You are here

FYI-Arizona CS amounts to increase CONSIDERABLY...absolutely ridiculous!

herewegoagain's picture

Submitted by herewegoagain on Wed, 07/07/2010 - 5:29pm

Here is the info...

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4897

Basically, the intent is to have both NCP and CP end up with "same amount of income"...nice, huh? So, that would mean that in the NCP household everyone suffers, in the CP household, eveyone enjoys the standard of living of the EX-HUSBAND! pathetic!

Comments

LMR120's picture

Submitted by LMR120 on Wed, 07/07/2010 - 6:54pm

They already do this in CA. When my BF got divorced they did not care who had what bills or what the actual cost of raising a child is. They plugged his income and her income into a calculator and BAM here is what you owe. It sucks trust me. He only made slightly more than her and she got 1,500 a month. Now he has a great job and I am really surprised that she has not refiled. If she does he will be paying almost 3k a month Sad

herewegoagain's picture

Submitted by herewegoagain on Wed, 07/07/2010 - 7:57pm

There is a link on that page to provide feedback to the cse office...u might want to email Glenn Sacks & see if he knows of a group organizing...

starfish's picture

Submitted by starfish on Wed, 07/07/2010 - 7:08pm

WTF? i'm all for supporting your children, but if there is 50/50 custody, there should be NO support..... we have skids approx 44% of the year..... really how much more is 6% of the year (when dh's mom or bm's mom keeps the skids most of bms days & nights) going to cost per month?? this whole issue pisses me the fuck off.... i have been working my ass off the past week or so to get our bm's clock cleaned over this shit ~~ she gets cs, has a full time job, is trying to get a gov't hand out and an increase in cs... and it's not like she is trying to better herself and the lives of the skids, she wants more beer and weed money... she's just white trash and that's all there is to it!

herewegoagain's picture

Submitted by herewegoagain on Wed, 07/07/2010 - 8:02pm

Of course the money sucking BMs will be thrilled...their gravy train does stop though...hehe

Milomom's picture

Submitted by Milomom on Thu, 07/08/2010 - 10:03am

herewego, great post! I feel bad for all of the NCP in AZ - especially those who have 50/50 custody and for those whose CP is intentionally unemployed/underemployed.

Here in NY, that's how the CS formula is used already. NCP gross income + CP gross income = total gross avail income to be used to compute CS. Take 25% of that (for 2 kids) and that's the total combined CS obligation. Take the NCP's percentage of the total gross income, and that's the amount of CS the NCP MUST pay to CP. EVEN.WHEN.THE.PARENTS.SHARE.50/50.JOINT.CUSTODY.OF.CHILDREN!!!!!!

So basically in our situation, where we have true 50/50 physical & legal custody of skids with BM, she gets a large amount of CS because she doesn't work that much (if at all). NY CS laws actually "label" the higher-income parent as NCP for purposes of paying CS (even when there's a 50/50 custody situation), simply just because that person is the "breadwinner" - for no other legal or rational reason!!!

New York State is one of the WORST in the country, probably in the WORLD, when it comes to unfairness to fathers - especially those that actually RAISE their children 50% (or more) of the time.

In NY, the more the father (or "breadwinner" parent) tries to BETTER himself, make more $$, give his kids a better life, the more he must PAY to NCP, no matter what - even if the other parent CHOOSES to sit on their ass and do NOTHING (not work, not get an education, etc...). It's so ironic - that CP has 50% of her time absolutely FREE to do as she chooses without having to care for her children - yet MOST do not choose to better themselves, seek better employment, higher education...because they CHOOSE to be lazy, sit back, and collect CS (easy way out). Very, very similar to this country's welfare system.

Crayon, have you seen this post?? She's also a fellow "New Yawker" and knows ALL about this NY CS system (a/k/a legalized embezzlement). It's all so pathetic & makes me sick.

P.S. Oh and yes, there are CERTAINLY women here that know the CS system and use it as their sole income - they tell others about it & they do the same - "make sure to have babies with different baby daddys...no need to marry them - that's a whopping 17% of each baby daddy's gross income (so if they have 2 babies with same daddy it's "only" 25%, but it'll be 34% (17% + 17%) to have 2 kids from different baby daddy's!! I imagine there are women out there EASILY bringing in $50K - $100K a year here in NYS in CS from different baby daddys.

LizzieA's picture

Submitted by LizzieA on Thu, 07/08/2010 - 10:59am

Advice: educate men and boys about using birth control. It would totally suck to have "babymakers' use you to get income...

Rags's picture

Submitted by Rags on Fri, 07/09/2010 - 10:57pm

A parent who can't support their child alone should not be the CP!

Regardless of gender. The CP should be the one best able to provide for the child's safety, education, discipline, health and financial security.

IMHO of course.

This law is going to result in a huge increase in NCP suicide, child kidnapping, extended court actions to obtain custody and in long term voluntary unemployment by NCPs followed by increased bankruptcy filings when the children reach age 18. Reading that I have done indicates that CS arrearages are not considered high priority debt in most jurisdictions and is often not collectible under bankruptcy.

For sure if I was an NCP in Az with the income distribution indicated in the article (2000/mo CP, 10000/mo NCP) I would not tolerate the increase in CS indicated under the new system. I would take my kids and leave the country or leave the country alone and provide an amount that I determine to be adequate to raise my children.

If my XW were so inept as to need me to pay her more in CS than she earns then I chose an idiot to be the mother of my children. Since I am in to smart sexy women I have avoided this problem.

Fortunately my XW and I had no children.

Best regards.

Milomom's picture

Submitted by Milomom on Sat, 07/10/2010 - 6:38am

Rags, I couldn't agree with you more!

In our situation, BM CHOOSES to be underemployed/unemployed as she wishes, lives off the CS $$ my BF pays her (here in NY, the salaries are generally higher, so BM's actually see the CS$$ as income as their sole source of support), yet only has custody 50% of the time. The way I see it, we pay to not only support skids, but also to support BM. New York State CS laws make absolutely NO SENSE whatsoever.

In doing research on the history of CS in NYS, I learned that the laws are based on the premise that BOTH PARENTS ARE OBLIGATED TO FINANCIALLY SUPPORT A CHILD. So with that said, when there's 50/50 custody (and assuming that the BM is healthy and capable of working full-time to support herself and her child(ren) as our BM clearly is), why should there be ANY CS paid to EITHER parent to begin with???? Really?

CS laws in New York State actually ENCOURAGE a BM to sit home and not work (or work whenever she feels like it) - very similar to our country's welfare system. There's absolutely NO INCENTIVE WHATSOEVER for these lazy BM's to GET A JOB or to get an education that will lead to gainful employment.

My personal opinion is that every individual should have PRIDE in themselves, enough PRIDE to WANT to support themselves (again, assuming they are healthy & capable of doing so) and enough PRIDE to not have to depend upon OTHERS to raise your own child.

IMHO, if I personally were ever in this situation (divorced or apart from my baby's father), I would have way too much pride to have to go begging for $$ or chase him for $$ to support the child. I would simply want him to be a good father, be in my child's life and co-parent with me to foster a positive relationship between us & with the child and raise the child to be an ethical, hard working, productive member of society.

I would personally refuse ANY type of "child support" from the father, because I MAKE MY OWN MONEY AND DO NOT NEED TO DEPEND ON HIM OR WELFARE OR ANYONE ELSE TO SUPPORT MY CHILD(REN). I also feel that if BM's would just see it this way, and stop being so "dependent" off their child's father, that the father would actually be more willing to VOLUNTARILY pay for things for his children, as he feels no PRESSURE to do so and is under no COURT ORDER to do so.

I actually read MANY, MANY studies about all of this and researchers have actually PROVEN THIS TO BE TRUE (statistically speaking). Generally, fathers want to be good fathers (the majority of them, anyway) - and the fathers that have 50% custody or more (physically & legally) are obviously showing that they WANT to be in their kids' lives.

Sorry this is so long, it's just a very compelling topic to me. Sorry to "hijack" your reply, Rags. I just feel so strongly about ACCOUNTABILITY and RESPONSIBILITY in one's life. Maybe I should write a separate post altogether about this...

Rags's picture

Submitted by Rags on Sat, 07/10/2010 - 11:33am

No need to appologize for hijacking my response. I was just expressing my opinion on this topic and anyone is welcome to respond as they see fit. You did not hijack my response and thanks for your inputs.

As the CSP (Custodial Step Parent) married to the CP who recieves CS it may be odd for me to have this opinion but I do believe that NCPs often get screwed by the Family Law system. Though most NCPs are men my opinion is gender neutral.

To me it is the ability to provide for all aspects of a child's needs that should determine who is the CP.

I am also okay with the concept of CS. What I am not okay with is the absurd crap that goes on with the entire system. Family Law at all levels is not in place to protect the best interests of the child(ren) it is a self sustaining industry that does little more than provide employment for the otherwise unemployable (Judges, Lawyers, Clerks, CPS, etc....) who manipulate the system to take advantage of those who actually provide some value to society. And ..... to support "parents" who are prostitutes on the installment plan for renting either their womb or testicular services and feel entitled to receive payment for bearing or fertilizing children for their former partners.

Certainly there are exceptions to my above opinion who are good people, good parents, or good Family Law professionals and I want to recognize those exceptions (however rare) to my above opinion.

Parents should provide for their children without being victimized by a screwed up entitlement system.

Just my thoughts of course.

Best regards.