why why why???

Posted by: katiefedup

why why why??? - 05/04/07 02:51 AM

my ex went back to court yesterday for sentencing on contemp charges, starting from July 2006, when he finally showed up. Anyhoo, he has paid 700.00 every month since then, EXCEPT he has missed Nov. and April (2006,2007) had has paid zero towards the arrears which are ordered at $50 a month on a balance of almost 200,000 dollars. So he goes in today and hands over a cashiers check for $1000.00. The court is satisfied. I am not!!!! He is CO to pay $700 a month plus $50 on the arrears. His $1000.00 doesn't even cover the intrest on 2 months which has grown greater than his CS obligation. I think his monthly intrest is now around $750.00 a month
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: why why why??? - 05/04/07 02:59 AM

Your ex is a loser when it comes to supporting his child...no doubt. And I think it sucks for you since you have supported your DD alone all this time.

With that said, I am trying to figure out how they can keep adding $750.00 of interest EVERY month and EXPECT him to catch up? Apparently interest has been added on all these years, but I would think if he is NOW CO'ed to pay $700/month and $50 in arrears that they should let that be the amount with NO interest adding up continually UNLESS he is late.

So what is expected of him is that he pays $700/month CS, $50 in arrears and $750 in interest to stay above water? Can he truly afford $1500/month... Again I am not trying to okay anything he has done, I am just saying as a person looking in from the outside, as far as common sense goes?
Posted by: rocketgirl

Re: why why why??? - 05/04/07 03:00 AM

Did you ask the judge why?
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: why why why??? - 05/04/07 03:35 AM

I had no oppertuntity. To the other poster...yes to break even every month he should pay $1500 a month to stay current. Look at a mortage account. You might pay 6% on a balance. He is carring a balance of 200,000 a month and getting further and further behind even he does pay. I think his intrest rate is at 8%, but I forget. Don't get me wrong. I need the$1000.00 that he paid. But, if you defaulted on your mortage your bank won't forgive the interest or penelities and neither will CSE
Posted by: Cassie23

Re: why why why??? - 05/04/07 04:49 AM

Oh I don't think that the penalties should be forgiven, I'm just saying that he will be forever behind because they continue to accrue.

What I think sounds reasonable is BF owes $200,000 in arrears, I am assuming that includes penalties? He should be ordered to pay a certain amount on that each month until it is paid off ($50/month seems EXTREMELY low). But then NO more penalties should accrue unless he fails to pay on time.

On top of that regular CS should be paid on time, and penalties should accrue if BF is late.
Posted by: mommy2boys

Re: why why why??? - 05/04/07 05:02 AM

Sadly he could have probably paid $100 and the Judge would have said he was making an attempt.

If the courts did more to get the NCP's to pay on time every month, many children wouldn't be on state assistance, and our taxes could either be cut or the money that would be spent on assistance could be usef for other things like teacher pay raises and the education systems.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: why why why??? - 05/04/07 11:36 AM

Were you represented in court? Did you get to speak?
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: why why why??? - 05/04/07 11:38 AM

>>>>>NO more penalties should accrue unless he fails to pay on time.

In cases of NCPs who willfully spent years dodging paying anything on CS, I'm all in favor of NO BREAKS. That means penalties, regardless of how on time they pay in the future. Someone gets themself into a situation, they need to figure out how to get themself out of it.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: why why why??? - 05/04/07 11:39 AM

>>>>>Can he truly afford $1500/month...

Does it matter? Since she's not the one that kept him from paying the $700 every month for all those years, the extra $750/mo. is his own stupidity. If he couldn't afford it, wouldn't it have been best for him to have considered that BEFORE he made it to where he owes it?
Posted by: Debi

Re: why why why??? - 05/04/07 01:00 PM

No one get's 200k in CS debt without just flately refusing to pay it. Considering they live in CA that's probably not an outrageous amount of CS. Now Had he not be able to afford the amount set then he should have done something about it years ago rather than just not pay it.

Cassie, I'd agree with you if the man had been attempting to pay his CS all those years and just not making it. There was no attempt.
Posted by: Witch23

Re: why why why??? - 05/04/07 01:58 PM

"But, if you defaulted on your mortage your bank won't forgive the interest or penelities and neither will CSE "
-----> Not saying he is not in the "bad" for not paying all that time, but I am with Cassie on this one. That is an impossible amount to pay off. Now the big difference with the comparison you made and the mortgage is that a home can be foreclosed on and taken away and auctioned. The person can file for bankrupcty and have that amount "wiped". There is no doin that with CS. There is no CS bankruptcy. There is no "taking the child away" and "auctioned off". You compared apples and oranges.

I can see how a person would not want to pay, b/c no matter the task seems impossible to ever complete. There is no light at the end of the tunnel.
Posted by: junebug

Re: why why why??? - 05/04/07 02:35 PM

How is he $200,000 in arrears, that would mean he didn't pay $700 per month for 23.8 years???
Posted by: junebug

Re: why why why??? - 05/04/07 02:37 PM

It's not a mortgage, it's child support. My grandfather used to say "if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle." It makes no sense to compare the two...they are two different things!!!
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: why why why??? - 05/04/07 02:49 PM

actually it has been almost 18 years and the intrests adds up
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: why why why??? - 05/04/07 02:50 PM

-----> Not saying he is not in the "bad" for not paying all that time, but I am with Cassie on this one. That is an impossible amount to pay off.

And? Who's fault is it that its impossible? So freaking what?! My sister was told by the government that she'll NEVER be able to pay off all her student loans in her lifetime. And? Do you think they're going to stop applying interest? Hell no! She owes it, she knew the terms, SHE chose to get that far behind, to keep defaulting and deferring. SHE made the choice, SHE will face the consequences. She owns her house. So when she dies, her children are not going to get that house. No. The government will. Maybe it will or maybe it won't pay back all she borrowed/accrued. But she deserves no, and is getting no, breaks.

>>>>>There is no doin that with CS. There is no CS bankruptcy. There is no "taking the child away" and "auctioned off".

Because children aren't property. They're PEOPLE. And when one makes a choice to have them, they'd best be prepared to support them, or face consequences of not doing so. His consequence was that because he allowed this to accumulate for so many years, that he now has to pay DOUBLE his CS just to start getting the balance down. Well phooey for him. I guess actions/inactions DO have consequences. Although I realize in today's world that most people think consequences should be forgotten at certain points and that not everyone should be held accountable for what they do. Its just today's mentality I guess. :(
Posted by: momx3

Re: why why why??? - 05/04/07 03:20 PM

This loser is never going to get it paid off. And the Courts is going to keep allowing his silly tatics to work. My questions is this: in CA, are you able to file a claim against one's estate for child support arrearages? Is it in the form of a judgment or can it be made into one at the time of your D's emancipation? Filing against his estate someday is the only way you're going to see all of it (or a big part of it). :)
Posted by: Witch23

Re: why why why??? - 05/04/07 03:40 PM

>>>>>There is no doin that with CS. There is no CS bankruptcy. There is no "taking the child away" and "auctioned off".

Because children aren't property. They're PEOPLE. "

-----> Never stated that they were property.... was stating that she was comparing 2 unlike things!!

"Although I realize in today's world that most people think consequences should be forgotten at certain points and that not everyone should be held accountable for what they do. Its just today's mentality I guess. :(

-----> I am all for consequences, but I am also about forgiveness. If you work with certain creditors and you are willing to pay and try to get back on track, most will work with you. Even student loans!!! So why not CS???
Posted by: almostheaven

Not so... - 05/04/07 04:56 PM

Creditors want their money. Yeah, they'll work with you...on PAYMENTS. They WERE working with him on making payments, and he STILL missed two and did NOT pay the extra towards the arrears at ALL. So what is it he should be forgiven for? For being butt stupid?

My sister hasn't gotten any forgiveness on her student loans or interest. She has to pay them, even thought they agreed with her that she'll NEVER be able to pay them in her lifetime. But its not their problem. They'll work with her on getting payments and not putting her in jail, or whatever, because they're AT LEAST getting something. But they're not forgiving any of what she owes.
Posted by: nrvouswrk

Re: why why why??? - 05/04/07 04:59 PM

katie, didn't you say he actually has quite a few assets but hides them in his wife's name? Am I confusing you with someone else?

If that is the case, he has quite a few options open to him...
He could take a second out on his home and pay the whole thing off 100%. He could do what a lot of folks who are in debt do...get a second job. I don't think he should be rewarded by having any of the amount owed reduced or the interest taken away. Had he paid what he owed at the time it was due, he wouldn't be in this situation.
Posted by: preemiemom

Re: why why why??? - 05/04/07 05:12 PM

[quote]-----> I am all for consequences, but I am also about forgiveness. If you work with certain creditors and you are willing to pay and try to get back on track, most will work with you. Even student loans!!! So why not CS??? [/quote]

Hmmm.. I'm usually pretty much in agreeance with you, but I have to disagree on this point. It's a little different a loan you take out for a house, or a car, or a stereo system.

Child support is for the BASIC (ie: food/shelter) needs of a child the party responsible for paying child support had an equal part, genetically, for bringing into this world. The child isn't a VCR that you put on your Discover card and then realized you couldn't pay back.

Debt forgiveness with say creditors, just assumes you made a stupid mistake managing your money. Child support NEVER assumes you made a stupid mistake in creating your kids.
Posted by: joym525

Re: why why why??? - 05/04/07 06:18 PM

Don't be so greedy. At least you are getting something.

Let me get you some cheese to go with your whine.
Posted by: almostheaven

Who's greedy?... - 05/04/07 07:19 PM

A woman who used HER money only to support THEIR child solely for 18 years, or a man who flatly refused to support his own child and is now crying because he allowed his balance to get so high that he has to pay double what he WOULD HAVE, just to get the balance to go down?

Spoken like a true deadbeat.
Posted by: almostheaven

Add to that... - 05/04/07 07:23 PM

Debt mistakes don't leave ME paying YOUR (generic your) bill. Child mistakes mean either the child doesn't get cared for properly or I pay YOUR bill. And I'm sorry. I'm not interested in paying someone else's bills. I have my own thankyouverymuch.
Posted by: Debi

Re: why why why??? - 05/04/07 07:53 PM

I'm going to assume that you accidently hit "quick reply" and weren't offering that cheese to me, cause if you were I could probably drown you in MY whine.
Posted by: spinnerdegrassi

Re: Add to that... - 05/04/07 07:55 PM

[quote]Debt mistakes don't leave ME paying YOUR (generic your) bill. Child mistakes mean either the child doesn't get cared for properly or I pay YOUR bill. And I'm sorry. I'm not interested in paying someone else's bills. I have my own thankyouverymuch. [/quote]

Yet you were ok with others paying your bills when you were on welfare right? That's pretty much talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Posted by: BeckaLeigh

Re: Add to that... - 05/04/07 08:04 PM

Whoa, when was AH on welfare? Thought I knew most of the gossip in this place!?!
Posted by: joym525

Re: Add to that... - 05/04/07 08:23 PM

[quote]Yet you were ok with others paying your bills when you were on welfare right? That's pretty much talking out of both sides of your mouth. [/quote]

Talk about a deadbeat...geesh!
Posted by: joym525

Re: why why why??? - 05/04/07 08:25 PM

[quote]I'm going to assume that you accidently hit "quick reply" and weren't offering that cheese to me, cause if you were I could probably drown you in MY whine. [/quote]

The cheese goes to the original poster.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: why why why??? - 05/04/07 08:27 PM

why would you say that I was greedy????
Posted by: joym525

Re: why why why??? - 05/04/07 08:33 PM

The father of my child was making $125,000 a year and was ordered to pay $100 a month and couldn't even pay that. Thank God my DH has adopted my child.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: why why why??? - 05/04/07 08:35 PM

good for you, but how does that me greedy?
Posted by: joym525

Re: why why why??? - 05/04/07 08:38 PM

[quote]good for you, but how does that me greedy? [/quote]

Uhhh...you should be thankful for what you have received.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: why why why??? - 05/04/07 08:43 PM

really? Um, me thinks you are very odd. If your boss gave you one percent of your paycheck, would you call yourself greedy if you expected the full amount?
Posted by: joym525

Re: why why why??? - 05/04/07 08:58 PM

I would NEVER work for a company that did not pay me my whole check. You should have NEVER slept with a loser.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: why why why??? - 05/04/07 09:00 PM

from the sounds of things, you did too. However that doesn't make one greedy!
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: why why why??? - 05/04/07 09:40 PM

Uhhh, she didn't receive ANYTHING. If she HAD, he would NOT be so far in arrears. DUH!
Posted by: almostheaven

OMG! Pot meet the damned kettle! - 05/04/07 09:41 PM

>>>>>The father of my child was making $125,000 a year and was ordered to pay $100 a month and couldn't even pay that. Thank God my DH has adopted my child.

>>>>>You should have NEVER slept with a loser.


SHEESH!
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Add to that... - 05/04/07 09:43 PM

Sorry hon, no I wasn't. Which is why I did not sign up for a long time after my ex took off, and why they've been paid back. Any other words of wisdom you'd like to impart about something you know nothing about? Thanks for showing me your true colors.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Add to that... - 05/04/07 09:43 PM

You would know.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Add to that... - 05/04/07 09:44 PM

1985 to 1986. ROFL! Less than 2 years and all has been paid back. The trolls love to spew only portions of things in order to color things their way, don't they? ;)
Posted by: nrvouswrk

Re: Add to that... - 05/04/07 10:17 PM

The whole purpose of welfare/Food Stamps is to help people who are temporarily in need or down on their luck. Not as a way of life. You used it for what it was meant for.

Don't let anyone make you feel bad about it.
Posted by: spinnerdegrassi

Re: Add to that... - 05/04/07 10:38 PM

You used subsidies provided for by taxpayers. Do you think those taxpayers were content to have to subsidize you anymore than you set forth judgements on taxpayers having to subsidize others? Yet you somehow place yourself above others for also using the system to support your child.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Add to that... - 05/04/07 11:08 PM

Welfare should only be used by the disabled. If you aren't disabled you should look for a job before coming into the welfare office. If after 6 months you still cannot find a job and the jobless rate is 10%, then you should move.
Posted by: almostheaven

LOL... - 05/04/07 11:28 PM

Idiots on a BB can't make me feel bad about it. Hell, I'd give em SOME credit, if EITHER of them had been here when it had been talked about. Ergo, they're either like kindergarten freaks PMing one another with their gossip, or they're BACK under new handles. Therefore...trolls. Anyone who would pull a stunt like that is a troll in my book anyway. IE: If you don't have an argument, attack the other person on something personal. ;)
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Add to that... - 05/04/07 11:30 PM

I used subsidies, which were paid back, BECAUSE of a situation my ex created and BECAUSE he didn't pay any supoort. And YOU'RE using THAT to excuse what your deadbeat buddies do when they fail to pay their support.
Posted by: almostheaven

Coming from a troll... - 05/04/07 11:30 PM

You're opinion of what welfare should be for means zilch. ;)
Posted by: joym525

Re: Coming from a troll... - 05/04/07 11:33 PM

The state WILL NOT take back money issued for welfare. So you did not pay it back.
Posted by: nrvouswrk

Re: Add to that... - 05/04/07 11:35 PM

Welfare should only be used by the disabled. If you aren't disabled you should look for a job before coming into the welfare office. If after 6 months you still cannot find a job and the jobless rate is 10%, then you should move.
+++++++++++++++++++

That is exactly what most people do. They try to get a job first, and in the process lose everything. If they came in to apply right away, most of the time we can find them jobs so they don't lose their homes. They would also spend less time on aid.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Add to that... - 05/04/07 11:39 PM

[quote]

That is exactly what most people do. They try to get a job first, and in the process lose everything. If they came in to apply right away, most of the time we can find them jobs so they don't lose their homes. They would also spend less time on aid. [/quote]

You are explaining what the Employment Security Division does...not Welfare. ESD does not issue welfare.
Posted by: Rebecca5

Re: Add to that... - 05/04/07 11:52 PM

No, but the people at Human Services can help you find a job.

AND....the majority of people who use some form of welfare ARE employed.
Posted by: nrvouswrk

Re: Add to that... - 05/04/07 11:52 PM

You are explaining what the Employment Security Division does...not Welfare. ESD does not issue welfare.
++++++++++++++++++++

Wrong! I am an Administrative Manager for the financial division of Social Services for my county. Those departments include Food Stamps, General Relief, MediCal, and CalWorks (TANF in other states). I DO know what I am talking about here.

You are also mistaken in regards to “welfare” being paid back. Any child support that has been collected is used to offset any benefits that have been paid out.
Posted by: preemiemom

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 12:47 AM

Wow! I'm just catching up on THIS thread. Good grief.

First, NO, I don't think Katie should be satisfied getting pennies on the dollar for an indebtitude for the care of a child for whom someone SHOULD have had responsibility. Frankly, enforcement or whomever should have jailed the jerk long before now. An ex-SO was jailed in RI for $6K in arrears AND every single dollar had to be paid as "bail" before he could get out (I had a fun time scraping up THAT money at 19).

As for welfare, and only the disabled, ummmmm.. isn't that what DISABILITY is for????? I would guess, though I don't know for certain, that when one is DISABLED one CAN'T get welfare. AND, one HAD to have been EMPLOYED at some point (20 quarters worth) to QUALIFY for disability.

Furthermore on welfare, the point of the system is that it helps those, particularly those with FAMILIES or HAVING families out in times of need.

YES, our tax dollars DO go into that system, and the taxes of ALL provide for the needs of SOME; however, YOU never know when YOU might end up one of the SOME instead of one of the MANY.

If those who are soooo opposed to welfare helping those in times of need want, they should make themselves expatriots of THIS country, and go live in OTHER countries where, frankly, the tax rates are exhorbitantly higher and the benefits paid to the citizens of the country are VASTLY greater. Most Scandanavian countries provide up to 2 years of PAID maternity leave AND the employer must guarantee job security. Wonderful benefit, but those people pay about 40% of their gross income to the GOVERNMENT.

Or, perhaps, you could move to a country that provides NOTHING to its citizens in times of need, and you can stand in line for a day, and hope to god that you get the loaf of bread or the carton of milk you desperately need to feed your family.

As a former welfare recipient, I can say the system has a purpose. At 18 should I have ended up paying a multi-thousand dollar hospital bill for the birth of a child that I didn't keep? That my parents kicked me out as soon as I TURNED 18 so THEY wouldn't be liable for any expenses? Where I probably couldn't have found the child's father if I wanted to and therefore couldn't make HIM pay a share. So, I should have been financially crippled, just barely having finished high school, and doing THE RIGHT THING in giving my child up for adoption versus having an abortion (in many people's eyes).

Now that I am older and have a child, I stress out EVERY SINGLE DAY about my job (which I despise and which I think is starting to despise me right back). God forbid I got fired, I can't guarantee I'd get a job in any reasonable timeframe. I'm still going through an interview process for a job I originally interviewed for A YEAR AGO. Actually, correction, make that TWO jobs I interviewed for a year ago, two separate companies. NEITHER company has filled the original position I interviewed for, and I am STILL the top candidate for both jobs and I still can't get a job offer. A YEAR! Half of the department I used to work in at my old job is now unemployed due to layoffs. That was January. I also know that at least half of THOSE people are still unemployed today.

So if I lost my job, I shouldn't apply for welfare? But I have an ex, right? Paying child support? NOOOOOOO, that's all on me.

I don't condone "welfare mothers" who simply produce another offspring whenever the financial well gets a little dry; however, "the system" is there to benefit those in need and it is the LEAST the taxpayers can do, given the general wealth of this country, in comparison to the piss-poor job we do, as a whole, of supporting our "more in need" compatriots.
Posted by: Relayer

Re: why why why??? - 05/05/07 12:52 AM

[quote]The father of my child was making $125,000 a year and was ordered to pay $100 a month and couldn't even pay that. Thank God my DH has adopted my child. [/quote]

The father gave up his parental rights?
Posted by: joym525

Re: why why why??? - 05/05/07 01:01 AM

[quote]
The father gave up his parental rights? [/quote]

Yes, he was a POS and my son deserved better.
Posted by: nrvouswrk

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 01:02 AM

I don't condone "welfare mothers" who simply produce another offspring whenever the financial well gets a little dry; however, "the system" is there to benefit those in need and it is the LEAST the taxpayers can do, given the general wealth of this country, in comparison to the piss-poor job we do, as a whole, of supporting our "more in need" compatriots

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Actually that practice was halted when welfare reform started. Now mothers who are receiving aid, and get pregnant, aren't aided in cash (FS only) for that child.

I think most of us have a problem with the lifetime welfare moms. Someone who loses their job, or has something else going wrong in their life, and uses the programs for a short period of time to get back on their feet, is doing nothing wrong.

If these folks would come in and apply right away instead of waiting until they lost everything, we could have helped cover the bills and maybe even found them employent. That is a lot cheaper to the tax payer than paying long term aid.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 01:07 AM

[quote] Wrong! I am an Administrative Manager for the financial division of Social Services for my county. I DO know what I am talking about here.

You are also mistaken in regards to “welfare” being paid back. Any child support that has been collected is used to offset any benefits that have been paid out. [/quote]

Someone's fiesty today. :grin:

So the welfare recipient is not paying back society the NCP is.

I see it everyday. Someone will lose their job and they are in the welfare office within hours...they spend hours in the welfare office when they could be using that valuable time looking for a job instead.

And...you CANNOT live off temporary assistance for needy families...in Nevada a HH of 3 gets $348...that's gonna pay their rent? Didn't think so.

And...TANF will be non-existent within 5 years...you should know that since you work in Welfare because of the Deficit Reduction Act sign in by congress last year.
Posted by: Relayer

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 01:16 AM

Welfare serves a purpose.
Posted by: spinnerdegrassi

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 01:17 AM

[quote]
I think most of us have a problem with the lifetime welfare moms. Someone who loses their job, or has something else going wrong in their life, and uses the programs for a short period of time to get back on their feet, is doing nothing wrong.

[/quote]

Let's create a scenario here.

We have a couple split up. Mother goes on welfare because she says she can't support her child. Taxpayers pick up the slack for costs associated with raising that child for a timeframe.

Then we take the ex husband. He is also unable to financially support the child. Why is the gov't not then subsidizing his child support during that time frame to ensure that a similar attempt is made in the same vein as they do for the mother in this scenario.

What is the difference here? If both can't support their children for say the same reason (job loss) one is able to use taxpayer funds, the other is not afforded the same option, and is labeled a deadbeat.

From a moral standpoint, what is the difference between providing the same taxpayer assistance to either parent?

Yet as a society we don't. We only provide taxpayer assistance one one end primarily, and assess arrears on the other end to the NCP.

Why should I be morally outraged at one vs the other? Or conversely, why should I only have empathy for the CP in this scenario and not the NCP who is mostly likely labelled a deadbeat for ending up in the exact same spot as the CP.

There's no difference between the two, yet we are supposed to willingly, as taxpayers accept only one side of the equation being given access to the subsidies and relegate the other side to building up arrears.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 01:17 AM

just so I understand. Do feel that people who expect and seek CS are greedy? Personally, and I have not followed your story I think you are ummmm, whats the word????? you say that your husband adopted your son. Why??? Couldn't you do it on your own?
Posted by: nrvouswrk

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 01:22 AM

I am in a bitchy mood because I have a stye in my eye :).

Now California doesn't follow what the other states do as far as the welfare reform acts go. We kind of make our own ad ons as we go along.

Originally when WR started, there was a 5 year lifetime maximum for recipients. We don't do that. You will love this...for every month that CS has been paid, the recipient is given/credited with ANOTHER month of aid PAST the five years. I believe we are the only state that does that.

Our program is not TANF...it is CalWORKS. Similar in a lot of areas, but tweeked inorder to provide more benefits and for a longer period of time. The same with our MediCAL program that provides things that Medicaid doesn't.

As for the welfare recipient not paying back society and the NCP being the one doing so, again that is not the case. If the NCP is ordered to pay the CP say $400 a month in CS, that is HER money. While on aid, it goes to the county instead of her. She doesn't get that money. At most she would get would be a $50 disregard on it. So she is in fact the one who is paying it back.

The days of being able to live off aid ended a long time ago. That is why the amount is low. The key word is AID not support. They may come into the office, but they are put on a work program in order to qualify (unless disabled). The whole point is to make them self sufficient.

You are never going to get rid of welfare no matter what name you want to give it...TANF/CalWorks. If anything, since we are getting a majority of liberals in goverment, you can expect the benifits to increase. For every law that has been made to cut aid, another provision is made to replace it. I do know this because I do work in welfare. :)
Posted by: joym525

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 01:26 AM

[quote] So if I lost my job, I shouldn't apply for welfare? But I have an ex, right? Paying child support? NOOOOOOO, that's all on me.
[/quote]

No, you should not apply for welfare, you should be looking for a job 24/7. Jobs are out there for everyone but the lazy. I don't care where you live. You wanted to be the custodial parent. If you can't handle it give ex custudy.

If you have a disability and are unable to work because of your disability and are pending social security benefits...then you should get welfare. And yes, disabled people are eligible for welfare.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 01:29 AM

[quote]I am in a bitchy mood because I have a stye in my eye :).
[/quote]

I hate those. :(
Posted by: preemiemom

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 01:37 AM

[quote]We have a couple split up. Mother goes on welfare because she says she can't support her child. Taxpayers pick up the slack for costs associated with raising that child for a timeframe.

Then we take the ex husband. He is also unable to financially support the child. Why is the gov't not then subsidizing his child support during that time frame to ensure that a similar attempt is made in the same vein as they do for the mother in this scenario.

-------------> Because presumably in your scenario he is not the CP, and thus, as the NCP is not eligible for aid, since the child is not in his custody a majority of the time, thus what made him an NCP to begin with. That said, if he WERE the CP and was unable to provide for the child due to job loss, then YES, he would be eligible for welfare, just as a CP mother who is unemployed would be.

What is the difference here?

---------> The system doesn't provide benefits for non-custodial parents. I think it assumes, at some point, that ONE of the parents at least would be gainfully employed.

If both can't support their children for say the same reason (job loss) one is able to use taxpayer funds, the other is not afforded the same option, and is labeled a deadbeat.

From a moral standpoint, what is the difference between providing the same taxpayer assistance to either parent?

Yet as a society we don't. We only provide taxpayer assistance one one end primarily, and assess arrears on the other end to the NCP.

Why should I be morally outraged at one vs the other? Or conversely, why should I only have empathy for the CP in this scenario and not the NCP who is mostly likely labelled a deadbeat for ending up in the exact same spot as the CP.

There's no difference between the two, yet we are supposed to willingly, as taxpayers accept only one side of the equation being given access to the subsidies and relegate the other side to building up arrears. [/quote]

Given your scenario, if the man (presumably) didn't want to accrue child support arrears, and were in the same socio-economic status as the woman, then, technically, he should have the same possibility/probability of getting primary custody as the woman.

Now, also given your scenario, it doesn't make ANY sense whatsoever. Take my situation for example. Due to my stbx's economic status, as of last year (which is the basis for calculating child support for THIS year), he is within the Self Support Reserve.. meaning he barely has money to support himself (his self support reserve status is due, other than his income factor, on the amount of child support he pays to another child, which last year resulted in a payment of 50% of his GROSS income in child support). By NYS Child Support guidelines, his child support obligation to OUR child is then $300 per YEAR, while the FIRST child gets over $7,000 per year. Let's further assume that he's unwilling/unable to increase his socio-economic status THIS year. Should he be entitled to request a subsidy from the government such that a) he can have a better lifestyle himself and/or b) so that he can support his 2nd child at a remotely comparable level to his FIRST child (first child just starting school, out of diapers, little/no child care costs, no special needs, no undue medical, no special activities or programs versus an infant in diapers with a $13,000 per year child care bill for the next 3.5 years)?

According to the state, he's "poverty stricken". Should that make him eligible for aid? Should he get aid to support our child?
Posted by: Debi

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 01:45 AM

It must be nice to live in a glass house.
Posted by: preemiemom

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 01:45 AM

[quote][quote] So if I lost my job, I shouldn't apply for welfare? But I have an ex, right? Paying child support? NOOOOOOO, that's all on me.
[/quote]

No, you should not apply for welfare, you should be looking for a job 24/7. Jobs are out there for everyone but the lazy. I don't care where you live. You wanted to be the custodial parent. If you can't handle it give ex custudy.

If you have a disability and are unable to work because of your disability and are pending social security benefits...then you should get welfare. And yes, disabled people are eligible for welfare. [/quote]

Right, okay, I'll answer your scenario. My stbx, isn't supporting our child AT ALL! HIS income level (and he is EMPLOYED) is such that previous child support obligations against that income put him at the poverty level. He is, for all intents and purposes right now, HOMELESS. I should give HIM custody???? Are you kidding me????

The company I used to work for just announced it is going private. There will be MASSIVE layoffs since they will need to sell the division of the company I worked for to subsidize the privitization. As I already showed in my posting, two jobs I pursued A YEAR AGO, have to this day, not come through. Actually, I will correct that. Job #2? They DID offer me a consult-to-hire position IF, and only IF, I would relocate to Florida for 6 months to do THAT implementation first and then relocate BACK here as a permanent employee and do the implementation here.

Now, I CAN'T accept that position. WHY?????? Because the "law" states that I can't LEAVE here with my child b/c her father has "rights". However, that same father, as explained previously as well, is only obligated to SUPPORT that child to the tune of $300 per year; however, he CAN stop me from accepting a job that would support our child where he cannot.

Pardon my french, but how heck effed up is that?????? I actually mentioned the job to him (he knew about it last year) and immediately he said "well, you can't TAKE the job, you can't leave with her". I bit off the obvious reply which was "why the heck NOT??? YOU can't support her, why should YOU stop how I do???". But I didn't say that, I merely nodded my head like a good girl and kept my trap shut.

Mind you, you're thinking "just get a job at McDonald's". That would be true, EXCEPT, in addition to said "father" not paying child support??? He has also left with me a $350,000 mortgage and over $40,000 in other debt. And with a 750+ credit rating, I wouldn't be about trading in my high 5-figure job for a $7/hr job at Mcdonald's. I couldn't survive.

But then you say "file for bankruptcy". But then I'd have a dozen other people on this board down my throat for failing to meet MY financial obligations and burdening THEM with the responsibility/aftereffects of TWO people's unpaid debt.

Sooooo, please explain to me how exactly I would handle this situation correctly so as not to piss off the anti-welfare people, anti-unemployment people, anti-bankruptcy people, anti-biological mother people, and the pro-biological father people?
Posted by: nrvouswrk

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 01:51 AM

Actually, the system doesn't provide support to the parents. It is the children that it is provided for. There has to be deprivation in regards to the children for there to be aid. The four types are:
-absent parent
-death
-unemployment
-underemployment

The CP who has the child is aided with that child since they are one household.

If the NCP needed help, that person would apply for General Relief. That program is a (county administered) cash program for people without minor dependants.

Now PM, you would have been able to go in and apply for your pregnancy bills without your parents being involved or liable. You would be in this special (California only) category called Special Minors. The whole thing, as well as the prenatal and post partum benifits would have been covered completely. They wouldn't have even used your real Social Security number to do so.

OK, has everyone had enough of Welfare 101? :)
Posted by: Debi

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 01:55 AM

Guess what sweetie. I lost my job and am pregnant. I worked at the same place for 10 years and wasn't planning on being unemployed. I AM looking for a job every single day while my kids are in school. You bet your butt I applied for a medical card the second I was terminated. I could have paid for my child's birth if I still had a job. I had enough money in the bank to pay May's rent and will probably have enough to pay June's rent. Beyond that I'm screwed. I've been working for over 20 years and paying taxes so if I need help for 6 months then so be it.

So maybe you should get off your soap box and quit lumping everyone who turns to the system for help a deadbeat.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 01:57 AM

Sell your house now..rent will be at least 1/2 as much. The extra money not spent on mortgage can go into an emergency savings fund for when you need to spend a couple weeks looking for a job. I am in no way against Unemployment benefits. And I am all for getting medicaid for your children when you need it.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 02:01 AM

[quote]Guess what sweetie. I lost my job and am pregnant. I worked at the same place for 10 years and wasn't planning on being unemployed. I AM looking for a job every single day while my kids are in school. You bet your butt I applied for a medical card the second I was terminated. I could have paid for my child's birth if I still had a job. I had enough money in the bank to pay May's rent and will probably have enough to pay June's rent. Beyond that I'm screwed. I've been working for over 20 years and paying taxes so if I need help for 6 months then so be it.

So maybe you should get off your soap box and quit lumping everyone who turns to the system for help a deadbeat. [/quote]

Where is the father of your unborn? He should be supporting you. Unless you got pregnant on a one night stand and then that was not very smart.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 02:03 AM

[quote]Actually, the system doesn't provide support to the parents. It is the children that it is provided for. There has to be deprivation in regards to the children for there to be aid. The four types are:
-absent parent
-death
-unemployment
-underemployment

The CP who has the child is aided with that child since they are one household.

If the NCP needed help, that person would apply for General Relief. That program is a (county administered) cash program for people without minor dependants.

Now PM, you would have been able to go in and apply for your pregnancy bills without your parents being involved or liable. You would be in this special (California only) category called Special Minors. The whole thing, as well as the prenatal and post partum benifits would have been covered completely. They wouldn't have even used your real Social Security number to do so.

OK, has everyone had enough of Welfare 101? :) [/quote]

Wow, I did not know TANF was so different in each state. I do know California recipients get twice as much as Nevadans get. California welfare recipients arfe always disappointed when they see the little amount we give them.
Posted by: nrvouswrk

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 02:04 AM

Sooooo, please explain to me how exactly I would handle this situation correctly so as not to piss off the anti-welfare people, anti-unemployment people, anti-bankruptcy people, anti-biological mother people, and the pro-biological father people?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

PM, I am planning on winning the Lotto tonight. When I do, I will send you a boatload of money OK? :)
Posted by: preemiemom

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 02:06 AM

Joym:

That's a nice idea. However, we bought our house at the HEIGHT of the market in Jan '05. The house is now worth $25K LESS than what we owe.

As for rent, I am renting now. I have renters in my home; however, they cover only the mortgages, not taxes and prop insurance; however, with the property as an investment property now versus a principal property, there are other writeoffs/benefits tax-wise that absorb some of that shortage.

As for rent being half as much, not totally true. It is LESS, but certainly not anywhere near half as much.

As for "extra money"... I'm assuming you are a woman? Sweetie, WHAT overage?????????? I'm in the hole RENTING $300 a month. I have no SAVINGS.. or sorry, what little savings I currently have LEFT is covering my shortfall every month.

When I say my stbx left me completely and utterly financially screwed to a wall, that is NO exaggeration. And HIM? HE'S out houseshopping!!!!!

And again, I don't know where you're getting this "couple weeks to find a job" idea. I went on my first interview for job A on June 8th, last year. I went on my 2nd interview around April 5th? 3rd interview, April 27th. Today I'm still waiting for them to do reference checks, once THOSE come back, THEN maybe they'll make me an offer, pending results of a drug test I'd then have to take, and I couldn't start, per THEIR issues, until June 11th. "Coupla weeks"????????

Again, I can't get a Mickey D's or mallrat job. My overhead is almost $5,500 a month, I get dollar ZERO from stbx to support our daughter. $1,100 of that $5,500 (20%) is JUST childcare so I CAN work.

I'd like to live in the la-la land you've got in your head, because obviously the real world isn't even remotely in your purvue.
Posted by: preemiemom

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 02:07 AM

[quote]Sooooo, please explain to me how exactly I would handle this situation correctly so as not to piss off the anti-welfare people, anti-unemployment people, anti-bankruptcy people, anti-biological mother people, and the pro-biological father people?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

PM, I am planning on winning the Lotto tonight. When I do, I will send you a boatload of money OK? :) [/quote]

LMAO :)

I must admit, I've started playing Saturday's drawings. I have a set of numbers around daughter's birthday, birthweight etc.. you hear stories of people who play the same numbers religiously... maybe me? lol.. not likely but for a buck, "you can't win, if you don't play".. ha ha ha
Posted by: nrvouswrk

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 02:09 AM

So are the California recipients :). Do you work for Social Services? They do pay the workers in your state higher than they do in California. I was offered a job in their SS dept 10 years ago, and the salary was quite high.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 02:12 AM

[quote]Joym:

That's a nice idea. However, we bought our house at the HEIGHT of the market in Jan '05. The house is now worth $25K LESS than what we owe.

As for rent, I am renting now. I have renters in my home; however, they cover only the mortgages, not taxes and prop insurance; however, with the property as an investment property now versus a principal property, there are other writeoffs/benefits tax-wise that absorb some of that shortage.

As for rent being half as much, not totally true. It is LESS, but certainly not anywhere near half as much.

As for "extra money"... I'm assuming you are a woman? Sweetie, WHAT overage?????????? I'm in the hole RENTING $300 a month. I have no SAVINGS.. or sorry, what little savings I currently have LEFT is covering my shortfall every month.

When I say my stbx left me completely and utterly financially screwed to a wall, that is NO exaggeration. And HIM? HE'S out houseshopping!!!!!

And again, I don't know where you're getting this "couple weeks to find a job" idea. I went on my first interview for job A on June 8th, last year. I went on my 2nd interview around April 5th? 3rd interview, April 27th. Today I'm still waiting for them to do reference checks, once THOSE come back, THEN maybe they'll make me an offer, pending results of a drug test I'd then have to take, and I couldn't start, per THEIR issues, until June 11th. "Coupla weeks"????????

Again, I can't get a Mickey D's or mallrat job. My overhead is almost $5,500 a month, I get dollar ZERO from stbx to support our daughter. $1,100 of that $5,500 (20%) is JUST childcare so I CAN work.

I'd like to live in the la-la land you've got in your head, because obviously the real world isn't even remotely in your purvue. [/quote]

Your financial planning needs some work.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 02:14 AM

[quote]So are the California recipients :). Do you work for Social Services? They do pay the workers in your state higher than they do in California. I was offered a job in their SS dept 10 years ago, and the salary was quite high. [/quote]

No, I don't work for welfare, but they are the highest paid welfare workers in the country and workers/supervisors/managers do not require any degrees or college.
Posted by: nrvouswrk

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 02:14 AM

I must admit, I've started playing Saturday's drawings. I have a set of numbers around daughter's birthday, birthweight etc.. you hear stories of people who play the same numbers religiously... maybe me? lol.. not likely but for a buck, "you can't win, if you don't play".. ha ha ha

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

You never want to play set numbers. Always do quick pick. Murphy's Law will dictate that the first time you forget to buy tickets, THOSE numbers will be the ones to come up. THEN how are you going to feel? :)
Posted by: preemiemom

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 02:17 AM

Joym:

{Your financial planning needs some work.}

How do you figure that????????? I didn't create the situation I am in BY MYSELF!!!! It was created by the extreme premature birth of OUR daughter, which was preceeded by over 6 weeks of hospitalization of me PRIOR to birth.

HOWEVER, I SOLELY, have been left to HANDLE it. How does that make poor financial planning on my part? That my stbx is a piece of crap? That he reneged on every marriage vow he took? That he's reneged on every responsibility he took on with me, as my partner and as the father of our child?

I do pretty well considering the freakin' disaster I've been left with. I'm trying to hold on to a piece of property until the market turns so that, because I'm not BANKRUPT, I don't have to SHORTSELL the house now.. which would cause a FURTHER financial liability to ME, solely, in the form of an IRS bill, since shortsells that are NOT part of a bankruptcy/foreclosure, the shortsale amount is considered a "gift" and as such, is considered taxable income to the recipient (ME).

Any other smart ideas you'd like to pass along?
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Coming from a troll... - 05/05/07 02:26 AM

And you again show your ignorance. I'm sure many here can set you straight on that. So I'll just let someone else field your foolishness.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: why why why??? - 05/05/07 02:26 AM

But its your fault for picking such a loser to have your son with.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 02:27 AM

One with dirty windows at that.
Posted by: preemiemom

Re: Coming from a troll... - 05/05/07 02:31 AM

[quote]And you again show your ignorance. I'm sure many here can set you straight on that. So I'll just let someone else field your foolishness. [/quote]

Several of us have been trying. It's a futile effort. She's living in a glass house, with dirty windows, and using a pair of rose-colored glasses to look out the windows at Never-NeverLand.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 02:31 AM

Nope, the NCP is supporting their children honey bunch. Often times, they are FORCED to support the children AFTER the CP has had to seek outside help because they can't pay BOTH shares anymore.

You're so sorely mistaken on Sooooooooooooo many points, but....

a) You have a family to feed, spending a few hours job searching may or may NOT offer up a job that will continue to feed your family. Not wanting to see your children starve, you do what NEEDS done.

b) You CAN live off TANF because there is ALSO such things as owning your home already, or having cheap rent, or using HUD or government housing to get by, Orrrrrr living with a relative.

c) TANF is NOT going to be non-existent in 5 years, unless you're talking of the 5 year lifetime limit per individual. And so? In 5 years, one could get a college education to insure they'll never need to seek out help again.
Posted by: Relayer

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 02:31 AM

Welfare serves a purpose as it helps prevent (somewhat) kids from going hungry and not receiving medical care. I really don't think this country is in the business of letting children starve or die from illness.

I also think welfare "Moms" are fewer than most people think.

Most poor people in this country are not poor by choice.
Posted by: almostheaven

"when one is DISABLED one CAN'T get welfare"... - 05/05/07 02:34 AM

They would qualify for limited help. But welfare is mostly for FAMILIES. That means you actually have to have dependant minor children in order to qualify for most welfare programs in the first place.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 02:35 AM

There may be jobs for everyone, but everyone is not GUARANTEED immediate employment. In the meantime, your children are starving and your ex is not available nor wants custody. Next brilliant idea Sherlock?
Posted by: joym525

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 02:35 AM

[quote]

c) TANF is NOT going to be non-existent in 5 years, unless you're talking of the 5 year lifetime limit per individual. And so? In 5 years, one could get a college education to insure they'll never need to seek out help again. [/quote]

Ummm...a little education...the Deficit Reduction Act is in full force. It is a Republican agenda...so when the Dem's take over office...things may change...but for now, yes TANF is slowly disappearing.

Nervous lady can give you all the details about the DRA since she works in welfare. I'm sure she has alla the facts.
Posted by: almostheaven

Ummm...a little education... - 05/05/07 02:36 AM

TANF is NOT disappearing anymore than Social Security is. Neither the Dems NOR Conservatives want chaos and rioting.
Posted by: nrvouswrk

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 02:36 AM

PM you will get out of this mess. When I divorced, we owed close to $30,000 in back taxes because ex messed them up, and then refused to give me the forms to fix them. Even though our divorce order said we were 50/50 responsible for them, the IRS didn't view it that way. We were both 100% responsible for them. I had the goverment job, so they came after me. By the time I was able to pay them off (100%), they were over $40,000 with interest and penalties. I had to take out a second on my house to pay them. I have just recently paid that off. The one asset we had at the time, was suppose to be used to pay off those taxes. The ex sold it, and then blew off the money. All I got was an IOU in the divorce settlement for my half. :)

All the credit cards bills (in his name but with me as a cosigner), he also defaulted on. He would just tell them when they called him to contact me and I would take care of it. Like you I did. All of this while supporting my son, and NOT declaring bankruptcy.

It will take you awhile, but you will get there. I was soooo poor for so long trying to get out from all the marital debt. I would just lay awake at night stressing on the money. Beleive me I know how you feel!
Posted by: almostheaven

WOW!... - 05/05/07 02:38 AM

So the troll here thinks the father should be responsible. But since he's not...phhhhhhhhht. Shame on you for daring to seek help when the deadbeat does nothing to insure your children don't starve.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 02:38 AM

[quote] I also think welfare "Moms" are fewer than most people think.

Most poor people in this country are not poor by choice. [/quote]

40% of welfare recipients are generational moms, 40% are illegal non-citizens, and 20% are the disabled unable to work deserving Americans.
Posted by: almostheaven

GOD are you THAT stupid!.... - 05/05/07 02:41 AM

How do you sell what you OWE?????? IF, with the housing market at an all time low right now, she MANGES to make enough to pay the bank what she owes them, THEN she has to come up with double just to get a security deposit and first, possibly last, month's rent.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Ummm...a little education... - 05/05/07 02:41 AM

[quote]TANF is NOT disappearing anymore than Social Security is. Neither the Dems NOR Conservatives want chaos and rioting. [/quote]

Do you live in America or Canada? I hope you are putting money in a retirement fund or you will be in the poor house when you turn 62.
Posted by: matilda

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 02:41 AM

Your information about rent being half as much as a mortgage can be completely wrong depending upon the state. If I sold my house and rented something comparable my rent would be almost double my mortgage payment. Rent may be cheaper in some areas, but a mortgage is usually cheaper if someone has been living in the house for awhile.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Ummm...a little education... - 05/05/07 02:41 AM

Hon, I'm in America and don't worry, I'll be jusssssssssssst fine.
Posted by: joym525

Re: WOW!... - 05/05/07 02:43 AM

[quote]So the troll here thinks the father should be responsible. But since he's not...phhhhhhhhht. Shame on you for daring to seek help when the deadbeat does nothing to insure your children don't starve. [/quote]

I was a single parent when I was 19 years old...no welfare or child support for me. Maybe you should try it.
Posted by: almostheaven

Not even comparable... - 05/05/07 02:43 AM

For the $421 house payment we now have, rent for this place would be closer to $1500.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: WOW!... - 05/05/07 02:43 AM

Goodie for you. You're also a troll, but you won't see me trying it just because you think its the IN thing.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Not even comparable... - 05/05/07 02:44 AM

[quote]For the $421 house payment we now have, rent for this place would be closer to $1500. [/quote]

She has a $350,000 mortgage...I doubt her payment is under $2500.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 02:44 AM

Your one line shots need some work.
Posted by: almostheaven

Whoosh!... - 05/05/07 02:44 AM

Right over your head hon, right over your pointy little head.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 02:46 AM

[quote]Your information about rent being half as much as a mortgage can be completely wrong depending upon the state. If I sold my house and rented something comparable my rent would be almost double my mortgage payment. Rent may be cheaper in some areas, but a mortgage is usually cheaper if someone has been living in the house for awhile. [/quote]

Her mortgage is $350,000...I doubt her monthly payment is less than $2500
Posted by: joym525

Re: Whoosh!... - 05/05/07 02:47 AM

[quote]Right over your head hon, right over your pointy little head. [/quote]

I didn't tell you my head was pointy, how did you know that? :grin:
Posted by: nrvouswrk

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 02:47 AM

Nervous lady can give you all the details about the DRA since she works in welfare. I'm sure she has alla the facts
++++++++++++++++

At no point in time has this been staffed in our county. I am telling you, that it will not get rid of welfare. Many times people will read things in the news, and swear to us that it is gospel. They refuse to realize that most of the time it isn't the case.

The whole point of welfare reform (TANF/CALWORKS) was planned obsolescence. Get everyone a job, and you won't need welfare. It didn't happen.

I am sure you think you know more about this than I do based on whatever info you have read. That is fine. I do this for a living. I can assure you, 10 years from now, my job will still be intact.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 02:48 AM

The difference the state goes by rests solely in the child. If the child is in the CP's care, they are not going to starve if the NCP isn't assisted. But they may starve if the CP isn't assisted. Without the child(ren), no one would get assistance. Aside from that, there SHOULD be assistance for all when it is warranted.

But another problem with it is that with children in tow, it is harder for the CP to find work (meaning find a sitter FIRST, and pay them FIRST before obtaining employment and getting a check TO pay the sitter) and then to get to work with the kids to take care of and keep with a sitter, than it is for the single NCP with no one else to hinder them. That's part of the reasonings for the way welfare works.
Posted by: almostheaven

And if its not... - 05/05/07 02:49 AM

You could always apply for welfare. ::snicker:: Sorry, couldn't resist.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Whoosh!... - 05/05/07 02:50 AM

Because it seems to be poking Spinner in the azz.
Posted by: preemiemom

Thanks Nrvous.. - 05/05/07 02:50 AM

I'm glad you adding the piece about laying awake at night, I do the SAME EXACT THING!!!

Sounds like your ex was a jerk about it... the worst part for me? My stbx, won't even discuss. Not negative or anything, it's just a topic not discussed. It was just a silent assumption on his part that I would... well... assume responsibility for everything. If I happen to make comments about the overhead I'm maintaining, I get sad puppydog eyes like "I feel so terrible" but not once does he ever SAY, "yeah, I left you with a big bag of crap to deal with", AND, don't bring up the fact he supports ONE child to the tune of $7K per year, but he can't afford his 17% of childcare ($195/month)... That just gets met with total silence and a look to kill. If I dare to question his rights, as a father... as compared to his ability to PROVIDE as a father... WELLLLLL, not THAT gets a reaction. THEN, he has RIGHTS gosh darn it, and how dare I ever suggest he have anything less than the same level of rights that I have, being the one to provide 100% of her support, and 90% of her care (he only sees her for 8 hours on Saturdays).

He left when she was 11 months old. So he's missed ALLLLL the sleepless (literally, her being awake from 5pm to 5 or 6am) nights, the 4 ear infections in 6 weeks and THOSE sleepless nights, the sleepless nights from teething, the mad dash of my day to get her to daycare every morning 25 miles away then the next dash to work 25 miles away from THERE (if I didn't do that, the daycare closest to my work is over $1,500 a month, I save $400 a month splitting the commute).

Know why we split? Because when I went back to work, I had a part-time job (and was running a business online) and I needed to keep the pt job to still make ends meet. He worked JUST enough to pay his smoking habit and his child support. But when I said I needed to keep the pt job, he said and I quote: "I can't possibly allow my wife to work 7 days a week, when I barely work at all, I WILL get a part time job". I waited over 4 months... never said a word, but did admittedly get a little bitchy that I was working/commuting 60 hours plus per week, and I'd get home to a sink full of dishes, laundry in the washer that'd been there all day (I once let it stay there.. I finally gave in and re-washed my daughter's clothes on day FIVE!), and I could watch the calls to his friends all day on my cell bill. So when I confronted him about not getting the part time job he said "if you think I'm missing any time with "A" on the weekend, that's my only overnight, to support HERE, you've got another think coming". To which I replied, "but I'm missing time with OUR daughter every day", to which he replied "well, people have to work to support their families", to which I replied "well, I guess only SOME people support a PORTION of their families" and he packed his bags that night and left.

MIND you, he sees other daughter MINIMUM three days a week, EVERY week. And his first ex changes the schedule to meet HER whims whenever the mood strikes her, or she has something better to do than to be a mother to her children. But the idea that he might SWAP a day so he could contribute just a tiny bit financially to OUR household was unthinkable.

And to this day, he sees absolutely NOTHING wrong with that. And people here wonder why I'd like to run him over with a bus, lol.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 02:51 AM

>>>>>California recipients get twice as much as Nevadans get.

California recipients PAY twice as much as Nevadans pay.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 02:53 AM

[quote]
At no point in time has this been staffed in our county. I am telling you, that it will not get rid of welfare. Many times people will read things in the news, and swear to us that it is gospel. They refuse to realize that most of the time it isn't the case.

The whole point of welfare reform (TANF/CALWORKS) was planned obsolescence. Get everyone a job, and you won't need welfare. It didn't happen.

I am sure you think you know more about this than I do based on whatever info you have read. That is fine. I do this for a living. I can assure you, 10 years from now, my job will still be intact. [/quote]

Many said the same thing when Welfare Reform happened. "They can't limit TANF to the poor." Yep, 60 months and then your done.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 02:54 AM

trolls are fun, but sh1t they can be hard headed. Oh by the way, what ever happened to Stacy?????
Posted by: almostheaven

Echoing Nrvous.... - 05/05/07 02:55 AM

When my ex took off, he took off with all our money, the car and left me stranded with a one month old baby in another state. I couldn't even get transportation back to our original state to return to my job and had no place there to live if I had since he'd managed to take care of that too.

I now own both my cars, have a nice home, and financially secure at this point with a loving husband and a new son, while my ex has been through divorce number 5, recently got out of prison, and stole money from his own daughter to fund his drug habit so that she will no longer have anything to do with him. Who gets the last laugh? ;)

Add to that, he's now being garnished more than twice his CS amount for all the years he never paid, yet his daughter's married. LOL!
Posted by: almostheaven

HARD headed?... - 05/05/07 02:56 AM

And here I thought it had a pointed head. ;)

Trolls give up when they figure out they're stupid. I guess Stacy got the hint? ;)
Posted by: nrvouswrk

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 02:57 AM

Fact Sheet: President Bush Signs the Deficit Reduction Act



White House News



Today, President Bush Signed The Deficit Reduction Act Of 2005. This legislation restrains Federal spending and leaves more money in the hands of the American people. Earlier this week, the President proposed a disciplined Federal budget for 2007 to keep taxes low, fund critical priorities, and build on the Administration's record of restraining government spending.

Provisions Of The Deficit Reduction Act

The Deficit Reduction Act Is An Important Step Forward In Bringing Mandatory Spending Under Control. In the long run, the biggest challenge to the budget is mandatory spending - or entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Together, these programs are now growing faster than the economy and the population - and nearly three times the rate of inflation. By 2030, spending for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security alone will be almost 60 percent of the entire Federal budget. The annual growth of entitlement programs needs to be slowed to affordable levels, but these programs do not need to be cut. Through reforms that will reduce the annual growth of mandatory spending, the Deficit Reduction Act saves taxpayers nearly $40 billion over the next five years - about $300 per taxpayer.

The Deficit Reduction Act Is Estimated To Slow The Pace Of Spending Growth In Both Medicare And Medicaid While Maintaining Our Commitment To Beneficiaries. These two programs provide vital services to millions of Americans, but their costs are straining budgets at both the Federal and state levels. The Deficit Reduction Act restrains spending for entitlement programs while ensuring that Americans who rely on these programs continue to get needed care.
Taxpayers Will Save More Than An Estimated $6 Billion On Medicare Over The Next Five Years. The Deficit Reduction Act, together with the Medicare Act of 2003, requires wealthier seniors to pay higher premiums for their Medicare coverage. The savings created by this reform and others will make it possible to increase Federal funding for important areas like kidney dialysis and rural hospitals.
The Deficit Reduction Act Will Also Reduce The Growth In Medicaid By Nearly $5 Billion Over The Next Five Years. The Deficit Reduction Act helps restrain Medicaid spending by reducing Federal overpayment for prescription drugs so that taxpayers do not have to pay inflated markups. The bill also gives governors more flexibility to design Medicaid benefits that efficiently and affordably meet their states' needs, and tightens the loopholes that allowed people to game the system by transferring assets to their children so they can qualify for Medicaid benefits.


The President Is Committed To Finding Additional Ways To Make Medicare And Medicaid More Efficient. The President's FY 2007 budget proposes another $36 billion in savings on Medicare and more than $1 billion in savings on Medicaid. The President's proposals slow the average annual growth in Medicare over the next five years from 8.1 percent a year to 7.7 percent a year. Together with the Deficit Reduction Act, the President's budget will slow Medicaid's average annual growth over the next five years from 6.9 percent a year to 6.6 percent a year.
In The Long Run, Ensuring The Stability Of Medicare And Medicaid Requires Structural Reform. In his State of the Union Address, the President proposed a bipartisan commission to examine the full impact of Baby Boomer retirements on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. This commission will include members of Congress from both parties and will recommend long-term solutions.
Providing New Resources For Those With The Greatest Needs. The Deficit Reduction Act includes $1 billion in additional mandatory spending for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) to help low-income Americans pay heating bills; $2 billion in new funding to cover health care costs for Hurricane Katrina victims; and more than $1 billion in new funding for low-income disabled children.

Improving Federal Student Loan Programs And Increasing Benefits To Students. The Deficit Reduction Act cuts excess government subsidies to lenders and makes other reforms that will help reduce overall student loan costs by about $22 billion. This will save taxpayers $12 billion and increase student aid by $10 billion.

Reauthorizing Welfare Reform For Another Five Years. Welfare reform has proved a tremendous success over the past decade. By insisting on programs that require work and self-sufficiency in return for Federal aid, the Federal government has helped cut welfare cases by more than half since 1996. Building on this progress, the Deficit Reduction Act renews welfare reform so that even more families move from welfare to work, and includes a $1 billion increase in child care funding, as well as new grants to support healthy marriages and responsible fatherhood.

Extending Charitable Choice. One of the reasons for welfare reform's success is a policy called charitable choice - which allows faith-based groups that provide social services to receive Federal funding without altering their religious identity or changing the way they hire. Charitable choice also safeguards the religious freedom of beneficiaries. Welfare was the first Federal program to include charitable choice, and the Deficit Reduction Act extends it for another five years. Charitable choice will also apply to the bill's new programs that focus on promoting healthy marriages and responsible fatherhood, two areas in which faith-based and community groups are particularly effective in providing services. By reauthorizing welfare reform with charitable choice, the Deficit Reduction Act helps millions more Americans move from welfare to work and find independence, dignity, and hope.
# #

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

OK here it is. Have you actually read what you have been referring to? If you had, you would see that what it does is extend Welfare Reform for another 5 years. In other words, business as usual. In addition, it increases child care benifits. Instead of less money being spent, there will be more.

They are also talking about FEDERAL funding. Every time the federal funding is cut, the STATE steps in with STATE funding to make up the difference. When that isn't enough, then the county comes in with additional COUNTY funding. That would be the GR program and parts of MediCal.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Coming from a troll... - 05/05/07 02:57 AM

I'm not so sure we've been trying so much as we've just been playing with our food. ;)
Posted by: joym525

Re: Echoing Nrvous.... - 05/05/07 02:59 AM

[quote]When my ex took off, he took off with all our money, the car and left me stranded with a one month old baby in another state. I couldn't even get transportation back to our original state to return to my job and had no place there to live if I had since he'd managed to take care of that too.

I now own both my cars, have a nice home, and financially secure at this point with a loving husband and a new son, while my ex has been through divorce number 5, recently got out of prison, and stole money from his own daughter to fund his drug habit so that she will no longer have anything to do with him. Who gets the last laugh? ;)

Add to that, he's now being garnished more than twice his CS amount for all the years he never paid, yet his daughter's married. LOL! [/quote]

Leson number uno - NEVER NEVER NEVER rely on a man to support you. It will always bite you in the butt.
Posted by: preemiemom

Re: Not even comparable... - 05/05/07 03:01 AM

[quote][quote]For the $421 house payment we now have, rent for this place would be closer to $1500. [/quote]

She has a $350,000 mortgage...I doubt her payment is under $2500. [/quote]

It is under that, renting is about $400 a month cheaper for me; however, I still get to take the deductions (including now depreciation now on a rental property) so the total of the deductions for the expenses on the property not covered by the renters ends up close to a wash.

Again, we bought at the HEIGHT of the market. The home has dropped really, in value, closer to $40,000 from when we bought it 2 years ago. I CANNOT sell it for what is owed. PERIOD. The most a realtor will LIST it for is $350K, and a house identical to mine 2 houses over (mind you, there are FOUR houses for sale on my street alone right now, not counting the one already in foreclosure) just sold for $320K (happens to have been owned by the sister of a coworker of mine).

So, if mine could only sell for that? My shortage, including commission, is really closer to $45K. To which I'd have to pay the IRS about $8K? For the shortsale. I did consider it, I had all the papers from the mortgage company and everything.

Out of the 5 circumstances for criteria that would "allow" you to shortsell? We had ALL FIVE, in an 18 month period. Job loss, birth, divorce (when we bought the house, turns out stbx wasn't DIVORCED from his first wife, won't repeat what THAT cost us), hospitalization and something else, I forget what it was.

The fact I'm not in an asylum somewhere weaving baskets is a blessed miracle.

Oh, did I not mention the $10,000 in uncovered medical bills from our daughter's birth? Thankfully, insurance/medicare covered $640,000 out of the $650,000 TOTAL cost for almost 5 months of hospitalization between us.

Really, you really should give me advice on how to better handle my finances. Perhaps you could instruct God to have not given me a child born 3 months prematurely. Or to have her have to be hospitalized quite so long, or to have me have been hospitalized for so long beforehand.

Total loss last year in income? Almost $60,000. Please, write me a financial plan to fix THAT.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 03:02 AM

[quote]Fact Sheet: President Bush Signs the Deficit Reduction Act



White House News



Today, President Bush Signed The Deficit Reduction Act Of 2005. This legislation restrains Federal spending and leaves more money in the hands of the American people. Earlier this week, the President proposed a disciplined Federal budget for 2007 to keep taxes low, fund critical priorities, and build on the Administration's record of restraining government spending.

Provisions Of The Deficit Reduction Act

The Deficit Reduction Act Is An Important Step Forward In Bringing Mandatory Spending Under Control. In the long run, the biggest challenge to the budget is mandatory spending - or entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Together, these programs are now growing faster than the economy and the population - and nearly three times the rate of inflation. By 2030, spending for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security alone will be almost 60 percent of the entire Federal budget. The annual growth of entitlement programs needs to be slowed to affordable levels, but these programs do not need to be cut. Through reforms that will reduce the annual growth of mandatory spending, the Deficit Reduction Act saves taxpayers nearly $40 billion over the next five years - about $300 per taxpayer.

The Deficit Reduction Act Is Estimated To Slow The Pace Of Spending Growth In Both Medicare And Medicaid While Maintaining Our Commitment To Beneficiaries. These two programs provide vital services to millions of Americans, but their costs are straining budgets at both the Federal and state levels. The Deficit Reduction Act restrains spending for entitlement programs while ensuring that Americans who rely on these programs continue to get needed care.
Taxpayers Will Save More Than An Estimated $6 Billion On Medicare Over The Next Five Years. The Deficit Reduction Act, together with the Medicare Act of 2003, requires wealthier seniors to pay higher premiums for their Medicare coverage. The savings created by this reform and others will make it possible to increase Federal funding for important areas like kidney dialysis and rural hospitals.
The Deficit Reduction Act Will Also Reduce The Growth In Medicaid By Nearly $5 Billion Over The Next Five Years. The Deficit Reduction Act helps restrain Medicaid spending by reducing Federal overpayment for prescription drugs so that taxpayers do not have to pay inflated markups. The bill also gives governors more flexibility to design Medicaid benefits that efficiently and affordably meet their states' needs, and tightens the loopholes that allowed people to game the system by transferring assets to their children so they can qualify for Medicaid benefits.


The President Is Committed To Finding Additional Ways To Make Medicare And Medicaid More Efficient. The President's FY 2007 budget proposes another $36 billion in savings on Medicare and more than $1 billion in savings on Medicaid. The President's proposals slow the average annual growth in Medicare over the next five years from 8.1 percent a year to 7.7 percent a year. Together with the Deficit Reduction Act, the President's budget will slow Medicaid's average annual growth over the next five years from 6.9 percent a year to 6.6 percent a year.
In The Long Run, Ensuring The Stability Of Medicare And Medicaid Requires Structural Reform. In his State of the Union Address, the President proposed a bipartisan commission to examine the full impact of Baby Boomer retirements on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. This commission will include members of Congress from both parties and will recommend long-term solutions.
Providing New Resources For Those With The Greatest Needs. The Deficit Reduction Act includes $1 billion in additional mandatory spending for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) to help low-income Americans pay heating bills; $2 billion in new funding to cover health care costs for Hurricane Katrina victims; and more than $1 billion in new funding for low-income disabled children.

Improving Federal Student Loan Programs And Increasing Benefits To Students. The Deficit Reduction Act cuts excess government subsidies to lenders and makes other reforms that will help reduce overall student loan costs by about $22 billion. This will save taxpayers $12 billion and increase student aid by $10 billion.

Reauthorizing Welfare Reform For Another Five Years. Welfare reform has proved a tremendous success over the past decade. By insisting on programs that require work and self-sufficiency in return for Federal aid, the Federal government has helped cut welfare cases by more than half since 1996. Building on this progress, the Deficit Reduction Act renews welfare reform so that even more families move from welfare to work, and includes a $1 billion increase in child care funding, as well as new grants to support healthy marriages and responsible fatherhood.

Extending Charitable Choice. One of the reasons for welfare reform's success is a policy called charitable choice - which allows faith-based groups that provide social services to receive Federal funding without altering their religious identity or changing the way they hire. Charitable choice also safeguards the religious freedom of beneficiaries. Welfare was the first Federal program to include charitable choice, and the Deficit Reduction Act extends it for another five years. Charitable choice will also apply to the bill's new programs that focus on promoting healthy marriages and responsible fatherhood, two areas in which faith-based and community groups are particularly effective in providing services. By reauthorizing welfare reform with charitable choice, the Deficit Reduction Act helps millions more Americans move from welfare to work and find independence, dignity, and hope.
# #

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

OK here it is. Have you actually read what you have been referring to? If you had, you would see that what it does is extend Welfare Reform for another 5 years. In other words, business as usual. In addition, it increases child care benifits. Instead of less money being spent, there will be more.

They are also talking about FEDERAL funding. Every time the federal funding is cut, the STATE steps in with STATE funding to make up the difference. When that isn't enough, then the county comes in with additional COUNTY funding. That would be the GR program and parts of MediCal. [/quote]

Yeah they make it sound like a good thing but now TANF recipients won't see any mulah until they have proven they can work 40 hours week. Right now they get a check right off the cuff. Startaing October 1st gthey will not get a check until they have met the reuired hours.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Not even comparable... - 05/05/07 03:04 AM

[quote]
Again, we bought at the HEIGHT of the market. The home has dropped really, in value, closer to $40,000 from when we bought it 2 years ago. I CANNOT sell it for what is owed. PERIOD. [/quote]

Never buy at the height of the market. The thing that should hhave tipped you off was when houses were selling within minutes of being on the market.
Posted by: preemiemom

Re: Echoing Nrvous.... - 05/05/07 03:07 AM

Thanks AH :)

Just been feeling particularly.... overwhelmed... lately. Been anxious to hear about this job (see previous replies) that's taken FOREVER!!! No more money but a TREMENDOUSLY better commute (like HALF.. 6 minutes from daycare), in a MUCH better work environment. And have you ever worked somewhere you really really HATE, but you HAVE to be there, but there's a light.. there, at the end of the tunnel.. and you just can't quite GET to it?

Plus, I get a little moody Friday nights. Stbx will be here tomorrow. Daughter has an early intervention evaluation for her gross motor skills delays and it's "his" day, but I couldn't take any more time out of work (since I took ALL the days off needed for ear infections 1-4, plus the bout of bronchiolitis and the bout of RSV, not him) so I had to schedule it for Saturday so he gets to appear as "superdad", his most coveted "role". Most of my morning will be spent trying not to upchuck my Cheerios all over him.

Sorry... this darn thread has just been one big vent for me.. bad me :(
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Not even comparable... - 05/05/07 03:10 AM

tell us, how does it feel to be so perfect. Oh wait you are not perfect. You fvcked and had a kid with a looooser. So here you sit in judgement of all of us. I had some spare time and read all of your post. Are you just as mean, bitter and hateful in real life?
Posted by: preemiemom

Re: Not even comparable... - 05/05/07 03:10 AM

[quote][quote]
Again, we bought at the HEIGHT of the market. The home has dropped really, in value, closer to $40,000 from when we bought it 2 years ago. I CANNOT sell it for what is owed. PERIOD. [/quote]

Never buy at the height of the market. The thing that should hhave tipped you off was when houses were selling within minutes of being on the market. [/quote]

No kidding? REALLY????????? My gift of foresight evidently failed me at that moment. Of course I should have seen that the market would start to crash literally 60 days after we closed on the house. How silly of me. And considering the house had been ON the market for 5 months when we made our offer, and it had been REDUCED at least twice, we thought we were getting a DEAL, particularly given that the house across the street? Also for sale? Was listed for $50,000 MORE than the house we DID buy (the house across the street ended up selling 6 months later, still for $30,000 more than what we paid for ours, and while the other house is "cuter", we have twice the land, corner lot, more bedrooms, full attic and a garage).
Posted by: joym525

Re: Not even comparable... - 05/05/07 03:17 AM

[quote]tell us, how does it feel to be so perfect. Oh wait you are not perfect. You fvcked and had a kid with a looooser. So here you sit in judgement of all of us. I had some spare time and read all of your post. Are you just as mean, bitter and hateful in real life? [/quote]

The difference is I did not rely on father of baby for financial support. I mean it was nice when I got it, but I was able to take care of me and my baby. And I got rid of his @$$ when my DH loved DS enough to adopt him.
Posted by: nrvouswrk

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 03:17 AM

Yeah they make it sound like a good thing but now TANF recipients won't see any mulah until they have proven they can work 40 hours week. Right now they get a check right off the cuff. Startaing October 1st gthey will not get a check until they have met the reuired hours.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Again not so....:) Nothing will have changed from what it is now because ALL applicants are evaluated for Immediate Need. If they meet the criteria, their benifits will be issued ASAP. Same as now. They currently are required to be on/register with the work program in order to get benefits. Again nothing has changed.

Also, you stated in an earlier post that illegal aliens are being aided...40% I believe you said? Again not so...Their children (U.S. citizens) are. They are not given TANF or Food Stamps. As far as MediCal goes, they are only allowed emergency and pregnancy services.

Tell me, how long do you want to debate Welfare rules and regulations with me?
Posted by: joym525

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 03:22 AM

[quote]Yeah they make it sound like a good thing but now TANF recipients won't see any mulah until they have proven they can work 40 hours week. Right now they get a check right off the cuff. Startaing October 1st gthey will not get a check until they have met the reuired hours.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Again not so....:) Nothing will have changed from what it is now because ALL applicants are evaluated for Immediate Need. If they meet the criteria, their benifits will be issued ASAP. Same as now.

Also, you stated in an earlier post that illegal aliens are being aided...40% I believe you said? Again not so...Their children (U.S. citizens) are. They are not given TANF or Food Stamps. As far as MediCal goes, they are only allowed emergency and pregnancy services.

Tell me, how long do you want to debate Welfare rules and regulations with me? [/quote]

The check is made out to non-citizen's name. You can say it is only for the citizen children if it makes you feel better.

You should go talk to the TANF supervisor in one of your local offices. They could fill you in. I'm not surprised you are not fully aware of the TANF changes since you do not work in a TANF unit.

If a TANF recipient applies for TANF on March 13th, they will not see a check until May 1st, and that is after they met 40 hours a week working or doing acceptable work activities during that time period. Sorry to break the news to you this way...the government is sometimes slow to update their employees on chnages.
Posted by: almostheaven

Lesson #1... - 05/05/07 03:23 AM

Learn to read dumbass.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Lesson #1... - 05/05/07 03:24 AM

[quote]Learn to read dumbass. [/quote]

One to many martinis there skippy?
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Not even comparable... - 05/05/07 03:24 AM

"The difference is I did not rely on father of baby for financial support. I mean it was nice when I got it, but I was able to take care of me and my baby. And I got rid of his @$$ when my DH loved DS enough to adopt him."

That is one of the most selfish statements that I have ever seen posted. I have been here for years. If you didn't need the money why didn't you send it back and say no thank you? Greed? When you found a better and more stable paycheck you got rid of him, the father? You are an awful person. You have just defined greed. Thank you
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 03:25 AM

Till her eyes pop outta her head and her pointy head starts spinning around on her neck? Just a guess.
Posted by: nrvouswrk

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 03:25 AM

The check is made out to non-citizen's name. You can say it is only for the citizen children if it makes you feel better.

You should go talk to the TANF supervisor in one of your local offices. They could fill you in. I'm not surprised you are not fully aware of the TANF changes since you do not work in a TANF unit.

If a TANF recipient applies for TANF on March 13th, they will not see a check until May 1st, and that is after they met 40 hours a week working or doing acceptable work activities during that time period. Sorry to break the news to you this way...the government is sometimes slow to update their employees on chnages.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I keep trying to make this point clear to you, but CALIFORNIA does not have the TANF program.

Illegals may get the check, but they are not included in the budget.

So, how is it that you are such an expert?
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: Not even comparable... - 05/05/07 03:26 AM

and by the way, I never needed his support either for my daughter. We got by. But hell I do need it now that I am getting older. Botox aint cheap and my vacations are getting expensive.
Posted by: preemiemom

Re: Not even comparable... - 05/05/07 03:26 AM

[quote][quote]tell us, how does it feel to be so perfect. Oh wait you are not perfect. You fvcked and had a kid with a looooser. So here you sit in judgement of all of us. I had some spare time and read all of your post. Are you just as mean, bitter and hateful in real life? [/quote]

The difference is I did not rely on father of baby for financial support. I mean it was nice when I got it, but I was able to take care of me and my baby. And I got rid of his @$$ when my DH loved DS enough to adopt him. [/quote]

Well, that seems to answer Katie's question quite nicely now doesn't it? Evidently you really ARE that mean, hateful and nasty in real life.

The VAST majority of posters on these boards, including those CP's who have nonpaying NCPs would state that their children have a right to their biological father's involvement in their lives, even if they are dirtbags who don't support their children.

I, on my worst days, would LOVE, in the deepest darkest regions of my mind, to tell stbx to take a long walk off a short pier relative to our daughter; however, there is SOME sense of reason in my head that recognizes that is about MY anger and hostility and NOT her right to have a "dad". And while as a "father" (translated as: provider type being) he may suck wind, as a "daddy" (translated as: person who loves his child and does at least WISH what is best for her, even if he can't have a hand in PROVIDING it, and who would throw himself in front of a train if it meant keeping her from harm) he's actually pretty darn good. He's just very immature emotionally and he comes with a whole trainload of baggage.

But YOU. YOU, "waited until your DH loved your son ENOUGH and then GOT RID of his [email protected]@". Wellll, I'm sure your DH must be thrilled to know that you were just waiting until he passed some "love of your child" litmus test so you could "x" his REAL father out of his life entirely and thereby make your HUSBAND legally responsible for that.

Did you treat looking for that type of husband like you suggested those in need should treat looking for a job versus applying for welfare? Or WAS that your version of looking for welfare? Just the long-term, ring on your finger, permanent kind of welfare?

Just curious. Psychopath.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Not even comparable... - 05/05/07 03:26 AM

[quote]
That is one of the most selfish statements that I have ever seen posted. I have been here for years. If you didn't need the money why didn't you send it back and say no thank you? Greed? When you found a better and more stable paycheck you got rid of him, the father? You are an awful person. You have just defined greed. Thank you [/quote]

The father had no contact with DS until DS was 6 years old. And that was only one visit. He had better things to do.
Posted by: almostheaven

::sigh:: - 05/05/07 03:28 AM

Joy is insistent upon bringing a knife to a gunfight. We shouldn't play with the mentally challenged like this. Its cruel and inhuman.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Not even comparable... - 05/05/07 03:30 AM

[quote] The VAST majority of posters on these boards, including those CP's who have nonpaying NCPs would state that their children have a right to their biological father's involvement in their lives, even if they are dirtbags who don't support their children.

Just the long-term, ring on your finger, permanent kind of welfare?
[/quote]

Father of baby saw child once before DH adopted DS. I called him and asked him if he wanted my DH to adopt his son and he said yes. Father of baby signed the adoption papers.

My marriage has lasted 13 years. We are very happy. Thanks for asking. How long was yours?
Posted by: almostheaven

No difference at all... - 05/05/07 03:31 AM

You screwed a loser, had a baby with him, then had the audacity to seek CS from him and now you spend your days yacking on a BB when you could be out working. ;)
Posted by: joym525

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 03:33 AM

[quote]

Illegals may get the check, but they are not included in the budget.

[/quote]

These illegals, how do you know if they are working under the table if they don't have SSNs?
Posted by: almostheaven

ROFL!!!!!!!! (eom) - 05/05/07 03:33 AM

.
Posted by: joym525

Re: No difference at all... - 05/05/07 03:34 AM

[quote]You screwed a loser, had a baby with him, then had the audacity to seek CS from him and now you spend your days yacking on a BB when you could be out working. ;) [/quote]

Wow we have something in common, you screwed a loser, and you have a lot of posts on this board and you could be out working.
Posted by: almostheaven

I dunno... - 05/05/07 03:35 AM

You tell me. You're the one with reading problems bimbo.
Posted by: preemiemom

Well then.. this may be..... - 05/05/07 03:35 AM

.. a really dumb freakin' question but: If you're so gosh darn happy and everything's peachy, what the heck are you doing spending what has to be the better part of what, 3 hours??? On a DIVORCE message board?

Given the lengths to which you've gone to argue a point which evidently has absolutely ZERO relevance to you, since you're not ON welfare, you've never BEEN on welfare, you have no INTENTION of being on welfare.. I'm sure the lengths at which you went to browbeat your son's father into giving up his rights must have been exponentially dedicated and persistent.
Posted by: joym525

Re: ::sigh:: - 05/05/07 03:35 AM

[quote]Joy is insistent upon bringing a knife to a gunfight. We shouldn't play with the mentally challenged like this. Its cruel and inhuman. [/quote]

Yet you continue to play...hmmmm.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: No difference at all... - 05/05/07 03:36 AM

I don't NEED to be out working. By your attitude, a bit of time spent in the company of other adults however would do you quite a bit of good. ;)
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: ::sigh:: - 05/05/07 03:36 AM

Hell yeah. No one ever said utter stupidity wasn't funny. Sad...yet still somehow uniquely funny.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Well then.. this may be..... - 05/05/07 03:38 AM

[quote].. a really dumb freakin' question but: If you're so gosh darn happy and everything's peachy, what the heck are you doing spending what has to be the better part of what, 3 hours??? On a DIVORCE message board?

Given the lengths to which you've gone to argue a point which evidently has absolutely ZERO relevance to you, since you're not ON welfare, you've never BEEN on welfare, you have no INTENTION of being on welfare.. I'm sure the lengths at which you went to browbeat your son's father into giving up his rights must have been exponentially dedicated and persistent. [/quote]

Actually I was against the adoption at first, but my DH wanted DS to have his last name. So I asked father of baby and he agreed...at that time CS was $500 a month and I'm sure he was thinking about the money he was going to save.

Why am I on here...well I am having fun talking to yall.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Well then.. this may be..... - 05/05/07 03:38 AM

ROFL!

Having such fun that I hate to leave but I'm getting ready to finish up a couple more hands of Texas holdem and go to bed. The board is a good diversion for the slowpokes that take forever to place their bets. LOL
Posted by: preemiemom

Re: ::sigh:: - 05/05/07 03:39 AM

I'd have to wonder about the "happiness" of this supposedly wonderful marriage if she's spent 3 hours on here arguing with US. I mean, heck, I have no life other than work and my daughter, who is blissfully sleeping... but why on earth is she HERE???????
Posted by: nrvouswrk

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 03:40 AM

These illegals, how do you know if they are working under the table if they don't have SSNs?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My guess is that they are. They use fake Socials. HOWEVER, they aren't the only ones. Many of the good old U.S. citizens are doing the same thing and not reporting it. Fraud is rampant in the welfare dept.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: ::sigh:: - 05/05/07 03:41 AM

I figure we're all here because we enjoy gabbing and have something to say. But people with nothing but bitterness to spew are such a sad and sorry lot. Yet nothing says we can't just have a blast with em. ;)
Posted by: preemiemom

Re: Well then.. this may be..... - 05/05/07 03:41 AM

[quote]ROFL!

Having such fun that I hate to leave but I'm getting ready to finish up a couple more hands of Texas holdem and go to bed. The board is a good diversion for the slowpokes that take forever to place their bets. LOL [/quote]

yeah, I gotta think about hitting the hay myself. I love when we get to "troll" together, AH ;)

Have a great night!
Posted by: joym525

Re: Well then.. this may be..... - 05/05/07 03:41 AM

[quote]ROFL!

Having such fun that I hate to leave but I'm getting ready to finish up a couple more hands of Texas holdem and go to bed. The board is a good diversion for the slowpokes that take forever to place their bets. LOL [/quote]

Noooo...don't go to sleep...you can sleep in tomorrow..it's saturday :grin:
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Well then.. this may be..... - 05/05/07 03:43 AM

Nope, got things to do tomorrow. And just closed poker once I broke even again.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 03:43 AM

[quote]These illegals, how do you know if they are working under the table if they don't have SSNs?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My guess is that they are. They use fake Socials. HOWEVER, they aren't the only ones. Many of the good old U.S. citizens are doing the same thing and not reporting it. Fraud is rampant in the welfare dept. [/quote]

Most of them claim to have no SSNs and say they are illegal. They provide a birth certificate from mexico and there is no way to tell if they are legal permanent reisdnets, unless they mess up and provide a drivers lisense. :mad:
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Well then.. this may be..... - 05/05/07 03:44 AM

G'nite. Keep the trolls in line for me. I may or may not get in here tomorrow. Will be with the folks. May get some time late night on mom's puter, if she's not using it.
Posted by: nrvouswrk

Re: ::sigh:: - 05/05/07 03:45 AM

[quote]I'd have to wonder about the "happiness" of this supposedly wonderful marriage if she's spent 3 hours on here arguing with US. I mean, heck, I have no life other than work and my daughter, who is blissfully sleeping... but why on earth is she HERE??????? [/quote]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Beause PM, we are such delightful company. :)

To be honest with you, I have enjoyed this discussion. I am even watching Grey's Anatomy on the junky TV to continue it. I have been sipping on a beer to stop my eye from throbbing, and now I can't type. I have no tolerance for alcohol.
Posted by: almostheaven

Well well, caught the little troll before bed... - 05/05/07 03:46 AM

>>>>>The father of my child was making $125,000 a year and was ordered to pay $100 a month and couldn't even pay that. Thank God my DH has adopted my child.

>>>>>at that time CS was $500 a month
Posted by: joym525

Re: ::sigh:: - 05/05/07 03:46 AM

[quote]I'd have to wonder about the "happiness" of this supposedly wonderful marriage if she's spent 3 hours on here arguing with US. I mean, heck, I have no life other than work and my daughter, who is blissfully sleeping... but why on earth is she HERE??????? [/quote]

Well, DH is sitting rihgt next to me wathcing wreseling, my DD has a friend over spending the night, and DS will be callaing me in about 1 hour 15 minutes to pick him and his friends up at the movies. Life is good.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: ::sigh:: - 05/05/07 03:47 AM

Mmmm alcohol. I'm not much of a drinker, but I have been CRAVING an amaretto sour for awhile now. BUT...I'm working on a few pounds and alcohol isn't on the list of approved diet foods. LOL
Posted by: joym525

Re: Well well, caught the little troll before bed... - 05/05/07 03:48 AM

[quote]>>>>>The father of my child was making $125,000 a year and was ordered to pay $100 a month and couldn't even pay that. Thank God my DH has adopted my child.

>>>>>at that time CS was $500 a month [/quote]

He was ordered to pay $100 originally because he was in college and not working and that was the state minimum. When my DS turned 5 CS was increased to $500 and a year later DH adopted DS.
Posted by: nrvouswrk

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 03:49 AM

Most of them claim to have no SSNs and say they are illegal. They provide a birth certificate from mexico and there is no way to tell if they are legal permanent reisdnets, unless they mess up and provide a drivers lisense. :mad:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have asked you a few times and you haven't answered me as to where you are getting all your info from....

Here is how it works Joy, most of the Social Security numbers they are using are valid. They name their child the same name as them only without the Jr. If run through the system, it will be a valid number. We catch it when an earnings clearance is run on it, and see that a 1 year old is earning thousands a quarter.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 03:54 AM

[quote]Most of them claim to have no SSNs and say they are illegal. They provide a birth certificate from mexico and there is no way to tell if they are legal permanent reisdnets, unless they mess up and provide a drivers lisense. :mad:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have asked you a few times and you haven't answered me as to where you are getting all your info from....

Here is how it works Joy, most of the Social Security numbers they are using are valid. They name their child the same name as them only without the Jr. If run through the system, it will be a valid number. We catch it when an earnings clearance is run on it, and see that a 1 year old is earning thousands a quarter. [/quote]

Luckily in Nevada these illegals get no disregards on their income so once the welfare agency finds out they have income, their TANF ends the next month, with adverse of course. ;)
Posted by: nrvouswrk

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 03:59 AM

Luckily in Nevada these illegals get no disregards on their income so once the welfare agency finds out they have income, their TANF ends the next month, with adverse of course. ;)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
OK, you are not going to answer my question...

Here their income would be prorated and an over issuance would be assessed.
Posted by: googledad

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 04:06 AM

I do not know if anyone provided this example so bear with me :
An unmarried couple has a child , they split up , the soon to be mother applies for public assistance and all costs associated with child delivery are covered . After the birth paternity is established the mother requests child support . Paternity is established and addition to CS the father is charged with a pro-rated share of all costs associated with child birth . Why isn't the mother required to pay as well ?
Posted by: joym525

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 04:10 AM

[quote] I do not know if anyone provided this example so bear with me :
An unmarried couple has a child , they split up , the soon to be mother applies for public assistance and all costs associated with child delivery are covered . After the birth paternity is established the mother requests child support . Paternity is established and addition to CS the father is charged with a pro-rated share of all costs associated with child birth . Why isn't the mother required to pay as well ? [/quote]

ooohhh..good one. Men always get screwed by the courts.
Posted by: nrvouswrk

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 04:10 AM

Not in California. Here...men are not responsible for their own sperm for the first year. It is the Conditionally Eligible program :). The child will also get full MediCal at a zero share of cost. This is how it works for the MediCal program. We never went after any guy for the cost of the pregnancy the whole time I worked that crazy program.

They don't even care about the dad's income for the first year. At the end of that time, we send in a form to the state "requesting" the BF provides medical insurance for the child.
Posted by: Rebecca5

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 04:11 AM

Because it's already been established that she is unable to do so. The father has the same opportunity to prove that he is unable to pay toward the costs (if that's the case)....at least in this state.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 04:20 AM

In Nevada, if the mom is getting TANF cash assistance and the state collects child support, 100% of the child support payments go right back to the state to pay the medical costs.
Posted by: Rebecca5

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 04:29 AM

Here, they don't intercept CS for medical costs, but they'll require the NCP to carry medical insurance (if possible) as the primary provider...and use Medicaid as secondary. They do intercept a portion of CS to apply toward cash assistance, though. If the CS is a high enough amount, it would likely make the household income too high for the family to receive cash assistance. The TANF guidelines here are pretty narrow.
Posted by: Melody

so you were thankful for your lousy $100 - 05/05/07 06:34 AM

when your ex should clearly have been paying more? Sorry...if YOU are satisfied with whatever pittance you get...that's great. You'll just have to bear with those of us who feel people should pay what they are ordered to pay. It's attitudes like yours that CREATES deadbeats!
Posted by: Melody

These nuggets of wisdom - 05/05/07 06:45 AM

....coming from the unwed parent at 19???? Yeah....I'm gonna go out on a limb here and think you're qualified to spout off all the crap you've dumped on all the good people here. NOT!

Here's another one for ya! "Don't take wooden nickels" I'm sure you'll be able to use it....it's GOT to be as helpful as all your other GENIUS posts!
Posted by: Melody

That's "too" - 05/05/07 06:47 AM

or did you have a few also???
Posted by: Melody

Well THAT just painted a wonderful picture - 05/05/07 06:49 AM

for me.
Posted by: Melody

Well you picked him - 05/05/07 06:50 AM

so I'd say your judgement isn't all that great either.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Well well, caught the little troll before bed... - 05/05/07 12:38 PM

That's not even what you said. You said he "was making $125,000 a year and was ordered to pay $100 a month." NOWWWWWWWWWWW, it's "he was ordered to pay $100 originally because he was in college and not working."

Get your stories straight.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 12:42 PM

She could be. Exactly what I was told back in the 80s was that they can require EITHER or BOTH parents to pay IF they feel either of them CAN. So if a woman goes off welfare after completing a college degree and eventually makes a large salary, she may be requested to repay a portion of the monies she received. Just as, not all men are requested to pay back a portion of the birth. IE: My ex was, by state law, to provide health insurance on our daughter. He never did. But the medical care she received via the state was NEVER charged back to him. They deducted what was owed from the CS and ONLY when they collected CS...5 years after the fact.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 12:43 PM

>>>>>Men ALWAYS get screwed by the courts.

What a narrow-minded, idiotic, and completely erroneous view.
Posted by: almostheaven

"OK, you are not going to answer my question..." - 05/05/07 12:44 PM

Was there ever any doubt?
Posted by: almostheaven

Unwed???? - 05/05/07 12:44 PM

Aw geeee, I missed that one. At least *I* got married. Sheesh!
Posted by: almostheaven

Now Katie, I just gotta know... - 05/05/07 12:46 PM

Did you go out and hire Joy to liven up your thread or did you just "get lucky"? LOL!
Posted by: BeckaLeigh

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 01:45 PM

In Texas, in order to get on anything other than food stamps, think, you have to look for work also. You have to go to the WorkSource, register and actively be looking for a job. If you have found one with, I think it is 2 months, you volunteer places, in exchange for the welfare. So, here you do alot better just to get a job within that time limit.
Posted by: BeckaLeigh

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 01:49 PM

Her ein Texas, you get an average of $288 for the same amount of kids. It is not made to pay all of your bills, it is made to help you out a little until you find work. If it was a bigger amount, more people would laze around and wait for the govt to kick em off.
Posted by: BeckaLeigh

Ok, but - 05/05/07 01:56 PM

How does that differ from actually having a job? If you get a job, you wait your required time wo get a check, whether it be weekly or bi-weekly.
Posted by: BeckaLeigh

Well-put, AH..;)(eom) - 05/05/07 02:02 PM

;)
Posted by: BeckaLeigh

Re: Add to that... - 05/05/07 02:11 PM

Yeah, the father should be HELPING. But, the fact remains, he is not. And I would think it was nine of your business whether Dei got pregnant on a one night stand or after a 12 year relationship. The fact is, she is pregnant and unemployed, with children to support at home, if I'm not mistaken and you sitting here passing judgement on her isnt going to solve anything except maybe concrete the dislike for you on this site.
Posted by: joym525

Re: so you were thankful for your lousy $100 - 05/05/07 04:20 PM

[quote]when your ex should clearly have been paying more? Sorry...if YOU are satisfied with whatever pittance you get...that's great. You'll just have to bear with those of us who feel people should pay what they are ordered to pay. It's attitudes like yours that CREATES deadbeats! [/quote]

Actually what creates deadbeats are cranky BMs who can't accept their husbands have found something better.
Posted by: joym525

Re: These nuggets of wisdom - 05/05/07 04:22 PM

[quote]....coming from the unwed parent at 19???? Yeah....I'm gonna go out on a limb here and think you're qualified to spout off all the crap you've dumped on all the good people here. NOT!

Here's another one for ya! "Don't take wooden nickels" I'm sure you'll be able to use it....it's GOT to be as helpful as all your other GENIUS posts! [/quote]

Yep , I was 19 and naive. But what is the excuse of the 30 year old going out having one night stands?
Posted by: joym525

Re: That's "too" - 05/05/07 04:23 PM

[quote]or did you have a few also??? [/quote]

So, you got pregnant by having one too many. Child conceived by alcohol?
Posted by: joym525

Re: Well you picked him - 05/05/07 04:25 PM

[quote]so I'd say your judgement isn't all that great either. [/quote]

Nope my judgement was not great when I was 19, by the time I was 21 I had married, had a child 2 years later, and have been married for going on 13 years. What is your excuse?
Posted by: nrvouswrk

Re: These nuggets of wisdom - 05/05/07 04:56 PM

Here's another one for ya! "Don't take wooden nickels"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now someone finally tells me! I have a whole dresser full of them marked "arrears." No wonder the bank won't take them....:) Oh, well...there goes the kid's college fund....:)
Posted by: BeckaLeigh

Re: so you were thankful for your lousy $100 - 05/05/07 05:42 PM

Found something better? How do you figure you can find anything better than your own KIDS? That was the most ignorant statement I have seen out of you yet, and you have done some whoppers. So, I made my ex a deadbeat to teh tune of $7200 because I cant accept he found something better? Hmmmm. I WISH. Deadbeats create themselves. They CHOOSE bot to pay, and alot of the time, disappear from the child(ren)'s lives. But, there are those deadbeats like mine who dont and wont ever willingly support the two children we created together, and then turns around and hollars about his rights. Maybe I should introduce you two, you would get along wonderfully. You made me absolutely sick with that one sentence.
Posted by: BeckaLeigh

Re: Coming from a troll... - 05/05/07 05:49 PM

That is bull hockey. My X got TANF when he had custody of our kids, even though I was paying support, and he still owes it back to this day. My friend who recieved TANF for a bit gets $50 out of her CS checks and the rest goes to the state to pay back the TANF. So, know what you are talking about before opening that piehole of yours.
Posted by: Melody

You assume too much - 05/05/07 06:33 PM

We weren't ALL left, ya know....some of us did the leaving!
Posted by: Melody

Again with the assumptions! - 05/05/07 06:34 PM

Where did you get that ANYONE here in this thread went out and had a one night stand at age 30?
Posted by: Melody

WTF? - 05/05/07 06:35 PM

Can you not read? You used the incorrect word "to" when you meant "too", as in more than necessary....

You have no business putting down other people on this board with your ridiculous assumptions and judgements! Go away before a house falls on you!
Posted by: Grace

Re: so you were thankful for your lousy $100 - 05/05/07 06:56 PM

Damn, I've missed a lot. . .

So, when your ex left you for something better than you and your child, how did he manage to make $125,000 while he was in school with no job?

I think it's good that you're independent and can take care of you and your kids with no help. Now when you get left again for something better, you can just say "no" to CS and do your part in not creating another deadbeat.
Posted by: BeckaLeigh

Re: That's "too" - 05/05/07 06:58 PM

Comprehension problems there, Joy? My first grader could help you out. Maybe Hooked On Phonics? How did you get someone drinking now had any relevance to when they got prenant? I dont think alcohol can help you concieve, you have to have human help there. Or didnt you know that? I am beginning to wonder how far you got in school.
Posted by: Melody

Well, we cover - 05/05/07 07:59 PM

the reproductive system in 7th grade life science. I won't begin that unit for another couple of weeks....maybe she was absent. Although the 4th graders just started their sex ex program last week. Maybe she only went up through 3rd!
Posted by: arvm

Re: Well, we cover - 05/05/07 09:18 PM

Hi, new here. Been browsing for weeks tho. I was one of those over 30 who knew better but got pg anyway. I actually missed sex ed in my school :).
Posted by: joym525

Re: Well, we cover - 05/05/07 09:20 PM

[quote]the reproductive system in 7th grade life science. I won't begin that unit for another couple of weeks....maybe she was absent. Although the 4th graders just started their sex ex program last week. Maybe she only went up through 3rd! [/quote]

They only teach kids through third grade ine the south. You mean there are more grades?
Posted by: joym525

Re: That's "too" - 05/05/07 09:21 PM

[quote]Comprehension problems there, Joy? My first grader could help you out. Maybe Hooked On Phonics? How did you get someone drinking now had any relevance to when they got prenant? I dont think alcohol can help you concieve, you have to have human help there. Or didnt you know that? I am beginning to wonder how far you got in school. [/quote]

Third grade...I'm from the South.
Posted by: joym525

Re: so you were thankful for your lousy $100 - 05/05/07 09:24 PM

[quote]Damn, I've missed a lot. . .

So, when your ex left you for something better than you and your child, how did he manage to make $125,000 while he was in school with no job?

I think it's good that you're independent and can take care of you and your kids with no help. Now when you get left again for something better, you can just say "no" to CS and do your part in not creating another deadbeat. [/quote]

He went to college until my DS was 4 years old. During that time he only had to pay the state minumum of $100 per month. He now does something with computers and is making $125,000. The kicker is, The state of Nevada maxed out at $500 per month no matter how much the absentg parent was making. So I had a court order for $500 per month but POS still never paid. That's where my wonderful DH steps up to the plate and adopts my DS. I would rather my son have a real father than $500 per month.
Posted by: joym525

Re: WTF? - 05/05/07 09:26 PM

[quote]Can you not read? You used the incorrect word "to" when you meant "too", as in more than necessary....

You have no business putting down other people on this board with your ridiculous assumptions and judgements! Go away before a house falls on you! [/quote]

Oops, my bad, should have went past the third grade, damn Alabama!
Posted by: joym525

Re: Coming from a troll... - 05/05/07 09:29 PM

[quote]That is bull hockey. My X got TANF when he had custody of our kids, even though I was paying support, and he still owes it back to this day. My friend who recieved TANF for a bit gets $50 out of her CS checks and the rest goes to the state to pay back the TANF. So, know what you are talking about before opening that piehole of yours. [/quote]

The state will only take money out of your child support if you are receiving TANF. They cannot make you pay the debt back if you are not receiving TANF. Your freind has received a overpayment for lying on her application or failing to tell the state she was employed while recieiving TANF. She lied to you...not a very good friend if you ask me.
Posted by: joym525

Re: You assume too much - 05/05/07 09:30 PM

[quote]We weren't ALL left, ya know....some of us did the leaving! [/quote]

If you left and ex isin't paying CS then you should DEFINATELY not be complaining.
Posted by: joym525

Re: so you were thankful for your lousy $100 - 05/05/07 09:32 PM

[quote]Found something better? How do you figure you can find anything better than your own KIDS? That was the most ignorant statement I have seen out of you yet, and you have done some whoppers. So, I made my ex a deadbeat to teh tune of $7200 because I cant accept he found something better? Hmmmm. I WISH. Deadbeats create themselves. They CHOOSE bot to pay, and alot of the time, disappear from the child(ren)'s lives. But, there are those deadbeats like mine who dont and wont ever willingly support the two children we created together, and then turns around and hollars about his rights. Maybe I should introduce you two, you would get along wonderfully. You made me absolutely sick with that one sentence. [/quote]

Actually I found someone better than the POS that did not want to be a father to my DS. Comprehension 101.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Ok, but - 05/05/07 09:37 PM

[quote]How does that differ from actually having a job? If you get a job, you wait your required time wo get a check, whether it be weekly or bi-weekly. [/quote]

But the difference is, the unemployed get a check the same day their TANF is approved, come October they will have to wait up to 2 months before getting a TANF check...so more and more people will not participate in the TANF program because they do not get immediate gratification. They will say, I don't want to work (which is the caes with 90% of all TANF cases) and they will NEVER see a dime of TANF money.
Posted by: arvm

Re: so you were thankful for your lousy $100 - 05/05/07 09:51 PM

I agree. I'd rather "lose" the cs and have my partner adopt my youngest child. The BF has never seen DS and we're coming up on 2 years now. The really sad thing is he fought me for visitation and custody. What was the point? Anyway, in my state they will only consider adoption if the couple are married. We're not. My partner wants to, but the thought of marriage makes me hyperventilate.
Posted by: joym525

Re: so you were thankful for your lousy $100 - 05/05/07 10:24 PM

[quote]I agree. I'd rather "lose" the cs and have my partner adopt my youngest child. The BF has never seen DS and we're coming up on 2 years now. The really sad thing is he fought me for visitation and custody. What was the point? Anyway, in my state they will only consider adoption if the couple are married. We're not. My partner wants to, but the thought of marriage makes me hyperventilate. [/quote]

I think it is a wise idea for you to wait until you are married before having a man adopt your child. Maybe ex will come around. My DS father called out of the blue when DS was 6 years old. But that was the only time.

Good luck. And feel lucky you have found a man to love your child for now anyways.

Best of luck to you!
Posted by: nrvouswrk

Re: Ok, but - 05/05/07 10:24 PM

But the difference is, the unemployed get a check the same day their TANF is approved, come October they will have to wait up to 2 months before getting a TANF check...so more and more people will not participate in the TANF program because they do not get immediate gratification. They will say, I don't want to work (which is the caes with 90% of all TANF cases) and they will NEVER see a dime of TANF money.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Joy, we went through this last night. It isn't the case. When someone applies for cash aid, they are evaluated for immediate need and that will continue. They are put on the work program and will continue to do so. As long as they are cooperating with the program requirements, they will get a check. They won't be waiting 2 months.

There was nothing in the regs that I posted to you last night to support what you are saying.

In regards to you telling another poster that her friend lied to her about the $50...again we went over that last night. If child support is being paid for children who are on aid, it is taken to offset the cash aid being paid out. The client doesn't receive any of that CS except a $50 disregard (cash payment) that is sent to her. That money is still counted as unearned income in her FS case.

You keep making all of these wild statements, yet refuse to site your sources. I asked you at least 4 times where you were getting your information from, and you have as yet to answer. As a result, your credibility is lessoned.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Ok, but - 05/05/07 10:32 PM

[quote] Joy, we went through this last night. It isn't the case. When someone applies for cash aid, they are evaluated for immediate need and that will continue. They are put on the work program and will continue to do so. As long as they are cooperating with the program requirements, they will get a check. They won't be waiting 2 months.

There was nothing in the regs that I posted to you last night to support what you are saying.

In regards to you telling another poster that her friend lied to her about the $50...again we went over that last night. If child support is being paid for children who are on aid, it is taken to offset the cash aid being paid out. The client doesn't receive any of that CS except a $50 disregard (cash payment) that is sent to her. That money is still counted as unearned income in her FS case.

You keep making all of these wild statements, yet refuse to site your sources. I asked you at least 4 times where you were getting your information from, and you have as yet to answer. As a result, your credibility is lessoned. [/quote]

The article you posted is 2 years old. There have been major changes to Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) since 2005. Clients will now have to work 40 hours a week for 2 months before recieving a TANF check. The reason you are not aware of the new laws is because , while you wokr with Social Services, you do not work in a TANF unit. And these changes take affect 1 October 2007. States get money from the Federal government for meeting participation rates (you should be familiar with this term since you work in social services). If California does not meet these participation rates...ie 50% one parent families and 90% 2 parent families must be working 40 hours week or they do not get a check.

like I said yesterday, call a TANF supervisor in your company on Monday and they will explain the chnages to you. Let me know what you find out.
Posted by: nrvouswrk

Re: Ok, but - 05/05/07 10:40 PM

Once again you failed to answer my question. Why is that?
Posted by: preemiemom

Re: Ok, but - 05/05/07 11:39 PM

I am amazed! This thread is still going? And she STILL hasn't answered that most simple of questions?

Typically, Joy, when one spews out "facts" at the rate you have been over the last 24 hours, at SOME point they pony up some actual CREDENTIALS to back up the information they supply.

You've been asked NUMEROUS times where you get your supposed info from, but you evidently have selective reading ability, either that or you're just incredibly rude (which wouldn't come as a surprise given your postings) and are ignoring the question entirely.

If it is the latter, anything you say regarding welfare, TANF or anything financial whatsoever through the government should be considered as coming out of your vivid imagination.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Ok, but - 05/05/07 11:45 PM

[quote]I am amazed! This thread is still going? [/quote]

LOL! I know. I couldn't believe it either. I did not realize I was that intruiging.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Ok, but - 05/05/07 11:54 PM

"welfare caseloads have fallen 75% since 1996; fewer than 65,000 families received assistance in May 2006, down from 275,050 ten years ago. Most experts agree that the declines were due to an improved economy, a “work first” approach that redirected the most employable TANF adults to low-wage jobs, and other policy changes that made it harder to enter and stay on TANF. "

"New requirements in the 2006 federal Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) may worsen these trends. The DRA raised effective “work participation” targets (the percentage of recipients meeting work requirements) for states without giving them significant new resources to fund child care or employment and training programs. The regulations recently issued to implement the law make it harder for states to design effective welfare-to-work programs and meet the higher participation targets. Together these changes create an incentive for states to serve fewer families, particularly those recipients who face the greatest barriers to employment and are therefore the hardest and most expensive to serve. "

www.cppp.org/files/3/pop%20TANF%20at%2010.pdf
Posted by: joym525

Re: Ok, but - 05/06/07 12:06 AM

"The DRA requires most states to increase the share of TANF recipients engaged in countable work activities such as community service or job training. However, the final interim regulations issued in June to implement the new law will make it harder for Texas to achieve the higher work participation targets. The rigidity of these new rules combined with a lack of additional resources gives states a clear incentive to reduce their caseloads even further."

"Since the enactment of TANF in 1996, states have always been required to engage 50% of all TANF families and 90% of two-parent families in work activities. Before the DRA passed, most states never had to meet the work participation requirements (as a result of the credit they received for reducing caseloads). Because welfare reform centered on reducing welfare caseloads, the original TANF law included a “caseload reduction credit” that states could use to lower their work participation targets. Texas had such huge caseload declines following welfare reform that the state effectively reduced its work participation rate targets to zero. The DRA recalibrated the base year for calculating this credit from 1995 to 2005. This means Texas will have a much smaller caseload reduction credit than it has had in the past; as a result, the state will now be required to meet the 50% and 90% rates. "

What does this mean - You (generic you) will not get a TANF check until you are working 40 hours week because the state will not meet their participation rate if they do.
Posted by: Rebecca5

Re: Ok, but - 05/06/07 12:18 AM

Unless your state is working on caseload reduction credit, unless you (gen.) meet some of the exclusions or if you participate in some of the programs that meet the "countable work activities."

And then....they're just redistributing the funds, because at a 40 hour work week, most people no longer qualify for TANF....so they'll pay all of your daycare instead, keep paying your medical and keep giving you food stamps. It's not like people are living high on the hog off TANF. What's the average? Around $200 a month?
Posted by: joym525

Re: Ok, but - 05/06/07 12:23 AM

[quote]Unless your state is working on caseload reduction credit, unless you (gen.) meet some of the exclusions or if you participate in some of the programs that meet the "countable work activities."

And then....they're just redistributing the funds, because at a 40 hour work week, most people no longer qualify for TANF....so they'll pay all of your daycare instead, keep paying your medical and keep giving you food stamps. It's not like people are living high on the hog off TANF. What's the average? Around $200 a month? [/quote]

Actually people on TANF continue to receive their grant for many months after starting their jobs. They get their income disregarded. The reason states do this is because they only want working individuals on the TANF program so they (the state) is meeting participation rates and continue to get their money from the federal government.
Posted by: Rebecca5

Re: Ok, but - 05/06/07 12:26 AM

That's a state-by-state choice, and not true in this state. The money is simply put towards other benefits for the family.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Ok, but - 05/06/07 12:30 AM

[quote]That's a state-by-state choice, and not true in this state. The money is simply put towards other benefits for the family. [/quote]

Right, so the point is TANF is going bye bye. In your state, in my state, in every state.
Posted by: Rebecca5

Re: Ok, but - 05/06/07 12:34 AM

I guess I don't see what the issue is, honestly. TANF accounts for a very small portion of assistance provided to families, and has a much lower threshold for qualification. People will get assistance....cash and/or non-cash. If we don't call it "TANF," we'll call it something else.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Ok, but - 05/06/07 12:35 AM

[quote]I guess I don't see what the issue is, honestly. TANF accounts for a very small portion of assistance provided to families, and has a much lower threshold for qualification. People will get assistance....cash and/or non-cash. If we don't call it "TANF," we'll call it something else. [/quote]

I agree. ;)
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Add to that... - 05/06/07 03:10 AM

WV calls it Work Force. Its like UE. You have to apply for X amount of jobs per week. They even provide testing and I THINK training. Dunno if they ever make you volunteer if you don't find something. If you're really and truly looking though, having you volunteer would seem to defeat the purpose. Cause then you'll NEVER be able to get back to work on your own. Unless they have you volunteer only part-time or something.

I also know you can register for Work Force and take the testing and stuff on your own. Hubby did that. He got access to their website to apply for jobs through them. You don't have to be on welfare to go through them to search for work. But you HAVE to go through them and search for work if you're on welfare.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Ok, but - 05/06/07 03:17 AM

Out of her vivid imagination huh? I thought it was coming out of something, but that wasn't the orafice I was thinking of.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Ok, but - 05/06/07 03:21 AM

>>>>>Actually people on TANF continue to receive their grant for many months after starting their jobs. They get their income disregarded. The reason states do this is because they only want working individuals on the TANF program so they (the state) is meeting participation rates and continue to get their money from the federal government.

Would you stop spewing your BS for ALLLLLLLLL states. Because that is NOT how WV does it. You must report your income the MOMENT your income status changes...go to work, get a raise, etc. Your stamps, cash, EVERYTHING changes immediately at the first of the month. IOW, what you've already received that month can't be taken back, but you will NOT get the same thing the following month. If you're now employed, you won't get a check AT ALL the next month.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Ok, but - 05/06/07 03:22 AM

No, the point is that you're still being ignorant and we're still having fun with you because you're such a [censored] ditz. Other than that, I don't think you have a clue what a point even is.
Posted by: almostheaven

Dislike?... - 05/06/07 03:23 AM

You mean that's all it is? ;)
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Add to that... - 05/06/07 03:24 AM

I'd say someone who gets pregnant by a man who doesn't want his kids so that he gives them to the stepdad for adoption isn't very smart.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Again with the assumptions! - 05/06/07 03:26 AM

I actually think MOST people on this board are products of divorce. Perhaps because it's DIVORCESource. If it was just CSISSUE, maybe people from all walks would be here. But since it's SPECIFICALLY for divorce, that's going to be the largest portion. But you know how some idiots love to ASSume.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Well you picked him - 05/06/07 03:27 AM

WOW! So you weren't even MARRIED to your baby's father? This is just getting better and better.
Posted by: almostheaven

"how far you got in school. " - 05/06/07 03:28 AM

Preschool?
Posted by: almostheaven

OMG! GREAT slip up... - 05/06/07 03:29 AM

"sex ex"? Is that a sex ed and divorce education combined course? LOL
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: WTF? - 05/06/07 03:31 AM

I've known people from Alabama. They're much much much WAAAAAAAAAY smarter than you. Please stop pretending to be from their state.
Posted by: almostheaven

You're still an idiot... - 05/06/07 03:35 AM

>>>>>The state will only take money out of your child support if you are receiving TANF. They cannot make you pay the debt back if you are not receiving TANF.

You may want to explain to WV why 5 years AFTER I received assistance, they siezed all of my ex's tax refund for back CS and KEPT it ALL. The following year, and the last year he filed taxes for over 10 more years, they again siezed his refund, and kept another $75 and sent me the rest. That satisfied the debt they were owed.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: so you were thankful for your lousy $100 - 05/06/07 03:36 AM

Then why were you a cranky BM creating a deadbeat in your son's father?
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: Add to that... - 05/06/07 03:36 AM

If you can't handle it give ex custudy.

----------------->or find someone to become pimp daddy and adopt your children.......
Posted by: almostheaven

He's not a POS, YOU ARE... - 05/06/07 03:38 AM

YOU created him because you could not accept that he found something better. So stop blaming it on him and put the blame where it belongs!
Posted by: almostheaven

That's right Melody... - 05/06/07 03:39 AM

If your ex was using you and your child as punching bags, beating the [censored] outta you, leaving you bruised and battered and strung up in the hospital, you should NEVER leave him and expect he support his child. Whatsa matter with you woman?!?!
Posted by: almostheaven

She'd have a field day with my ex... - 05/06/07 03:41 AM

Who wouldn't pay support because he didn't want his child unless *I* came with the package. He didn't find something "better". He didn't find anyone. He couldn't even move on and accept that I'd no longer allow him to hit me. He wanted his "property" back.
Posted by: almostheaven

ROFL!!!!!!! (eom) - 05/06/07 03:43 AM

.
Posted by: joym525

Re: That's right Melody... - 05/06/07 03:45 AM

[quote]If your ex was using you and your child as punching bags, beating the [censored] outta you, leaving you bruised and battered and strung up in the hospital, you should NEVER leave him and expect he support his child. Whatsa matter with you woman?!?! [/quote]

If this is the case BM should get bio father out of child's life. He is a threat to child. Do not pursue Child Support because he will think he will have a right to the child since he pays for the child and then he will beat him.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Add to that... - 05/06/07 03:45 AM

[quote]If you can't handle it give ex custudy.

----------------->or find someone to become pimp daddy and adopt your children....... [/quote]

Or that would work too.
Posted by: joym525

Re: She'd have a field day with my ex... - 05/06/07 03:46 AM

[quote]Who wouldn't pay support because he didn't want his child unless *I* came with the package. He didn't find something "better". He didn't find anyone. He couldn't even move on and accept that I'd no longer allow him to hit me. He wanted his "property" back. [/quote]

Yeahhhhh...riiiiggghht.
Posted by: joym525

Re: WTF? - 05/06/07 03:47 AM

[quote]I've known people from Alabama. They're much much much WAAAAAAAAAY smarter than you. Please stop pretending to be from their state. [/quote]

You found me out...I didn't want to admit it...I'm from Tennesee
Posted by: almostheaven

"Comprehension 101" - 05/06/07 03:48 AM

I told you never to bring a knife to a gunfight. You'll lose every time.

joym525
Re: so you were thankful for your lousy $100
05/05/07 01:20 PM

Actually what creates deadbeats are cranky BMs who can't accept their husbands have found something better.

BeckaLeigh
Re: so you were thankful for your lousy $100
05/05/07 02:42 PM

Found something better? How do you figure you can find anything better than your own KIDS?

joym525
Re: so you were thankful for your lousy $100
05/05/07 06:32 PM

Actually I found someone better than the POS that did not want to be a father to my DS.

***************************************************************

If you're going to spout off about comprehension, you must first learn what it means.

1 a : the act or action of grasping with the intellect : UNDERSTANDING

You failed this class.
Posted by: preemiemom

Re: He's not a POS, YOU ARE... - 05/06/07 03:48 AM

I love the reference to her DH "stepping up to the plate" and adopting her son.... but I've yet to see her mention a) how much the actual father was paying in child support once the $500 a month was ordered and b) how much he was seeing the child at various points.

Personally? I call the whole tale as BS. First off, with a bachelor's degree, even in computers, there's NO WAY, you're graduating and making $125K. Sorry, not happening. I've been an IT professional for 12 years, management level for about 4, and I can only get about that IF and only IF, I am willing to work IN MANHATTAN. And that is still a tough sell. Now, that's in TODAY'S dollars. She says that was until her son was 4 he was in school? So that would be 9 (???) years ago. Even a recent college grad at that point wouldn't get that money... that was just before Y2K and the dollars were going to highly seasoned/experienced programmers specialing in applications like AS400's and other such applications that were KNOWN to have the Y2K bug. BUT, you'd have to have a LOT of experience to go with that college degree and degrees in computers do not teach specific LANGUAGES. That said, the going rate, 8 years ago, for a Big 5 consultant (like Coopers, Anderson, KPMG) with 1 year experience would be about $75-85K, and that's in the Boston market.. maybe up to $95K in the New York area. I know, I was one. My starting salary in 1998 with a Big 5 [censored] was $68K, with 2 years of MASSIVE scale Oracle implementation under my belt, and another 6 years of manufacturing business process and ISO9001/Six Sigma background.

She's full of crap. Just as her knowledge of the social services system is obviously bogus from other posters who actually work IN the system... her spewing out of proposed IT salaries for recent college grads is just ridiculous.

Lastly, have you heard of a state that caps child support????????? At $125K, he should have been paying ALOT more than $500 a month, no? My stbx pays $616 base on a salary of less than a third of that...
Posted by: joym525

Re: He's not a POS, YOU ARE... - 05/06/07 03:49 AM

[quote]YOU created him because you could not accept that he found something better. So stop blaming it on him and put the blame where it belongs! [/quote]

True true...but I have someone 100X better now. Meow.
Posted by: almostheaven

And realizing your comprehension problems... - 05/06/07 03:50 AM

Let me explain in 3rd grade English, since you didn't get past that.

You stated the DEADBEATS (NCPS, husbands) found something better. That the CPs couldn't get over that.

When questioned about what was better than the DEADBEAT'S (NCP'S, husband's) KIDS, you replied....

"*I* found someone better" and thought you were being smart by trying to confuse the issue. But you simply showed your ignorance yet again.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Add to that... - 05/06/07 03:52 AM

It would also have worked to have taken care of your OWN damn child and not drug someone else in to handle what you couldn't. DAMN! I mean, having a kid OUT OF WEDLOCK, at 19, then marrying someone else at 21!!! Did you EVER go it alone? COULD you? You don't even know what its like to bust your ass to take care of your own child alone. You've NEVER had to do it!
Posted by: preemiemom

Re: He's not a POS, YOU ARE... - 05/06/07 03:52 AM

[quote][quote]YOU created him because you could not accept that he found something better. So stop blaming it on him and put the blame where it belongs! [/quote]

True true...but I have someone 100X better now. Meow. [/quote]

Certainly, someone who wants YOU to make your son's father give up HIS rights to HIS child is a MUCH better person.

Sounds like an [email protected]@ to me. I'm sure he would just LOVE when/if he ever leaves you that you're off finding man #3 to replace HIM as a father to BOTH now HIS children?

BTW, is it Tennessee or is it Nevada?
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: WTF? - 05/06/07 03:53 AM

You might wanna pin it on KY. Living next door, I can assure you that some of THEM would be on par with your 3rd grade non-knowledge. But the folks in TN are also way smarter.
Posted by: almostheaven

Doesn't change the fact... - 05/06/07 03:55 AM

That YOU are the one to blame for him not being good enough. YOU are the one who couldn't accept him as he was and CAUSED him to be a deadbeat. YOU and YOU alone did that.
Posted by: preemiemom

Mind you AH - 05/06/07 03:57 AM

She's on the Stepfamily Issues board supporting Alex Baldwin on a thread of PAS and how HE is the victim in that scenario and SHE should spent 90 days in jail so that HE can spend uninterrupted time with his daughter without interference from horrible, terrible Kim...

I damn near joked on the jelly bean I was eating when I read THAT. This from the same wench who totally ELIMINATED, never mind PAS, HER son's father from his life ENTIRELY...
Posted by: almostheaven

"I call the whole tale as BS. " - 05/06/07 03:57 AM

Now I HOPE you didn't JUST come to that conclusion woman. I knew BS from the moment she started in on this thread. She was living, breathing, walking, talking BS from minute one.

But yeah, some states DO cap CS. But NOT at $500/mo. I think the only caps I know of are in the thousands range, like over $4000/mo. Its designed for people like Bill Gates and not the average citizen.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Mind you AH - 05/06/07 03:59 AM

::sigh:: Would that I knew ANYTHING at all about Alex Baldwin or his issues. I haven't sat down to watch the news since last year. Too much going on here for too long.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: That's right Melody... - 05/06/07 04:00 AM

You're assuming the courts would allow him anywhere near the child just because they tell him to pay CS. Another assumption you'd be wrong about.
Posted by: preemiemom

Re: "I call the whole tale as BS. " - 05/06/07 04:00 AM

Oh no, I figured it out from the discussion last night and was going to call out the discrepancies that were irritating me then, but I got too tired, lol....

Has anyone yet figured out WHY if she's a happily married person she's even HERE at all??????? Or did I miss something with the husband?
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: She'd have a field day with my ex... - 05/06/07 04:01 AM

Yeah right all ya want hon. Maybe if I'm feeling chipper enough to do it again, I could look for the copy of the letter from him I once scanned in to post on a board to an idioit just like you. Her response after reading it was to run far and fast because he was a lunatic.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: "I call the whole tale as BS. " - 05/06/07 04:03 AM

Yeah, you missed the fact that he's sitting right beside her watching wrestling.

IE: I made up this wonderful husband, likely made up my child, and doubtful that I even HAVE an ex. I state I didn't get past 3rd grade because....hey! I'm STILL there. Wake up folks! I'm a 3rd grader playing on mom and dad's computer while they're not watching and making up stories to see if I can fool anyone because this is what outcast children do when we don't have REAL friends to play with.

At least...that's MY interpretation of events as I see them. ;)
Posted by: preemiemom

Re: "I call the whole tale as BS. " - 05/06/07 04:07 AM

Lol... I did catch the wrestling comment last night. Welll... if she is "real", and this is all she came up with for entertainment with her husband sitting right next to her.... well, that's just sad...

And what kind of dufus is HE that he'd have his wife trolling a DIVORCE board... poor sap that adopted someone else's kid.... while he sits there and watches her?

The least the guy could get is a little "action", ya know what I mean? I mean jeesh, 2 nights in a row til midnight (well, my time) arguing with US... If I were him, I'd get my money back... I wonder how long the warranty period is on a mail order bride?
Posted by: preemiemom

Re: Add to that... - 05/06/07 04:08 AM

[quote][quote]If you can't handle it give ex custudy.

----------------->or find someone to become pimp daddy and adopt your children....... [/quote]

Or that would work too. [/quote]


YES, evidently YOU would know wouldn't you?
Posted by: joym525

Re: He's not a POS, YOU ARE... - 05/06/07 04:13 AM

[quote]I love the reference to her DH "stepping up to the plate" and adopting her son.... but I've yet to see her mention a) how much the actual father was paying in child support once the $500 a month was ordered and b) how much he was seeing the child at various points.

Personally? I call the whole tale as BS. First off, with a bachelor's degree, even in computers, there's NO WAY, you're graduating and making $125K. Sorry, not happening. I've been an IT professional for 12 years, management level for about 4, and I can only get about that IF and only IF, I am willing to work IN MANHATTAN. And that is still a tough sell. Now, that's in TODAY'S dollars. She says that was until her son was 4 he was in school? So that would be 9 (???) years ago. Even a recent college grad at that point wouldn't get that money... that was just before Y2K and the dollars were going to highly seasoned/experienced programmers specialing in applications like AS400's and other such applications that were KNOWN to have the Y2K bug. BUT, you'd have to have a LOT of experience to go with that college degree and degrees in computers do not teach specific LANGUAGES. That said, the going rate, 8 years ago, for a Big 5 consultant (like Coopers, Anderson, KPMG) with 1 year experience would be about $75-85K, and that's in the Boston market.. maybe up to $95K in the New York area. I know, I was one. My starting salary in 1998 with a Big 5 [censored] was $68K, with 2 years of MASSIVE scale Oracle implementation under my belt, and another 6 years of manufacturing business process and ISO9001/Six Sigma background.

She's full of crap. Just as her knowledge of the social services system is obviously bogus from other posters who actually work IN the system... her spewing out of proposed IT salaries for recent college grads is just ridiculous.

Lastly, have you heard of a state that caps child support????????? At $125K, he should have been paying ALOT more than $500 a month, no? My stbx pays $616 base on a salary of less than a third of that... [/quote]

"If a parent’s gross monthly income is equal to or greater than $14,583, the presumptive maximum amount the parent may be required to pay pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection 1 is $800."

source: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-125B.html

"Nevada’s percentages are significantly lower than Georgia’s and have an upward limit of Five Hundred Dollars ($500) per child"

source: http://www.economic-indicators.com/GABarJourAkins.htm

"as i read the law, CS for one child in Nevada is 18% of gross monthly income up to certain "presumptive maximum amounts," which increase with your income. if your gross monthly income is less than $4168, then the presumptive maximum amount is $500, if your gross monthly income is between $4,168 and $6251, then the presumptive maximum amount is $550, etc., etc."

here is a link:
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-125B.html

i would do the calculations like this:

say your gross monthly income is $3000. 18% of $3000 is $540. $540 exceeds the maximum amount of $500 for your income, so the monthly CS award would only be $500.

source: http://www1.divorcenet.com/bbs/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=155176&page=1&PHPSESSID=4"

Nevada is one of few states that have "presumptive"limits on child support. Back on 2000 the limit was $500 p;er month. Thank God it has increased over the years to above $900.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Add to that... - 05/06/07 04:14 AM

[quote][quote][quote]If you can't handle it give ex custudy.

----------------->or find someone to become pimp daddy and adopt your children....... [/quote]

Or that would work too. [/quote]


YES, evidently YOU would know wouldn't you? [/quote]

Yes, God blessed me with a wonderful man who loves my son as his own.
Posted by: joym525

Re: "I call the whole tale as BS. " - 05/06/07 04:16 AM

[quote]Lol... I did catch the wrestling comment last night. Welll... if she is "real", and this is all she came up with for entertainment with her husband sitting right next to her.... well, that's just sad...

And what kind of dufus is HE that he'd have his wife trolling a DIVORCE board... poor sap that adopted someone else's kid.... while he sits there and watches her?

The least the guy could get is a little "action", ya know what I mean? I mean jeesh, 2 nights in a row til midnight (well, my time) arguing with US... If I were him, I'd get my money back... I wonder how long the warranty period is on a mail order bride? [/quote]

Yeah...it's funny what 13 years of marriage will do to a couple. Jusr call us a couple of old geezers.
Posted by: joym525

Re: "I call the whole tale as BS. " - 05/06/07 04:18 AM

[quote]Yeah, you missed the fact that he's sitting right beside her watching wrestling.

IE: I made up this wonderful husband, likely made up my child, and doubtful that I even HAVE an ex. I state I didn't get past 3rd grade because....hey! I'm STILL there. Wake up folks! I'm a 3rd grader playing on mom and dad's computer while they're not watching and making up stories to see if I can fool anyone because this is what outcast children do when we don't have REAL friends to play with.

At least...that's MY interpretation of events as I see them. ;) [/quote]

Shhh...don't tell the board management, they will kick me of if they know I am not yet 18 years old.
Posted by: preemiemom

Re: "I call the whole tale as BS. " - 05/06/07 04:18 AM

WHYYYYYY AREEEEEE YOUUUUUUU HEREEEEEEE??????????

If you're just so gosh darn freakin' frackin' HAPPY and everything is just PEACHY, WHY ARE YOU ON A DIVORCE SUPPORT/ADVICE WEBSITE????

Do you really have NO other interests in life than to chat with divorced people when you're NOT divorced and supposedly have no intention of divorcing???
Posted by: joym525

Re: She'd have a field day with my ex... - 05/06/07 04:19 AM

[quote]Yeah right all ya want hon. Maybe if I'm feeling chipper enough to do it again, I could look for the copy of the letter from him I once scanned in to post on a board to an idioit just like you. Her response after reading it was to run far and fast because he was a lunatic. [/quote]

Ok...thanks for taking the time to do that for me.
Posted by: joym525

Re: "I call the whole tale as BS. " - 05/06/07 04:21 AM

[quote]WHYYYYYY AREEEEEE YOUUUUUUU HEREEEEEEE??????????

If you're just so gosh darn freakin' frackin' HAPPY and everything is just PEACHY, WHY ARE YOU ON A DIVORCE SUPPORT/ADVICE WEBSITE????

Do you really have NO other interests in life than to chat with divorced people when you're NOT divorced and supposedly have no intention of divorcing??? [/quote]

I am here for the stepfamily forum.
Posted by: joym525

Re: "I call the whole tale as BS. " - 05/06/07 04:23 AM

[quote]Oh no, I figured it out from the discussion last night and was going to call out the discrepancies that were irritating me then, but I got too tired, lol....

Has anyone yet figured out WHY if she's a happily married person she's even HERE at all??????? Or did I miss something with the husband? [/quote]

MY DH pays CS.
Posted by: preemiemom

Re: He's not a POS, YOU ARE... BTW... - 05/06/07 04:23 AM

... I can't imagine your calculations are correct. In the $500 limitation category, the income would be $50,000 per year, NOT $125,000.

Using that math applied to that amount of salary, the presumptive limit per child would be about $250 a month. I think you're misreading the information somehow.

The child support calculation of 18% on $125,000 of income would be $1,875. I highly doubt the state of Nevada would think it behoove a child to get almost 1/4th the child support to which the child SHOULD be entitled.

And besides, presumably at the point at which this calculation would have come into play, wasn't your child ALREADY ADOPTED by your husband????
Posted by: joym525

Re: He's not a POS, YOU ARE... BTW... - 05/06/07 04:26 AM

[quote]... I can't imagine your calculations are correct. In the $500 limitation category, the income would be $50,000 per year, NOT $125,000.

Using that math applied to that amount of salary, the presumptive limit per child would be about $250 a month. I think you're misreading the information somehow.

The child support calculation of 18% on $125,000 of income would be $1,875. I highly doubt the state of Nevada would think it behoove a child to get almost 1/4th the child support to which the child SHOULD be entitled.

And besides, presumably at the point at which this calculation would have come into play, wasn't your child ALREADY ADOPTED by your husband???? [/quote]

I know. I could not beleive it when the CSEP Office told me that

a) absent father os earning $125,000 and

b) The maximum child support in Nevada is $500.

But like I said that was in 2000. It has increased over $400 per month.
Posted by: preemiemom

Re: "I call the whole tale as BS. " - 05/06/07 04:26 AM

[quote][quote]Oh no, I figured it out from the discussion last night and was going to call out the discrepancies that were irritating me then, but I got too tired, lol....

Has anyone yet figured out WHY if she's a happily married person she's even HERE at all??????? Or did I miss something with the husband? [/quote]

MY DH pays CS. [/quote]

----------> Hold on.. wait... Sooo, not only are YOU such a POS that you'd take away your son's father's rights.. but your husband is such a POS that as a non-custodial parent himself, he was willing to deprive ANOTHER MAN of HIS rights to his child?

WOOWWWWWWWWWW!!! As a girlfriend of mine would say "help me understand" why that is not THE most hypocritical thing imaginable?

How would your husband like it if his ex-whatever/baby mamma found HERSELF another pimp daddy who decided HE wanted to be a father to your husband's child???

Again... WOWWWWWWWWW
Posted by: joym525

Re: "I call the whole tale as BS. " - 05/06/07 04:28 AM

[quote]Now I HOPE you didn't JUST come to that conclusion woman. I knew BS from the moment she started in on this thread. She was living, breathing, walking, talking BS from minute one.

But yeah, some states DO cap CS. But NOT at $500/mo. I think the only caps I know of are in the thousands range, like over $4000/mo. Its designed for people like Bill Gates and not the average citizen. [/quote]

Actualy there are only 3 states that have presumptive child support..Nevada being one of them...the cap is now at over $900 pedr month no matter what NCP makes...but back in 2000 it was $500. I could not believe it!
Posted by: joym525

Re: "I call the whole tale as BS. " - 05/06/07 04:31 AM

[quote][quote][quote]Oh no, I figured it out from the discussion last night and was going to call out the discrepancies that were irritating me then, but I got too tired, lol....

Has anyone yet figured out WHY if she's a happily married person she's even HERE at all??????? Or did I miss something with the husband? [/quote]

MY DH pays CS. [/quote]

----------> Hold on.. wait... Sooo, not only are YOU such a POS that you'd take away your son's father's rights.. but your husband is such a POS that as a non-custodial parent himself, he was willing to deprive ANOTHER MAN of HIS rights to his child?

WOOWWWWWWWWWW!!! As a girlfriend of mine would say "help me understand" why that is not THE most hypocritical thing imaginable?

How would your husband like it if his ex-whatever/baby mamma found HERSELF another pimp daddy who decided HE wanted to be a father to your husband's child???

Again... WOWWWWWWWWW [/quote]

My DH has been paying CS for 13 years (SD is 16 years old). DH would NEVER give up SD for adoption. He loves her TOOOOOO much. I guess that's why I love him so darn much.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Mind you AH - 05/06/07 04:33 AM

[quote]She's on the Stepfamily Issues board supporting Alex Baldwin on a thread of PAS and how HE is the victim in that scenario and SHE should spent 90 days in jail so that HE can spend uninterrupted time with his daughter without interference from horrible, terrible Kim...

I damn near joked on the jelly bean I was eating when I read THAT. This from the same wench who totally ELIMINATED, never mind PAS, HER son's father from his life ENTIRELY... [/quote]

My point is that Kim should not be able to get away with not giving Alec his court ordered visitation. Poor guy.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Doesn't change the fact... - 05/06/07 04:35 AM

[quote]That YOU are the one to blame for him not being good enough. YOU are the one who couldn't accept him as he was and CAUSED him to be a deadbeat. YOU and YOU alone did that. [/quote]

Wow I did not know I had that much power.
Posted by: preemiemom

Re: "I call the whole tale as BS. " - 05/06/07 04:36 AM

[quote][quote]Now I HOPE you didn't JUST come to that conclusion woman. I knew BS from the moment she started in on this thread. She was living, breathing, walking, talking BS from minute one.

But yeah, some states DO cap CS. But NOT at $500/mo. I think the only caps I know of are in the thousands range, like over $4000/mo. Its designed for people like Bill Gates and not the average citizen. [/quote]

Actualy there are only 3 states that have presumptive child support..Nevada being one of them...the cap is now at over $900 pedr month no matter what NCP makes...but back in 2000 it was $500. I could not believe it! [/quote]

Actually, you are completely wrong.
The presumptive maximum is $800, for income levels above $14,583 per month. Said change was instituted in 2001 statues, which, BTW, also appears to be when they institued presumptive maximums to the child support code AT ALL.

Prior to that, the $500 maximum to which you are referring? Is a $500 ADDITIONAL maximum for those paying child support for EACH ADDITIONAL CHILD OVER FIVE CHILDREN (when you add the additional 2% for each additional child on top of the 31% for FOUR children, said 2% per child increase cannot exceed $500 per month).

All of these changes were made 2001, not 2000.

I'm providing the link to the redlined version of the state statute for the State of Nevada relative to child support:

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Statutes/71st/Stats200113.html#Stats200113page1865

If you read it, the RED items are those that are stricken, the BLUE items are those that are ADDED.

If you're going to spout your state's child support law, you should be able to interpret the legal language IN the code.
Posted by: joym525

Re: WTF? - 05/06/07 04:36 AM

[quote]You might wanna pin it on KY. Living next door, I can assure you that some of THEM would be on par with your 3rd grade non-knowledge. But the folks in TN are also way smarter. [/quote]

I always get Tennesse and Kentucky mixed up. My bad.
Posted by: preemiemom

Re: Mind you AH - 05/06/07 04:37 AM

[quote][quote]She's on the Stepfamily Issues board supporting Alex Baldwin on a thread of PAS and how HE is the victim in that scenario and SHE should spent 90 days in jail so that HE can spend uninterrupted time with his daughter without interference from horrible, terrible Kim...

I damn near joked on the jelly bean I was eating when I read THAT. This from the same wench who totally ELIMINATED, never mind PAS, HER son's father from his life ENTIRELY... [/quote]

My point is that Kim should not be able to get away with not giving Alec his court ordered visitation. Poor guy. [/quote]

And he shouldn't be able to verbally abuse his child. Your point?

heck, why doesn't Kim just get another husband to support the kid and then Alec won't have to worry about it anymore.
Posted by: joym525

Re: "I call the whole tale as BS. " - 05/06/07 04:41 AM

[quote]
Actually, you are completely wrong.
The presumptive maximum is $800, for income levels above $14,583 per month. Said change was instituted in 2001 statues, which, BTW, also appears to be when they institued presumptive maximums to the child support code AT ALL.

Prior to that, the $500 maximum to which you are referring? Is a $500 ADDITIONAL maximum for those paying child support for EACH ADDITIONAL CHILD OVER FIVE CHILDREN (when you add the additional 2% for each additional child on top of the 31% for FOUR children, said 2% per child increase cannot exceed $500 per month).

All of these changes were made 2001, not 2000.

I'm providing the link to the redlined version of the state statute for the State of Nevada relative to child support:

If you're going to spout your state's child support law, you should be able to interpret the legal language IN the code. [/quote]

Looks like you are the one that cannot read...this is a direct quote from your link that you provided:

(3) For three children, 29 percent;
(4) For four children, 31 percent; and
(5) For each additional child, an additional 2 percent,
of a parent’s gross monthly income, but not more than [$500] the presumptive maximum amount per month per child set forth for the parent in subsection 2 for an obligation for support determined pursuant to subparagraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, unless the court sets forth findings of fact as to the basis for a different amount pursuant to subsection 6 of NRS 125B.080.

This would be on page 1866

Thanks for providing that link...this is the one I was looking for.,
Posted by: joym525

Re: "I call the whole tale as BS. " - 05/06/07 04:42 AM

There was a presumptive maximum amount of $500 per month per child
Posted by: joym525

Re: Mind you AH - 05/06/07 04:44 AM

[quote] And he shouldn't be able to verbally abuse his child. Your point?

heck, why doesn't Kim just get another husband to support the kid and then Alec won't have to worry about it anymore. [/quote]

I agree with you 100%. What Alec said to his daughter is uncalled for..bbbuuuttt...Kim needs to be jailed for not allowing visitation.
Posted by: preemiemom

Re: "I call the whole tale as BS. " - 05/06/07 04:44 AM

Whatever. I'll let someone else debate the issue with you. I provided the information, I explained how it reads and what it means.. if you still choose to misinterpret it, it's your problem. Shouldn't matter to YOU anyway... you're not getting child support anyway.. Unless you're looking to minimize child support your husband to the child he doesn't have custody of. And in which case, his max would be $800, not the $900 you stated.
Posted by: almostheaven

You couldn't believe it for good reason... - 05/06/07 04:49 AM

Because it wasn't true and they never told you that.
Posted by: preemiemom

Re: Mind you AH - 05/06/07 04:49 AM

[quote][quote] And he shouldn't be able to verbally abuse his child. Your point?

heck, why doesn't Kim just get another husband to support the kid and then Alec won't have to worry about it anymore. [/quote]

I agree with you 100%. What Alec said to his daughter is uncalled for..bbbuuuttt...Kim needs to be jailed for not allowing visitation. [/quote]

Mmhmm.. whatever. Do you think this guy was just a nice easy-going guy without a mean nasty bone in his body before this phone call?

There was an article in People or something a few months back about what a tyrant he is on the set of 60 Rock. Miserable. He's an abusive man. He was abusive to Kim during their separation/divorce (physically abusive.. I live on Long Island, near the Hamptons, I remember the newspaper articles and picture of her face).

If his daughter doesn't WANT to have interaction with him, I think it's wrong to FORCE her to. That's one point on which I disagree with most everyone on this board. If a child doesn't want to have interaction.. like if they've reached an age where they can understand visitation/divorce etc (which Ireland is), and they don't want to be with one parent or the other, why should the court force them? Particularly if the parent's own actions have CAUSED that lack of desire?

So she can hate her father for whatever reason and then she can hate her mother too for making her go? That's nice... so the kid doesn't feel safe/respected with EITHER parent.

IMHO, I think it is VERY likely that his own behavior has caused the alienation of his daughter and not Kim's. I venture to guess a lot of her behavior is protecting her daughter from the brute HE is.
Posted by: almostheaven

God blessed freaking IDIOT! - 05/06/07 04:52 AM

That is EXACTLY what she told you it said. Sheesh!

"(4) For four children, 31 percent; and
(5) For each additional child"

IOW for FIVE or MORE, the presumptive maximum is $500 for those additional ones over the first five!

And she said: "Prior to that, the $500 maximum to which you are referring? Is a $500 ADDITIONAL maximum for those paying child support for EACH ADDITIONAL CHILD OVER FIVE CHILDREN"

DO'H!
Posted by: almostheaven

EXACTLY!... - 05/06/07 04:53 AM

She's not getting support. HELL! She doesn't even HAVE a support case. So what the blue blazes is this troll doing here? Besides trolling?
Posted by: almostheaven

PER ADD'TL CHILD AFTER THE FIFTH MORON! (eom) - 05/06/07 04:54 AM

.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: She'd have a field day with my ex... - 05/06/07 04:55 AM

You're welcome, but don't hold your breath. I'm not feeling particularly chipper right now.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: "I call the whole tale as BS. " - 05/06/07 04:56 AM

They don't even kick out kids under 5. You should know.
Posted by: almostheaven

Old?... - 05/06/07 04:57 AM

Married at 21, 13 years...34 yo. You're still just an infant in my book hon.
Posted by: almostheaven

Guess what... - 05/06/07 04:57 AM

THIS AIN'T IT!
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: "I call the whole tale as BS. " - 05/06/07 04:58 AM

Then you lied below when you said you were here for the stepfamily forum?
Posted by: almostheaven

This gets better and better... - 05/06/07 04:59 AM

Not only is she a 19 yo out of wedlock mother who marries another guy within 2 years, but she marries this guy who is JUST getting ordered to pay CS himself. Were they both on the rebound or what?
Posted by: almostheaven

ROFL!... - 05/06/07 05:01 AM

CPS would have a field day with this idiot. She wants to jail the person KEEPING the child from being abused. Can you say moooooooooooron?
Posted by: almostheaven

Yes you did... - 05/06/07 05:02 AM

Because YOU are the one who stated it. YOU are the one who said it was the BM who CREATED the deadbeats. YOU are the BM. Therefore YOU created your deadbeat. You caused it. You're to blame. Per your own stupid words.
Posted by: joym525

Re: ROFL!... - 05/06/07 05:04 AM

[quote]CPS would have a field day with this idiot. She wants to jail the person KEEPING the child from being abused. Can you say moooooooooooron? [/quote]

Kim should be jailed...just as all BMs that keep their kids from their fathers should be. I have never heard of Alec being physically abusive.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: ROFL!... - 05/06/07 05:04 AM

You just did. That you chose to ignore it is your own stupidity.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Yes you did... - 05/06/07 05:05 AM

[quote]Because YOU are the one who stated it. YOU are the one who said it was the BM who CREATED the deadbeats. YOU are the BM. Therefore YOU created your deadbeat. You caused it. You're to blame. Per your own stupid words. [/quote]

I did not know I had so much power.
Posted by: joym525

Re: This gets better and better... - 05/06/07 05:06 AM

[quote]Not only is she a 19 yo out of wedlock mother who marries another guy within 2 years, but she marries this guy who is JUST getting ordered to pay CS himself. Were they both on the rebound or what? [/quote]

Yes, we were, but thanks to God, it has lasted for an incredible 13 years. It's not like I have been married four times or something like that.
Posted by: joym525

Re: "I call the whole tale as BS. " - 05/06/07 05:07 AM

[quote]Then you lied below when you said you were here for the stepfamily forum? [/quote]

I am here for the stepfamily board. I am a smom.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Old?... - 05/06/07 05:08 AM

[quote]Married at 21, 13 years...34 yo. You're still just an infant in my book hon. [/quote]

Thank you.
Posted by: joym525

Re: EXACTLY!... - 05/06/07 05:10 AM

[quote]She's not getting support. HELL! She doesn't even HAVE a support case. So what the blue blazes is this troll doing here? Besides trolling? [/quote]

My Dh pays child support.
Posted by: joym525

Re: God blessed freaking IDIOT! - 05/06/07 05:13 AM

[quote]That is EXACTLY what she told you it said. Sheesh!

"(4) For four children, 31 percent; and
(5) For each additional child"

IOW for FIVE or MORE, the presumptive maximum is $500 for those additional ones over the first five!

And she said: "Prior to that, the $500 maximum to which you are referring? Is a $500 ADDITIONAL maximum for those paying child support for EACH ADDITIONAL CHILD OVER FIVE CHILDREN"

DO'H! [/quote]

Actually this is the direct quote from the website she provided:

"but not more than [$500] the presumptive maximum amount per month per child set forth"

In other words...$500 max child support per month per child...I only had one child therefore the moved I could get was $500 no matter how much father made.
Posted by: joym525

Re: "I call the whole tale as BS. " - 05/06/07 05:15 AM

[quote]Whatever. I'll let someone else debate the issue with you. I provided the information, I explained how it reads and what it means.. if you still choose to misinterpret it, it's your problem. Shouldn't matter to YOU anyway... you're not getting child support anyway.. Unless you're looking to minimize child support your husband to the child he doesn't have custody of. And in which case, his max would be $800, not the $900 you stated. [/quote]

Correct, that is the presumptive max now...but back in 2000 it was $500 per child per month per the link you provided.
Posted by: Grace

Re: "I call the whole tale as BS. " - 05/06/07 05:46 AM

It's obvious this thread has gone on long enough, but I had to say. . . heeeyyyyyy, not all of us here in KY are wandering around the barnyard scratching our ass.

To the best of my knowledge, half-witted people are allowed to breed in all states.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a chicken to pluck.
Posted by: Melody

I wasn't complaing, Bozo - 05/06/07 07:40 AM

and regardless of who leaves....someone has to pay support.
Posted by: Melody

Intriguing wasn't the word I would use - 05/06/07 07:42 AM

to describe you.
Posted by: Melody

I agree with you preemiemom - 05/06/07 07:49 AM

I got my MIS degree 5 years ago and when my ex took me for a reduction, he felt I should be earning over $100K right out of school. His lawyer insisted on one of those expensive employment specialists to evaluate my education and skills to determine exactly what I would be capable of earning upon graduation...and the funny thing was...with the dot com bust, there were waaaaayyyy too many IT and MIS professionals with YEARS of experience out there ready and available. The best a new recruit like myself could hope for right out of school was just about the same as what my first year teaching job offered....and it wasn't anywhere NEAR $100K or even $125K...and this is California!
Posted by: Melody

[email protected] Grace! - 05/06/07 07:56 AM

I was wondering when someone from the South was going to get a little bit insulted at Joy's lovely characterization! Are you barefoot too, Grace? hehe
Posted by: mommy2boys

Re: so you were thankful for your lousy $100 - 05/06/07 08:04 AM

Wrong,jealous GF is what caused a deadbeat.Greed on the X and his GF's part created a deadbeat. From the time we seperated until his GF moved in CS was paid, once the GF moved in CS stopped, as well as all communication, phone number changed and he isn't allowed to give it out because it is in GF's name. X's claims he can't support himself, GF and her kid from another man, if he pays his CS, they live rent free. The GF works and he receives about $2600 in disabilty every month. So now the genius and his GF had a baby together a few months ago, if you can't support the 3 you already have why have another one.

Do I think his GF is better than me, NOT! If she was she wouldn't have been living at her parents house with 1st kid since the child was born, whose father (her HUSBAND) is in prison for drugs, had her daughter removed from her care by CPS because she was on drugs and arrested for writing her own prescriptions for Vicodan, forced into rehab by the courts to get her child back. I have absolutely nothing to be jealous of, sorry!
Posted by: Grace

Re: [email protected] Grace! - 05/06/07 09:33 AM

LOL. . . yeah, us hayseeds just can't catch a break.
Posted by: preemiemom

Re: God blessed freaking IDIOT! - 05/06/07 11:49 AM

Yeah, totally frustrated arguing the calculation with her. She keeps copying and pasting a little paragraph as a separate expression/thought, when it isn't intended to be, it's intended to be part of the SCHEDULE of payments above it.

And she keeps MISSING the fact that the "presumptive maximum" phrase wasn't even PART of the child support language prior to 2001, hence why the phrasing is in BLUE, as an addition.

She's obviously a complete and utter freaking idiot. I wouldn't be at ALL surprised if she really DIDN'T get past much more than an 8th or 9th grade education because obviously she has a seriously seriously major league problem with reading comprehension and not to mention basic math (ie: addition/subtraction/multiplication/division).

She's probably some single broad with no kids just here because she's too obnoxious to get a date on a Friday or Saturday night.

Hopefully she'll crawl back under the rock she crawled out of soon.... either that or go troll on Craig's List or something.
Posted by: Buckeye

Re: This gets better and better... - 05/06/07 11:58 AM

[quote
Yes, we were, but thanks to God, it has lasted for an incredible 13 years. [/quote]

When you can come in and say you have lasted 40 years thru thick and thin including the death of a child, THEN you can brag about your incredible marriage. Until then, you can't pass the long time test!!!
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Yes you did... - 05/06/07 11:59 AM

It doesn't take power to speak. Sometimes all one needs is stupidity. You have that in abundance.
Posted by: almostheaven

When you grow up... - 05/06/07 12:00 PM

And stop ACTING like an infant, then you can thank me.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: This gets better and better... - 05/06/07 12:01 PM

Would it make any difference to your stupidity levels if you had? Nope.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: "I call the whole tale as BS. " - 05/06/07 12:02 PM

You can't say "I am here for the stepfamily board" then claim to be here because your DH pays CS. You may be here for BOTH. But you use either or as they suit your purposes. Something only a troll does though.
Posted by: almostheaven

So?... - 05/06/07 12:02 PM

YOU don't. Let him fight his own battles. Or is he as make believe as everything else you spew?
Posted by: almostheaven

Comon now!... - 05/06/07 12:04 PM

You guys have been blaming us West Virginians for a coon's age. Time for some retaliation for giving us such a bad name.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: God blessed freaking IDIOT! - 05/06/07 12:06 PM

>>>>>She's probably some single broad with no kids just here because she's too obnoxious to get a date on a Friday or Saturday night.

Hmmm. I'm still sticking with the child theory. As most single broads too bored for a date still have SOME brains. This one has next to nothing in the brains dept. though.
Posted by: almostheaven

Stop acting stupid... - 05/06/07 12:07 PM

Its clear its just an act. Why do you get such joy Joy out of being an idiot?
Posted by: almostheaven

The one I've been using starts with an "I"... - 05/06/07 12:08 PM

Maybe that's where her confusion comes in.
Posted by: nrvouswrk

Re: The one I've been using starts with an "I"... - 05/06/07 01:53 PM

I can't help but get a kick out people who read something in the papers, copy something from a website, and then set themselves up as experts based on their interpretation of what they have read. That action alone makes them more knowledgeable then people who have "actual" experience in the subject matter. I see it alll the time in my line of work.

AH, not that I know this is the type of person Joy is, I am not playing anymore with her. Neither should you. Let her think what she wants. Nothing any of us can say to her will make a bit of difference. We have clients like her coming into the office all the time with the same mindset. We just tell them to call the govener or the Dept. Of Agriculture and debate the issue with them. :)
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: The one I've been using starts with an "I"... - 05/06/07 03:32 PM

I started thinking that since she's acting like a child we play just like children with her...we talk about her to one another but don't give her the time of day. I'm guessing she might go into full meltdown mode if that were to happen. And...LOL...we could still play with our food. ;)
Posted by: preemiemom

Re: The one I've been using starts with an "I"... - 05/06/07 03:33 PM

Hmmm...not THAT sounds like fun ;)

I notice that it has never actually STARTED a thread? Like she doesn't have any QUESTIONS, it merely replies to others.

Methinks it needs to find itself a hobby.
Posted by: joym525

Re: The one I've been using starts with an "I"... - 05/06/07 03:42 PM

[quote]Hmmm...not THAT sounds like fun ;)

I notice that it has never actually STARTED a thread? Like she doesn't have any QUESTIONS, it merely replies to others.

Methinks it needs to find itself a hobby. [/quote]

I think everyone on this board with more than 5 posts needs a hobby. Mabey we could start a book club. Have you read Little Women?
Posted by: joym525

Re: The one I've been using starts with an "I"... - 05/06/07 03:43 PM

[quote]I started thinking that since she's acting like a child we play just like children with her...we talk about her to one another but don't give her the time of day. I'm guessing she might go into full meltdown mode if that were to happen. And...LOL...we could still play with our food. ;) [/quote]

Not another melt down. NOOOOOOOO!!!!
Posted by: joym525

Re: The one I've been using starts with an "I"... - 05/06/07 03:46 PM

[quote]I can't help but get a kick out people who read something in the papers, copy something from a website, and then set themselves up as experts based on their interpretation of what they have read. That action alone makes them more knowledgeable then people who have "actual" experience in the subject matter. I see it alll the time in my line of work.
[/quote]

Ah ha. All the facts I have posted backed up my posts. No rebuttul HMMMMMM? That's okay. You will see the changes to TANF real soon.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Stop acting stupid... - 05/06/07 03:47 PM

[quote]Its clear its just an act. Why do you get such joy Joy out of being an idiot? [/quote]

I can't help it. I am from Tennesee
Posted by: joym525

Re: God blessed freaking IDIOT! - 05/06/07 03:48 PM

[quote]>>>>>She's probably some single broad with no kids just here because she's too obnoxious to get a date on a Friday or Saturday night.

Hmmm. I'm still sticking with the child theory. As most single broads too bored for a date still have SOME brains. This one has next to nothing in the brains dept. though. [/quote]

You are both right. I am 17 years old without a kid.
Posted by: joym525

Re: So?... - 05/06/07 03:50 PM

[quote]YOU don't. Let him fight his own battles. Or is he as make believe as everything else you spew? [/quote]

Everyone knows...a man cannot fight their own battles. That's what wives and moms are for.
Posted by: joym525

Re: "I call the whole tale as BS. " - 05/06/07 03:51 PM

[quote]You can't say "I am here for the stepfamily board" then claim to be here because your DH pays CS. You may be here for BOTH. But you use either or as they suit your purposes. Something only a troll does though. [/quote]

I am here for the CS board cuz DH pays CS and I am here for the stepfamily board cuz I have a SD.
Posted by: joym525

Re: When you grow up... - 05/06/07 03:52 PM

[quote]And stop ACTING like an infant, then you can thank me. [/quote]

WAAAAHHHH...I wanna baba!
Posted by: joym525

Re: This gets better and better... - 05/06/07 03:54 PM

[quote][quote
Yes, we were, but thanks to God, it has lasted for an incredible 13 years. [/quote]

When you can come in and say you have lasted 40 years thru thick and thin including the death of a child, THEN you can brag about your incredible marriage. Until then, you can't pass the long time test!!! [/quote]

I agree with you on that one. 40 years is awesome...not many people can say they lasted that long.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: The one I've been using starts with an "I"... - 05/06/07 03:54 PM

That prompted me to peek. No, she hasn't started a thread, just started a couple arguments here and on step family. Seems she has this burning idea about SAHPs, and just about every other subject which she rarely knows anything about. But looking through, I found this to be VERY enlightening:

joym525
Re: This Board is Biased
04/26/07 07:35 PM

Whoa...talk about an attitude!

Your husband willingly had sex with this woman. Why should he not have to support the child?

*******************************************

Looking back at that, had I known what I know now, my response would have been...because the new daddy could always adopt. LOL!
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: The one I've been using starts with an "I"... - 05/06/07 03:55 PM

I don't think it would matter WHERE she gets her material. As long as she keeps misinterpretting the material itself, she'll remain forever hopeless...and clueless.
Posted by: nrvouswrk

Re: The one I've been using starts with an "I"... - 05/06/07 03:58 PM

Ah ha. All the facts I have posted backed up my posts. No rebuttul HMMMMMM? That's okay. You will see the changes to TANF real soon.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You have posted that clients will have to work a certain amount of time before receiving benefits, etc, etc. The whole goal of TANF/CalWorks is to make cleints self sufficient. That has NEVER changed. That is what is being done now.

You seem to have this notion that something NEW is going to take place that isn't now. Not so. They will still have to do job searches just like now for the first four weeks and participate with case managers to find jobs. Very few will on the first few days after they have applied. We will not be holding onto their benifits until they work. All they will be doing is job searching in order to GET a job.

In California, this whole thing is addressed in AB 1808. If you read that, you will see that the specifics you have been spouting for the last few days are just not there.

As for TANF going bye-bye....For every person who gets off aid, at least two more will come in to take their place.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: This gets better and better... - 05/06/07 03:58 PM

I'd go her one better. My grandmother just died last month. She and grandpa were married SIXTY SEVEN years.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: The one I've been using starts with an "I"... - 05/06/07 03:59 PM

You know you should never argue with a one-armed idiot, dontcha. Come talk with those of us who understand basic English. ;)
Posted by: joym525

Re: God blessed freaking IDIOT! - 05/06/07 04:01 PM

[quote]Yeah, totally frustrated arguing the calculation with her. She keeps copying and pasting a little paragraph as a separate expression/thought, when it isn't intended to be, it's intended to be part of the SCHEDULE of payments above it.

And she keeps MISSING the fact that the "presumptive maximum" phrase wasn't even PART of the child support language prior to 2001, hence why the phrasing is in BLUE, as an addition.

She's obviously a complete and utter freaking idiot. I wouldn't be at ALL surprised if she really DIDN'T get past much more than an 8th or 9th grade education because obviously she has a seriously seriously major league problem with reading comprehension and not to mention basic math (ie: addition/subtraction/multiplication/division).

She's probably some single broad with no kids just here because she's too obnoxious to get a date on a Friday or Saturday night.

Hopefully she'll crawl back under the rock she crawled out of soon.... either that or go troll on Craig's List or something. [/quote]

Don't get frustrated.

Here is the exact wording of the link you provided but I took out presumtive maximum...

[quote]

(3) For three children, 29 percent;
(4) For four children, 31 percent; and
(5) For each additional child, an additional 2 percent,
of a parent’s gross monthly income, but not more than [$500] per month per child set forth for the parent in subsection 2 for an obligation for support determined pursuant to subparagraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, unless the court sets forth findings of fact as to the basis for a different amount pursuant to subsection 6 of NRS 125B.080.
[/quote] [color:black] [/color] [b]but not more than [$500] pe month per child[/b]

Meaning if you have one child not more than $500, 2 children not more than $1000, 3 children not more than $1500 and so on and so on.
Posted by: joym525

Re: The one I've been using starts with an "I"... - 05/06/07 04:02 PM

[quote]You know you should never argue with a one-armed idiot, dontcha. Come talk with those of us who understand basic English. ;) [/quote]

But I don't know how to speak English...only read and write.
Posted by: joym525

Re: This gets better and better... - 05/06/07 04:03 PM

[quote]I'd go her one better. My grandmother just died last month. She and grandpa were married SIXTY SEVEN years. [/quote]

Now that is true love...and a lotta hard work.
Posted by: joym525

Re: The one I've been using starts with an "I"... - 05/06/07 04:07 PM

[quote]Ah ha. All the facts I have posted backed up my posts. No rebuttul HMMMMMM? That's okay. You will see the changes to TANF real soon.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You have posted that clients will have to work a certain amount of time before receiving benefits, etc, etc. The whole goal of TANF/CalWorks is to make cleints self sufficient. That has NEVER changed. That is what is being done now.

You seem to have this notion that something NEW is going to take place that isn't now. Not so. They will still have to do job searches just like now for the first four weeks and participate with case managers to find jobs. Very few will on the first few days after they have applied. We will not be holding onto their benifits until they work. All they will be doing is job searching in order to GET a job.

In California, this whole thing is addressed in AB 1808. If you read that, you will see that the specifics you have been spouting for the last few days are just not there.

As for TANF going bye-bye....For every person who gets off aid, at least two more will come in to take their place. [/quote]

OK but, the regulations have not been updated in any state because the chnages do not take effect until October 1st, and the state needs to wait or the public will not be getting the corerct info.

TANF cases declined by 75% in 1996 after Welfare Reform. This new program (DRA) is intended to do the same thing as what happened in 1996. You are right about the clients having to work before getting a check. Now they don't need a job to get a check.
Posted by: joym525

Re: The one I've been using starts with an "I"... - 05/06/07 04:09 PM

[quote]I don't think it would matter WHERE she gets her material. As long as she keeps misinterpretting the material itself, she'll remain forever hopeless...and clueless. [/quote]

DRA is clearly intended to reduce the TANF caseloads. Do some research, you will see.
Posted by: joym525

Re: The one I've been using starts with an "I"... - 05/06/07 04:11 PM

[quote]That prompted me to peek. No, she hasn't started a thread, just started a couple arguments here and on step family. Seems she has this burning idea about SAHPs, and just about every other subject which she rarely knows anything about. [/quote]

I started a thread a couple of months ago on the Illinois board. Go read it. It is interesting.
Posted by: joym525

Re: I agree with you preemiemom - 05/06/07 04:18 PM

[quote]I got my MIS degree 5 years ago and when my ex took me for a reduction, he felt I should be earning over $100K right out of school. His lawyer insisted on one of those expensive employment specialists to evaluate my education and skills to determine exactly what I would be capable of earning upon graduation...and the funny thing was...with the dot com bust, there were waaaaayyyy too many IT and MIS professionals with YEARS of experience out there ready and available. The best a new recruit like myself could hope for right out of school was just about the same as what my first year teaching job offered....and it wasn't anywhere NEAR $100K or even $125K...and this is California! [/quote]

My son wants to go to college for computers something or rather. He was looking at the ITT Tech website. I saw some compaints online about the company and how the credits do not transfer to other colleges. So I hope he goes your route and gets an MIS degree.
Posted by: joym525

Re: "I call the whole tale as BS. " - 05/06/07 04:21 PM

[quote]It's obvious this thread has gone on long enough, but I had to say. . . heeeyyyyyy, not all of us here in KY are wandering around the barnyard scratching our ass.

To the best of my knowledge, half-witted people are allowed to breed in all states.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a chicken to pluck. [/quote]
I apologize...I was stereotyping people in the South which I know is not true at all. Heck, I love George W. (I am not being at all sarcastic.) I believe in God, Country, Family, and fighting the terrorists. If we don't do it no one will. In fact I want to move to Texas.
Posted by: joym525

Re: so you were thankful for your lousy $100 - 05/06/07 04:24 PM

[quote]Wrong,jealous GF is what caused a deadbeat.Greed on the X and his GF's part created a deadbeat. From the time we seperated until his GF moved in CS was paid, once the GF moved in CS stopped, as well as all communication, phone number changed and he isn't allowed to give it out because it is in GF's name. X's claims he can't support himself, GF and her kid from another man, if he pays his CS, they live rent free. The GF works and he receives about $2600 in disabilty every month. So now the genius and his GF had a baby together a few months ago, if you can't support the 3 you already have why have another one.

Do I think his GF is better than me, NOT! If she was she wouldn't have been living at her parents house with 1st kid since the child was born, whose father (her HUSBAND) is in prison for drugs, had her daughter removed from her care by CPS because she was on drugs and arrested for writing her own prescriptions for Vicodan, forced into rehab by the courts to get her child back. I have absolutely nothing to be jealous of, sorry! [/quote]

I can totally understand your side. I am a SM. Then only reason I want nothing to do with BM is because she has told me she wanted to make my life a living hell. Why? Why would she say that. Doesn't she care that her child will be coming to my home and that she should be nice to me so that I in turm do not have negative feelings when she comes to my home?

But I can imagine how hard it is to be a BM who has to send her child away to someone else's house. I don't know I could do that.
Posted by: joym525

Re: I wasn't complaing, Bozo - 05/06/07 04:27 PM

[quote]and regardless of who leaves....someone has to pay support. [/quote]

I agree...but to be upset because you have only received $3500 in 7 months when you should have been paid $4900..that was the point of my original post in this thread. I'm not saying she should not collect the CS, but be thankful he is not a deadbeat, because $3500 is not a deadbeat. A deadbeat is someone who NEVER pays.
Posted by: preemiemom

Re: God blessed freaking IDIOT! - 05/06/07 05:06 PM

You are a moron... the line you are quoting from goes WITH the line directly ABOVE IT!!!!

Everyone else here can read it correctly why can't you? Besides, we can't seem to keep track of whatever the heck state you're in now. Tennesee, Nevada, Illinois, wanna move to Texas. Good grief....

by the way, I did find your SOLE initiated thread on the Illinois board.

It's in their court order you idiot, YES he is obligated to pay for college. You state in your posting it says so in their order.. so what the heck is the argument about? I guess it's unfortunate for him that his baby mamma didn't possess the same lack of class you do and get someone else to be responsible for his kid.

However, as you post, the child is 18 so your troubles should soon be over and your knight in shining armour can be fully financially dedicated to ponying up the dollars for YOUR b-tard child.
Posted by: joym525

Re: God blessed freaking IDIOT! - 05/06/07 05:18 PM

[quote]You are a moron... the line you are quoting from goes WITH the line directly ABOVE IT!!!!

Everyone else here can read it correctly why can't you? Besides, we can't seem to keep track of whatever the heck state you're in now. Tennesee, Nevada, Illinois, wanna move to Texas. Good grief....

by the way, I did find your SOLE initiated thread on the Illinois board.

It's in their court order you idiot, YES he is obligated to pay for college. You state in your posting it says so in their order.. so what the heck is the argument about? I guess it's unfortunate for him that his baby mamma didn't possess the same lack of class you do and get someone else to be responsible for his kid.

However, as you post, the child is 18 so your troubles should soon be over and your knight in shining armour can be fully financially dedicated to ponying up the dollars for YOUR b-tard child. [/quote]

How can "will not be more than $500 per month per child" be confusing?

My SD will be turing 18 next year and looks like she is on track to graduate June 2008. Have any of you benn taken to court by CP and been asked to pay college expenses. Our court order states both parents will provide for college expenses. I just want to know the outcome of anyone's case.

The above ismy post from the Illinois board. I know we will be paying education expenses and I have no problem with that. Our court order is not specific on how much each parent pays and what "college expenses" are. So I was just hoping I could get some feedback from someone who has actually gone through the court in Illinois specifically so I know what to expect. I am hoping the two bios can come to an agreement without going to court.

I live in Las Vegas, NV...SD lives in Illinois. I want to move to Texas because cost of living is much cheaper.
Posted by: preemiemom

Re: God blessed freaking IDIOT! - 05/06/07 05:23 PM

I'm not going to continue to debate you on something you obviously are unwilling to, or are incapable of, reading correctly.

As for your concerns about the college expenses.. share means share... If they don't already have a pro-rata share identified (which they should), then I'm going to guess that it's an equal division. Expenses are just that.. expenses. Tuition, room and board, books, etc. All expenses related to the attendance in a post-secondary place of learning.

Just a question, why would your husband choose to live so far away from his child? Or why would he allow the mother to move that far away?
Posted by: joym525

Re: God blessed freaking IDIOT! - 05/06/07 05:27 PM

[quote]I'm not going to continue to debate you on something you obviously are unwilling to, or are incapable of, reading correctly.

As for your concerns about the college expenses.. share means share... If they don't already have a pro-rata share identified (which they should), then I'm going to guess that it's an equal division. Expenses are just that.. expenses. Tuition, room and board, books, etc. All expenses related to the attendance in a post-secondary place of learning.

Just a question, why would your husband choose to live so far away from his child? Or why would he allow the mother to move that far away? [/quote]

Thanks. But I wanted to hear first hand experience of two bios going to court specifically about college expenses in Illinois. That is why I posted it in thne Illinois section. But I do appreciate your input.
Posted by: Grace

Re: "I call the whole tale as BS. " - 05/06/07 05:28 PM

Oh, I take no offense. . . get it all the time. I can't cross the state line without impressing someone with my full set of teeth.
Posted by: joym525

Re: "I call the whole tale as BS. " - 05/06/07 05:31 PM

[quote]Oh, I take no offense. . . get it all the time. I can't cross the state line without impressing someone with my full set of teeth. [/quote]

LOL!
Posted by: almostheaven

::sigh:: Just this ONCE then I'm done... - 05/06/07 08:57 PM

You're stupid. We know you're stupid. But just in case you've managed to grow just ONE brain cell since this post...

>>>>>(3) For three children, 29 percent;
(4) For four children, 31 percent; and
(5) For each additional child, an additional 2 percent,
of a parent’s gross monthly income, but not more than [$500] per month per child set forth for the parent in subsection 2 for an obligation for support determined pursuant to subparagraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, unless the court sets forth findings of fact as to the basis for a different amount pursuant to subsection 6 of NRS 125B.080.
[/quote] [color:black] [/color] [b]but not more than [$500] pe month per child[/b]

Meaning if you have one child not more than $500, 2 children not more than $1000, 3 children not more than $1500 and so on and so on. <<<<<

NO! MEANING: "(3) For three children, 29 percent;"
"Meaning if you have one child"...29 percent of your income!

"(4) For four children, 31 percent; and"
"2 children"...31 percent of your income!

"(5) For each additional child, an additional 2 percent
of a parent’s gross monthly income, but not more than [$500] per month per child"

MEANING: For each ADDITIONAL child (past the four at 31 percent), an ADDITIONAL 2 percent (IE: 33 percent for 5, 35 percent for 6, etc. etc. etc.), but not more than [$500] per month per ADDITIONAL child.

I'm gonna guess you still act stupid, but whatever.
Posted by: almostheaven

Even I would not... - 05/06/07 08:58 PM

wish her upon Texans. What have they done to deserve that?
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: God blessed freaking IDIOT! - 05/06/07 09:00 PM

Well why not. He's already replaced his child with her child. He doesn't need to live in the same state as his own child. Some other sucker can adopt his so he can get out of support too.
Posted by: almostheaven

And he NEVER pays... - 05/06/07 09:02 PM

That's why he's $200K in arrears and they're JUST (after 18 years) finally collecting something FORCEFULLY.
Posted by: preemiemom

Re: God blessed freaking IDIOT! - 05/06/07 09:03 PM

[quote]Well why not. He's already replaced his child with her child. He doesn't need to live in the same state as his own child. Some other sucker can adopt his so he can get out of support too. [/quote]

Yeah, I know, they're considering a move, but aren't considering a move to the state in which his child LIVES?? How messed up is THAT????
Posted by: almostheaven

Nooooooooo... - 05/06/07 09:04 PM

That's...

How do we know the toothbrush was invented in Boone Co., WV?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Because anywhere else and it would've been called a teethbrush.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: The one I've been using starts with an "I"... - 05/06/07 09:06 PM

Couldn't have been too interesting, because the only posts I saw was on SF and here. If there had been a string of posts/replies under a topic on the IL forum, they'd have come to my attention when looking at the list of your threads.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: God blessed freaking IDIOT! - 05/06/07 09:08 PM

Well considering just in the last 2 days she's lived in NV, IL, KY, TN and AL, I figure any move they make won't last more than a few hours.
Posted by: AnneB

Re: Even I would not... - 05/06/07 10:12 PM

Thank you for that consideration! As one of the few native Texans on here, I know I speak for my friends and neighbors as well!!!
Posted by: Relayer

Re: Even I would not... - 05/06/07 10:19 PM

[quote]wish her upon Texans. What have they done to deserve that? [/quote]

Being Texas is reason enough those trouble makers!!!! JK
Posted by: Grace

Re: Nooooooooo... - 05/06/07 10:29 PM

LOL. . .
Why don't Kentuckians smoke hash?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
It's impossible to keep the corned beef lit.
Posted by: joym525

Re: ::sigh:: Just this ONCE then I'm done... - 05/06/07 11:12 PM

[quote]
>>>>>(3) For three children, 29 percent;
(4) For four children, 31 percent; and
(5) For each additional child, an additional 2 percent,
of a parent’s gross monthly income, but not more than [$500] per month per child set forth for the parent in subsection 2 for an obligation for support determined pursuant to subparagraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, unless the court sets forth findings of fact as to the basis for a different amount pursuant to subsection 6 of NRS 125B.080.
[/quote] [color:black] [/color] [b]but not more than [$500] pe month per child[/b]

Meaning if you have one child not more than $500, 2 children not more than $1000, 3 children not more than $1500 and so on and so on. <<<<<

NO! MEANING: "(3) For three children, 29 percent;"
"Meaning if you have one child"...29 percent of your income!

"(4) For four children, 31 percent; and"
"2 children"...31 percent of your income!

"(5) For each additional child, an additional 2 percent
of a parent’s gross monthly income, but not more than [$500] per month per child"

MEANING: For each ADDITIONAL child (past the four at 31 percent), an ADDITIONAL 2 percent (IE: 33 percent for 5, 35 percent for 6, etc. etc. etc.), but not more than [$500] per month per ADDITIONAL child.

I'm gonna guess you still act stupid, but whatever. [/quote]

No, I received child support froma court order in Nevada. The birth father was making $125,000 and the most he had to pay per month was $500 because that was the presumptive max in 2000. Meaning the max was $500 for one child, $1000 for 2 children so on and so on. Luckily that has increased to over $900 per motn 7 yeasr later. Nevada is one of the few states that has presumptive maximums in child support.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Even I would not... - 05/06/07 11:14 PM

[quote]Thank you for that consideration! As one of the few native Texans on here, I know I speak for my friends and neighbors as well!!! [/quote]

I can't wait. We pay $0 state income tax in Nevada and Texas is the same. Th only thing I am worried about are the tornatos. The only thing we have to worry about in Nevada is the heat...and it gets HOT!
Posted by: joym525

Re: God blessed freaking IDIOT! - 05/06/07 11:15 PM

[quote]Well considering just in the last 2 days she's lived in NV, IL, KY, TN and AL, I figure any move they make won't last more than a few hours. [/quote] I have lived in Nevada since 1991. The Air Force brought me here after high school. I plan on making Texas my last stop...for the next 60 years (I hope!).
Posted by: joym525

Re: The one I've been using starts with an "I"... - 05/06/07 11:16 PM

[quote]Couldn't have been too interesting, because the only posts I saw was on SF and here. If there had been a string of posts/replies under a topic on the IL forum, they'd have come to my attention when looking at the list of your threads. [/quote]

LOL! Only one person responded. I quickly realized no one really uses the state boards.
Posted by: joym525

Re: God blessed freaking IDIOT! - 05/06/07 11:18 PM

[quote][quote]Well why not. He's already replaced his child with her child. He doesn't need to live in the same state as his own child. Some other sucker can adopt his so he can get out of support too. [/quote]

Yeah, I know, they're considering a move, but aren't considering a move to the state in which his child LIVES?? How messed up is THAT???? [/quote]

Luckily his daughter graduates high school next year. She wanst to go to UNLV so she may be living with us next year. Besides Illinois is WAAYYY to cold. BRRRR>
Posted by: joym525

Re: God blessed freaking IDIOT! - 05/06/07 11:20 PM

[quote]Well why not. He's already replaced his child with her child. He doesn't need to live in the same state as his own child. Some other sucker can adopt his so he can get out of support too. [/quote]

I would love for him to get out of paying support...but he loves his daughter VERY much and has never been late with his payment...Next year we will be $680 richer per month..can't wait!!!
Posted by: joym525

Re: Even I would not... - 05/06/07 11:21 PM

[quote]wish her upon Texans. What have they done to deserve that? [/quote]

I'll stay out of their way. We want to buy 5 acres on one of them there lakes.
Posted by: Runswithscissors

Re: Even I would not... - 05/07/07 12:25 AM

I can't believe you all that are "so" intelligent have wasted 38 pages on this...
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Even I would not... - 05/07/07 01:36 AM

Who's wasting? As long as people had fun, all's not a waste. ;)
Posted by: almostheaven

Besides... - 05/07/07 01:37 AM

38 pages? Put it in threaded mode. Problem solved. LOL
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: ::sigh:: Just this ONCE then I'm done... - 05/07/07 01:40 AM

IF you're saying the truth about this $500 you got, then you were lied to by some idiot judge who didn't even know his own damned state's laws and you shoulda had a better lawyer, paid more attention, and spoke up to bring the guidelines to their attention. Because the guidelines are NOT $500/child, unless your ex had 4 other children floating around out there that you didn't know about.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Nooooooooo... - 05/07/07 01:41 AM

How can you spot a West Virginian?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
By the number of cars they have on cinderblocks in their front yard.
Posted by: joym525

Re: ::sigh:: Just this ONCE then I'm done... - 05/07/07 01:48 AM

[quote]IF you're saying the truth about this $500 you got, then you were lied to by some idiot judge who didn't even know his own damned state's laws and you shoulda had a better lawyer, paid more attention, and spoke up to bring the guidelines to their attention. Because the guidelines are NOT $500/child, unless your ex had 4 other children floating around out there that you didn't know about. [/quote]

It's not $500 per child per month now...it was back in 2000. Now it is $900 max per child per month.
Posted by: preemiemom

Re: ::sigh:: Just this ONCE then I'm done... - 05/07/07 01:51 AM

NOOOOOO it is NOT. It is $800!!!
Posted by: Grace

Re: Nooooooooo... - 05/07/07 02:04 AM

tee-hee. . .

A Kentucky State trooper pulls over a pickup truck on I-75. He says to the driver, "Got any ID?"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

The driver says, "Bout what?"
Posted by: joym525

Re: ::sigh:: Just this ONCE then I'm done... - 05/07/07 02:06 AM

[quote]NOOOOOO it is NOT. It is $800!!! [/quote]

No sweetie, it is over $900 this year.

PRESUMPTIVE MAXIMUM AMOUNTS OF CHILD SUPPORT (NRS 125B.070)
EFFECTIVE JULY 1,2007 THROUGH JUNE 30,2008 ** REVISED APRIL 27,2007 **
Income Range Presumptive Maximum Amount
If the Parent's Gross Monthly Income is at Least But Less Than The Presumptive Maximum Amount the Parent May be Required to Pay per Month per Child Pursuant to Paragraph (b) Subsection 1 is
$0 $4,235 $580
$4,235 $6,351 $638
$6,351 $8,467 $697
$8,467 $10,585 $754
$10,585 $12,701 $812
$12,701 $14,816 $870
$14,816 No Limit $930

http://www.nvsupremecourt.us/aoc/support2.php
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Nooooooooo... - 05/07/07 02:06 AM

What's a tornado and a divorce have in common in WV?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Somebody's gonna lose a trailer.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: ::sigh:: Just this ONCE then I'm done... - 05/07/07 02:07 AM

No. Its not. Then or now.
Posted by: joym525

Re: ::sigh:: Just this ONCE then I'm done... - 05/07/07 02:09 AM

[quote]No. Its not. Then or now. [/quote]

Yes, in 2000 the presumptive max was $500.
Posted by: Grace

Re: Nooooooooo... - 05/07/07 02:09 AM

What's long & hard on a KY basketball player?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

First Grade
Posted by: joym525

Re: ::sigh:: Just this ONCE then I'm done... - 05/07/07 02:11 AM

[quote]NOOOOOO it is NOT. It is $800!!! [/quote]

Even in 2006 it was over $900

Presumptive Maximum Amounts of Child Support
2006 Schedule
NRS 125B.070
Presumptive Maximum Amounts Increased 3.4% Pursuant to the CPI (All Items)

Increase in Calendar Year 2005 (December - December) as published by the US Department of Labor.

Income Range Presumptive Maximum Amount
If the Parent's Gross Monthly Income is at Least But Less Than The Presumptive Maximum Amount the Parent May be Required to Pay per Month per Child Pursuant to Paragraph (b) Subsection 1 is
$0 $4,235 $566
$4,235 $6,351 $623
$6,351 $8,467 $680
$8,467 $10,585 $736
$10,585 $12,701 $793
$12,701 $14,816 $849
$14,816 No Limit $907
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Nooooooooo... - 05/07/07 02:11 AM

How are WV roads like a Dunkin donut?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
They both go around in circles and are full of holes.

Now, I do understand that this applies to KY as well. Afterall, I'm over there frequently as my brother's biz is in Russel.
Posted by: joym525

Re: ::sigh:: Just this ONCE then I'm done... - 05/07/07 02:13 AM

[quote]No. Its not. Then or now. [/quote]

Here's proof:

PRESUMPTIVE MAXIMUMS FOR CHILD SUPPORT. Child support in Nevada will have new upper limits – yes, plural -- beginning 2002. Effective July 1, 2002, the $500 per month per child presumptive maximum is gone.

http://www.nvbar.org/nevadalawyerarticles3.asp?Title=2001+Legislature's+Chanes+to+Nevada+Child+Support+Laws
Posted by: Relayer

Re: ::sigh:: Just this ONCE then I'm done... - 05/07/07 02:15 AM

[quote]No. Its not. Then or now. [/quote]

Actually Char, it was. They changed it in like 2004 or something because in 2000, it hadn't been changed since 1987. You can google it
Posted by: Grace

Re: Nooooooooo... - 05/07/07 02:16 AM

LOL, yes very true!

What's the difference between a KY cheerleader and a
catfish?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


One stinks and has whiskers,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

and the other one is a fish.
Posted by: Melody

That's because ITT Tech - 05/07/07 02:16 AM

is NOT a college.
Posted by: joym525

Re: ::sigh:: Just this ONCE then I'm done... - 05/07/07 02:17 AM

[quote][quote]No. Its not. Then or now. [/quote]

Actually Char, it was. They changed it in like 2004 or something because in 2000, it hadn't been changed since 1987. You can google it [/quote]

Ralayer...thank you...thank you...thank you!!!!! Anytime you need a favor I owe you BIG TIME!!!!
Posted by: joym525

Re: That's because ITT Tech - 05/07/07 02:18 AM

[quote]is NOT a college. [/quote]

I'm praying my son decides to go to a college instead of ITT Tech. We'll see here real soon.
Posted by: katiefedup

Re: That's because ITT Tech - 05/07/07 02:22 AM

listen her Joy...I orginally asked a question and you went crazy on people. Back to my orginal question for YOU!!! why am I greedy???? Can you explain without slobbering?
Posted by: joym525

Re: That's because ITT Tech - 05/07/07 02:24 AM

[quote]listen her Joy...I orginally asked a question and you went crazy on people. Back to my orginal question for YOU!!! why am I greedy???? Can you explain without slobbering? [/quote]

I apologize. I must have been having a bad day. Friday's always suck azz. You deserve the child support. You go girl!!!
Posted by: Relayer

Re: ::sigh:: Just this ONCE then I'm done... - 05/07/07 02:26 AM

[quote][quote][quote]No. Its not. Then or now. [/quote]

Actually Char, it was. They changed it in like 2004 or something because in 2000, it hadn't been changed since 1987. You can google it [/quote]

Ralayer...thank you...thank you...thank you!!!!! Anytime you need a favor I owe you BIG TIME!!!! [/quote]

I googled because I had never heard of presumptive..what a concept

also, the increases are tied to the CPI..smart
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: ::sigh:: Just this ONCE then I'm done... - 05/07/07 03:29 AM

According to the site SHE posted, it is $500 maximum per child AFTER the fourth child.
Posted by: joym525

Re: ::sigh:: Just this ONCE then I'm done... - 05/07/07 03:54 AM

[quote]According to the site SHE posted, it is $500 maximum per child AFTER the fourth child. [/quote]

This site is a clearer on the presumptive max being $500 at one time:

PRESUMPTIVE MAXIMUMS FOR CHILD SUPPORT. Child support in Nevada will have new upper limits – yes, plural -- beginning 2002. Effective July 1, 2002, the $500 per month per child presumptive maximum is gone.

http://www.nvbar.org/nevadalawyerarticles3.asp?Title=2001+Legislature's+Chanes+to+Nevada+Child+Support+Laws
Posted by: mommy2boys

Re: so you were thankful for your lousy $100 - 05/07/07 05:55 AM

"Doesn't she care that her child will be coming to my home and that she should be nice to me so that I in turm do not have negative feelings when she comes to my home?"

She has no lawful reason to be nice to you, honestly she could probably careless if you walked the face of the earth. She isn't coming to your house to see you, she is most likely there because of her child. The way you act with your negative feelings is probably why she said the things she did...you played right into her game!
Posted by: joym525

Re: so you were thankful for your lousy $100 - 05/07/07 01:30 PM

[quote]"Doesn't she care that her child will be coming to my home and that she should be nice to me so that I in turm do not have negative feelings when she comes to my home?"

She has no lawful reason to be nice to you, honestly she could probably careless if you walked the face of the earth. She isn't coming to your house to see you, she is most likely there because of her child. The way you act with your negative feelings is probably why she said the things she did...you played right into her game! [/quote]

In all due respect...I totally disagree. If BMs were more accepting of smoms everyone would be much happier.
Posted by: BeckaLeigh

Re: That's "too" - 05/07/07 09:08 PM

And what does being from the South have anything to do with it? It is no excuse for stupidity and multiple personalities on this board. You can be nice as pie one second and in the same post, be totally degrading the next. Ever seen a psychiatrist? They might could help you out with that.
Posted by: BeckaLeigh

Re: Well, we cover - 05/07/07 09:11 PM

I have to concur with ya there, Melody. She is something else. Argues a point with no clue as to what she is talking about. Hmmm. Still thinking of hooking her and my X up together. They would make a good couple. LOL. No, I actually wouldnt want my X to be with someone like her. I would prefer him be with someone I can trust our kids with. and she doesnt seem very stable.
Posted by: BeckaLeigh

LMFAO (EOM) - 05/07/07 09:18 PM

.
Posted by: BeckaLeigh

Re: Well, we cover - 05/07/07 09:19 PM

What South are you talking about? South America? You sound more and more ignorant the more you post.
Posted by: almostheaven

Re: Well, we cover - 05/07/07 10:12 PM

I wouldn't even qualify it with "very". She just doesn't seem to be stable....PERIOD.
Posted by: joym525

Re: That's "too" - 05/07/07 11:25 PM

[quote]And what does being from the South have anything to do with it? It is no excuse for stupidity and multiple personalities on this board. You can be nice as pie one second and in the same post, be totally degrading the next. Ever seen a psychiatrist? They might could help you out with that. [/quote]

Thanks...I booked my appointment for tomorrow. I hope they give me some happy pills.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Well, we cover - 05/07/07 11:27 PM

[quote]I have to concur with ya there, Melody. She is something else. Argues a point with no clue as to what she is talking about. Hmmm. Still thinking of hooking her and my X up together. They would make a good couple. LOL. No, I actually wouldnt want my X to be with someone like her. I would prefer him be with someone I can trust our kids with. and she doesnt seem very stable. [/quote]

Is he 6 foot tall, blond hair, blues eyes, 170 lbs? Send him my way then.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Well, we cover - 05/07/07 11:27 PM

[quote]What South are you talking about? South America? You sound more and more ignorant the more you post. [/quote]

Yep, Argentina to be exact.
Posted by: joym525

Re: Well, we cover - 05/07/07 11:29 PM

[quote]I wouldn't even qualify it with "very". She just doesn't seem to be stable....PERIOD. [/quote]

Hey that's not very nice. My psychiatrist told me I am stable, it's my other personality you have to worry about.
Posted by: almostheaven

I hope they give you... - 05/07/07 11:29 PM

some common sense pills.
Posted by: joym525

Re: I hope they give you... - 05/07/07 11:31 PM

[quote]some common sense pills. [/quote]

Yyeeesss...I love pills!
Posted by: BeckaLeigh

Re: She'd have a field day with my ex... - 05/11/07 03:09 AM

You sure we werent married to the same guy? Your story sound awfully familair. :)