Ugh... got a copy of a subpeona in the mail today regarding my divorce...

[stilleto]

Must be nice to actually receive even $.01 of child support

that friggin' sucks if you're not.
did you give that up to get full custody? i'm sorry, but you deserve SOMETHING to help out. did he relinquish all responsibility to lumberg? can you take him to court?

(this is personal stuff, i know. don't answer if you don't want to publicly)

 

[blueta2]

When I read stuff like this I wonder why people are even open to marry and have children.

Ditto.....the only ppl that I know that are still married are my parents. All my friends are divorced and going through what JH1 is

 

[jh1]

Must be nice to actually receive even $.01 of child support

That's just as wrong. I presume that assplant doesn't have income. Or is impossible to collect from.

I think that's bullshit as well.

 

[jh1]

Nah.. that's wrong.

Here's a more clear example:

Man makes: $ 60,000 (60%)

Woman makes: $40,000 (40%)

Combined income: $100,000

Assume the amount for the child per month by statue for 100k is $1000.00

Man contributes: 600
Woman contributes: 400

50/50 legal and physical. Woman is the presumed recipient in this case since she makes less money.

Woman gets $660 or 66%, man gets $340 or 34%.

Net result man pays woman $260 per month.

See the math is fine - contributions to the amount of CS are based on income %'s. It all falls apart when the court 'Devides' the pool. They see the income percentages are relevant - which they are - but they fail to see the % of custody as releveant. 66% of the money for 50% of the custody.

In the above example - with the Honorable, Logical, and RIGHT Jay-H-One presiding. The man would pay the woman a net of $100 per month. Which devides the pool of $1000 equally based on % of custody.

That's what the is logical conclusion is.

BTW - HR.. and others.

My wif is asking for 80% not the standard 66%.

And she is hiding income.

 

[all the whey]

Everytime I get some correspondence on this bullshit I get all anxious and pissed off.

I swear my wif went to her attorney and yapped her bitch mouth about how it didn't matter how much it cost that her daddy would pay for it and now her attorney is riding the money train all over her.

Everything they attempt is just rediculous and unecessary - simply her attorney using the situation to line his pockets.

But I can't tell her that because she won't beleive me, and on top of it she'll take it as me being fearfull of their actions and jsut keep on keeping on.

Stupid.

Bitch.


(Shut it Ksharp... just shut it right now)

 

[heatherrae]

Nah.. that's wrong.

Here's a more clear example:

Man makes: $ 60,000 (60%)

Woman makes: $40,000 (40%)

Combined income: $100,000

Assume the amount for the child per month by statue for 100k is $1000.00

Man contributes: 600
Woman contributes: 400

50/50 legal and physical. Woman is the presumed recipient in this case since she makes less money.

Woman gets $660 or 66%, man gets $340 or 34%.

Net result man pays woman $260 per month.

See the math is fine - contributions to the amount of CS are based on income %'s. It all falls apart when the court 'Devides' the pool. They see the income percentages are relevant - which they are - but they fail to see the % of custody as releveant. 66% of the money for 50% of the custody.

In the above example - with the Honorable, Logical, and RIGHT Jay-H-One presiding. The man would pay the woman a net of $100 per month. Which devides the pool of $1000 equally based on % of custody.

That's what the is logical conclusion is.

that is precisely what I said. It is divided PRO RATA based on incomes of both.

My point was that the statute doesn't say that the WOMAN gets the money. It depends on who is making more, who has custody, etc. Capeche? There isn't a state in the US that says the man pays the woman. It isn't based on gender anywhere.

 

[jh1]

Here is the a breakdown:

 

[NickyE3]

You must spread some Karma around before giving it to jh1 again.

 

[jh1]

that is precisely what I said. It is divided PRO RATA based on incomes of both.

My point was that the statute doesn't say that the WOMAN gets the money. It depends on who is making more, who has custody, etc. Capeche? There isn't a state in the US that says the man pays the woman. It isn't based on gender anywhere.

Oh yeah.. no it doesn't say gender. I am saying if you make more money you pay.. but it is not an equitable distribution. See my pasted example.

Your statement in bold is where it all falls apart. 50%-50% custody does not equal 50/50 support - even after the prorated income support amounts. I completely agree that support should be based on the income percentages - which it is. But they fail to make the support percetage distribution amounts tied directed to the custody % amounts.

Completely broken system.

 

[Oceano]

damn I don't wanna get old. you guys have all got divorces and kids an shiz