JP Cusick and Child Support

[Kathianne]

When parents have kids, the parents owe those kids a decent upbringing, to the extent those parents can provide. (and when the kids grow up and have their own kids, they will owe THEIR kids the same, etc. etc.).

When parents with kids divorce, they are renegging on the debt they owe their kids. Even if the divorce was justified, even inevitable, they still owe that debt to their kids... and the divorce interferes in major ways with its settlement, regardless of the circumstances of the divorce.

How SHOULD the parents fulfill the debt they owe to their kids, after they divorce? Child support payments are part of the way. Visitation is another, etc. What exactly SHOULD the judge decide?

Yep. Majority of divorces now end in joint custody. When there is sole custody it's usually because of one parent being deemed much more functional as a parent or the parent giving up joint custody, doesn't want the responsibility.

Child support is for the children. Dmp's point of splitting the costs of housing, food, etc., when custodial parent isn't able to make 1/2 of the costs of keeping the children in the lifestyle they had previously, doesn't make sense. This is especially true when the major earner just wants to walk away.

Take a good look at J.P.'s bio. After the divorce and the 'awarding' of child support, he took off to live the life of the happy traveler. No kids, no wife, no job. When that caught up with him, he went goofy and started spray painting graffiti on public buildings. That was the cause of incarceration and may be why he had limited/restricted visitation after.

[DragonStryk72]

I am not saying that the children are stealing from their parents, as that is your own projection.

What I say is that the children are stolen from their other parent by the Custody laws which are effectively kidnapping the children from their noncustodial parent.

So what you're saying in essence here is that both parents should have their liberty and pursuit of happiness stripped off of them, so that they can be shackled together for the rest of their lives? Cause that's the only way that works.

And it could be said that the Custodial is stealing the Child Support, but in fact the Custodial is only receiving the extorted and stolen Child Support cash.

The true thief in this regard is the State laws which steal the children and then steal the Child Support as the State is the thief.

The State is doing two thing, and two things only: It is making certain that a) the child has a basically safe place to live, and b) making certain that both parents put in for the kid's upbringing.

Child support money most usually goes into a pile with the rest of the money that comes in from jobs and such. This means that the expenses of the month may be getting paid out of pocket depending on when CS payments arrive. Say you're supposed to do CS on the 1st and 15th, this means that the custodial parent is likely still paying for things for the kid, in the in-between times, since the individual payments may not be enough to cover the bills that come up.

Yes, I know, there are abuses, but you know what, there always will be people abusing the system no matter what system we use. Even an annotated system can get abused easily.

Now, if you really don't want to pay child support, then here is my advice to you: STOP FUCKING! It's simple, fucking leads to pregnancy, which leads to children, so if you're so gung ho, either stop fucking, or stop fucking without protection for both parties. Not just one of you, both of you.

[ConHog]

Yep. Majority of divorces now end in joint custody. When there is sole custody it's usually because of one parent being deemed much more functional as a parent or the parent giving up joint custody, doesn't want the responsibility.

Child support is for the children. Dmp's point of splitting the costs of housing, food, etc., when custodial parent isn't able to make 1/2 of the costs of keeping the children in the lifestyle they had previously, doesn't make sense. This is especially true when the major earner just wants to walk away.

Take a good look at J.P.'s bio. After the divorce and the 'awarding' of child support, he took off to live the life of the happy traveler. No kids, no wife, no job. When that caught up with him, he went goofy and started spray painting graffiti on public buildings. That was the cause of incarceration and may be why he had limited/restricted visitation after.

What the ?? Are you suggesting that JP's actions led directly to adverse consequences? What kind of bullshit is that?

[JP Cusick]

When parents have kids, the parents owe those kids a decent upbringing, to the extent those parents can provide. (and when the kids grow up and have their own kids, they will owe THEIR kids the same, etc. etc.).

When parents with kids divorce, they are renegging on the debt they owe their kids. Even if the divorce was justified, even inevitable, they still owe that debt to their kids... and the divorce interferes in major ways with its settlement, regardless of the circumstances of the divorce.

How SHOULD the parents fulfill the debt they owe to their kids, after they divorce? Child support payments are part of the way. Visitation is another, etc. What exactly SHOULD the judge decide?

In California (divorce rulings vary by state), the judge will set support payments based on what each parent earns, and on what each parent needs to support himself. If later one of them loses a job, or has unexpected large expenses (car wreck, illness etc.), the judge will adjust payments accordingly. His goal is to achieve what is best for the child, and "not impossible" for the parents. He will not leave a payment schedule that totally strips one parent beyond his means.

I don't know how it goes in other states. That's how it is in California.

Is someone here, saying this is "wrong", and that it should be done some other way instead?

I say you are wrong, but more so is that you are being belligerent and violating your own boundaries by stepping into the business of other people.

A parent or both parents raise their own child or children because they want to do so, as human parents all love and care about their own natural offspring.

As such no parent(s) "owes" their children anything, and it is a violation of their family for people like your self or for the laws to step in claiming the parents "owe" their children when the parents owe nothing.

[JP Cusick]

What the ?? Are you suggesting that JP's actions led directly to adverse consequences? What kind of xxxxxx is that?

I do not argue against my own situation, as if you read my biography page then it is NOT a crying story as I am very proud of my acts of civil disobedience against the evil Child Support and Custody laws.

My experiences were very enlightening and empowering and a fun adventure too.

[Little-Acorn]

A parent or both parents raise their own child or children because they want to do so, as human parents all love and care about their own natural offspring.

This is true in many case, hopefully most of them. But I have seen cases where this is not so. So have judges. That is the reason for the various Child Support laws - in some cases kids will be virtually abandoned by at least one parent, and will be relegated to poverty status or worse.

If what you said was true in all cases, than there would be no need for any of those laws. Unfortunately there are a significant number of cases where it is not.

[avatar4321]

I am not saying that the children are stealing from their parents, as that is your own projection.

What I say is that the children are stolen from their other parent by the Custody laws which are effectively kidnapping the children from their noncustodial parent.

And it could be said that the Custodial is stealing the Child Support, but in fact the Custodial is only receiving the extorted and stolen Child Support cash.

The true thief in this regard is the State laws which steal the children and then steal the Child Support as the State is the thief.

That made less sense than the previous post. What's the crime? Who is committing it? Who is the victim?

[Little-Acorn]

I do not argue against my own situation, as if you read my biography page then it is NOT a crying story as I am very proud of my acts of civil disobedience against the evil Child Support and Custody laws.

My experiences were very enlightening and empowering and a fun adventure too.

Vandalism is not civil disobedience.

[Kathianne]

I do not argue against my own situation, as if you read my biography page then it is NOT a crying story as I am very proud of my acts of civil disobedience against the evil Child Support and Custody laws.

My experiences were very enlightening and empowering and a fun adventure too.

Right, you fixed those 'problems' right up. "A parent or both parents raise their own child or children because they want to do so, as human parents all love and care about their own natural offspring." Uh huh, which is why you took off for mega state tour, leaving the kids and payments behind. Then committed criminal acts, then claimed you couldn't pay child support because you were in jail! Your kids, adults now I'm sure, should sue your a**.

[Gunny]

I see that as a sensible question because there is no real crime at all.

The parents are persecuted and insulted, degraded, incarcerated, and more when their only crime is being a parent.

Of course the parents are put into jails for being too poor to pay the thieving Child Support, but being poor (or a parents being poor) is not a real crime either.

The answer to the question is that there is no crime at all by the parents involved.

There is the State crimes against its citizens as in persecuting the parents under the evil Child Support and Custody laws.

Incorrect. Parents are jailed for not paying child support. Even if they are on unemployment, all they have to do is return to court and have the amount amended. So long as ANY attempt is being made, the payer will not be jailed and the payee will have no redress.

It is not a crime for the state to regulate child support. I personally know a woman who has been given NO support, custody of the children and it's been going for almost 2 years. He makes $80K a year and she was a stay at home mom with no professional skills. He hasn't voluntarily given up a dime in support for HIS 3 boys. THAT is the crime.

My daughter is in similar circumstances so it isn't like it doesn't happen. If the law doesn't force the bonehead(s) to pay, in these two cases, they don't.

[jimnyc]

Take a good look at J.P.'s bio. After the divorce and the 'awarding' of child support, he took off to live the life of the happy traveler. No kids, no wife, no job. When that caught up with him, he went goofy and started spray painting graffiti on public buildings. That was the cause of incarceration and may be why he had limited/restricted visitation after.

JP never did clearly answer my question earlier...

JP - Did you in fact bail on your family, split, divorce, whatever ya wanna call it, refuse to pay support, get in trouble for not paying, graffiti public buildings, limited/restricted visits - and now you're running for political office pretty much based solely on YOUR ideas of how to change CS laws? LOL

Sounds to me like an angry man who got busted for not being a decent person and doing the right thing by helping raise your child. I hope you had a fantastic reason if you expect the public to understand how you walked out on your family and refused to assist them financially.

But I'll reserve other judgment until I hear JP's side of why he left home and why he refused to help his child.

JP, do you think a man or woman, because both can be held to pay CS, should NOT have to support the child they helped create because you think they just don't really owe them anything? You do OWE them as you found out the hard way. If you bring a child into this world, especially as a man, you should have the nads to do the right thing and help this child that YOU brought into this world. Any man/woman that could walk away, or think they are in no way responsible for their child, should be ashamed of themselves.

And most certainly not running for public office - on the very issue that fucked up your life and sounds like will have you listed as "dead beat dad". Good luck getting elected as a Vandal who walked out on his family and responsibilities. I hate to be so harsh and "personal" towards someone, but you are running for office and should likely expect worse. But if I never heard of you, and you knocked on my door looking for a vote - I'd have laughed and shut the door.

[Kathianne]

Incorrect. Parents are jailed for not paying child support. Even if they are on unemployment, all they have to do is return to court and have the amount amended. So long as ANY attempt is being made, the payer will not be jailed and the payee will have no redress.

It is not a crime for the state to regulate child support. I personally know a woman who has been given NO support, custody of the children and it's been going for almost 2 years. He makes $80K a year and she was a stay at home mom with no professional skills. He hasn't voluntarily given up a dime in support for HIS 3 boys. THAT is the crime.

My daughter is in similar circumstances so it isn't like it doesn't happen. If the law doesn't force the bonehead(s) to pay, in these two cases, they don't.

Indeed. I was lucky in that their father really cared that people thought him a 'good father' which is why he always paid. That he caused other types of serious harm is why joint custody was taken off the table, by the judge. Now there are women that also act in such manner, they don't seem to be in as great of number. Probably because the fathers are 'working' and the kids are at home. It takes a certain type of female bonehead to walk away from her kids.

[avatar4321]

Indeed. I was lucky in that their father really cared that people thought him a 'good father' which is why he always paid. That he caused other types of serious harm is why joint custody was taken off the table, by the judge. Now there are women that also act in such manner, they don't seem to be in as great of number. Probably because the fathers are 'working' and the kids are at home. It takes a certain type of female bonehead to walk away from her kids.

Unfortunately, I know of some.

[Kathianne]

Unfortunately, I know of some.

As I said, there are some out there. If I 'knew' someone like that, I'd try and help the kids and dad, I'd have no use for that woman.

[Gunny]

Unfortunately, I know of some.

I do as well, but it isn't the issue. My daughter's mother had no business around children and the judge saw it that way as well. Point is, the children exist even when the marriage goes bad. They shouldn't suffer because of some selfish parent who believes if he/she isn't in control, then they aren't paying. Or the ones that see it as having to pay the former spouse, not for their children.