In-Reply-To:  
Message-ID: 
References:    
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


On 2 Nov 1994, Kathy L. McCarty wrote:
> In article , dschedle@tyrell.net (Dale G.
> Schedler) wrote:
> > In article 
> kmccarty@mitre.org (Kathy L. McCarty) writes:
> > 
> > My Post:
> > 
> > >What I'm suggesting is that an income shares type approach (with income 
> > >imputed on both sides, if circumstances warrent), to determine each parent's 
> > >relative share of the $500, and then this relative share would be reduced by 
> > >the time spent factor.
This is such an interesting notion.  It rewards the CP for agreeing to 
minimal visitation and punishes the NCP twice, once by reducing the 
amount of available time with the children, second by increasing the 
amount of support because of reduced visitation.  Ultimately, you could 
rationalize that if the NCP never sees the children he should pay 100% of 
the support.  That's a great argument for making sure that the CP does 
everything possible to make visitation as inconvenient as possible.

When a mother gives her baby up for adoption, she's a hero performing a 
noble act.  When a father relinquishes primary physical custody 
voluntarily to the mother in the highest interest of the kids, he is 
considered a dead-beat who abandoned the family.

> > Yours:
> > >Our "time spent" factor amounted to getting 1/2 reduction for the six
> > >weeks extended visitation only - even though our actual time of total
> > >visitation amounts to one-third (this includes all the weekends, weekday
>  
> > Those guidelines provided that an adjustment to the CS could be made for
> time > spent with the 
> > noncustodial parent, if the noncustodial parent has the children more
> than 30% 
Colorado has this same law.  There are no mitigating factors either.

> > In 1991 the Supreme Court revised the guidelines and eliminated the reference 
> > to the 2.5% suggested reduction - basically leaving it to the judge to 
> > determine (yeah, you KNOW the judge is going to be fair right?) the reduction 
> > in CS for time spent with the NCP.  New guidelines were recently issued and I 
In No-Fault states, it gets real interesting when the judge gets to start 
altering the agreement.  It doesn't matter that the CP was having an 
affair for a year and is engaged to be married and that the NCP has been 
celebate for 3 years.  The judge can decide, based on mannerisms, that 
the father should pay more.

In addition, Colorado has minimum support guidelines, along with 
provisions for increasing for Day-Care (even if it is provided by the new 
husband-to-be), Health-Insurance (which may end up being paid to the 
husband-to-be in consideration of his group coverage), and the new SO is 
not considered in the support calculation.  An NCP can end up with more 
after tax income after the divorce and remarriage than was present before 
the divorce - even if primary caretakers are both on disability/workman's 
comp.

> rather than a "deviation from" the CS amount.  According to our lawyer,
> the revised verbage makes it "easier" for a judge to make that
> adjustment.  I still haven't figured that one out.  That revision also
> allowed for a fairer apportionment to occur with those parties having
> "shared or joint" custody.  It says that if the time (or children, for
> example one with mom, one with dad) are shared, then the support amount
> would be calculated for each home, and the net amount calculated for the
> one paying more.  

So, in other words, if Mom buys/gets a $200,000 home, and Dad is living 
in a $500/month "cardboard box with heater", dad gets to give mom more 
because she has higher expenses, even if the kids spend 4 out of 7 days 
with Dad.  Sounds perfectly fair to me :->.

> > >AZ guidelines say exactly that - that the federal tax exemption shall be
> > >as closely apportioned as that percentage contributed by each parent. 
In Colorado, you are not limited to the Federal Tax Exemption.  You pay 
an amount equivelent to about 40% of your after tax income for 1 child, 
or 50% of your after tax income for 2 children.  The scale slides to 
offset the increase in tax brackets.  It's tantamount to forced labor for 
20 hours/week, or 11 of 22 years.

> It does not even address the "head of household benefit", nor the "child
> care credit", of which she (the CP) takes both.  To top it off, when we
> were in Court last November to reduce CS based on the child being out of
> daycare, the CP had agreed to allocate the exemption to 2 of 3 yrs for us
> (our "share" of support being 64%).  Even though the AZ guidelines had
> changed, one of those changes being to "allocate the federal tax exemption
> to that which approximates as closely as possible the share of support
> each parent pays" and she agreed to it based upon that, the judge STILL
> did not allow it and left it to be alternated every year.  As I said,
> that's on top of her already taking head of household and child care
> credit.  The child care costs were added to the basic support amount, were
> overestimated by her (call it lying), we paid 67% of it (supposedly - more
> like 100%), and she gets the credit, the H of H benefit, and the exemption
> (every other yr).

Wouldn't it be great if we could just take what we actually PAY in child 
support as our DEDUCTION?  Dead-beat dads get nothing, get hassled by the 
IRS, HHS, and DYFSS.  Paid-Up Dads get to keep 1/3 of their child 
support in the form of tax reduction.  I get tired of paying "Uncle 1/3", 
Ex and Hubby 1/3, and I get 1/3.  Almost makes me wish I wasn't so 
responsible ;-).

	Rex


From rballard@cnj.digex.net Tue Nov  8 05:38:55 1994
Status: O
X-Status: 
Newsgroups: alt.child-support