Start Your Divorce Today - Premium Divorce Online

Page 6 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6
Topic Options
#199428 - 03/03/07 06:11 PM Re: Sometimes they don't... [Re: Gecko]
Redlegg Offline
Carpal \'Tunnel

Registered: 10/06/06
Posts: 27903
The legally provided room requirement existed before the divorce. You jumped on the fact that I pay CS, but you seemed to miss the fact that I am also the CP. What part are you not getting. Are you missing the fact that I don't get CS, that I pay CS or that My son lives with me. I know exactly how much it costs to raise a teenage boy, I pay all the insurance (medical/dental/homeowners etc) all the extras, every cent that it costs comes from me. I have no problem with that because he is my son. As far as any anger I have for "owing" CS, your wrong, in fact I am at least a month ahead of schedule, every month, and that is 500 for one child. Have you ever paid Child support, or are you on the other side. As of right now she owes me over 400 for just loans, I don't ask for it, if I get it, great, if I don't drive on. Here is the way I see it. She is his mom, I do not go for a modification for the simple fact that while he is in either house, I will not cause an uproar which will affect him more than it would me. I have bought presents for birthdays and Christmas and put her name on it just to not disappoint him. You have not ever once seen me complain about paying CS. You said the law required the extra room, and I will ask you now, what happens if you can't provide the room ? Is that like the perjury where no one cares unless your famous or a clinton. Your enlightenment may be premature, the amount I agreed on is actually more than what the court would have required, and I am also a CP that does not receive child support.

Top
#199429 - 03/03/07 06:13 PM Re: Sometimes they don't... [Re: Redlegg]
Gecko Offline
Carpal \'Tunnel

Registered: 06/02/04
Posts: 20602
Loc: Third rock from the sun
Can I correctly assume that this is not directed at me since I am discussing this issue with AH?
_________________________
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!

Top
#199430 - 03/03/07 06:27 PM Re: Sometimes they don't... [Re: Redlegg]
almostheaven Offline
Carpal \'Tunnel

Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 10468
Loc: West Virginia
Hon, I once paid CS...willingly. I didn't need to be court ordered to do it. And until you can show me why you're arguing against CS being used to help with the costs of a child INCLUDING extra for housing for them you would NOT have needed without a child, extra for their food, etc., I will continue thinking you're just another CS payor who wants to find a way to either reduce or get out of your CS entirely. Because as of yet, I've NEVER heard a good reason why a child's expenses (ALL their expenses) should not be footed by BOTH parents. But you just keep saying the CS shouldn't help with their room, because they'd have had to provide this while married. Well Duh! Yeah, BOTH would've while married. Why should it differ after? I can guarantee you that you won't provide an answer to that that will sway my thoughts on it.
_________________________
Char Fox

Top
#199431 - 03/03/07 06:46 PM Re: Sometimes they don't... [Re: almostheaven]
Redlegg Offline
Carpal \'Tunnel

Registered: 10/06/06
Posts: 27903
Sugar, you mean you have a divorce decree that doesn't address child support. Well thats a technique. I don't need to sway you at all, the apples and oranges you talk about are the fact that I don't think of housing as [b]extra[/b] as you keep saying it is. When we got divorced, CS was in the decree, using the state's formula it would have been one number, I said make it this, which was more. I don't see myself as paying anything extra since housing is a need, and the same need that existed before the divorce, since housing is extra, food would be extra, clothes would be extra, all the things you need to raise a child are not extra. As far as me wanting a modification, do you really think that if I went to court to have it modified, and my son lives with me, that I would not get it?? She would end up paying me CS. Actually, to help her out even more, I let her claim the exemption when its tax time. I am not trying to change your mind. I have no idea what your used to in dealing with an ex, but I am not trying to destroy mine, I just want to make sure she has a better than fair chance to make a life for herself. And I hope I answered your questions, and I did not even call BS or accuse you of ranting. We do disagree, but at the end of the day, its the children who count and I am sure we agree on that.

Top
#199432 - 03/03/07 06:49 PM Re: Sometimes they don't... [Re: Gecko]
Redlegg Offline
Carpal \'Tunnel

Registered: 10/06/06
Posts: 27903
You are dead on, sorry for the misdirect.

Top
#199433 - 03/03/07 07:38 PM Re: Sometimes they don't... [Re: Redlegg]
almostheaven Offline
Carpal \'Tunnel

Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 10468
Loc: West Virginia
Hon, no that's not what I meant or said and how you concluded it is beyond me. That you don't think of housing as extra is YOUR problem. It IS extra. WITHOUT A CHILD, there would be NO ADDITIONAL housing costs. WITH A CHILD, there IS. Therefore, that it IS an extra IS a fact. WITHOUT A CHILD, there would be no additions to your grocery bill. WITH A CHILD, there IS. That YOU feel these should not be counted so that all CS payors can suddenly experience a huge decrease in what they pay out, by discounting most every need of the child they could throw into this "you'd have it anyway" category, says more about you than you really needed to say. I already got the hint of what you are. But thanks anyway.

As for you and your ex, I could care less. Because you've shown me your true colors. You feel that just about EVERYTHING for a child is NOT extra so only ONE parent should have to pay it. IOW, all NCPs should get a free ride. But thanks for playing. Glad the world disagrees with you.
_________________________
Char Fox

Top
#199434 - 03/03/07 09:40 PM Re: Sometimes they don't... [Re: almostheaven]
Redlegg Offline
Carpal \'Tunnel

Registered: 10/06/06
Posts: 27903
"Hon, I once paid CS...willingly. I didn't need to be court ordered to do it"

I did not have to make a conclusion, you said that.

See thats what your not getting, of course it should be shared, but why would you think its extra, whats not extra when it comes to child support then. And you really did not need to resort to personal opinions about me in your answers. You are alluding to what I am, but why don't you say, why are you beating around the bush and tell me what my true colors are. Innuendo is not a nice thing. I don't think anyone should get a free ride. I personally think both parents should be repsonsible if anything is considered truly extra then it should be addressed as extra or maybe even call it extra-curricular. You did mention the law about having to get an extra room, what would have happened if you did not get the "extra" room. Maybe the world disagrees, but until you become the world spokesman, thank you for playing.

Top
#199435 - 03/03/07 11:20 PM Re: Sometimes they don't... [Re: Redlegg]
almostheaven Offline
Carpal \'Tunnel

Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 10468
Loc: West Virginia
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;"Hon, I once paid CS...willingly. I didn't need to be court ordered to do it"

I did not have to make a conclusion, you said that. &lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

I'm sorry, but saying I paid CS willingingly without needing to be court ordered is NOT the same as "you mean you have a divorce decree that doesn't address child support". If you MUST know, I paid CS to my parents when my daughter was needing some specialized medical attention and stayed with them since my dad was disabled, home and more able to care for her on a full-time basis. And the CS her dad was SUPPOSED to pay was to be sent directly to them as well. But of course, they didn't get anything from him. And yes, I DID have a "divorce decree" that addressed the CS. He just wouldn't pay it.

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;See thats what your not getting, of course it should be shared, but why would you think its extra, whats not extra when it comes to child support then.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

Actually it's what YOU'RE not getting. NO ONE said it was extra CS. Just that it is extra child expense. It is NOT something you would incur if you did NOT have a child. This started with someone asking what CS (CURRENT CS) covers. Someone else mentioned housing. To which it went off that CS shouldn't cover housing because they thought that (ALL) NCPs apparently would also have that cost, and you started arguing against having housing figured into CS. So which is it. Do you want housing taken out of CS, reduced CS across the board for everyone? Well, since you also said the food, utilities, etc. weren't extra, I supposed you want those also removed? At what point do you start calling things non-extra...when CS reaches zero? But NO ONE even ONCE brought up the notion of increasing CS to cover housing...just you.

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;And you really did not need to resort to personal opinions about me in your answers. You are alluding to what I am, but why don't you say, why are you beating around the bush and tell me what my true colors are. &lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

Apparently I do, since you decided to spin this topic into something it wasn't and make it appear as if CPs were wanting CS increased to cover housing costs when that was NEVER mentioned. And I HAVE told you your true colors...CS payor looking to get a CS decrease for all NCPs. Otherwise, why would you have placed such a spin on this? From all appearances, you're trying to argue that housing (and in the end, utilities, food, etc.) should be removed from CS altogether. If not, then what the hell ARE you on about? Because if it were TRULY about not increasing CS to cover those costs, as was said, NO ONE has even broached that subject but you.

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;I personally think both parents should be repsonsible if anything is considered truly extra then it should be addressed as extra or maybe even call it extra-curricular.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

ENTIRELY different topic from the housing. You're mixing two subjects. Purposely?

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;You did mention the law about having to get an extra room, what would have happened if you did not get the "extra" room.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

CPS would have removed the child.

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Maybe the world disagrees, but until you become the world spokesman, thank you for playing.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

Until you figure out which topic you're speaking about, you're the ONLY one playing. But I'm onto your game.
_________________________
Char Fox

Top
#199436 - 03/04/07 12:04 AM Re: Sometimes they don't... [Re: almostheaven]
Redlegg Offline
Carpal \'Tunnel

Registered: 10/06/06
Posts: 27903
I apologize for the willingly issue, my whole point is that it is CS, thats it, you pay for the same things you paid for when you were married, housing, food etc. It should be split accordingly, you should not suddenly get extra CS,(by extra, I mean what is considered beyond the needs) the child needed the same things when you were married that they do when your divorced. I just can't consider housing food and needs as extra. I too willingly pay it even when I don't need to. Because its the right thing to do. I never once considered what others do, I have been told I am stupid (by others besides you)for paying the CS when he lives with me, and I agreed to pay more than the state because it was again, the right thing to do. What I am about is that utilities, housing and food are exactly what CS is about and to me they are not extra. I never looked at them as extra when I was married, not when he lived with her for two months, and not since he has lived with me for the last 30 months. Again I apologize for assuming anything wrong, it is just my opinion. The whole extra cost about housing was brought up as the difference between a 1 and 2 bedroom house/apt. I didn't see it as extra because its not like anyone suddenly had this expense because they were divorced, the need was there during the marriage so I could not see it as extra. You mentioned that the law where you are at said you had to get an another room. Actually it kind of burns me up that anyone thinks of any part of CS as covering extra when it barely covers the usual needs. I probably got hung up on the word extra.

Top
#199437 - 03/04/07 12:34 AM Re: Sometimes they don't... [Re: Redlegg]
almostheaven Offline
Carpal \'Tunnel

Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 10468
Loc: West Virginia
Ok, so maybe I was reading you wrong. I've had enough people come around arguing to get out of support or reduce their support any way they can, that anytime I see someone arguing strongly against something that CS should cover, they seem to be in this category.

First, I don't call someone stupid for paying above guidelines unless they do it because they don't know any better and thought they had no other recourse. If they do it for their child, they're doing it for the right reasons, and if they have the extra to pay, good for them. I don't even have a problem with an NCP who CAN'T pay what is ordered. I have a problem with those who won't or those who try to lower CS below something reasonable or below guidelines when they CAN afford it and when the child is benifitting from it, just because they don't wanna pay their ex a dime.

Yes, it was the "extra" comment that derailed everything. I consider anything a child costs to be extra above and beyond what an adult alone would cost, and that "extra" cost should be adequately split between the parents accordingly.

As for the extra-curriculars. I figure if the child is doing them while in an intact family, they should continue them after and both split the costs IF feasible. If they were barely on the edge and now have two households, the activity might have to go. If the child was too young or the family was never intact, an activity should be considered according to income (as to whether the family can afford it) as a normal part of growing up. Multiple activities, no. But I think everything needs to be reasonable. I think all the petty bickering over the money is brought on by unreasonable CS orders and unreasonable parties (CPs and NCPs alike). It's the reasonable people who suffer because of it. IE: My ex unreasonably thought he shouldn't have to pay one penny for a child he decided he didn't want since I wasn't part of the package. So it was our daughter that suffered for it. I only felt he should pay half of her actual costs, which I figured out to be about $161/mo. plus $100/mo. daycare for her first 12 years. I paid my parents more than that.
_________________________
Char Fox

Top
Page 6 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6

Moderator:  dsAdmin 


Resources & Tools
Start Your Divorce Online Start Your Divorce
Several Options to Get Started Today.
Divorce Tools Online Divorce Tools
Keeping it Simple to Get the Job Done.
Divorce Downloads Download Center
Instantly Download Books, Guides & Forms.
Divorce and Custody Books Discount Books
Over 100 of the Best Divorce & Custody Books.
Negotiate Online Negotiate Online
Settle your Divorce and Save.
Custody and Support Tracking Custody Scheduling
Make Sure You Document Everything.

Easily Connect With a Lawyer or Mediator
Have Divorce Professionals from Your Area Contact You!
Enter Your Zip Code: