scan it yesterday, but I couldnt get my wifi printer to connect to my laptop.

it is the county she was living in when the cs wasnt paid who has the authority to try to collect.

[red states rule]

And held to them more vehemently that any of them.

Do you support most the posts he has made on the other sites? Not that I would be surprised if you did

[DragonStryk72]

Do you support most the posts he has made on the other sites? Not that I would be surprised if you did

Um, no? Why would I? I was agreeing with you. Sometimes, dude, take yes as an answer. I was basically saying, "He has posted more crazy shit than anyone else in the history of this site, and done so more vehemently than any them too."

See, with Virgil or PB or them, they'll just drop it and walk off. Not really so with JP, he just keeps trying to change the shit out of his argument with each post.

[red states rule]

Um, no? Why would I? I was agreeing with you. Sometimes, dude, take yes as an answer. I was basically saying, "He has posted more crazy shit than anyone else in the history of this site, and done so more vehemently than any them too."

See, with Virgil or PB or them, they'll just drop it and walk off. Not really so with JP, he just keeps trying to change the shit out of his argument with each post.

Then I stand corrected and offer you my apology :salute:

I did misread your post

[Gunny]

Nope, sorry to say the state of Texas will NOT pursue him to Arkansas bud. You must contact the Arkansas Child Support Enforcement Agency and request their aid. They will send you a form that you will complete and THEN they will contact the state of Texas for any relevant information (IE a copy of a the child support order) then they will move through their process to enforce the order. Texas obviously has no authority in Arkansas and THAT is why Arkansas is the state YOU need to contact.

I promise you this is how it works


501-682-8398 is the number to call .

My point is ... the way it is supposed to work, and does in some states .... the state goes to the other state. It is not, and should not be incumbent on the individual.

[Gunny]

i go back to, the whole welfare system is completely against men, dont even get me started on this bullshit:cool:

What does welfare have to do with child support?

Fact of the matter is, Texas was long known for giving the woman everything. When they revamped the system, they went 180 degrees the other way. Now, they make SURE the guy isn't hosed, no matter how much the woman is.

[ConHog]

What does welfare have to do with child support?

Fact of the matter is, Texas was long known for giving the woman everything. When they revamped the system, they went 180 degrees the other way. Now, they make SURE the guy isn't hosed, no matter how much the woman is.



Want to know how child support and welfare are related?

Here's how, the state will make double efforts to collect unpaid child support if the custodial parent is on welfare. Why? Because any child support collected will first be applied to repay welfare.

Myself, I don't like that, but it is true.

[ConHog]

My point is ... the way it is supposed to work, and does in some states .... the state goes to the other state. It is not, and should not be incumbent on the individual.

You are right Gunny , it shouldn't work that way. And further a custodial parent should not have to contact a state CSE and ask them to enforce a child support order if the the non custodial won't pay, but that is exactly what a parent must do. The states don't automatically go after anyone.

[Kathianne]

Want to know how child support and welfare are related?

Here's how, the state will make double efforts to collect unpaid child support if the custodial parent is on welfare. Why? Because any child support collected will first be applied to repay welfare.

Myself, I don't like that, but it is true.

That was my reference above regarding Clinton. The links between welfare and unpaid child support are serious. Enforce child support, reduce the costs to the tax payer. Thus, there should be serious repercussions for dead-beat dads and moms.

[ConHog]

That was my reference above regarding Clinton. The links between welfare and unpaid child support are serious. Enforce child support, reduce the costs to the tax payer. Thus, there should be serious repercussions for dead-beat dads and moms.


There are Kath, eventually. As you may or may not know my wife is an ADA, one of her best friends is a district attorney in Little Rock who handles NOTHING but child support cases. In fact she is the main person in Arkansas who decides whether to prosecute or not (and no that decision is NOT up to some county employee as LuvPRgrl has alluded, not EVER not in ANY jurisdiction) anyway, she has told my wife that all states have been almost ordered not to press criminal charges except in the most egregious cases because of the current state of the economy.


But as a general rule the federal law states that being behind in child support by $5 thousand or more is a felony. Again , whether that is prosecuted or not is up to discretion, but the penalties DO exist.

[LuvRPgrl]

Then I stand corrected and offer you my apology :salute:

I did misread your post

baliff, whack his peepee :lol:

[ConHog]

baliff, whack his peepee :lol:

da fuck? that hurts my peepee just thinkin about it.:coffee:

[LuvRPgrl]

There are Kath, eventually. As you may or may not know my wife is an ADA, one of her best friends is a district attorney in Little Rock who handles NOTHING but child support cases. In fact she is the main person in Arkansas who decides whether to prosecute or not (and no that decision is NOT up to some county employee as LuvPRgrl has alluded, not EVER not in ANY jurisdiction) anyway, she has told my wife that all states have been almost ordered not to press criminal charges except in the most egregious cases because of the current state of the economy.


But as a general rule the federal law states that being behind in child support by $5 thousand or more is a felony. Again , whether that is prosecuted or not is up co to discretion, but the penalties DO exist.

I didnt allude to anything, I never do. I either say it or I dont.
in CA, a county employee initiates a of the persons license. I know that for a fact, when mine was suspended, it was not a state agency or employee, but I dealt with the county directly, the person there made the decisions and when she decided it was time to give me my license back, she
contacted the state, since they issue them.
Like I said before , I can display PROOF, but you dont seem to want to see it, then you couldnt accuse me of alluding to anything. But go ahead, keep on ignoring it.

[ConHog]

I didnt allude to anything, I never do. I either say it or I dont.
in CA, a county employee initiates a of the persons license. I know that for a fact, when mine was suspended, it was not a state agency or employee, but I dealt with the county directly, the person there made the decisions and when she decided it was time to give me my license back, she
contacted the state, since they issue them.
Like I said before , I can display PROOF, but you dont seem to want to see it, then you couldnt accuse me of alluding to anything. But go ahead, keep on ignoring it.


Your divorce took place when Moses was a babe if I'm not mistaken. Things have changed, ESPECIALLY in the last 15 years, in regards to child support.

[LuvRPgrl]

Your divorce took place when Moses was a babe if I'm not mistaken. Things have changed, ESPECIALLY in the last 15 years, in regards to child support.

nope, first of all, I have two divorces before I found the most absolutely greatest woman, and I am CURRENTLY DEALING WITH IT.

[Shadow]

There are Kath, eventually. As you may or may not know my wife is an ADA, one of her best friends is a district attorney in Little Rock who handles NOTHING but child support cases. In fact she is the main person in Arkansas who decides whether to prosecute or not (and no that decision is NOT up to some county employee as LuvPRgrl has alluded, not EVER not in ANY jurisdiction) anyway, she has told my wife that all states have been almost ordered not to press criminal charges except in the most egregious cases because of the current state of the economy.


But as a general rule the federal law states that being behind in child support by $5 thousand or more is a felony. Again , whether that is prosecuted or not is up to discretion, but the penalties DO exist.

NM is either going through... or just ended an amnesty period for dead beat parents who have outstanding warrants for unpaid child support. They can go to a child support division and pay a bond to canel out their warrants. Wonder how well that worked out? I will have to check into it.

I'm thinking about going after my dead beat sperm donor soon. Asking nicely doesn't seem to work with some assholes. He lives in TX though...not here,not sure how much of a hassle it would be and if it would be worth the effort in the long run.

[ConHog]

NM is either going through... or just ended an amnesty period for dead beat parents who have outstanding warrants for unpaid child support. They can go to a child support division and pay a bond to canel out their warrants. Wonder how well that worked out? I will have to check into it.

I'm thinking about going after my dead beat sperm donor soon. Asking nicely doesn't seem to work with some assholes. He lives in TX though...not here,not sure how much of a hassle it would be and if it would be worth the effort in the long run.

You ever see the movie Strangers on A Train? I have an idea. I'll find and beat the shit out of Gunny's daughter's POS, Gunny can do so for your POS and you'll have to travel to MO and find my ex and beat her ass.

:laugh2::laugh2:

[Shadow]

You ever see the movie Strangers on A Train? I have an idea. I'll find and beat the shit out of Gunny's daughter's POS, Gunny can do so for your POS and you'll have to travel to MO and find my ex and beat her ass.

:laugh2::laugh2:

What else is in MO? If I'm going...might as well make a vacation out of it. :laugh2:

[JP Cusick]

There, corrected to proper terminology


I find it odd and unpleasant that posters here use so much dirty language.

Most forums do not allow such profanities, and it is not allowed on my forum either.

It seems to me that you appear to think that you are communicating some kind of message just by spewing out some trashy words, but I say you are perverting the message if there really is any message underneath of the trash talk.

The dirty words really just show that the poster is immature and lacking sophistication.

Those ugly posting also demonstrates that this forum is very low class.

[ConHog]

I find it odd and unpleasant that posters here use so much dirty language.

Most forums do not allow such profanities, and it is not allowed on my forum either.

It seems to me that you appear to think that you are communicating some kind of message just by spewing out some trashy words, but I say you are perverting the message if there really is any message underneath of the trash talk.

The dirty words really just show that the poster is immature and lacking sophistication.

Those ugly posting also demonstrates that this forum is very low class.



I think I speak for most of us when I say if you find us so low class get the fuck out you piece of shit.


I'll apologize again, but this fuck has my blood boiling. Piece of shit won't support his own children and then has the unmitigated call to call US low class?

[ConHog]

What else is in MO? If I'm going...might as well make a vacation out of it. :laugh2:



Branson, the lakes, and THE World Series Champion St Louis Cardinals. For starters.

[Shadow]

Branson, the lakes, and THE World Series Champion St Louis Cardinals. For starters.


Oooooooh....The Osmonds,Jim Stafford and The Gatlin Brothers all in the same place. I'm getting all goose bumpy and tingly just thinking about that. :thewave:

[Gunny]

You are right Gunny , it shouldn't work that way. And further a custodial parent should not have to contact a state CSE and ask them to enforce a child support order if the the non custodial won't pay, but that is exactly what a parent must do. The states don't automatically go after anyone.

Agreed.

[ConHog]

Agreed.



But apparently San Diego California will go after that ass. :laugh2: Odd that they are the one jurisdiction in America that totally ignores state law in regards to child support enforcement , well or someone is full of shit.

[Little-Acorn]

I think I speak for most of us when I say if you find us so low class get the fuck out you piece of shit.


You certainly don't speak for me. Your choice of language is between offensive and revolting, and reveals your inability to articulate the simplest thoughts without regressing to fourth-grade tactics and whorehouse attitudes.

When I want an obtuse, boorish, self-obsessed lout to speak for me, on anything, you'll be the first to know.

[ConHog]

You certainly don't speak for me. Your choice of language is between offensive and revolting, and reveals your inability to articulate the simplest thoughts without regressing to fourth-grade tactics and whorehouse attitudes.

When I want an obtuse, boorish, self-obsessed lout to speak for me, on anything, you'll be the first to know.

Self obsessed? THat would be the asshole who doesn't pay his child support.

[jimnyc]

I find it odd and unpleasant that posters here use so much dirty language.

Most forums do not allow such profanities, and it is not allowed on my forum either.

It seems to me that you appear to think that you are communicating some kind of message just by spewing out some trashy words, but I say you are perverting the message if there really is any message underneath of the trash talk.

The dirty words really just show that the poster is immature and lacking sophistication.

Those ugly posting also demonstrates that this forum is very low class.

JP, remember when I asked earlier, why would anyone vote for someone who has shown themselves to be irresponsible? It's YOUR character of admittedly failing your child that makes you that person.

Then you have the audacity to label this forum and its members low class! You do realize the irony, and just how laughable this is, no?

I've seen perhaps three members TOPS that have used words that might not be best for children, and you condemn the entire board. What will you do when people in Maryland speak out similarly about you and your failures? Will you turn and condemn the entire state?

[ConHog]

JP, remember when I asked earlier, why would anyone vote for someone who has shown themselves to be irresponsible? It's YOUR character of admittedly failing your child that makes you that person.

Then you have the audacity to label this forum and its members low class! You do realize the irony, and just how laughable this is, no?

I've seen perhaps three members TOPS that have used words that might not be best for children, and you condemn the entire board. What will you do when people in Maryland speak out similarly about you and your failures? Will you turn and condemn the entire state?

Sorry Jim, that was mostly me. I'll bow out of this thread now , because that piece of shit just makes my blood boil and I post things I ought not post.

[jimnyc]

You certainly don't speak for me. Your choice of language is between offensive and revolting, and reveals your inability to articulate the simplest thoughts without regressing to fourth-grade tactics and whorehouse attitudes.

When I want an obtuse, boorish, self-obsessed lout to speak for me, on anything, you'll be the first to know.

I'm dying to know what you think of me after reading that but I'm afraid to ask! :coffee: :laugh2:

[Kathianne]

I'm dying to know what you think of me after reading that but I'm afraid to ask! :coffee: :laugh2:

Hey Jim, when you go off you don't try and speak for 'most of us,' especially when you go towards the potty mouth! :laugh2: I think that was LA's point.

[jimnyc]

Hey Jim, when you go off you don't try and speak for 'most of us,' especially when you go towards the potty mouth! :laugh2: I think that was LA's point.

Now you know why I'll try and always state "Speaking solely for myself...." or "I won't attempt to speak for others around here...."

[Abbey Marie]

You certainly don't speak for me. Your choice of language is between offensive and revolting, and reveals your inability to articulate the simplest thoughts without regressing to fourth-grade tactics and whorehouse attitudes.

When I want an obtuse, boorish, self-obsessed lout to speak for me, on anything, you'll be the first to know.

I'm no fan of crude language, and don't post it, but when Con said he thought he spoke for us, I assume he meant content/opinion-wise, not stylistically.

[ConHog]

I'm no fan of crude language, and don't post it, but when Con said he thought he spoke for us, I assume he meant content/opinion-wise, not stylistically.



Of course that's what I meant and I certainly think that both LA and Kath knew that.


When I say that motherfucker is a piece of shit who needs a foot rammed up his fucking ass for not paying his fucking child support. Those curse words are mine and mine alone.


I wasn't going to post in this thread again, but I did want to say thanks Abbey for pointing out the obvious.

[Abbey Marie]

Of course that's what I meant and I certainly think that both LA and Kath knew that.


When I say that motherfucker is a piece of shit who needs a foot rammed up his fucking ass for not paying his fucking child support. Those curse words are mine and mine alone.


I wasn't going to post in this thread again, but I did want to say thanks Abbey for pointing out the obvious.

I tend to do that when no one admits the obvious, lol.

[ConHog]

I tend to do that when no one admits the obvious, lol.



I got the stupid must spread reputation around message. Guess I'll go neg JP douchebag.:laugh2:

[Kathianne]

I got the stupid must spread reputation around message. Guess I'll go neg JP douchebag.:laugh2:

What's interesting here is that I've been very prolific in writing why JP is a scuz from my first post. Why? I've run up against him and his blaming the system for his being a first class deadbeat and a vandal. That he spent as much time in jail as he did, speaks volumes. No repenting, none. He's proud of himself, compares himself to those who actually practiced civil disobedience, which has nothing to do with his behavior.

One doesn't have to use offensive language against someone who doesn't do so. JP is a slimebag, but he doesn't go vulgar. That he paints the board with a brush that isn't deserved, is just more of a reflection upon himself.

[ConHog]

What's interesting here is that I've been very prolific in writing why JP is a scuz from my first post. Why? I've run up against him and his blaming the system for his being a first class deadbeat and a vandal. That he spent as much time in jail as he did, speaks volumes. No repenting, none. He's proud of himself, compares himself to those who actually practiced civil disobedience, which has nothing to do with his behavior.

One doesn't have to use offensive language against someone who doesn't do so. JP is a slimebag, but he doesn't go vulgar. That he paints the board with a brush that isn't deserved, is just more of a reflection upon himself.

I realize both that you've been calling him out and that I have been more vulgar than usual in this thread. I have apologized for my own behavior; but fuck that asshole, this is a topic that just sets me off to no end.

As for his judging the entire board off my posts. I think that is so much BS. He's just mad because he didn't find a receptive audience for his anti child support rhetoric. Bet he wouldn't' mind the language if we were all talking about "yeah fuck the CSE, them assholes, I wouldn't pay my child support either" or something similar.

[Kathianne]

I realize both that you've been calling him out and that I have been more vulgar than usual in this thread. I have apologized for my own behavior; but fuck that asshole, this is a topic that just sets me off to no end.

As for his judging the entire board off my posts. I think that is so much BS. He's just mad because he didn't find a receptive audience for his anti child support rhetoric. Bet he wouldn't' mind the language if we were all talking about "yeah fuck the CSE, them assholes, I wouldn't pay my child support either" or something similar.

From what I can tell, he's never found a receptive audience to his 'ideas.' :laugh2:

[Abbey Marie]

Big Picture: JP is not living a happy life, focusing his energy on what he is mad about. It's not good to live in negative feelings all the time.

JP's apparent compassion for animals and anti-abortion beliefs are big redeeming qualities, and make me think he must have a good side. While I cannot support him, I also refrain from condemning him. Anyone who doesn't like that, tough.

Just had to get that out there. And now, that is more than enough time spent I've on the guy, lol.

[ConHog]

Big Picture: JP is not living a happy life, focusing his energy on what he is mad about. It's not good to live in negative feelings all the time.

JP's apparent compassion for animals and anti-abortion beliefs are big redeeming qualities, and make me think he must have a good side. While I cannot support him, I also refrain from condemning him. Anyone who doesn't like that, tough.

Just had to get that out there. And now, that is more than enough time spent I've on the guy, lol.

I'd like to spend about an hour or so on the guy, but that's my issue.:laugh2:

[LuvRPgrl]

But apparently San Diego California will go after that ass. :laugh2: Odd that they are the one jurisdiction in America that totally ignores state law in regards to child support enforcement , well or someone is full of shit.

people really do say the stupidest things. If you are referring to me, I live in SD, but the cases Ive spoken ABOUT dont involve sd at all,

[LuvRPgrl]

I realize both that you've been calling him out and that I have been more vulgar than usual in this thread. I have apologized for my own behavior; but fuck that asshole, this is a topic that just sets me off to no end.. you apologized then carry on

.
He's just mad because he didn't find a receptive audience for his anti child support rhetoric. Bet he wouldn't' mind the language if we were all talking about "yeah fuck the CSE, them assholes, I wouldn't pay my child support either" or something similar.

first you spoke for the rest of the board, now you are speaking for JP, maybe we should all just sit back and let you carry on the entire conversation throughout the entire thread.

[Gunny]

But apparently San Diego California will go after that ass. :laugh2: Odd that they are the one jurisdiction in America that totally ignores state law in regards to child support enforcement , well or someone is full of shit.

Doesn't have to be either. The county can do as it pleases so long as it doesn't violate state and/or Federal law. A friend of mine when I was stationed at MCRD had child support issues and it was handled by the county. I wil have to check, but if IIRC, my daughter's divorce was also handled in Nueces County court in TX. The actual order is from the court that makes the ruling. In this case, county court.

Conversely, when I was divorced in Virginia, it was state court. I think it just depends on the state.

[ConHog]

Doesn't have to be either. The county can do as it pleases so long as it doesn't violate state and/or Federal law. A friend of mine when I was stationed at MCRD had child support issues and it was handled by the county. I wil have to check, but if IIRC, my daughter's divorce was also handled in Nueces County court in TX. The actual order is from the court that makes the ruling. In this case, county court.

Conversely, when I was divorced in Virginia, it was state court. I think it just depends on the state.


It doesn't matter what court issues the decree. collections are handled by each state's CSE agency. As I said I was divorced in 1992. My local county issued the divorce and the child support order, for the first 4 years the county DID handle child support , none was ever collected then either, then the state joined other states and went to a CSE agency and then the counties had nothing to do with child support enforcement , other than the sherrif served warrants, makes arrests etc etc. when needed.

[Gunny]

It doesn't matter what court issues the decree. collections are handled by each state's CSE agency. As I said I was divorced in 1992. My local county issued the divorce and the child support order, for the first 4 years the county DID handle child support , none was ever collected then either, then the state joined other states and went to a CSE agency and then the counties had nothing to do with child support enforcement , other than the sherrif served warrants, makes arrests etc etc. when needed.

And I'm not arguing how you do it in Arkansas. My entire point is that it doesn't mean that's how other states handle it. I'm not too sure what Federal law you're citing, but marriage and divorce are handled by the individual states. I vaguely recall the Feds getting involved only insofar as making it possible to pursue deadbeat dads across state lines, but I don't think it goes much further than that. Matter of fact, IIRC, the big issue was some states would cooperate with each other while others would not, or just did not.

[ConHog]

And I'm not arguing how you do it in Arkansas. My entire point is that it doesn't mean that's how other states handle it. I'm not too sure what Federal law you're citing, but marriage and divorce are handled by the individual states. I vaguely recall the Feds getting involved only insofar as making it possible to pursue deadbeat dads across state lines, but I don't think it goes much further than that. Matter of fact, IIRC, the big issue was some states would cooperate with each other while others would not, or just did not.



And again, you are going by old case law. If you look at how things are done now. There IS a federal child support enforcement agency, and all states MUST work through them. All but Oklahoma and Rhode Island have actual Child Support Enforcement Agencies. There is no not cooperating with other states. It doesn't happen, by federal law, they MUST cooperate. That is what the CSEs are there for. So you don't have to chase your daughter's sperm donor down to bumfuck arkansas, you merely call the texas child support enforcement agency and they track the sumbitch down via IRS work history (made available via the federal government's involvement because prior to this a JP could just skip across state lines and be gone) then THEY contact the appropriate state's CSE who handles collections.

If it didn't work that way, you KNOW dead beats would soon discover which states didn't cooperate with which states and move there. But it does work that way, so there is no hiding across state lines. Now some states move faster than others, but in every case it is the state doing the collecting, not the local court houses. That is absolutely SOP in EVERY jurisdiction.

[LuvRPgrl]

and again, you are going by old case law. If you look at how things are done now. There is a federal child support enforcement agency, and all states must work through them. All but oklahoma and rhode island have actual child support enforcement agencies. There is no not cooperating with other states. It doesn't happen, by federal law, they must cooperate. That is what the cses are there for. So you don't have to chase your daughter's sperm donor down to bumfuck arkansas, you merely call the texas child support enforcement agency and they track the sumbitch down via irs work history (made available via the federal government's involvement because prior to this a jp could just skip across state lines and be gone) then they contact the appropriate state's cse who handles collections.

If it didn't work that way, you know dead beats would soon discover which states didn't cooperate with which states and move there. But it does work that way, so there is no hiding across state lines. Now some states move faster than others, but in every case it is the state doing the collecting, not the local court houses. That is absolutely sop in every jurisdiction.

absolute total bullshit.

[red states rule]

I find it odd and unpleasant that posters here use so much dirty language.

Most forums do not allow such profanities, and it is not allowed on my forum either.

It seems to me that you appear to think that you are communicating some kind of message just by spewing out some trashy words, but I say you are perverting the message if there really is any message underneath of the trash talk.

The dirty words really just show that the poster is immature and lacking sophistication.

Those ugly posting also demonstrates that this forum is very low class.

I see you have ignored my posts highlighting what you wrote on other forums which tells me you do not have the courage of your convictions

So be it

Since you are running for elected office in MD what is your position on the Dems wanting to raise the state gax tax by 15 cents/gal and in state tuition for illegals?

This has set off alot of people and shows Dems really do not care about the working folks who are lucky enough to still have a job

[Gunny]

And again, you are going by old case law. If you look at how things are done now. There IS a federal child support enforcement agency, and all states MUST work through them. All but Oklahoma and Rhode Island have actual Child Support Enforcement Agencies. There is no not cooperating with other states. It doesn't happen, by federal law, they MUST cooperate. That is what the CSEs are there for. So you don't have to chase your daughter's sperm donor down to bumfuck arkansas, you merely call the texas child support enforcement agency and they track the sumbitch down via IRS work history (made available via the federal government's involvement because prior to this a JP could just skip across state lines and be gone) then THEY contact the appropriate state's CSE who handles collections.

If it didn't work that way, you KNOW dead beats would soon discover which states didn't cooperate with which states and move there. But it does work that way, so there is no hiding across state lines. Now some states move faster than others, but in every case it is the state doing the collecting, not the local court houses. That is absolutely SOP in EVERY jurisdiction.

I'll just have to agree to disagree. Maybe it's supposed to work that way. My oldest daughter would beg to differ. Bonehead's $9K in arrears and counting.

I have also see it in action with others ... as long as the person paying support makes ANY effort, the state won't go after the person. So the payer shells out $50. when $300 is due, and he's off the hook. Sure, they'll add it to the total the payer will eventually have to pay allegedly, but that doesn't do squat for the child right now.

[ConHog]

I'll just have to agree to disagree. Maybe it's supposed to work that way. My oldest daughter would beg to differ. Bonehead's $9K in arrears and counting.

I have also see it in action with others ... as long as the person paying support makes ANY effort, the state won't go after the person. So the payer shells out $50. when $300 is due, and he's off the hook. Sure, they'll add it to the total the payer will eventually have to pay allegedly, but that doesn't do squat for the child right now.

Oh, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that the states move fast or at all. I'm simply describing how the mechanics of the system work.

In fact I said the very same thing you just said earlier when someone was claiming states automatically go after men who get behind in child support, no they do not. And in fact they simply aren't prosecuting at all in Arkansas at the moment as long as the non custodial effort is making SOME effort to pay; no matter how small that effort is.

[JP Cusick]

I see you have ignored my posts highlighting what you wrote on other forums which tells me you do not have the courage of your convictions


I simply can not continue on this forum as I simply can not be associated with the pornography and filth on this forum.

Even if I were not a candidate for political office then I would still be personally ashamed of participating along with such severe profanity going on so I have to remove myself.

This is the first time for me that I ever experienced such a scenario so this solution is the best response to it that I can figure out to exit here and still stand my ground as to the subject given, as I am not leaving the thread subject and just leaving the dirty talk.

I have quoted your postings onto my own forum and it is linked here = "red states rule".

So anyone can respond or reply or whatever one wants to do on that forum, as anyone can post there either anonymously without registering or by registering then anyone can get email notifications and more.

Of course on that smaller forum people can talk about most anything but any dirty words or pornographic insinuations will be (censored).

Peace.

[fj1200]

Bummer.

[jimnyc]

I simply can not continue on this forum as I simply can not be associated with the pornography and filth on this forum.

Even if I were not a candidate for political office then I would still be personally ashamed of participating along with such severe profanity going on so I have to remove myself.

This is the first time for me that I ever experienced such a scenario so this solution is the best response to it that I can figure out to exit here and still stand my ground as to the subject given, as I am not leaving the thread subject and just leaving the dirty talk.

I have quoted your postings onto my own forum and it is linked here = "red states rule - Debate Policy.

So anyone can respond or reply or whatever one wants to do on that forum, as anyone can post there either anonymously without registering or by registering then anyone can get email notifications and more.

Of course on that smaller forum people can talk about most anything but any dirty words or pornographic insinuations will be (censored).

Peace.

Pornography? LOL

JP, you're just mad because people are calling you out to answer questions about YOUR OWN wrongdoings. Tough shit. And we don't allow links to other forums here. So it would be much easier if you hate it here so much, if you quietly went away and go fuck yourself.

[ConHog]

Pornography? LOL

JP, you're just mad because people are calling you out to answer questions about YOUR OWN wrongdoings. Tough shit. And we don't allow links to other forums here. So it would be much easier if you hate it here so much, if you quietly went away and go fuck yourself.

Damn, I was searching , thoguht maybe I missed the boat on some good porn.


Clearly you are right here. JP got his little feelers hurt that we don't like deadbeat parents who tear up public property because they are mad at their ex and so he's taking his ball and running away.

His little bullshit about "I am above this board" is clearly just that. Bullshit; because clearly JP is lower than whale shit.

[LuvRPgrl]

But, but, but he's a repub. Are you people willingly violating the repub 11th commandment? Never speak poorly of a fellow repub?

funny, hahahhaha
get it right doc, he has a big D next to his name.

[red states rule]

I simply can not continue on this forum as I simply can not be associated with the pornography and filth on this forum.

Even if I were not a candidate for political office then I would still be personally ashamed of participating along with such severe profanity going on so I have to remove myself.

This is the first time for me that I ever experienced such a scenario so this solution is the best response to it that I can figure out to exit here and still stand my ground as to the subject given, as I am not leaving the thread subject and just leaving the dirty talk.

I have quoted your postings onto my own forum and it is linked here = "red states rule".

So anyone can respond or reply or whatever one wants to do on that forum, as anyone can post there either anonymously without registering or by registering then anyone can get email notifications and more.

Of course on that smaller forum people can talk about most anything but any dirty words or pornographic insinuations will be (censored).

Peace.


Where did I use any "dirty" words? I asked you direct questions on two issues pertaining to MD

The truth is, you have a problem with people pushing back and calling you on your liberal views, and exposing what you wrote on other boards

Your like another poster who is now gone, He also was unable to deal what he wrote on other boards and took a powder as well

And you expect people to take you as a serious candidate?

[ConHog]

What made JP believe that anyone here was going to be sympathetic to his refusal to help financially support his children?

[ConHog]

Edited by Abbey



Oh, but he said his ex had plenty of money and so could afford to raise the kids without his help..

Truth be told I bet if we found his ex wife and children and asked them about him they would each and everyone tell us that they don't want him OR his money involved in their lives. He came across as a real prick.

[Kathianne]

Oh, but he said his ex had plenty of money and so could afford to raise the kids without his help..

Truth be told I bet if we found his ex wife and children and asked them about him they would each and everyone tell us that they don't want him OR his money involved in their lives. He came across as a real prick.

His ex wife died, leaving their son with her husband, the boy's step father. When good ole' JP showed up, found he'd have to pay the support to the step father. He really didn't like that.

Now I'm uncertain what happened, whether the court gave any visitation or not; my guess is his lack of remorse regarding defacing public property may have brought some question to the court's mind regarding his mental stability. :laugh2:

[Jess]

Oh, but he said his ex had plenty of money and so could afford to raise the kids without his help..

Truth be told I bet if we found his ex wife and children and asked them about him they would each and everyone tell us that they don't want him OR his money involved in their lives. He came across as a real prick.

Around here, the court doesn't care whether the custodial parent can raise the kids without the noncustodial parent's help or not.

The noncustodial parent has a responsibility to do their share in providing for and raising the children and that is based on their income for the most part. That is what resources the children would have access to had the couple not split.

[ConHog]

Around here, the court doesn't care whether the custodial parent can raise the kids without the noncustodial parent's help or not.

The noncustodial parent has a responsibility to do their share in providing for and raising the children and that is based on their income for the most part. That is what resources the children would have access to had the couple not split.


That's federal law. Now each state IS left to their own devices to figure out how much each parent 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.

[LuvRPgrl]

That's federal law. Now each state IS left to their own devices to figure out how much each parent 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.

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

care to cite the law?