Custody issues

[janman345]

Okay. I'll play along.



Good point. Some jobs don't allow for a second job. So that's where the OTHER options he has would come into play. Again, that's why you gather ALL of your options.



I said a second job was an OPTION. That could mean part time, temporary, on call, etc. It doesn't mean he has to have a fixed schedule. Some places ALSO allow for you to set your own schedule, so it's not like he would NEVER see his kids if he had to get a second job. And, if this was not plausible, then there ARE other options he could go with.

Percentages vary by state.



This is an ASSUMPTION. Not fact. You talk as if everything is exactly as you say, when it isn't. I was in a full time job that allowed me to pick the hours I wanted every week, and I was new to the job. I had a part time job that allotted certain days off every week. There are employers who will work with you on your schedule.

Also, if a second job isn't feasible, find another option.



Funny. You suggested "working under the table" to him in one of your responses.



You talk as though everything is exactly as you say, when there is a much bigger picture that involves more options than a father being either homeless, or never seeing his kids.



I doubt the sincerity of this statement. I really do. My mom has been riding the bus for years, and when given the choice and opportunity to go back to her own vehicle(meaning she could easily afford to drive herself to work), she refused. She loves riding the bus, and we live near a big city. Everyone else I know who's ridden the bus loves it, and the times I've ridden the bus, I've loved it.

And, even if it was true, there's always a bike. No gas, barely any maintenance, virtually no cost whatsoever.



I said drive to work. I didn't say get rid of the vehicle. Sheesh.



Fine. Where are you moving? Canada: sure, that might not be as expensive. The America dollar is higher than theirs. Coming from Florida(which I'm assuming is the furthest state from Canada) wouldn't be as expensive as moving to say, France. Mexico: yes, I can see that being cheaper. The American dollar is like, ten times higher than the Peso. Coming from Maine(which I'll assume is the furthest state from Mexico) would also not be as expensive as moving to someplace in Europe. However, the crime rate in Mexico is terrible. Europe: very expensive. The American dollar is worth less than the Euro, plus you'd have to either sell of your belongings(like furniture, vehicle, etc.) and buy new ones when you arrive, or pay to have those shipped over 8,000 miles, depending on where you live in the U.S. So, actually, moving out of the country may NOT necessarily equal more money, even with a job.



Assumption.



Another assumption.



Yet another assumption.



SHE left HIM. The honor isn't in financing HER, it's about wanting to be a father to his kids. I'm not referring to the child support there, either. I mean in his time with them, wanting to be near them, wanting to be apart of their lives. Or are you seriously suggesting he dump his boys and forget about them, and find another women to make more babies with?



I don't have any idea what this means.



Since when did we start talking about HER? I'M talking about the DAD.



Again, I'm not talking about the wife. I'm talking about the dad.

The point is this: he doesn't WANT to leave the country, because HE LOVES HIS SONS AND WANTS TO BE APART OF THEIR LIVES. That is what is honorable. Is he going to pay a lot in child support? Most likely, and it's WRONG that he should pay as much as the courts will make him pay. However, that does not mean he only has two options. He has quite a few options that WILL help him financially, as well as relationally with his sons. Your narrow minded view is not the only option out there.[/quote]

It seems you like to pick but dont offer any of these "options" you keep speaking about, keep in mind in this economy it is VERY hard just to find a job let alone one that is as flexable as you say and finding a second job when alot of people cant find a first job is really reaching. When you are working over seas the company finances the move and you are typically making big money (as long as the ex does not find out where are and garnish you into oblivion) so the exchange rate is a non issue. It sounds like you have no idea about the real world. These things you label as assumptions maybe be true but they are very good assumptions based on reality.

 

[ProAntiRevolution]

Getting a second job is about the most horrible advice a child support payer can get. First, it simply means you will have to pay more child support. That income can then be used to increase the percentage of medical and daycare expenses you must pay. Lastly, if the debtor ever gets sick of having absolutely no life outside of sweatshop labor a family court judge can impute him an income based on the second job essentially forcing him to continue working it, or be jailed.

 

[Created2Write]

Getting a second job is about the most horrible advice a child support payer can get. First, it simply means you will have to pay more child support. That income can then be used to increase the percentage of medical and daycare expenses you must pay. Lastly, if the debtor ever gets sick of having absolutely no life outside of sweatshop labor a family court judge can impute him an income based on the second job essentially forcing him to continue working it, or be jailed.

Fine.

But you have, also, failed to see my point. So a second job would not be appropriate. But there are MANY other options that would make saving money easier, even in light of paying child support. Janman gave Fields two choices: be poor and homeless but see the kids, or give up the kids and move out of the country. Both are absurd, as there are many more options than those two alone.

That's my point.
Sheesh.

 

[Created2Write]

It seems you like to pick but dont offer any of these "options" you keep speaking about,

Um, actually I have offered the options. Since a second job seems to be "the worst advice ever", look at some of the other options I gave: coupons(you can save hundreds of dollars on food and household items by using coupons faithfully.), riding the bus to work to save on gas and car maintenance and/or riding a bike to work and/or walking and/or carpooling(there are plenty of transportation options that could cut down on costs as well), there are things you can even do within your home to make your utilities less expensive. So, there you have it: options.

keep in mind in this economy it is VERY hard just to find a job let alone one that is as flexable as you say and finding a second job when alot of people cant find a first job is really reaching.

Last I read, he already has a job, so finding one isn't an issue here. The second job has been shot down, apparently, though I don't see how extra income could be a bad thing, even IF you have to pay child support out of it.

When you are working over seas the company finances the move

I'm sure some companies do. But I know a family personally who moved from America to England, where the husband was transferred through his work. The company did not finance their move. They were there for three to four years, and recently moved back to America. He was transferred again by the same company, and again, they did not finance their move. So, yes, while some companies might, not every company does.

and you are typically making big money (as long as the ex does not find out where are and garnish you into oblivion)

And you would know this, how? To work in another country, I'm pretty sure you have to become a citizen. So, if you're a citizen of another country, and you're living and working there, I don't see how you would be required to pay child support still. Show me proof that what you say is accurate.

so the exchange rate is a non issue.

Way to dodge the point, man. Considering the last two points I made, the exchange rate IS an issue. It's a rather substantial issue.

It sounds like you have no idea about the real world. These things you label as assumptions maybe be true but they are very good assumptions based on reality.

Assumptions do not mean anything, when facts are being debated. Your entire argument is contingent on your assumptions which, from what I have seen, are totally unfounded. All you have done is offer your own opinion, not facts. Not proof. Just opinions and assumptions. And you say your assumptions are based on reality, when you shove aside the actual reality being presented to you.

You never did address my question, which is my whole point to begin with: are you actually suggesting that this man should leave hid kids, and work in another country?

 

[ProAntiRevolution]

Last I read, he already has a job, so finding one isn't an issue here. The second job has been shot down, apparently, though I don't see how extra income could be a bad thing, even IF you have to pay child support out of it.

While some states allow you to file a preclusion against the income from a second job, that is only if you are doing it to support a second family. The reasons it's never a good idea:

1.With the hike in child support, and the likely increase in medical and daycare percentages it's likely the entire income from your second job will simply be stolen from you for your ex-spouses benefit.
2.If you ever become unhappy working the second job you can be forced via wage imputation to continue working it.
3.Even if the extra child support, daycare, and medical don't eat all the income from a second job, the tax hike will probably take care of it. Failing that there's also the cost of working: clothes, transportation, meals, ect that will. Even without the child support factor, on a tax basis alone it's often not worth it for someone working full time to get a second job

 

[janman345]

Um, actually I have offered the options. Since a second job seems to be "the worst advice ever", look at some of the other options I gave: coupons(you can save hundreds of dollars on food and household items by using coupons faithfully.), riding the bus to work to save on gas and car maintenance and/or riding a bike to work and/or walking and/or carpooling(there are plenty of transportation options that could cut down on costs as well), there are things you can even do within your home to make your utilities less expensive. So, there you have it: options.



Last I read, he already has a job, so finding one isn't an issue here. The second job has been shot down, apparently, though I don't see how extra income could be a bad thing, even IF you have to pay child support out of it.



I'm sure some companies do. But I know a family personally who moved from America to England, where the husband was transferred through his work. The company did not finance their move. They were there for three to four years, and recently moved back to America. He was transferred again by the same company, and again, they did not finance their move. So, yes, while some companies might, not every company does.



And you would know this, how? To work in another country, I'm pretty sure you have to become a citizen. So, if you're a citizen of another country, and you're living and working there, I don't see how you would be required to pay child support still. Show me proof that what you say is accurate.



Way to dodge the point, man. Considering the last two points I made, the exchange rate IS an issue. It's a rather substantial issue.



Assumptions do not mean anything, when facts are being debated. Your entire argument is contingent on your assumptions which, from what I have seen, are totally unfounded. All you have done is offer your own opinion, not facts. Not proof. Just opinions and assumptions. And you say your assumptions are based on reality, when you shove aside the actual reality being presented to you.

You never did address my question, which is my whole point to begin with: are you actually suggesting that this man should leave hid kids, and work in another country?

Yea you could clip coupons, ride the bus and live in low income housing, so what part of that is not living like your in the poor house? I understand prudent financial restraint but thoes things are not my idea of a good time. I never denyed there was not ways to do it they just suck. Also have you ever heard the term expatriot, thats the people that work in the middle east and russia from the USA.

The only way to do it is to work under the table as long as you can pull in enough money on the side to live mid middle class.

It seems you dont have a solid grasp on reality, did you even understand proanti's point on imputed income and the tax implications of being in a new tax bracket plus the additional CS amount they will take out, smart people dont like working for free, I dont even like working my first job and I like my job I just dont like getting up in the morning so I could not even imagine waking up to a job you dont like and then going to a second job you dont like.

Also even though my medical assumptions might be assumptions, slaves dont have a good track record of living very long because they are under the boot heel. You can call it an assumption but the next time you drive over a bridge remember that even engineers use well founded assumptions. Just because something is an assumption does not make it invalid.

There are ways around this problem you just dont like the solution, because its not "honorable" to you. I thought the premiss of the A-team was pretty good, despite all their efforts to do the right thing they became mercenarys anyways becuase the very system they were trying to do the right thing for was corrupt.

 

[ProAntiRevolution]

You also have to keep in mind that if you're living in a bad part of town, and/or don't have the greatest apartment the ex-wife can use that to try and get your visitation cut down to only a few hours at a "visitation center." Even if not successful in that venture, it is definitely going to be grounds to keep you from getting any more than the stand EOW visitation.

I don't know about fleeing the country. But I do know that most men that have success in increased custody time are so because they don't have wages that can be garnished (independent contractors, business owners, self employed, and so on) and are able to use that to gain leverage. For example: they know that the ex-wife depends on the child support to make her rent. If she won't be reasonable they can strategically withhold the support. Sure, she can file a contempt motion, but she'll be evicted long before she makes into family court.

 

[janman345]

You also have to keep in mind that if you're living in a bad part of town, and/or don't have the greatest apartment the ex-wife can use that to try and get your visitation cut down to only a few hours at a "visitation center." Even if not successful in that venture, it is definitely going to be grounds to keep you from getting any more than the stand EOW visitation.

I don't know about fleeing the country. But I do know that most men that have success in increased custody time are so because they don't have wages that can be garnished (independent contractors, business owners, self employed, and so on) and are able to use that to gain leverage. For example: they know that the ex-wife depends on the child support to make her rent. If she won't be reasonable they can strategically withhold the support. Sure, she can file a contempt motion, but she'll be evicted long before she makes into family court.

yea thats a very good point, if he can switch to being a contractor he can very easily hide money and do cash jobs (similar to working under the table). The court can also suspend drivers licence and other licences though making your contracting endevors near impossible although im not sure how much hoop jumping the court has to do to make this happen and I have heard you can make a few small payments (long after the ex is evicted) and it will stop the licence suspension, this is not CSED's first rodeo but certian enforements are harder to get than others thats really the key. I suggested leaving the country because as an engineer thats an easy option for me, I would not nessicarily be "fleeing" it would just be another form of working under the table.

The tricky thing is getting the court to impute a low number based on some "past income" so that you are not building arrears as you are working under the table based on some imputed income from some job you were making good money at because the arrears can go on beyond the point the kid reachs 18 to haunt you for the rest of your life. If the ex is uncooperative and needs your CS for a roof over her head becuase she is a dead beat then you dont want to even talk to her because the less she knows of what you are doing the better, you may need to take a low paying job during the times that you will have to provide pay stubs so that you set a precidence of a low imputed income.

Or you could just have huge arrerages and make minor nusance payments the rest of your life to prevent licnece seisure and after the kid is 18 the court will not care as much because at that point it just becomes alimony and if she is still a dead beat after 18 years then I dont think the court will have much sympathy for her. Alot of this game playing takes place when the divorce is fresh and the kids are little, once you have been divorced for a number of years and the kids are tweens its going to be alot harder for her to get court cooperation. The key is if the court has some really high imputed income from the time frame when teh divorce occured thats where you get burned.

Its better to supply the mcdonalds pay stubs so that the court has no documented knowlage (other than your exs word) that you were making fat money as a contractor becasue then you have to come up with an elaborate story as to why you were "laid off" and had to take a lower job and then the court will expect you to start making fat money again when the economy picks up and they will badger you with it especially if she keeps draging things into court. What ever you do never submit fatty pay stubs to the court, find out how far back the court needs pay stubs now and see if you can take vacation or a leave of absense and take a job at like 12$/hr until you have met that time line.

 

[Created2Write]

Yea you could clip coupons, ride the bus and live in low income housing, so what part of that is not living like your in the poor house? I understand prudent financial restraint but thoes things are not my idea of a good time. I never denyed there was not ways to do it they just suck. Also have you ever heard the term expatriot, thats the people that work in the middle east and russia from the USA.

The only way to do it is to work under the table as long as you can pull in enough money on the side to live mid middle class.

It seems you dont have a solid grasp on reality, did you even understand proanti's point on imputed income and the tax implications of being in a new tax bracket plus the additional CS amount they will take out, smart people dont like working for free, I dont even like working my first job and I like my job I just dont like getting up in the morning so I could not even imagine waking up to a job you dont like and then going to a second job you dont like.

Also even though my medical assumptions might be assumptions, slaves dont have a good track record of living very long because they are under the boot heel. You can call it an assumption but the next time you drive over a bridge remember that even engineers use well founded assumptions. Just because something is an assumption does not make it invalid.

There are ways around this problem you just dont like the solution, because its not "honorable" to you. I thought the premiss of the A-team was pretty good, despite all their efforts to do the right thing they became mercenarys anyways becuase the very system they were trying to do the right thing for was corrupt.

You miss my point every single time I post. You don't even answer my questions, which proves a lot. I'm beginning to see that your "reality" has absolutely no moral standing at all. I only hope that Fields ignores your "advice". I applaud him for being willing to sacrifice, FOR HIS CHILDREN. I applaud him for being willing to give up comfort and "a good time"(since WHEN if life about having a good time, btw?), FOR HIS CHILDREN.

Once again, I rest my case, as you have failed to answer my questions, or even understand the points I have been making.

 

[ProAntiRevolution]

You miss my point every single time I post. You don't even answer my questions, which proves a lot. I'm beginning to see that your "reality" has absolutely no moral standing at all. I only hope that Fields ignores your "advice". I applaud him for being willing to sacrifice, FOR HIS CHILDREN. I applaud him for being willing to give up comfort and "a good time"(since WHEN if life about having a good time, btw?), FOR HIS CHILDREN.

Once again, I rest my case, as you have failed to answer my questions, or even understand the points I have been making.

So a grown man should give up enjoying life so children can have creature comforts? And people say that Child centricism hasn't turned to madness.

 

[janman345]

You miss my point every single time I post. You don't even answer my questions, which proves a lot. I'm beginning to see that your "reality" has absolutely no moral standing at all. I only hope that Fields ignores your "advice". I applaud him for being willing to sacrifice, FOR HIS CHILDREN. I applaud him for being willing to give up comfort and "a good time"(since WHEN if life about having a good time, btw?), FOR HIS CHILDREN.

Once again, I rest my case, as you have failed to answer my questions, or even understand the points I have been making.

I do answer your questions and you just say its all assumption, we have a fundamental difference of opinion, I dont believe in sacraficing that much for an offspring, I believe basic needs should be met but the CS award amounts are usually way above and beyond what a kid needs especially if the NCP is a high wage earner.

You believe men should be financial slaves to their offspring and ex mates who no longer put out anymore and I believe that is foolishness and no where are any of your opinions biblically validated they are just your opinion so you dont really have any claim to a moral high ground. Myself and Pro have made very pointed arguments and all you have done is talk in generalities, I have friends who have gone through this goat rope and are still going through it and one of my friends had to live in my office/spare room for a summer because the CS was so extreme (he worked construction so he relyed on savings to live when work was low but CS made sure that his savings were non existant so he just barely had enough to get by when he was working and once the lay offs started he knew he would be screwed because he did not have the savings he needed for the next season to start) thats really. People go to school and training so they dont have to work at mcdonalds so I am of the mind set that certian jobs are beneth certian people and I will support them when they get burned, if your a lazy bum then I say work at mcdonalds but if you are a skill laborer and welder but are being extorted I dont think you should be working at mcdonalds. That is regression not progression. Life is hard but only a fool works aginast himself to make it harder.

 

[fields316_2000]

i just got back from mediation, again.
turns out the mediator not only agreed with me that i should be a more active role in the boys lives, but theres no reason for me not to be. She also liked my outline of a parenting plan and even scheduled a meeting to talk to the boys because she knew that my ex is going to disagree with everything i said. i'll be taking them myself this coming tuesday