child support question

[cabanafrau]

What?

Child care is $150 a week, a co-pay would be $20 a week, the government program would pay $130. (just throwing out numbers there if the child was in full time care).

What are you trying to add up?

The blood from the turnip would be money from the ex if he doesn't have it.

I understand the premise of the program just fine. What I cannot understand is your statement that because the parents must be working to participate in the program, no one is supporting anyone. At the end of the day that $130 is coming from somewhere. Cannot tell you the number of times I've watched the bloodless turnips come up with the cash if they're facing incarceration if they don't. I'm all for doing where there's real need, but not onboard for paying off somebody else's bad decisions and continuing to be supportive for them to continue down that road for the indefinite future.

 

[luvsJack]

Well I wouldn't say it wasn't comprehended, I said I wasn't sure if I remembered correctly. I don't make it a point to recall everything that was said by who on this board.
And the point is still the same, it was your ds's time with his child and he wasn't stepping up finding a suitable arrangement for them on his time, when he couldn't watch them. Not very different than this IMO, but like I said before, your opinion of it is understandably biased.

No, it was not his time with his children. Why is that so difficult to understand? The whole point was so that the children would either be with one parent or the other. "On the weekends" and "When not at work" or two very different statements. I fail to see how you cannot comprehend that.

When he comes home from work he immediately goes and gets his kids, just like he is supposed to do. Its not his fault that she decided she needed to leave the state before he comes home from work.

 

[luvsJack]

I understand the premise of the program just fine. What I cannot understand is your statement that because the parents must be working to participate in the program, no one is supporting anyone. At the end of the day that $130 is coming from somewhere. Cannot tell you the number of times I've watched the bloodless turnips come up with the cash if they're facing incarceration if they don't. I'm all for doing where there's real need, but not onboard for paying off somebody else's bad decisions and continuing to be supportive for them to continue down that road for the indefinite future.

I am sure it happens. I am well aware of there being thousands of parent who can pay but choose not to. When I said blood from a turnip, I meant if the man does not make enough income to pay more. And if you are constantly hauling someone to court, there is costs to the taxpayers in that too.

 

[mickeyboat]

I understand the premise of the program just fine. What I cannot understand is your statement that because the parents must be working to participate in the program, no one is supporting anyone. At the end of the day that $130 is coming from somewhere. Cannot tell you the number of times I've watched the bloodless turnips come up with the cash if they're facing incarceration if they don't. I'm all for doing where there's real need, but not onboard for paying off somebody else's bad decisions and continuing to be supportive for them to continue down that road for the indefinite future.

Bolding mine.

I had a professor who loved to tell the story of a NC judge who told deadbeat dads to come to court with the money you owe or your toothbrush. She almost never sent people to jail.

 

[ilovemk76]

Has she thought about applying for help to pay for child care?

There is a program that will pay for child care as long as the parent works at least X# of hours a week.

Here it is applied for at a place called The District and it is paid through PRVO. No idea what it would be called in other areas. But it pays for in home sitters too.

She may have to have a regular sitter/caregiver for every night she works but that may work better anyway than depending on him.

This is HIS time withDD so HE should be hiring a babysitter.

If he no longer wants to have his DD then he needs to get the custody arrangement alters and he will pay more support as he will have her less time. He can also be ordered to pay for a portion of the babysitter and medical copays.
The amount will be in the same proportion as he pays of the DD's total cost of support.

 

[luvsJack]

This is HIS time withDD so HE should be hiring a babysitter.

If he no longer wants to have his DD then he needs to get the custody arrangement alters and he will pay more support as he will have her less time. He can also be ordered to pay for a portion of the babysitter and medical copays.
The amount will be in the same proportion as he pays of the DD's total cost of support.

We covered that. Yes, I am aware it is his time with his child. If he doesn't make arrangements and she can't go to work, that's a problem. If nothing makes him step up and do this, then she is the one that cannot make a living to support her child.


And all of that is dependent on where the OP lives. In this state it is 33% of the man's income or something to that effect. There is no basis on how much time is spent with each parent.

 

[ilovemk76]

OT: Well, like most people you missed the point in my thread, because he wasn't flaking out on anything or springing anything on her. It was HER springing things on people that actually have jobs and responsibilities.



BOT: IF the OP's friend gets sole custody, how is that going to change anything? He very well may still get visitation and he may very well still flake out on her. Having full custody does not necessarily equal not allowing the other parent to see the child.

She needs help in fixing the situation. The guy is wrong for not letting her know when he can't take the child when he knows she has to work. I am not saying this guy is right in what he is doing. Not by a long shot. I have BTDT many times with my own ex.

She needs this job, I am assuming. And I would think that the main point is that she needs to know that her child will be taken care of while she works. Regardless of what anyone wishes the thread to be about, I would assume the thing the OP wants to do is help her friend with this situation.

The best thing to do is figure out how to continue working and continue to know that her child is cared for. If changing the custody agreement (even IF the court system will and that's not exactly a given here.) will do that, so be it. If having the court change the support amount to include X$ for child care, then that is what she needs to do. If there is a solution that does not involve the court system, then maybe she should try that.

NONE of this is going to make the guy step up. Regardless of what you think someone should do, you can't make them do it. You can shout it to the roof tops and its not going to change a blessed thing.

OP, does the father work? What does he normally do for child care during the time he has the child?

Three weeks notice is springing things on him?

 

[cabanafrau]

No, it was not his time with his children. Why is that so difficult to understand? The whole point was so that the children would either be with one parent or the other. "On the weekends" and "When not at work" or two very different statements. I fail to see how you cannot comprehend that.

When he comes home from work he immediately goes and gets his kids, just like he is supposed to do. Its not his fault that she decided she needed to leave the state before he comes home from work.

It's an occupational hazard that I'm privy to an incredible amount of custody agreements. "When not at work" is a new one on me. To be honest that sounds like a paraphrase offered by a parent as explanation of why they aren't following the agreement when the court asks "What's the deal?" or an understanding between two people who have struck their own agreement because they want to keep the courts out of it.

In my experience it almost inevitably increases the misery to keep the court out of it. The hen's tooth of a case where the parties are so agreeable that they don't need a court agreement are probably so rare because if they are so compatible and cooperative with each other they'd stay together and raise their kids together. Making an agreement legal through the court doesn't have to mean a bloodbath, out to inflict maximum damage on the ex. I've seen it happen where the legal documentation somehow smooths the waters, which is fantastic for the kids.

 

[cabanafrau]

Bolding mine.

I had a professor who loved to tell the story of a NC judge who told deadbeat dads to come to court with the money you owe or your toothbrush. She almost never sent people to jail.

My job is in the court system. That's not a NC phenomenon, or a NC phrase. It isn't even exclusive to child support matters.

 

[mickeyboat]

My job is in the court system. That's not a NC phenomenon, or a NC phrase. It isn't even exclusive to child support matters.

I didn't say it was. I was agreeing with you, you know?

 

[luvmy3]

No, it was not his time with his children. Why is that so difficult to understand? The whole point was so that the children would either be with one parent or the other. "On the weekends" and "When not at work" or two very different statements. I fail to see how you cannot comprehend that.

When he comes home from work he immediately goes and gets his kids, just like he is supposed to do. Its not his fault that she decided she needed to leave the state before he comes home from work.

Oh, what happened to his wrestling shows? Lucky break the search function isn't working I guess.......

 

[cabanafrau]

I didn't say it was. I was agreeing with you, you know?

Sorry, didn't mean to offend, just saying the phrase and the experience is pretty universal. I think pack your toothbrush is a required course in law school.

 

[luvsJack]

Three weeks notice is springing things on him?

Do you have anything else to do? Really?

he. has. to. work. The agreement was "when he is not at work". Verbal agreement between the two of them.

 

[ilovemk76]

No, it was not his time with his children. Why is that so difficult to understand? The whole point was so that the children would either be with one parent or the other. "On the weekends" and "When not at work" or two very different statements. I fail to see how you cannot comprehend that.

When he comes home from work he immediately goes and gets his kids, just like he is supposed to do. Its not his fault that she decided she needed to leave the state before he comes home from work.

You also said that he would sometimes go to his WWF type event and then pick them up. You also stated many times you would pick up the kids for him.

 

[mickeyboat]

Sorry, didn't mean to offend, just saying the phrase and the experience is pretty universal. I think pack your toothbrush is a required course in law school.

And I would know, because I have been.

 

[luvsJack]

You also said that he would sometimes go to his WWF type event and then pick them up. You also stated many times you would pick up the kids for him.

I said that I would go and get the girls on Friday sometimes, when he had to work on Saturdays. It wasn't "for him" it was for THEM. Doesn't change the agreement between them. I was trying to help her out.

He does wrestle. The times he would get them after the show was when I would be home and he made arrangements for them to stay with me. The past few weekends because I couldn't be there (at competitions), he picked them up first.

 

[luvsJack]

It's an occupational hazard that I'm privy to an incredible amount of custody agreements. "When not at work" is a new one on me. To be honest that sounds like a paraphrase offered by a parent as explanation of why they aren't following the agreement when the court asks "What's the deal?" or an understanding between two people who have struck their own agreement because they want to keep the courts out of it.

In my experience it almost inevitably increases the misery to keep the court out of it. The hen's tooth of a case where the parties are so agreeable that they don't need a court agreement are probably so rare because if they are so compatible and cooperative with each other they'd stay together and raise their kids together. Making an agreement legal through the court doesn't have to mean a bloodbath, out to inflict maximum damage on the ex. I've seen it happen where the legal documentation somehow smooths the waters, which is fantastic for the kids.

If you had read the thread being re-attacked you have found that it is not a legal agreement. There is no legal agreement. There has been no court agreement, no one is going to court. There has been no divorce proceedings or anything of that nature.

They are separated. She moved out. He got a better job than the one he had finally making enough he can support his family but it is out of town. He is only home on the weekends. They agreed that he would come get the kids when he is not working. He doesn't really want a divorce at this time, (don't know what she wants) so he hasn't gone to a lawyer or tried to get an agreement. After the last couple of weekends, that may change. It is certainly not my call to tell someone they may need to start divorce proceedings or get an order of custody for the kids. There is no such creature as a legal separation in this state.

It may be in your experience that everyone who doesn't run to the judge about every little detail is trying to get by with something, but not in mine. In fact, I have known of judges that told a few couples if they came back in their courtroom over something so trivial, they would be fined.

 

[StitchesGr8Fan]

This thread turned in to an argument between a couple posters instead of helpful suggestions for OP.

 

[allison443]

I am asking this for my friend. She has been divorced for about a year. She has custody of her 4 year DD ( who has autism) but her ex is supposed to have her from Wed morning till Friday Morning. He is supposed to pick her up wed, bring her to and from school, she sleeps at his house and then brings her home friday morning. My friend schedules her work ( she is a bartender/waitress) so she works doubles weds and thurs, while her ex has dd and then tries to pick up another shift during the weekend when her mom can babysit.

The issue is for the last 3 or 4 months he has been bailing on her at least twice a month. He will "forget" he had a doctor's appointment that day or got called into work and if he doesn't take it "he'll get fired" so my friend ends up having to either call into work or hire a sitter, last minute, both which causes her to loose money. Sometimes he will give her some $$ for a sitter but its never the amount she would have gotten if she worked or didn't have to hire a sitter.

he just posted on facebook that he had the flu and strep and couldn't get out of bed. I asked her if she knew he was sick and of course he never called her ( he still calls her at least 3-4 times a week.) he said it was because he was "too sick" but he had been online most of the day. she told him she needed to give her money so she could hire a sitter and he told her he couldnt afford too. She finally got him to give her $70.

She can barely afford to live. she does get child support but most of that goes to copays for dd's therapies. and because she has to miss work a lot she barely brings in $300 a month for that... that doesnt even cover food, her car, gas and diapers..

She is thinking about going back to court and getting full custody and trying to get more child support so she can just hire a sitter.. do you think its a good idea? any ideas

If she works double shifts on Wednesdays and Thursdays, and tries to pick up a shift on the weekend, that's five shifts a week, isn't it? So 20 shifts a month and she brings home $300 a month? How is that possible? Even if she missed work once or twice a month when you said her ex bails on her, that's still 16 - 18 shifts a month that she works. She should be getting more than $300. I must be missing something.

Also while she is trying to figure out the situation with her ex, she should find a reliable babysitter. Doesn't she normally make enough to pay a babysitter while she's at work? I get that it would eat into her pay, but wouldn't it be better to make something rather than nothing, which is what happens when she skips her shift due to her ex bailing.
Has she looked for something she could do while her dd is in school?

 

[dogluva]

That only took four hours!!

Your DS and (STBX)DIL need to stop taking advantage of his grandmother. The grandmother needs to learn to say NO!

It sure seems like the (STBX)DIL had the younger one.

BTW supporting you family includes putting a roof over their heads. Your son has never done this.

Weird-you know to much about this family. I find it creepy.