Conference quokka::non_custodial_parents

    Loaded questions? :) Hire the lawyer and go by the books reguardless.

	  I can imagine few subjects more inflammatory than asking an NCP
     what a "fair" child support payment is.  I feel like being inflamed
     today, so I'll respond.

	  Personally, I think that the entire concept of child support is
     unfair: generally, it puts the father in the position of being
     prohibited from contributing to his children's welfare through his
     presence, and then purports to balance the scales by putting a
     crippling economic load on him.  In a world where the children's
     welfare was actually a concern, a parent's being able to support his
     children would be an argument for being named custodian, rather than
     an argument for being being a ripe target for legalized extortion.

	  Arguably, if there must be child support, it should be the amount
     that the NCP would spend on the children were the children with him. 
     Given that most household costs are fixed and the additional cost per
     person of running a household is small, child support arguably should
     be no more than 10% of the NCP's net income.

	  I also think that amount of child support paid should be reduced
     pro rata for each hour the children are with the NCP, with a zero
     point at 3.5 days -- because, if the NCP has the children for, say,
     two days/week, he is directly supporting the children 29% anyway, is
     57% of the way to being "primary parent," and should not have to pay
     "child support" to some other party for support he has already given
     to the children.

	  But I recognize that until child support starts being based on
     the needs of the child, as opposed to the wants of the CP, that this
     state of affairs which is equitable and maximally of benefit to the
     children will not come about.

	  Until then, of course, as custodian, you have the statutory right
     to almost completely deny your ex the benefit of his labors. You have
     a statutory right to half of his income. You have a statutory right to
     have the state sieze his assets for your benefit, sieze his means of
     livelihood for your benefit, sieze his income for your benefit, and,
     should even this degree of mastery not satisfy you, to deny to him his
     liberty for your amusement and gratification.  So it really doesn't
     matter what NCPs think is fair, does it, massa?

				   Brian Hetrick

    Usually the child support is based on some percentage or some formula
    that is based on the _combined_ salaries of _both_ parents.  I am
    not familiar with what rules MASS goes by, however,  they may just
    stick it to the NCP anyway.  You'll need to check this out in the
    local law books.  Also a certain amount of the support is based on
    the assumption of house payments or rent payments, so what's (fair)
    will also depend on rent/payments, medical bills not covered by
    insurance, etc).  Personally I think 50% is a pretty hefty hit.


    As for the house and stuff, I'll have to take you word for it.
    You are probably legally entitled to it, and the children are
    entitled to a safe and consistent environment.

    As for the rest of it, it is not for me to say.  He is probably
    getting off easy in the stocks, etc.  The insurance for his car
    is probably his to pay, as is part of the medical.  Might work
    out something that you will take care of the medical and he will
    take care of his own insurance.  Maybe balanced by some adjustment
    in the support payments one way or another.  

    If you can work this out without a lawyer somehow, thought, you both,
    and the kids, will come out ahead.  If you can work an agreement
    without one party feeling that they got screwed by the court and being
    resentful about the other party, then everyone will benefit.

    
    
    One other thought.  You will benefit a lot more from an amount that
    he will pay willingly than you will by getting a court order for a 
    huge crippling amount that he will resist paying.
    
    fred();

    Re: .0 - Don't forget that the child support calcualtions take
    into account your pay as well.  The amount he owes may be less
    depending on your salary.  I think someone posted the worksheet
    in here, you may want to plug in the numbers and see what the 
    results are.  

        re: .0  
        
        My advice.  Look out for yourself.  See a lawyer.  Find out 
        exactly what your ex would be responsible for.  Once both of you 
        know what the likely payments/obligations would be, you are in a 
        better position to know exactly how generous you are being.
        
        From personal experience as an NCP, I was astounded at what I was 
        responsible for.  While I'm not real pleased at the calculated 
        amounts, my ex did reduce my actual obligation somewhat.  
        
        If I were not aware of what I would likely be legally responsible 
        for, I would think that my reduced amount was outrageous and 
        unfair.  But, given that it could easily be worse, I'm satisfied.
        
        Good Luck,
        
        Steve

    Yep, you hit a hot button with NCP's.
    
    First, yes, I agree with the -.1 about protecting yourself.  However, I
    am not so sure seeing a lawyer is going to do that.  Once the sharks
    get involved, the only ones who come out of the fray unscathed are the
    sharks (lawyers).  Everyone else gets brutalized.
    
    There is not enough info in the base note for me to formulate a detailed
    opinion, as we are hearing only one side,  so I can only offer some 
    general observations and suggestions:
    
    	>  Since it's in Mass., your soon-to-be-ex is SCREWED, and you 
           control the screwdriver!  Regardless of what he tells you, or
    	   threatens you or anything else, YOU are in the driver's seat.
           With that in mind, I commend you - and envy your soon-to-be-ex -
    	   on your spirit of fairplay and willingness to negotiate a
    	   reasonable settlement.  Not every CP is as humane.  And, the
    	   divorce system in MASS. is anything but humane.  Thus, if he is
    	   smart, he'll try to reciprocate your spirit of fairplay.  
    
    	>  From the base note, you are into negotiation.  This, in itself,
    	   requires specific skills and experience.  If you don't have it,
    	   get it; and, it doesn't have to be a lawyer, although when you
    	   have hammered out something, you WILL want to run it by one (as
    	   disgusting as that process is - take Rolaids or something, and
    	   for god's sake, don't touch one of them!) just so you know all
    	   of your options, and feel safe with the end point agreement.
    
    	>  The Mass child support "guideline" is white-collar criminality.
    	   Yes, in many - not all - cases, it is overkill.  However, it is 
    	   a case by case issue.  It sounds like this is an area you can 
    	   negotiate to both of your satisfaction, as you've already 
    	   demonstrated a willingness to be flexible (certainly you 
    	   expect something in return - and should expect it).  Keep it
    	   integrated into the total package; not a separate issue.
    
    	>  Your request for a two year stay to buy him out, to me, is not
    	   unreasonable, assuming other issues can be negotiated with
    	   equality.
    
    	>  Exact salary figures are not available, so I don't know what
    	   double your salary means.  This is important, given your 
    	   willingess to forego stocks, bonds, etc.  You may want to 
    	   reconsider your position here.  This is not to nail him, but
    	   rather, in the interest of fairness to all.
    
    	>  As for his argument about not wanting the children - BULLSH*T!
    	   They're his as much as yours! If he didn't want them, why didn't
    	   he just say no?   He HAS a legal and financial responsiblity to 
    	   them; not to mention a moral and emotional obligation.  The 
    	   relationship or non-relationship doesn't matter.  And, gee, 
    	   being the "adult", if there is no relationship, just whose fault 
    	   is that???  A child?  I think not, nor does any psychologist.  
    	   It may be "his" house for now, but not for much longer...  And, 
    	   oh, by the way Dad, did mom show you the new restraining order?????
    
    Regrettably - and I say this as an NCP father who got royally screwed
    by the wonderful police state of Mass., your soon-to-be-ex is in for
    one h*ll of a rude wake up call.  He'll be doing himself a BIG favor
    by waking up before the alarm goes off.
    
    As to the base question of fairness, it's very much like truth and
    justice; there's very little of either in the court system.  Right
    now you and your soon-to-be-ex can define fairness.  Once the case
    goes to the sharks and court, fairness becomes a mute point.
    
    FWIW:  Continue your spirit of fairplay and negotiation as long as 
    	   you can, while ALWAYS protecting yourself and the children.  
    	   If he doesn't follow suit, then you have no recourse but to 
    	   allow him to experience reality via the sharks and the system.
    
    Good luck and best wishes for an amiable and mutually agreeable
    resolution.  
    
    - Bill

         Keep us posted !! My wife who is still in the process of divorcing
    me has allready asked for >50% of my net pay!! My two oldest will be in
    parochial school next year so she wants me to ante up 100 dollars a
    week over and above the Mass. formula. I've been trying to show her how
    little would be left for me to survive on and she clams up. Saying
    "I'll have to talk to my lawyer". If they come close to awarding her
    this much I'd have about $43 dollars a week for food and gas after
    paying my fixed expenses. I'll keep ya'll posted.
    
                     BB

Well having just gone through this(and I'm still so sore I can't sit) I can tell
you first hand that the work sheet and the sharks have no concept of life after 
divorce for the NCP.  I ended up paying 16% of my gross salary, stock, interest
etc....bottom line any money I ever had! (note "had")   What amazed me about 
the whole process is that they put you thru hours of filling out this financial
disclosure statement about income, debts, assets, etc.....and it plays no role in
the decision making process for child support.  If the judge had read the state-
ment he would have seen that I was running a loss of more than $300/month.  I
can no longer afford to go out, buy clothes,repair my house, a new car will be a
thing to dream about(of course she bought hers two weeks before she announced 
the divorce).I can see the kids quite frequently and never be able to do anything
with them because I'm broke!  

I agree with a previous response also about the amount of support being revelant
to the "real cost" of raising a child and decremented in relation to time spent
with the NCP.  I have my kids five out of nine weeks this summer and get to pay
dearly each week for the privilage,  why should I have to pay her when I have 
them.  You want to know why, so she can pay for her new $250+k house!! 

If you can find it in your heart to be fair and negotiate a settlement without 
lawyers, do so.  I agree that you should at least consult with one to define your
rights under the law.  Do this to establish a  baseline negotiation point for
yourself, then work from there.  When my ex and I started this process, we also 
agreed not to seek out a lawyer, not to force the other to commit financial 
sucide.  This was an easy commitment to make when it didn't involve $$$$, but as
soon as the subject of child support and real estate came up, the gloves came 
off!  EX: when we married I owned my house with a $28K loan and $70K in equity,
we refinanced and purchased income property(which she now owns). I now have my
house amazingly, with a $90K loan and $40K equity, while she walks away with my
$50K and the income property.  Not only does she get child support but she makes
about $4K /yr in income after expenses, she gets the depreciation for years to
come for moneys that I invested in the property, the list  just goes on and 
on and on.........


This was a real loaded question to ask, since most, if not all of us NCP's got 
the perverbal "SH*TTY end of the stick" in this process(especially this of us
fortunate to live in the wonderful state of MASS).  I do commend and admire you 
for at least being considerate enough to listen to the other side. 

	Best of luck in the fun times ahead...

    One of the earmarks of socialism is the lack of property rights of the
    individual.  Governments, including Germany under Adolph Hitler, never
    say: "Let's take away the peoples' property rights".  Instead, they
    conjure up a compelling (or compelling-sounding) reason to enforce
    transfer payments.  Transfer payments in this country are bad an
    getting worse.
    
    Consider the following scenario:
    
    1) No-fault divorce (ie, the marriage contract was never breached by
       the father, but was by the mother in that she reneged on her
       lifetime promise of faithfulness to her mate and family.)
    2) Maternal prejudice in the court determines that custody and transfer
       payements should go to the mother.  (Note no requirement to account
       for the transfer payment nor to ensure that it is spent in the best
       interests of the children.)
    3) Father loses job.  Can't get court hearing in time to avoid
       arrearage in child support. (If Congressman Henry Hyde has his way
       you'll be a federal felon in 30 days if you cross a state line)
    4) Father does get court hearing, but court rules transfer payment
       should calculated based on historic income, rather than current
       income.  No justification -- just do it or go to jail.
    5) Father is hauled in for contempt of court for not paying court-ordered
       child support even though the child support exceeds his income.
       Father is denied trial by jury and is told that all that matters is
       whether or not he obeyed the court order.
    6) Father goes to jail. "What are you in here for?" he is asked and he
       can reply is "I don't know.  I never broke a law and I never
       breached a contract.  I couldn't obey the dictates the court even 
       though the court issued a dictate to me ordering me to do something
       it either knew or should have known was impossible for me to do.
    7) The State and Federal Welfare people keeps their jobs, many of which
       are highly paid and cushy, while they denounce deadbeat Daddies.
    
    When America was founded, family law respected the sanctity of the
    marriage contract and allowed divorce only when that marriage contract
    was breached.  Today, we've called socialism liberalism, and adopted a
    concept that the state is superior to the family.  
    
    
                                    Kurt

    Welp..... Maybe if they re-state the draft. We can get out of it for
    non payment. Just like Arlo Guthroy.(sp) in Alices Restrant. Sit there
    on the group 'W' bench with father rapers and mother stabers. Fill out
    the questions. And get down to that last like:
    
    Kid, if we forgive you. Would you wanna bonb villages, burn towns,etc
    etc?:)
    
    You can get anything you want at Alice Restrant!;)

.10>  5) Father is hauled in for contempt of court for not paying court-ordered
   >     child support even though the child support exceeds his income.
   >    Father is denied trial by jury and is told that all that matters is
   >    whether or not he obeyed the court order.
   > 6) Father goes to jail. "What are you in here for?" he is asked and he
   >    can reply is "I don't know.  I never broke a law and I never
   >    breached a contract.  I couldn't obey the dictates the court even
   >    though the court issued a dictate to me ordering me to do something
   >    it either knew or should have known was impossible for me to do.


    I saw this maneuver used on a man from Mass who's parents and fiance
    had money.  The wispered_in_the_ear statement to the defendant was
    "your family can't be ordered to support your ex, but if YOU can get
    them to come up with some money, you can get out of this ..."

    (IMO) If the man is poor or homeless, it doesn't cost the state
    money or image directly, but if the mother and children are poor or
    homeless, it (1) cost the state money directly (AFDC), and (2) makes the
    lawyers and judges look bad. Hence, ...


    Richard    

    I heard (I know, heresay) from a father I was helping back when I was
    in NH that he was squeezed in a similar manner:
    
    He called me via FUEJ-NH the night before his hearing, saying the NH 
    Division of Welfare had told him he was going to jail on the next day 
    and that he had to appear in court before going jail (Note the lack of 
    respect for the US Constitution -- No pretense of a hearing).  On my
    advice, he asked for a court-appointed attorney.  He was denied an
    attorney, but the judge did mark down that he requested one.  This did
    get him a new trial later and he eventually got off.  
    
    On the day of the hearing, the court gave him a dollar amount to pay or 
    go to jail.  I was prepared to file a Petition for Writ of Habeas
    Corpus the next day.  Instead, relatives collected the money that
    sprung him that night.  He would have been better off waiting for the
    next day and getting sprung by US District Court in Concord, NH.  I
    believe the Division of Welfare viewed his ability to get $ into their
    hands as an incentive for them to go for more.  The re-trial which he
    won was a sham.  The lawyer had tried to buddy-up to the judge by not
    asserting the defendant's rights.  That was a mistake.  Off he went to
    jail.  The attorney had helped Joe in pro bono status.  Fortunately,
    this attorney was a very skilled attorney who was conducting seminars
    for Superior Court Judges across America and he then represented Joe
    quite adequately when the initial contempt of court period was over and
    the judge and NH Welfare wanted to renew it.  The NH Div of Welfare got
    so scared, they stopped going after him.  Unfortunately, once this was
    over and I asked Joe to join Fathers United for Equal Justice of NH, he
    no longer felt the need for FUEJ.  Last I heard, he was sending NH Div
    of Welfare Bible verses instead of money.
    
    Re: -1
    The welfarecrats' efforts to "save" the taxpayers money -- NOT.  What
    they really do is show results.  Some of these people justify their
    jobs by showing how much money they squeeze from fathers.  Then, they
    extrapolate to say many fathers who pay child support do so under fear
    of the Division of Welfare.  Hooray, their jobs are justified.  Most
    other welfarecrats justify their jobs by increasing their client-loads.
    That's the reason in many cases why they side with the mother.  Oh,
    there's plenty of maternal prejudice to be sure, but they also know
    their jobs and careers are tied to the overall client-load.  I called
    the NH Division of Welfare to ask how many fathers were collecting
    welfare.  I was assured that there were some.  The welfarecrat then
    offered to find one for me.  Oh, how that stack of papers flipped.  Not 
    a male collector was found.  There may be a few, perhaps even the 1% to 
    5% I was assured would be found.  But ask yourself, how many welfare
    jobs would there be if the client load dropped by 95% to 99%?
    
                                              Kurt

    Kurt,
    
    Suprised to hear that the Welfare office didn't send out a phone police
    to arrest you for asking such civil questions. Usually there is the
    sound of clicking heals in the back ground then a murmor of voices.
    Then and answer, which is always rude at best.
    
    

    Cute reply, but seriously, they can relay on the news media to print
    pro-welfare state views and the public education sysytem to teach kids
    that state is the protector (=owner) of children.  And the welfare
    state continues to grow.
    
    Heard on the news this morning in Colorado:  One of our feminist
    representatives here in Colorado Springs has introduced legislation
    forcing fathers to sign birth certificates for children of unwed
    relationships as well as for wedded fathers.  Her goal is to increase 
    collections of child support and re-imbursement of welfare for unwed 
    mothers.  Note how the anti-Daddy lobby puts all the responsibility on 
    the father and no responsibility on the mother for her actions.  
    1) What about the mothers who give a list of potential fathers, some 
       having only first names or knicknames?  
    2) I heard from a police officer here in Colorado Springs that the
       Colorado Courts are already enforcing paternity in wedded births.
       A white father didn't want to pay child support to his white ex-wife
       for the half-black child she had during the marriage.  The judge
       said the law forces him to pay child support because the child was
       born during a period of marriage.  I don't see how forcing him
       against his will to sign a birth certificate against his will
       improve justice or add to child support collections.
    
                                   Kurt

    Re: -1
    
    About the child of mixed ancestry.  My including that was not intended
    to criticize mixed ethnic relationships, just to show the obvious
    injustice in the paternity.  Nobody complained.  I just noticed myself
    that what I said could be mis-understood.  
    
                                Kurt

    
    To the basenoter if she is still interested!
    
    Unfortunately you each have to hire a lawyer!!
    
       I am a NCP, father from NH and I pay approx. 1/3 of my net income
    for CS for 2 children. This conforms to NH CS guidelines which were
    established 5yrs ago. In addition to this I also pay 1/2 Medical
    premium and 1/2 out of pocket Medical expenses for my 2 boys.
      I volunteer to pay 1/2 for things like Piano lessons, summer camp
    etc. only after we discuss these costs. Since I have/had no savings,
    401K, her getting part of this $ was not an issue with us. 
      I don't make a lot of $  and so far I have never missed a payment.
    
      If you live in Mass., the Child support guidelines are profoundly 
    unfair to Fathers and children!!  I suspect that some of the rabid
    feminist PAC's in Mass. had a significant input to the formulation
    of these guidelines.  In my opinion if you follow these Mass guidelines
    it will be for vindictive reasons.   
    
      These are not easy issues to resolve and I wish the basenoter and 
    her ex the best of luck.    
    
       Bill