NationStates Jolt Archive

At what point do you decide a situation had deteriorated to the point that a lawyer is needed?

Over the weekend I discovered that despite paying close to a thousand dollars a month in child support, my younger son (who is 13) was denied a haircut on the grounds that there wasn't enough money.

Nevermind that my ex was bragging last week about the $300 satellite radio set she was getting for her boyfriend for Christmas.

Nevermind that they just went out and bought a minivan to replace her.... minivan.

Nevermind that she doesn't have to pay rent, utilities or property taxes because she lives in a house her parents bought her.

She also refuses to by them clothes, treats (My son frequently requests beef jerky when she goes shopping. There's never enough money, apparently...) I can't tell you how many times they've come to me for something because their mother told them "If you need it then go ask your father."

...isn't this EXACTLY what child support is for?!?!?!? I mean, I buy them little gifts and treats all the time, and yes, I've take then clothes shopping when their mother refuses... but I can't afford it. My bills are already sorely behind because of this.

I haven't exhausted all my avenues yet to trying to resolve this, but I don't think I should wait until I have before getting in contact with a lawyer to explore my options. I hesitate to try and get lower child support payments because it will only hurt them... Their mom isn't going to forgo her luxuries... and battling for custody might work, but I want to leave that as a last resort. I just can't afford a larger home right now than my current 2 bedroom apartment.

Is it time?

Try sending $1000 dollars a month in jerky, clothes and haircut vouchers?

no its not time.

she may well have been teaching him a "we're not made of money" lesson.

talk to her and get her side of the story first.

If the kids have shelter and aren't starving then it's not time yet. Unless they are actually being neglected the court probably won't see it as anything other than you whining.

I think it's time for you to sue for custody. If they're being neglected in favor of a bf, then you need to, at least, put a scare into her.

And, just incidentally, you might find it less expensive to have custody and have a larger place than it is to pay child support and buy them gifts and incidentals. You might even persuade the courts that, if you have custody, she should pay you child support.

no its not time.

she may well have been teaching him a "we're not made of money" lesson.

talk to her and get her side of the story first.

I thought about that, but this has been an ongoing problem and she always becomes extremely agitated when I introduce the subject. I do talk to her often about what's happening with the kids, but most of the time it's like trying to talk to a brick wall.

I think it's time for you to sue for custody. If they're being neglected in favor of a bf, then you need to, at least, put a scare into her.

And, just incidentally, you might find it less expensive to have custody and have a larger place than it is to pay child support and buy them gifts and incidentals. You might even persuade the courts that, if you have custody, she should pay you child support.

If I do get custody I'm not going to ask her for child support. I don't want anything form her. The problem is that in terms of living situations, hers looks a lot better on paper. She lives in that 5 bedroom house in rural PA, grandparents live in the basement, (Yeah, the same ones that bought her the house) and so on. I, on the other hand, live paycheck to paycheck in a 2 bedroom apartment just outside Washington DC.

I'd wonder why you don't already have a lawyer if you're paying child support, but if you don't, then no. It's not time to get one. However, document everything. Keep a journal and write down such things as they happen with the dates.

I thought about that, but this has been an ongoing problem and she always becomes extremely agitated when I introduce the subject. I do talk to her often about what's happening with the kids, but most of the time it's like trying to talk to a brick wall.


it doesnt matter. not getting haircuts isnt enough to get custody changed.


if you havent started a list of wrongs, start one now. documentation is everthing.

no its not time.

she may well have been teaching him a "we're not made of money" lesson.

talk to her and get her side of the story first.

A haircut isn't really the same as a toy or something, though. If the kid needs a haircut, it's time to get a haircut. And clothing is even more important. Unless this is a situation where the child was specifically trying to get a very expensive haircut or only ever asks for name-brand clothing, I don't see how that lesson would apply.

Of course, you do bring up a good point in that there are always two sides to every story. From Neo B's description, it sounds like she's being, at the least, an inattentive parent and, at the worst, skimming the surface of neglect. But her story might be different, and we certainly don't know that without her posting here.

If the kids have shelter and aren't starving then it's not time yet. Unless they are actually being neglected the court probably won't see it as anything other than you whining.

The courts generally view clothing as a necessity too, I think. So that question would probably come down to how clear the need for new clothes is. Is it just because they only have clothes from last year and they want new clothes? Is it because they've outgrown/worn out their clothing and actually need it? Or somewhere in between?

@ Neo B:
If this is part of a larger pattern (and it sounds like it is), it may be time to at least start talking to a lawyer. I certainly wouldn't take it to legal action until you feel that you've exhausted all other options, but I think you're right that having a good idea of what those legal options will be is something you should do before you're actually at that point.

I'd wonder why you don't already have a lawyer if you're paying child support, but if you don't, then no. It's not time to get one. However, document everything. Keep a journal and write down such things as they happen with the dates.

Roger that.

it doesnt matter. not getting haircuts isnt enough to get custody changed.


if you havent started a list of wrongs, start one now. documentation is everthing.

Getting the custody changed is the last resort, not my objective. On many levels they really are better off there, where the schools are better and they have their own rooms. I just want to find some way to either compel her to reserve that money* exclusively for the kids, or to have a meaningful threat to reduce it as a way of getting her to make the change.

*And yes, ALL of what I give her is child support. She claimed every cent of it as a tax deduction last year, which meant I could claim NONE of it. Child support is a deduction for the payee, alimony is a deduction for the payer.

I suggest you start building documentation. Record details like the ones you listed, and include the specifics of time, place, witnesses, etc. That will help your case if it comes to that. You can threaten legal action, which might help change her behavior. Actually getting into a court battle should probably be a last resort, especially if (as it sounds like) she has significantly more financial assets than you.

Roger that.



Getting the custody changed is the last resort, not my objective. On many levels they really are better off there, where the schools are better and they have their own rooms. I just want to find some way to either compel her to reserve that money* exclusively for the kids, or to have a meaningful threat to reduce it as a way of getting her to make the change.

*And yes, ALL of what I give her is child support. She claimed every cent of it as a tax deduction last year, which meant I could claim NONE of it. Child support is a deduction for the payee, alimony is a deduction for the payer.
thats not the way child support works. you should already know that.

and, btw, if you should get custody of your kids down the line you MUST take child support from her even if all you do with it is is put it into an account for their college fund. they are her kids too and she has to support them.

The courts generally view clothing as a necessity too, I think. So that question would probably come down to how clear the need for new clothes is. Is it just because they only have clothes from last year and they want new clothes? Is it because they've outgrown/worn out their clothing and actually need it? Or somewhere in between?


Last month I took all 3 of them to the thrift store because their church clothes were too small. My younger son had to wear sneakers to church because he had no dress shoes that fit, and both boys' pants met the tops of their shoes only when standing up. Their shirts came down to the forearm. My daughter had only one dress to wear and that was a costume dress. They were thrilled at the thrift store stuff. While we were there they also got a few other items they needed.

@ Neo B:
If this is part of a larger pattern (and it sounds like it is), it may be time to at least start talking to a lawyer. I certainly wouldn't take it to legal action until you feel that you've exhausted all other options, but I think you're right that having a good idea of what those legal options will be is something you should do before you're actually at that point.[/QUOTE]

I think that's what I'll do. I've never really dealt with this stuff in this way before so there may be ways of handling it that I'm unaware of.

I suggest you start building documentation. Record details like the ones you listed, and include the specifics of time, place, witnesses, etc. That will help your case if it comes to that. You can threaten legal action, which might help change her behavior. Actually getting into a court battle should probably be a last resort, especially if (as it sounds like) she has significantly more financial assets than you.

I definitely document everything. In terms of assets, ironically she doesn't really have many. She never found the need to amass a bunch of money with so many people in her life giving it to her.

thats not the way child support works. you should already know that.

What do you mean?


and, btw, if you should get custody of your kids down the line you MUST take child support from her even if all you do with it is is put it into an account for their college fund. they are her kids too and she has to support them.

Hadn't thought of that.

I
What do you mean?


child support is to run the household that your children live in. its not to be spent ON them but on making sure they have the home they need.

which is not to say that your ex is making the best use of that money but unless you can make a case of her spending the money on things that have no benefit to them at all, youre out of luck.

if you get a lawyer you need one who will give you a realistic assessment of your legal position. there may be some way to put strings on your child support. i wouldnt count on it but its worth looking into.

im going into town now. maybe someone else can give you GOOD advice.

thats not the way child support works. you should already know that.

No, but if there was an efficient way to make it work that way, I'd argue vehemently that it should be. A parent should never use child support money on himself. The money is meant for the child and thus should be used on the child. Anything the parent wants/needs for himself should come out of his own paycheck.

and, btw, if you should get custody of your kids down the line you MUST take child support from her even if all you do with it is is put it into an account for their college fund. they are her kids too and she has to support them.

I think this depends on where you are. Some states do have absolute requirements with a minimum payment of child support, but I don't believe that is the case everywhere.


Last month I took all 3 of them to the thrift store because their church clothes were too small. My younger son had to wear sneakers to church because he had no dress shoes that fit, and both boys' pants met the tops of their shoes only when standing up. Their shirts came down to the forearm. My daughter had only one dress to wear and that was a costume dress. They were thrilled at the thrift store stuff. While we were there they also got a few other items they needed.

Sounds like they pretty clearly needed clothes and she was neglecting her duties as a parent in refusing to get them.

I'd agree with those in the thread that you should be sure to keep records of these things in as much detail as you can. If you still have the receipt for the clothing (and any other necessities you've had to buy them), I'd keep track of that as well.

I think that's what I'll do. I've never really dealt with this stuff in this way before so there may be ways of handling it that I'm unaware of.

Yeah, talking to a lawyer is not the same thing as actually taking legal action, so I don't see how there could be harm in it (other than the fact that you have to pay for the service). It's always best to be as well-informed as possible, I think.

child support is to run the household that your children live in. its not to be spent ON them but on making sure they have the home they need.

which is not to say that your ex is making the best use of that money but unless you can make a case of her spending the money on things that have no benefit to them at all, youre out of luck.

if you get a lawyer you need one who will give you a realistic assessment of your legal position. there may be some way to put strings on your child support. i wouldnt count on it but its worth looking into.

She has a legal obligation to provide for the children's needs and to use the child support to directly benefit them. I know that in some states the non-custodial parent can request accounting of all the expenditures. Again, a matter where talking to a lawyer could be helpful.

don't know how it is where you are. but in the state of Texas children over 12 have a say in which parent they go to. (or at least that was so when i was 12 and parents fought over custody of me)

If she isn't trying to increase child support on you i wouldn't bother, other then document everything. an experienced family law(i think that's the term) lawyer can make a big difference.

don't know how it is where you are. but in the state of Texas children over 12 have a say in which parent they go to. (or at least that was so when i was 12 and parents fought over custody of me)

If she isn't trying to increase child support on you i wouldn't bother, other then document everything. an experienced family law(i think that's the term) lawyer can make a big difference.

Just for giggles, I entered some data into an online Child Support calculator for PA.

...turns out I've been paying MORE than what the court would have ordered by close to $200/mo.

I think maybe between the questions on how the money is being used and some recent changes in both our lives, it may be time to file for an adjustment in court...

I would be miffed that its possible your child support went to that radio or minivan.

Ive had experiance with "mothers" like this, were the money they get goes to themselves and theres never enough money for their kids.

Find out were your money is actually going. If its not to the house, and shes not paying $1000 in food, a lawyer might be in order.

I would be miffed that its possible your child support went to that radio or minivan.

Ive had experiance with "mothers" like this, were the money they get goes to themselves and theres never enough money for their kids.

Find out were your money is actually going. If its not to the house, and shes not paying $1000 in food, a lawyer might be in order.

I've been searching online to see if it says anywhere whether or not PA provides for the father to have the right to know how the child support money is being spent. So far, no luck.

I've been searching online to see if it says anywhere whether or not PA provides for the father to have the right to know how the child support money is being spent. So far, no luck.

If you have the money and time, take it before a judge. At least try and get an adjustment. Point out what hes recently purchased and that she doesnt pay rent. Clearly your paying too much, Id say.

But Im no lawyer, and even if I was, divorce issues I know jack about. Talk t your lawyer. Get his advice.

At what point do you decide a situation had deteriorated to the point that a lawyer is needed?

When you cannot civilly communicate with the other party.

When there is no way to resolve an ongoing issue.

Over the weekend I discovered that despite paying close to a thousand dollars a month in child support, my younger son (who is 13) was denied a haircut on the grounds that there wasn't enough money.

A hair cut wouldn't even be considered a luxury if it was done at an inexpensive place, and any reasonable person would accept that a hair cut is often necessary especially if it's a boy who hasn't been conditioned to maintain longer hair.

Nevermind that my ex was bragging last week about the $300 satellite radio set she was getting for her boyfriend for Christmas.

Frivolous expense that will not aid in the care and development of the children. It is a luxury item and would not be needed. Why spend money on something like that when money is allegedly "tight"?

Nevermind that they just went out and bought a minivan to replace her.... minivan.

Brand new or used? I'll presume new, and how often are the children driven anywhere or are they expected to walk or take a bus?

Nevermind that she doesn't have to pay rent, utilities or property taxes because she lives in a house her parents bought her.

So, that would given you grounds for not paying spousal support. It doesn't get you out of child support, but from what I gather in your post, you have no issue with paying. Given this, a reasonable court should deduce that there should be extra money lying around unless she has incurred massive debt from frivolous spending.

She also refuses to by them clothes, treats (My son frequently requests beef jerky when she goes shopping. There's never enough money, apparently...) I can't tell you how many times they've come to me for something because their mother told them "If you need it then go ask your father."

To refuse and buy the children clothes could amount to a form of negligence because she is failing to uphold a duty of care she owes to the children. It would be one thing if she spends money on a lot of very cheap clothes because they are growing but to not buy any at all? That would be very close to a breach of her maternal duties.

The snack... well, that's a toss up.

...isn't this EXACTLY what child support is for?!?!?!? I mean, I buy them little gifts and treats all the time, and yes, I've take then clothes shopping when their mother refuses... but I can't afford it. My bills are already sorely behind because of this.

Are you keeping a record of this? If you can demonstrate that you're spending money on the children and paying your support every time, you have at least two legs to stand on. It sounds like this woman is failing to even meet the basic level of care.

I haven't exhausted all my avenues yet to trying to resolve this, but I don't think I should wait until I have before getting in contact with a lawyer to explore my options. I hesitate to try and get lower child support payments because it will only hurt them... Their mom isn't going to forgo her luxuries... and battling for custody might work, but I want to leave that as a last resort. I just can't afford a larger home right now than my current 2 bedroom apartment.

Is it time?

If you won custody, the money that you spend in custody payments would now be back in your home. It would then be available for you to get a bigger place to allow the children to live with you. Even if the children have to share a room, it would probably be better for their health in the long run.

What's more important, her luxuries or the kids' needs?

Even if you don't want to take the last resort route, it never hurts to get legal advice right away. Hell, what you should do is look up the relevant statute that governs child care, support and rights in your state. Read it. It'll be a good place to start. If you were in Ontario, I'd tell you exactly what you would need to know. All I can do now is suggest an immediate solution that would only require you to look up the statute.

I don't know how it works in DC, but, when I lived in California (and I suspect this is true in Colorado) they had a legal aid setup. People who needed legal help, but couldn't afford it could talk to a paralegal (they can't function the same way a lawyer does, but they can offer limited help) and get input from him/her. If the issue was outside the paralegal's expertise, he/she would refer you to an attorney who would charge on a sliding scale that depended on ability to pay. I used one when I sued my ex to get back child support and to raise the monthly amount (even 25 years ago $160/mo for two kids was considered "paltry").

Also, doesn't the Mormon Church have some sort of resources you can access in cases like this?

Even if you don't want to take the last resort route, it never hurts to get legal advice right away. Hell, what you should do is look up the relevant statute that governs child care, support and rights in your state. Read it. It'll be a good place to start. If you were in Ontario, I'd tell you exactly what you would need to know. All I can do now is suggest an immediate solution that would only require you to look up the statute.

Thanks very much for your input. I think tomorrow I will call a lawyer, preferably one who is license for both MD and PA, (Although I'm sure only the PA part will be relevant) and hopefully find one that'll give me a free consultation.

I don't know how it works in DC, but, when I lived in California (and I suspect this is true in Colorado) they had a legal aid setup. People who needed legal help, but couldn't afford it could talk to a paralegal (they can't function the same way a lawyer does, but they can offer limited help) and get input from him/her. If the issue was outside the paralegal's expertise, he/she would refer you to an attorney who would charge on a sliding scale that depended on ability to pay. I used one when I sued my ex to get back child support and to raise the monthly amount (even 25 years ago $160/mo for two kids was considered "paltry").

Also, doesn't the Mormon Church have some sort of resources you can access in cases like this?

I hadn't thought of that... Thank you. I bet there's something like that paralegal service around here.

The Church might... I'll have to ask...

Thanks very much for your input. I think tomorrow I will call a lawyer, preferably one who is license for both MD and PA, (Although I'm sure only the PA part will be relevant) and hopefully find one that'll give me a free consultation.

Good luck on that.

From what I know, the courts, at least here, always consider what's in the best interest of the child. The best way to prove it would be to show that you've kept up with the payments, and that you've done more than the minimum set by the law.

Remember, in court, evidence will tell a good story if it's relevant, but it's the conduct that could make or break the deal.

Is it time?

Nope.

Counting the number of divorces my immediate family alone means running out of fingers and toes - in my experience, it's never worth it. Never. You're paying either way, and paying a lawyer to tell you you're paying either way will only compound your frustration.

step 1) kill her and possibly grandparents
step 2) inherit house
step 3) live happily ever after
step 4) ???
step 5) profit

also I had no idea it cost money to run a razor over someones hair :confused:

I don't know how it works in DC, but, when I lived in California (and I suspect this is true in Colorado) they had a legal aid setup. People who needed legal help, but couldn't afford it could talk to a paralegal (they can't function the same way a lawyer does, but they can offer limited help) and get input from him/her. If the issue was outside the paralegal's expertise, he/she would refer you to an attorney who would charge on a sliding scale that depended on ability to pay. I used one when I sued my ex to get back child support and to raise the monthly amount (even 25 years ago $160/mo for two kids was considered "paltry").

Also, doesn't the Mormon Church have some sort of resources you can access in cases like this?

Heh. In California at least, free legal aid usually means a confused pre-law undergrad with six-hours training and a minimal knowledge of Spanish trying to talk you through a set of forms, *if* you can demonstrate a financial need. Ah, good times. :tongue:

ask her for a breakdown of what she is spending the child support money on. i understand her not buying beef jerky a little bit but if she isnt giving them hair cuts and the like then somthing might be afoot.

I'm wondering why you don't have custody in the first place. I've been divorced, and managed to keep custody of the children in a state where women get favored for that sort of thing in court.

Sounds like they pretty clearly needed clothes and she was neglecting her duties as a parent in refusing to get them.


Question - if they had loads of clothes, but no 'Sunday' clothes... is there any requirement to supply 'church' clothes?

Just for giggles, I entered some data into an online Child Support calculator for PA.

...turns out I've been paying MORE than what the court would have ordered by close to $200/mo.

I think maybe between the questions on how the money is being used and some recent changes in both our lives, it may be time to file for an adjustment in court...

its your call. 200 a month for 5 years is about 12,000.
however I am willing to bet you get a raise that would make you owe the extra 200 within the next 2 years. so really only looking at saving 4,800. minus lawyer fees and court cost.
judging from my DUI lawyer and court cost run you about 1,200 and you will likely have to pay again when your ex finds out you got a raise and she wants to get more money. so 2,400 then factor in your wife's cost will affect your son the 4,800 you'd save is roughly the same as you would spend.

Question - if they had loads of clothes, but no 'Sunday' clothes... is there any requirement to supply 'church' clothes?

That was my first thought, but I took it to be an example.

You gotta figure too, if she makes the kids go to church, and wear "sunday clothes", shes obligated to make sure they, you know, fit.

That was my first thought, but I took it to be an example.

You gotta figure too, if she makes the kids go to church, and wear "sunday clothes", shes obligated to make sure they, you know, fit.

The obvious answer, then, is to stop taking them to church. Ta da. Everyone's happy.

The obvious answer, then, is to stop taking them to church. Ta da. Everyone's happy.

and the world is a better place in 20 years

Just for giggles, I entered some data into an online Child Support calculator for PA.

...turns out I've been paying MORE than what the court would have ordered by close to $200/mo.

I think maybe between the questions on how the money is being used and some recent changes in both our lives, it may be time to file for an adjustment in court...

In the eyes of the court, you would be shortchanging your own child.

Sure you want to do that?

child support is to run the household that your children live in. its not to be spent ON them but on making sure they have the home they need. "Household" isn't limited to homes, it includes food, clothes, school supplies, transportation, and hygiene.

"Household" isn't limited to homes, it includes food, clothes, school supplies, transportation, and hygiene.

It sounds like some of that is questionable at best at this time. Yes, household is defined by those items, but the question is whether or not the support money is being used for that purpose, or is it used otherwise. Asking for a break down of expenses is not unreasonable.

I'm wondering why you don't have custody in the first place. I've been divorced, and managed to keep custody of the children in a state where women get favored for that sort of thing in court.

When we split up he and her parents immediately moved into that nice big house and I was barely able to afford the rent on my new apartment (This is why contracting jobs suck... no job security.)

That was my first thought, but I took it to be an example.

You gotta figure too, if she makes the kids go to church, and wear "sunday clothes", shes obligated to make sure they, you know, fit.

She doesn't. She's all but decided to leave the church since its teachings are inconsistent with her new lifestyle.

In the eyes of the court, you would be shortchanging your own child.

Sure you want to do that?

No. Which is why I won't do it.

It sounds like some of that is questionable at best at this time. Yes, household is defined by those items, but the question is whether or not the support money is being used for that purpose, or is it used otherwise. Asking for a break down of expenses is not unreasonable.

So we had a 3 hour argument last night on the phone (Made me miss the first 2 episodes of Lost on SciFi....) and when I told her I wanted a breakdown of how that child support money was being spent you'd have thought I'd asked her for a kidney. I was told, loudly, that it was none of my business how she spent that money and it was wrong of me to ask.

lolz

So we had a 3 hour argument last night on the phone (Made me miss the first 2 episodes of Lost on SciFi....) and when I told her I wanted a breakdown of how that child support money was being spent you'd have thought I'd asked her for a kidney. I was told, loudly, that it was none of my business how she spent that money and it was wrong of me to ask.

lolz

That should be setting off alarms in your head. If she won't disclose, then there's obviously something she's trying to hide. If not, she would have been more forthcoming with that information.

I feel bad for your kids. They're stuck in the middle of this quagmire.

I'll tell you something, when I was younger and my parents fought over money (as they were divorced), I would get caught in the crossfire. It was horrible, absolutely horrible. Do your kids a favour and only directly engage their mother in this incident. Leave them out of it so they don't get used as pawns.

She doesn't. She's all but decided to leave the church since its teachings are inconsistent with her new lifestyle.


Why do they need "church clothes", then? :confused:

I hesitate to try and get lower child support payments because it will only hurt them...



If I do get custody I'm not going to ask her for child support. I don't want anything form her.

Haven't read the whole thread yet, but I hope at this point someone has pointed out to you that child support is not a right that you, or your ex have...it's a right of the child. You do not therefore get to lower child support, or say 'I'm not going to ask for it'. Sure, you don't have to go to Child Maintenance to get child support enforced...but that doesn't mean you have any right to waive it, or withdraw it.

That should be setting off alarms in your head. If she won't disclose, then there's obviously something she's trying to hide. If not, she would have been more forthcoming with that information.

I feel bad for your kids. They're stuck in the middle of this quagmire.

I'll tell you something, when I was younger and my parents fought over money (as they were divorced), I would get caught in the crossfire. It was horrible, absolutely horrible. Do your kids a favour and only directly engage their mother in this incident. Leave them out of it so they don't get used as pawns.

That's been my approach since day 1. My parents were divorced, and I know what it feels like to be a pawn. I never put them in that position.

Recently, we all sat down to talk about it, because my ex was continuing to badmouth me and bash me in front of the kids. Apparently she felt that they should be on her side, and naturally it was hurting them. We sat down together to hash it out. It was a waste of time. I told her that if she needed to gripe about me, then gripe to her friends, or her parents, or her boyfriend... Not to the kids, it was only hurting them. That's what I wanted from the discussion. What *SHE* wanted was to get the kids to say I suck (in order to vindicate herself, I suppose) and stormed out of the conversation.

Perhaps one day, when she's all grown up, she'll see things more clearly.

Why do they need "church clothes", then? :confused:

They go with their grandparents when they're there, and with me when they're at my place.

Haven't read the whole thread yet, but I hope at this point someone has pointed out to you that child support is not a right that you, or your ex have...it's a right of the child. You do not therefore get to lower child support, or say 'I'm not going to ask for it'. Sure, you don't have to go to Child Maintenance to get child support enforced...but that doesn't mean you have any right to waive it, or withdraw it.

Yes, that's correct.

Speaking as a man who has custody of two children (one from each former marriage), I can also tell you that child support enforcement is taken much more seriously against men.

If a woman owes child support, and you go to the courts to get it enforced, it won't happen.

I haven't seen a cent of child support for either child in years, and the court's attempts to enforce it are feeble compared to what I've seen laid down on men who are not paying.

Yes, that's correct.

Speaking as a man who has custody of two children (one from each former marriage), I can also tell you that child support enforcement is taken much more seriously against men.

If a woman owes child support, and you go to the courts to get it enforced, it won't happen.

I haven't seen a cent of child support for either child in years, and the court's attempts to enforce it are feeble compared to what I've seen laid down on men who are not paying.

How many cases have you seen where the court forced men to pay?
Cause my father walked away without ever paying anything. He dragged the court case out again and again, until in the end 2 of us were of age and he would only have had to pay for the youngest. That's when he declared bankruptcy and retired to his villa in Spain...

Try sending $1000 dollars a month in jerky, clothes and haircut vouchers?

Yes you just do that, and she will have to bring you to court, but then she won't have any arguments against you

Yes, that's correct.

Speaking as a man who has custody of two children (one from each former marriage), I can also tell you that child support enforcement is taken much more seriously against men.

If a woman owes child support, and you go to the courts to get it enforced, it won't happen.

I haven't seen a cent of child support for either child in years, and the court's attempts to enforce it are feeble compared to what I've seen laid down on men who are not paying.

I'm going to call bullshit, and say that even if that is the case in your jurisdiction, it is not even remotely true that you can claim this about all other jurisdictions.

Child Maintenance in this province, for example, is able to garnish wages, seize tax credits etc. Are more men paying child support? Yes. That's because in the main, it's still who woman who is the custodial parent.

If your jurisdiction is lax about enforcement, I'd be agitating for change.

How many cases have you seen where the court forced men to pay?
Cause my father walked away without ever paying anything. He dragged the court case out again and again, until in the end 2 of us were of age and he would only have had to pay for the youngest. That's when he declared bankruptcy and retired to his villa in Spain...
you have to get the right person to take it on for you.

my neice's deadbeat babydaddy had his wages garnished, his income tax refunds seized, and when he stopped working they took money from the joint bank account he had with his new girl friend. they also took his driver's license AND his hunting license.

after a while he gave up custody of their son (the stupid bastard) but i think she is still going after his back support money.

Yes you just do that, and she will have to bring you to court, but then she won't have any arguments against you

What a stupid thing to say, and a big reason why the question "when to call a lawyer" should be answered by "long before I ask random people with no legal training on the internet for advice".

you have to get the right person to take it on for you.

my neice's deadbeat babydaddy had his wages garnished, his income tax refunds seized, and when he stopped working they took money from the joint bank account he had with his new girl friend. they also took his driver's license AND his hunting license.

after a while he gave up custody of their son (the stupid bastard) but i think she is still going after his back support money.

We never even got to this point. I order to decided how much he would have to pay, he first had to declare to the court how much he owned and earned, and the court then had to verify the claims.
That took nearly 6 years.

So we had a 3 hour argument last night on the phone (Made me miss the first 2 episodes of Lost on SciFi....) and when I told her I wanted a breakdown of how that child support money was being spent you'd have thought I'd asked her for a kidney. I was told, loudly, that it was none of my business how she spent that money and it was wrong of me to ask.

lolz
I would have likely had the same reaction. Just saying.

you have to get the right person to take it on for you.

my neice's deadbeat babydaddy had his wages garnished, his income tax refunds seized, and when he stopped working they took money from the joint bank account he had with his new girl friend. they also took his driver's license AND his hunting license.

after a while he gave up custody of their son (the stupid bastard) but i think she is still going after his back support money.

In many jurisdictions, there is a specific maintenance enforcement office that you go to when child support has not been paid. You do not have to pay a lawyer to pursue your ex, the gov't does it for you. You shouldn't have to pay more than nominal bureaucratic fees. You have the right to see your ex's tax return, every single year until your child is an adult....and the gov't has great experience in finding money that deadbeats try to hide.

It is, however, a long, drawn out process and a real pain in the ass. At least you can drop your file off and have someone else pursue it...but as to when you'll see your money, it's up in the air. The amount of effort some of these assholes go to in order to avoid paying child support, is staggering.

So we had a 3 hour argument last night on the phone (Made me miss the first 2 episodes of Lost on SciFi....) and when I told her I wanted a breakdown of how that child support money was being spent you'd have thought I'd asked her for a kidney. I was told, loudly, that it was none of my business how she spent that money and it was wrong of me to ask.

lolzIt's none of your business and it's foolish of you to ask.

If she is the custodial parent, she has absolute discretion on how those funds are used.

Unless you can prove that the specific money you are giving to her for the support of your children ends up paying for drugs, you have absolutely no way of having any say whatsoever in what is done with those funds.

In the eyes of the court, you would be shortchanging your own child.

Sure you want to do that?

False.

Child support is directly linked to your income. You have a right to ask for a revision of the amount you are ordered to pay whenever your income changes.

You are hooped if you pay too little...you can always be pursued for the amount you failed to pay...but you're also hooped if you pay too much...you won't be able to get that money back.

So have your payments reviewed...there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

In many jurisdictions, there is a specific maintenance enforcement office that you go to when child support has not been paid. You do not have to pay a lawyer to pursue your ex, the gov't does it for you. You shouldn't have to pay more than nominal bureaucratic fees. You have the right to see your ex's tax return, every single year until your child is an adult....and the gov't has great experience in finding money that deadbeats try to hide.

It is, however, a long, drawn out process and a real pain in the ass. At least you can drop your file off and have someone else pursue it...but as to when you'll see your money, it's up in the air. The amount of effort some of these assholes go to in order to avoid paying child support, is staggering.
ohyeah this was not a lawyer who did this work for her. it was the local nebraska enforcement officer who took her job VERY seriously. she had to get this money out of the babydaddy from new mexico. it was loads of extra work for her but she went after him with a vengeance.

It sounds like some of that is questionable at best at this time. Yes, household is defined by those items, but the question is whether or not the support money is being used for that purpose, or is it used otherwise. Asking for a break down of expenses is not unreasonable.

Yes, it is.

Just because you, as an ex, are paying money for child support which is given to your ex to spend, does not mean you have any rights whatsoever to determine what is done with that money. The ONLY people who have that right, are the children, and the court in their name.

Short of outright neglecting the children, the court is not going to interfere in however the custodial parent wishes to spend that money. It is up to the custodial parent to decide what expenses to incur, and how to divide up available funds. There is no requirement that a single cent of that child support money be spent directly on the children in terms of buying them clothes, and what have you...if it goes directly into rent, it's still serving it's function.

In fact, in many jurisdictions, child support is not the only expense the non-custodial parent may be required to incur. Things like dental bills or other medical bills, glasses, school fees and so on, can be pro-rated and split between the child's parents, and that is an expense on TOP of child support.

False.

Child support is directly linked to your income. You have a right to ask for a revision of the amount you are ordered to pay whenever your income changes.

You are hooped if you pay too little...you can always be pursued for the amount you failed to pay...but you're also hooped if you pay too much...you won't be able to get that money back.

So have your payments reviewed...there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Down here, if your income hasn't changed, and you ask for a revision, the judge will castigate you for being an ass. That's what I was saying.

I'm going to call bullshit, and say that even if that is the case in your jurisdiction, it is not even remotely true that you can claim this about all other jurisdictions.

Child Maintenance in this province, for example, is able to garnish wages, seize tax credits etc. Are more men paying child support? Yes. That's because in the main, it's still who woman who is the custodial parent.

If your jurisdiction is lax about enforcement, I'd be agitating for change.

It's lax on women in Maryland and Virginia. They seem to often get "the benefit of the doubt". There are men agitating for change, but nothing is going to happen.

It sounds like some of that is questionable at best at this time. Yes, household is defined by those items, but the question is whether or not the support money is being used for that purpose, or is it used otherwise. Asking for a break down of expenses is not unreasonable.Indeed.
That should be setting off alarms in your head. If she won't disclose, then there's obviously something she's trying to hide. If not, she would have been more forthcoming with that information.Not necessarily. It is an indicator that there could be, but it could also be simple spite on her part and a general attitude that the ex has no right to interfere in her life. Though, Neo B, you should consult a lawyer about whether you are entitled to a breakdown of the use of the child support and what steps you could/should take if she's using the money for her own benefit and saving at the expense of the children.

Down here, if your income hasn't changed, and you ask for a revision, the judge will castigate you for being an ass. That's what I was saying.
Good for the judge...you have every legal right to have your payments actually match your income.

Nor would you generally even interact with a judge at all...not sure where in your scenario the judge steps in. You file the papers through maintenance enforcement, provide your tax returns as proof, and voila.

It's lax on women in Maryland and Virginia. They seem to often get "the benefit of the doubt". There are men agitating for change, but nothing is going to happen.
Right, because nothing ever changes. Women automatically getting custody hasn't changed...oh wait...you actually stated that you got custody, so clearly change IS possible.

Imagine that.

Good for the judge...you have every legal right to have your payments actually match your income.

Nor would you generally even interact with a judge at all...not sure where in your scenario the judge steps in. You file the papers through maintenance enforcement, provide your tax returns as proof, and voila.


Right, because nothing ever changes. Women automatically getting custody hasn't changed...oh wait...you actually stated that you got custody, so clearly change IS possible.

Imagine that.

Getting custody involved a lot of money to a very fine lawyer. I was warned that it probably wouldn't work. Having major dirt on your ex (and I mean, major) is the only way that it worked.

Here in Virginia, there's a judge involved in the child maintenance enforcement. You file papers with some bureaucrats, but it always goes across a judge for enforcement orders.

The enforcement, however, is quite lax where it comes to women.

Proposition:

You state that you do not wish to lower the amount of money you give every month, but would be able to if you ask the court.
So - ask the courts to lower the amount you pay monthly to the mother, and give the rest directly to the children in some form, be it as clothes, haircuts or whatever. Be sure to mention that last part; perhaps even have it in writing.

Question - if they had loads of clothes, but no 'Sunday' clothes... is there any requirement to supply 'church' clothes?

Having at least one set of nice clothes comes in handy for more things than just going to church.

Is it an absolute requirement? No. But an unwillingness to supply even a single set of such clothes while one is buying new things for oneself isn't exactly a good quality in a parent.

Yes, it is.

Just because you, as an ex, are paying money for child support which is given to your ex to spend, does not mean you have any rights whatsoever to determine what is done with that money. The ONLY people who have that right, are the children, and the court in their name.

Short of outright neglecting the children, the court is not going to interfere in however the custodial parent wishes to spend that money. It is up to the custodial parent to decide what expenses to incur, and how to divide up available funds. There is no requirement that a single cent of that child support money be spent directly on the children in terms of buying them clothes, and what have you...if it goes directly into rent, it's still serving it's function.

In fact, in many jurisdictions, child support is not the only expense the non-custodial parent may be required to incur. Things like dental bills or other medical bills, glasses, school fees and so on, can be pro-rated and split between the child's parents, and that is an expense on TOP of child support.

You see, you're wrong about one thing. Read the OP again and the rest of Neo B's posts. Note that he states up front that his ex-spouse does not pay rent, or a mortgage. She also doesn't have property tax. The money that is being sent would then only cover the basic expenses.

The extraordinary expenses, for example in Canadian law, will be split and paid equally, as you have. These expenses, however are subject to the Federal Children Support Guidelines, R.S.C 1985. S.7 addresses this, and sets out that the reasonableness of the expense is to be taken into consideration when deciding who pays what. This also take into account the possibility of insurance coverage.

Also you should have noted from the original post that the mother claims that money is tight and yet she has spent $300 on a gift for her boyfriend; wouldn't that money, if money is tight have been better spent on the children? It is also noted that there was a minivan purchased.

I had asked about the nature of it because while it may be necessary, the actual van itself raises a question; was it an economic choice or did the mother spend more money on it than she should have, if money was such an issue?

He's hearing about luxury expenses that the mother and boyfriend are indulging in and it seems he is concerned about the children not getting their basic needs met.

You need to look at it from the perspective of the best interest of the child. Is it in the best interest of the child(ren) to allow money that is for their needs, support and upkeep to be unaccounted for?

You see, you're wrong about one thing. Read the OP again and the rest of Neo B's posts. Note that he states up front that his ex-spouse does not pay rent, or a mortgage. She also doesn't have property tax. The money that is being sent would then only cover the basic expenses.

The extraordinary expenses, for example in Canadian law, will be split and paid equally, as you have. These expenses, however are subject to the Federal Children Support Guidelines, R.S.C 1985. S.7 addresses this, and sets out that the reasonableness of the expense is to be taken into consideration when deciding who pays what. This also take into account the possibility of insurance coverage.

Also you should have noted from the original post that the mother claims that money is tight and yet she has spent $300 on a gift for her boyfriend; wouldn't that money, if money is tight have been better spent on the children? It is also noted that there was a minivan purchased.

I had asked about the nature of it because while it may be necessary, the actual van itself raises a question; was it an economic choice or did the mother spend more money on it than she should have, if money was such an issue?

He's hearing about luxury expenses that the mother and boyfriend are indulging in and it seems he is concerned about the children not getting their basic needs met.

You need to look at it from the perspective of the best interest of the child. Is it in the best interest of the child(ren) to allow money that is for their needs, support and upkeep to be unaccounted for?

Neo B is in the United States, not Canada.

Yes, it is.

Just because you, as an ex, are paying money for child support which is given to your ex to spend, does not mean you have any rights whatsoever to determine what is done with that money. The ONLY people who have that right, are the children, and the court in their name.

And, as a parent, the non-custodial parent should be able, at the very least, to see that the funds he is contributing are put to use on behalf of the children.

If the custodial parent is buying luxuries for herself and others while denying the children things like clothing, I'd say there's a case to be made that she is misusing the funds.

And, if he has concerns, it's probably better to take them up with her first, before trying to bring to the attention of the courts.

To say that the care of his children is none of his business is ridiculous, and if that is the position of the law then the law needs to be changed. The fact that he was not awarded custody does not mean that he is no longer responsible for ensuring that they receive good parental care.

At what point do you decide a situation had deteriorated to the point that a lawyer is needed?

Over the weekend I discovered that despite paying close to a thousand dollars a month in child support, my younger son (who is 13) was denied a haircut on the grounds that there wasn't enough money.

Nevermind that my ex was bragging last week about the $300 satellite radio set she was getting for her boyfriend for Christmas.

Nevermind that they just went out and bought a minivan to replace her.... minivan.

Nevermind that she doesn't have to pay rent, utilities or property taxes because she lives in a house her parents bought her.

She also refuses to by them clothes, treats (My son frequently requests beef jerky when she goes shopping. There's never enough money, apparently...) I can't tell you how many times they've come to me for something because their mother told them "If you need it then go ask your father."

...isn't this EXACTLY what child support is for?!?!?!? I mean, I buy them little gifts and treats all the time, and yes, I've take then clothes shopping when their mother refuses... but I can't afford it. My bills are already sorely behind because of this.

I haven't exhausted all my avenues yet to trying to resolve this, but I don't think I should wait until I have before getting in contact with a lawyer to explore my options. I hesitate to try and get lower child support payments because it will only hurt them... Their mom isn't going to forgo her luxuries... and battling for custody might work, but I want to leave that as a last resort. I just can't afford a larger home right now than my current 2 bedroom apartment.

Is it time?

DISCLAIMER: This is NOT a legal opinion or legal advice.

The only actual advice I would give is that if you have a legal question and/or think you may need legal help, then you should consult a lawyer.

A lawyer knowledgeable in the laws regarding child support in the proper state can should find it fairly easy to let you know whether you have a legitimate complaint about how your ex is allegedly spending your child support payments. No amount of kibbitzing by NSGers is going to substitute for a lawyer's expertise.

That said, my personal opinion (which includes next to no knowledge of child support law in any state, let alone the relevant jurisdiction) is that unless things are really worse than you describe I don't think you have much say in how your ex spends her money. Somethings are just beyond your control, but it appears this depends greatly on the jurisdiction. Again, an attorney with the proper expertise will be able to tell you what rights if any you have in this situation.

One thing that bothers me about all this (ok, there are several things that bother me, but this one nags a bit more than the others) - her parents. For all intents and purposes, they live with the ex and the kids (in the basement, right?). What kind of input do they have in what's going on? If she's not getting them appropriate clothing, haircuts, etc., why aren't they? Where is their concern in all this? Wouldn't most grandparents be involved?

My mother, even with her limited retirement income, always tried to help out when my ex played games. If my kids needed anything I couldn't provide (and he wouldn't provide), she did her best to take up the slack. I always thought that's what grandparents did. It's certainly what I'll try to do if I have grandkids and they need that kind of help.

The obvious answer, then, is to stop taking them to church. Ta da. Everyone's happy.Raising them nudist would be even cheaper :tongue:

One thing that bothers me about all this (ok, there are several things that bother me, but this one nags a bit more than the others) - her parents. For all intents and purposes, they live with the ex and the kids (in the basement, right?). What kind of input do they have in what's going on? If she's not getting them appropriate clothing, haircuts, etc., why aren't they? Where is their concern in all this? Wouldn't most grandparents be involved?

My mother, even with her limited retirement income, always tried to help out when my ex played games. If my kids needed anything I couldn't provide (and he wouldn't provide), she did her best to take up the slack. I always thought that's what grandparents did. It's certainly what I'll try to do if I have grandkids and they need that kind of help.

Unless her parents are legal guardians of the children in question, they don't enter into the custody thing at all.

Sure, most grandparents with the means would help out, but there are some who won't. You can't force them to, either.

Not getting a haircut (unless the kid has dirty, ratty hair to his knees) isn't something that rates calling your lawyer and getting all up in arms about.

Neo, aside from talking to a lawyer, you should avoid talking directly to your ex. It's a good way to get in an argument. If you do it in person, and there are no witnesses friendly to you, you can easily be accused of some bullshit harassment.

Always best to have a lawyer deliver the message.

Short of outright neglecting the children, the court is not going to interfere in however the custodial parent wishes to spend that money.
You are possibly committing legal malpractice here. And I doubt you have the license to be practicing anyway. The right to an "accounting" does exist in some jurisdictions; how the law works in Pennsylvania in particular I would not know (having burned my license to practice in Pennsylvania 16 years ago). He definitely needs a lawyer.

It's none of your business and it's foolish of you to ask.


The law would seem to disagree with you around here.

You see, you're wrong about one thing. Read the OP again and the rest of Neo B's posts. Note that he states up front that his ex-spouse does not pay rent, or a mortgage. She also doesn't have property tax. The money that is being sent would then only cover the basic expenses.
Even if I take everything Neo B says about his ex at face value, none of this matters. She could spend the money on big screen tvs...and as long as the kids are sheltered, and fed, and have their major needs met, Neo B simply does not have any right to question where that money goes unless that right specifically exists in his jurisdiction...in which case he needs to go about it in an official way, since it doesn't sound like she's the cooperating kind.

The extraordinary expenses, for example in Canadian law, will be split and paid equally, as you have. These expenses, however are subject to the Federal Children Support Guidelines, R.S.C 1985. S.7 addresses this, and sets out that the reasonableness of the expense is to be taken into consideration when deciding who pays what. This also take into account the possibility of insurance coverage. Absolutely. The thing is, most people aren't even aware of s.7 expenses. My point in bringing it up is that quite often, an ex will complain if his or her spouse asks for 'extra' money for braces or what have you, assuming that this should be covered by the child support payments. That is not the case. The expenses will be pro-rated and split and are in addition to child support. When I say most people aren't aware of this, I'm including the custodial parent who most often WILL pay for this fully out of child support. The reason I bring it up is because those s.7 expenses can be claimed later...which is something a lawyer would inform you might be a good reason to not get overly aggressive over issues of child support as long as you're paying a reasonable amount.

Also you should have noted from the original post that the mother claims that money is tight and yet she has spent $300 on a gift for her boyfriend; wouldn't that money, if money is tight have been better spent on the children? It is also noted that there was a minivan purchased. I'm frankly not going to give much credence to the outside observances of financial management within someone else's household. The way a family spends its money is going to be very dependent on the internal culture of that family. Some families are tight-wads, or conservationists, and buy only second hand items...others demand designer labels and eat out a lot.

Barring actual child negligence, no child is entitled to 'frills'...child support is about ensuring the basics are met.

While one could attempt to make the argument in court that the denial of a haircut is a denial of the basics, I can assure you that the case would not go very far. The court is extremely reluctant to step in and dictate to people how to spend their money, even with the added fiduciary obligation inherent in the trust-like relationship of parent to child in regards to child support. That is because the custodial parent has extremely wide discretion, and barring a severe breach of that fiduciary obligation (ie: spending the money on drugs, failing to provide the necessaries of life), the court isn't there to dictate what are 'good expenses' and what are 'bad expenses'.

Having children and a failed marriage should not subject ANYONE to the oversite of the court into their personal financial decision barring an actual danger to the children.

I had asked about the nature of it because while it may be necessary, the actual van itself raises a question; was it an economic choice or did the mother spend more money on it than she should have, if money was such an issue? None of your business. Custodial parents are not prevented from getting into frivolous debt any more than the rest of the population, child support or no.

Don't take that to mean that I don't think ANY parent wouldn't be concerned, and rightfully so...but delving into the mind of a custodial parent to determine why certain expenses were incurred are beyond the power of the court, and not something I can see them stepping into without great reluctance. The court is not going to want to be put into the position of 'financial manager', and since there is no way they would allow the non-custodial parent to fulfill that role, that's what it would eventually come down to. The court constantly weighing the financial choices of custodial parents.

He's hearing about luxury expenses that the mother and boyfriend are indulging in and it seems he is concerned about the children not getting their basic needs met.

You need to look at it from the perspective of the best interest of the child. Is it in the best interest of the child(ren) to allow money that is for their needs, support and upkeep to be unaccounted for?
Don't try to stretch 'best interests of the child' to mean 'ability to interfere in the autonomy of Neo B's ex'. The courts won't do it for very good reason, and a bitter ex discussing what he perceives as luxury expenses is not justification for changing that.

You are also stretching 'basic needs' far beyond what it's actually defined as in law.

Does Neo B have cause for concern? HELL yes. As a parent, I can totally understand his anger at the situation. His justified concern, however, does not give him any rights to do any of the things people in this thread have been suggesting, and in fact, were he to pursue some of these actions (holding back child support, demanding a detailed accounting of how she spends the money etc), he would be the one to bring down the wrath of the court on his own head.

Yes, I would get a lawyer, Neo B, so that you better understand what your rights and responsibilities are, and what you can, and not do in these situations. Considering what you've said about your attempts to discuss some of these issues with your ex, and the poor reception on her part to that, I would even suggest mediation. I pointed out to you before, when you brought it up, that her bad mouthing you to the kids is SPECIFICALLY prohibited by most family law legislation, and in fact is probably a clause in your divorce settlement. THAT is something you can act on and have much more tangible results than anything you might want to do with child support. Stay away from child support...that's a dead end road (other than getting your payments reduced if your income merits it).

You have rights as a parent...learn what they are so you don't end up screwing yourself by doing things the wrong way.

It's like I always tell my kids...when someone is provoking you, don't take them up on it, because you end up being the one who gets in trouble when you knock them the fuck out. Do this right...she's in the wrong, and you don't want that fact to be obscured by your own actions.

Absolutely. The thing is, most people aren't even aware of s.7 expenses.
Including courts in the United States, which do not care even remotely what THE LAWS IN CANADA say.
What is relevant here is the laws of Pennsylvania, which as I recall were considerably different, and probably still are: but NeoB ought to ask someone presently licensed to practice family law in that state.

Proposition:

You state that you do not wish to lower the amount of money you give every month, but would be able to if you ask the court.
So - ask the courts to lower the amount you pay monthly to the mother, and give the rest directly to the children in some form, be it as clothes, haircuts or whatever. Be sure to mention that last part; perhaps even have it in writing.

I would love for a system like that, where the kids had some kind of bank account that I would just pay into, and money from that account could only be used for things the kids need. I don't know exactly how that would work, but I like the concept a lot.

One thing that bothers me about all this (ok, there are several things that bother me, but this one nags a bit more than the others) - her parents. For all intents and purposes, they live with the ex and the kids (in the basement, right?). What kind of input do they have in what's going on? If she's not getting them appropriate clothing, haircuts, etc., why aren't they? Where is their concern in all this? Wouldn't most grandparents be involved?

My mother, even with her limited retirement income, always tried to help out when my ex played games. If my kids needed anything I couldn't provide (and he wouldn't provide), she did her best to take up the slack. I always thought that's what grandparents did. It's certainly what I'll try to do if I have grandkids and they need that kind of help.

Her parents are very "hands off" in their approach. Whether it's because they genuinely don't want to interfere or whether it's just easier, they don't say or do anything as far as that goes.

I think it's gotten to the point where they just sit back and wait for my ex to knock on the door to the basement and ask for cash.

When I was arguing with her last night, I got her to admit that $400/mo of what I give her goes directly to paying her parents' back for money they lent her to buy a brand new, very expensive couch and a BIG LCD television. Her justification was "The kids use it."

If she wants to by massively expensive stuff for that house and rationalize it by saying the kids benefit then fine, but not if it means the basics don't get taken care of.

Including courts in the United States, which do not care even remotely what THE LAWS IN CANADA say.
What is relevant here is the laws of Pennsylvania, which as I recall were considerably different, and probably still are: but NeoB ought to ask someone presently licensed to practice family law in that state.

It's actually relatively easy around here to find a lawyer who is licensed to practice in multiple states. Since we grow our states so small around here, it's usually an advantage. That would save me having to do business with someone 100 miles away.

Neo B is in the United States, not Canada.Kry was more responding to me, I think, as I'm of course speaking from a Canadian point of view.

And, as a parent, the non-custodial parent should be able, at the very least, to see that the funds he is contributing are put to use on behalf of the children. Ok, outside of the legal realm, let's discuss this.

What is 'put to use on behalf of the children'?

If the specific money paid out in child support goes to pay off the custodial parent's credit cards...can you make a solid argument that the money is not 'put to use on behalf of the children'? Without finding out what was purchased on that credit card, you can't really say.

The problem I'm seeing here, is that in order to get an accurate 'accounting', you would have to dig deeply into the personal finances of another person...and I don't think that the fact you had kids with that person entitles you to that level of information. You already have the right to full disclosure of income via tax returns...getting a view of how a person spends their money above and beyond that seems extreme.

IF we believe that the child support money, as a right owed to the children and not to the custodial parent, is something that should be managed more like a trust...then we should put in place an actual trust situation, where the money would be put into a seperate account, and not into general household funds, so that the specific money paid out in child support could be monitored.

Yet we would still either have to come up with restrictive categories of 'acceptable expenses' or give discretion to the trustee (the custodial parent), in which case, the separate bank account wouldn't really be doing much, since he or she could choose how best to spend that money.

I'm frankly not seeing how we could set up a system that best balances the privacy interests and discretionary powers of the custodial parent with the concerns of the parent paying child support. The decisions of the custodial parent are, barring extreme events (such as neglect and abuse etc) assumed to be made in the best interests of the children. We would have to change that assumption to do some of the things you're asking.




To say that the care of his children is none of his business is ridiculous, and if that is the position of the law then the law needs to be changed. The fact that he was not awarded custody does not mean that he is no longer responsible for ensuring that they receive good parental care.

Of course not...but he's got better ways to go about doing that than through the very limited area of child support.

Including courts in the United States, which do not care even remotely what THE LAWS IN CANADA say.
What is relevant here is the laws of Pennsylvania, which as I recall were considerably different, and probably still are: but NeoB ought to ask someone presently licensed to practice family law in that state.

Dude is asking about legal advice on an internet forum. Now, I know Neo B is not going to run off and follow whatever idiotic advice he gets...but unless this is going to be a narrow and pointless blog about his ex, then the wider legal implications, including viewpoints from other jurisdictions are just as valid as the idiotic and unformed natterings of complete legal neophytes.

Family law in the US and Canada tends to be extremely similar, though the specifics of course are important when it comes to your actual case. So if you can stop frothing at the mouth long enough to either state 'go get a lawyer and don't listen to anything said here' as some of us already have, or 'hey, this is how the law is where I'm from, whaddayathink', then hush.

I would love for a system like that, where the kids had some kind of bank account that I would just pay into, and money from that account could only be used for things the kids need. I don't know exactly how that would work, but I like the concept a lot. That'd be more like the trust concept I discussed in the post to Dem...the problem is the fact the parent/child relationship is fairly unique compared to other trustee/beneficiary relationships, and I'm not sure if you could properly narrow discretion enough. It would take a lot of doing, and I can't really see that sort of effort being put into the creation of a system unless there was really compelling and pervasive evidence that child support funds are being systemically misused.

Neo, aside from talking to a lawyer, you should avoid talking directly to your ex. It's a good way to get in an argument. If you do it in person, and there are no witnesses friendly to you, you can easily be accused of some bullshit harassment.



This, this and this. Seriously, I can't stress it enough.

Neo B, from what you've said over the last few months, you've tried to be reasonable and discuss some of these issues with her in order to resolve things amicably and rationally. She hasn't seemed receptive.

None of the effort you've put in is going to be something you'll be able to prove in court right now, unless you've been taking some really great notes.

I only communicate with my ex via email now, because of the sorts of threats he's made. I keep detailed track of our communications because if anything comes up, I need to be able to cover my ass. This is unfortunately an area where things get the most bitter, and where trying to be a 'responsible adult' trying to work things out on your own might bite you in the ass.

The law would seem to disagree with you around here.
Do you have a link? I'm interested to see how they'd set that up, and what the process of reporting is.

Family law in the US and Canada tends to be extremely similar
You are seriously mistaken.

You are seriously mistaken.

:rolleyes:
Yes dear. *pats on head*

You see...in Canada we actually study the law of other commonlaw countries...unlike legal training in the US, which is almost entirely insular barring private international law. And while statutory provisions in Ontario versus Alberta versus Florida tend to be worded somewhat differently, family law as with many other areas of law have tended to advance in very similar ways.

Which, since you've probably missed it, does not mean I'm giving Neo B legal advice. I'm just discussing the themes.

:rolleyes:
Yes dear. *pats on head*

You see...in Canada we actually study the law of other commonlaw countries...unlike legal training in the US, which is almost entirely insular barring private international law.I don't know any state in the US where your constant statements like "I don't think that the fact you had kids with that person entitles you to that level of information" or "The court is extremely reluctant to step in and dictate to people how to spend their money" are remotely similar to the law. The child-support money is not HER money to spend as she chooses; it is the children's money, and she is a fiduciary. In most jurisdictions, yes indeed that means she has a duty to make an accounting of how she is spending the money.

I don't know any state in the US where your constant statements like "I don't think that the fact you had kids with that person entitles you to that level of information" or "The court is extremely reluctant to step in and dictate to people how to spend their money" are remotely similar to the law. The child-support money is not HER money to spend as she chooses; it is the children's money, and she is a fiduciary. In most jurisdictions, yes indeed that means she has a duty to make an accounting of how she is spending the money.

She is a fiduciary, but barring specific statutory instructions fettering her discretion, the broad mandate of 'best interests of the children' does not mean that the paying parent gets a say in how that money is spent. If you have some case law to the contrary, I would love to see it. Really, I mean that.

A quick google search gives you this (http://www.deltabravo.net/faq/cs_ans6.php):

6. My ex isn't spending the child support on the kids. Can I make him/her account for how the support money is spent?

Unfortunately, very few States support any any accounting at all of how child support money is spent. In most cases the money may be spent on whatever the custodial parent wants. You might be able to get a judge to order the custodial parent to provide an accounting of how the money is spent, but it will be an uphill battle.

If the custodial parent is ordered to provide an accounting, they may falsify the items and expenditure amounts, and it would be difficult to prove or disprove their claims without going to a great deal of trouble and expense. Check your State Statutes to see if your state is one of the few that has any provision regarding accounting for child support expenditures.


From Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_support):
In the United States, 10 states (Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Washington) allow courts to demand an accounting on expenses and spending from custodial parents. Additionally, Alabama courts have authorized such accounting under certain specific circumstances.

Seems like your claims "In most jurisdictions, yes indeed that means she has a duty to make an accounting of how she is spending the money" is false.

What Hotwife and Neesika said about talking to your ex - really good advice. Communications broke down pretty early on in the proceedings between my ex and me. Neither of us was very rational at the time and, even though I thought I was being reasonable, it's pretty clear to me now, that I wasn't - neither was he. Once I started communicating through a lawyer, things improved considerably.

Unfortunately, situations like this are very hostile and the kids get caught in the cross-fire. To save them, and yourself (even though it could be pricey), you need to get an attorney trained in family law. I would bet that the Church can help you with that, both in finding a good one and in helping with the cost. As much as I think the Mormon Church holds an erroneous set of beliefs, I very much respect their stance on family and their support of children in situations like this.

I would love for a system like that, where the kids had some kind of bank account that I would just pay into, and money from that account could only be used for things the kids need. I don't know exactly how that would work, but I like the concept a lot.

It's a good concept, but I think it would be rather unworkable in reality. Your ex may not have expenses like rent or mortgage payments, but most custodial parents would. How much could they then pull from the kid's account to pay for those expenses? If they need something for work - a job which allows them to provide for the children - could they pull from the account for that?

These sorts of issues are probably the reason that it doesn't work that way - that the funds are given to the custodial parent to use in running the household as she sees fit. Of course, the fact that it is set up that way makes it more difficult for a non-custodial parent to ensure that child support funds are properly used.


Ok, outside of the legal realm, let's discuss this.

What is 'put to use on behalf of the children'?

Ah, that's where it gets tricky.

If the specific money paid out in child support goes to pay off the custodial parent's credit cards...can you make a solid argument that the money is not 'put to use on behalf of the children'? Without finding out what was purchased on that credit card, you can't really say.

Indeed.

The problem I'm seeing here, is that in order to get an accurate 'accounting', you would have to dig deeply into the personal finances of another person...and I don't think that the fact you had kids with that person entitles you to that level of information. You already have the right to full disclosure of income via tax returns...getting a view of how a person spends their money above and beyond that seems extreme.

I wouldn't say that having kids with someone entitles you to that level of information. However, depending on the specifics of the custody decision, I do think it is possible the fact that your children - whom you are legally responsible for - have been entrusted to the custody of another entitles you to a larger degree of information.

In cases where one parent is clearly incompetent and the other gets custody for that reason, it makes sense for the custodial parent to have full discretion over child support funds. However, that really isn't the case in most instances. Instead, one parent has custody because it is better for the child to have a single stable household than to somehow be shunted back and forth constantly between two households. In that case, it is more that the non-custodial parent is entrusting the care he would personally be giving to the custodial parent. As such, I think he should have some degree of control over how it is provided.

That said, I don't know how the system can be changed to actually do that. The situation is rather complicated.

I'm frankly not seeing how we could set up a system that best balances the privacy interests and discretionary powers of the custodial parent with the concerns of the parent paying child support. The decisions of the custodial parent are, barring extreme events (such as neglect and abuse etc) assumed to be made in the best interests of the children. We would have to change that assumption to do some of the things you're asking.

It isn't so much that I think we should change that assumption. It's more that I think it should be easier to challenge.

Like I said, though, I'm not really sure how that can be accomplished either.

Of course not...but he's got better ways to go about doing that than through the very limited area of child support.

If he doesn't have custody of the children, the child support he pays is supposed to be the method he uses to ensure that his children receive good care - by helping his ex to do so. The problem comes in when that method seems to be failing.

I would say that the best first step would be to talk to the other parent about it. Of course, if she's not willing to discuss it, that isn't really going to go very far. But, earlier in the thread, you claimed that it was none of his business and foolish to even ask her how the money she receives on behalf of the children is spent. It was really that comment that I was objecting to. It is his business and, to be honest, I would say that she should be willing to answer it. If she isn't, we then get into the sticky legal questions of what else he might be able to do.


I'm really rambly today, aren't I?

It's a good concept, but I think it would be rather unworkable in reality. Your ex may not have expenses like rent or mortgage payments, but most custodial parents would. How much could they then pull from the kid's account to pay for those expenses? If they need something for work - a job which allows them to provide for the children - could they pull from the account for that?

These sorts of issues are probably the reason that it doesn't work that way - that the funds are given to the custodial parent to use in running the household as she sees fit. Of course, the fact that it is set up that way makes it more difficult for a non-custodial parent to ensure that child support funds are properly used.

Note that the suggested system gives the the minimal amount he is supposed to pay legally to the mother. The stuff explicitly and solely meant for the kiddies is extra.

If he doesn't have custody of the children, the child support he pays is supposed to be the method he uses to ensure that his children receive good care - by helping his ex to do so. The problem comes in when that method seems to be failing. Right, but I suppose I'm also working from the belief that the larger problem is the way she seems to be smack talking him to his kid[s]. In terms of what is ultimately going to be more harmful to the kids, I'd say that as long as they're kept fed and clothed, the money is much less important (and also harder to make an issue out of).

I would say that the best first step would be to talk to the other parent about it. Of course, if she's not willing to discuss it, that isn't really going to go very far. But, earlier in the thread, you claimed that it was none of his business and foolish to even ask her how the money she receives on behalf of the children is spent. It was really that comment that I was objecting to. It is his business and, to be honest, I would say that she should be willing to answer it. If she isn't, we then get into the sticky legal questions of what else he might be able to do. I should have qualified my statement. He (very likely) has no legal standing to have it be any of his business, and it was foolish of him to ask a clearly antagonistic ex something like that for a number of reasons. One, it directly challenges her competency as custodial parent, which frankly, would probably get ANYONE's back up and; two, given her lack of reception to his other overatures, it seems unlikely in the extreme that he'd expect a real answer from her.

Also, I'm snarky as all fuck today.


I'm really rambly today, aren't I?
No more than usual :p

To which you should reply:
"Also, I'm snarky as all fuck today." - Neesika

"No more than usual."

She is a fiduciary, but barring specific statutory instructions fettering her discretion, the broad mandate of 'best interests of the children' does not mean that the paying parent gets a say in how that money is spent.
I did not claim that the parent got to dictate how it was spent.
From Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_support):
Seems like your claims "In most jurisdictions, yes indeed that means she has a duty to make an accounting of how she is spending the money" is false.
All right then. I thought the right to demand an accounting was much more common (perhaps it used to be, but state courts got tired of it; I don't know); but courts in the US are not nearly as reluctant to intervene as you describe Canadian courts as being.
My point was, you DO need to look up the specifics in the jurisdiction you are in: your description of Canadian law, and general blathering as if it were absolutely obvious that nobody's law could differ from Canada's on such points, was not cutting it. A lawyer who can practice in the specific state where his children live is who he needs to be talking to.

Raising them nudist would be even cheaper :tongue:

Maybe. Not in cold weather, though. :)

Note that the suggested system gives the the minimal amount he is supposed to pay legally to the mother. The stuff explicitly and solely meant for the kiddies is extra.
You mean, pay the minimum amount, and then the extra $200 he's already paying can go directly to the kids via gifts, etc?

So it's not really a suggestion of a separate, monitored bank account, right?

He could do that as long as he's not fucking himself up by not making the minimum payments...where some people get into trouble is by entering into 'informal' agreements with the ex to 'pay child support' by buying clothes etc. Without proof that you've been incurring those expenses, the ex can at any time go after you for child support.

Having at least one set of nice clothes comes in handy for more things than just going to church.

Is it an absolute requirement? No. But an unwillingness to supply even a single set of such clothes while one is buying new things for oneself isn't exactly a good quality in a parent.

Having 'nice clothes' is a luxury. One that not everyone can afford.

Note that the suggested system gives the the minimal amount he is supposed to pay legally to the mother. The stuff explicitly and solely meant for the kiddies is extra.

Ah. This is what I get for not following the conversation completely. Sorry about that.


Right, but I suppose I'm also working from the belief that the larger problem is the way she seems to be smack talking him to his kid[s]. In terms of what is ultimately going to be more harmful to the kids, I'd say that as long as they're kept fed and clothed, the money is much less important (and also harder to make an issue out of).

That is certainly a problem. I wasn't aware until you said something about it that it might be a legal problem, however. It seems to all-too-often be the norm when parents split up. My mother made a concentrated effort not to badmouth my father in front of us (although she had plenty of reason), but she really seems to have been the exception rather than the rule.

I should have qualified my statement. He (very likely) has no legal standing to have it be any of his business, and it was foolish of him to ask a clearly antagonistic ex something like that for a number of reasons. One, it directly challenges her competency as custodial parent, which frankly, would probably get ANYONE's back up and; two, given her lack of reception to his other overatures, it seems unlikely in the extreme that he'd expect a real answer from her.

There is that, although I'm not sure from what he's told us (admittedly without her side), that challenging her competency is a bad thing.

Also, I'm snarky as all fuck today.

No more than usual. :p

Edit: And I totally didn't see your white text before I typed that! =)

You mean, pay the minimum amount, and then the extra $200 he's already paying can go directly to the kids via gifts, etc?

So it's not really a suggestion of a separate, monitored bank account, right?

It could be - but then just the $ 200 would be monitored. If mommy wants to use that extra cash, she would need to tell daddy what she used it for. If she does not wish to use it, it just keeps accumulating until the kids turn 18 or 21 or some other predetermined age.

Downside is that mommy may feel even more free to spend the rest of the money she gets on presents for the new boyfriend. BUt that just means she is a bad mother - and the kids will come to realise that when they get older.

All right then. I thought the right to demand an accounting was much more common (perhaps it used to be, but state courts got tired of it; I don't know); but courts in the US are not nearly as reluctant to intervene as you describe Canadian courts as being.

My point was, you DO need to look up the specifics in the jurisdiction you are in: your description of Canadian law, and general blathering as if it were absolutely obvious that nobody's law could differ from Canada's on such points, was not cutting it. A lawyer who can practice in the specific state where his children live is who he needs to be talking to.
No shit sherlock, and if we left it at that, this thread would have died at post one.

I spoke in generalities that you've yet to disprove. The fundamental elements of family law in regards to child support ARE SIMILAR in every Canadian and US jurisdiction. Child support is right of the child in every Canadian and US jurisdiction. Child support is directly linked to income in every Canadian and US jurisdiction. Child support is not spending money belonging to the kids in any US or Canadian jurisdiction, and can be accessed/spent by the custodial parent in every US and Canadian jurisdiction.

The ability for the non-custodial parent to demand an accounting of how that money is spent is extremely fettered, and limited to only a few jurisdictions. That does not invalidate a single statement above.

Since I've made it clear I'm not offering legal advice, and am instead talking about family law in general, as practiced in the US and Canada...and since you really have been unable or unwilling to address or discuss any of these issues, but simply seem to want to repeat points already made (that Neo B should get a lawyer), I'm not really certain why you think your input is needed?

No more than usual. :p

Edit: And I totally didn't see your white text before I typed that! =)

MUAHAHAHAHHAAH! Success!

It could be - but then just the $ 200 would be monitored. If mommy wants to use that extra cash, she would need to tell daddy what she used it for. If she does not wish to use it, it just keeps accumulating until the kids turn 18 or 21 or some other predetermined age.

Downside is that mommy may feel even more free to spend the rest of the money she gets on presents for the new boyfriend. BUt that just means she is a bad mother - and the kids will come to realise that when they get older.
Ok...I'm trying to understand this. So the extra $200 he'd pay to her as well? But demand to know how it's spent?

Wouldn't he be better off spending it himself?

Although as you've said, either situation might cause her to say 'well now I don't have to buy this or that for the kids, woohoo pedicure here I come!'

I put a portion of the child support I get into RESPs every month...were I the non-custodial parent, I'd rather do that than give extra money to my ex. It would be a lot easier than trying to set up a constructive trust to the benefit of the children, paying the money over to the ex to hold on trust for the kiddlets. That just sounds like so much more of a headache than it's worth.

:rolleyes:
You see...in Canada we actually study the law of other commonlaw countries...unlike legal training in the US, which is almost entirely insular barring private international law.

I wasn't leaping into this because that other fellow, Kry, seemed to be saying what I would say and I didn't feel the need to be redundant, but I've got to say hold it here.

Perhaps you're just in a bad mood, but I can assure you that the U.S studies the legal systems of other common law countries. The very notion that we're some isolated bastion is foolish. The only real 'prejudice' I've noticed from them in that regard is their incredulity at the idea of any American law student studying at a foreign law university (which, I suspect, has more to do with ABA's attempts to unfairly control the market for new U.S attorneys then anything else. This is something the U.S government went after them once about as well).

Anyway, for the actual topic:

Neo B, PA is not one of the states that allows for the court to demand an accounting of how the child support money is being spent as far as I know. However, I do believe you can have a court authorize the 'earmarking' of your funds, which means that the money you give to your ex would only be allowed to be spent on certain things such as daycare, school fees or medical expenses.

I'm not sure you could have it done for something as spontaneous/generic as 'Sunday clothes', but you COULD have it earmarked for something like 'food'. You should look into the possibility of having as much of your support money 'earmarked' for these purposes as possible.

Finally, I will also say that I have a potential work around for you that is completely acceptable under PA law (I'm in PA myself and currently a law student). Check this through with an attorney as well, but it should work.

You should keep a record of all the money you spend on your children for basics, but not just a written records. Keep all receipts, credit card charge reports and pay transcripts!. You can use this information to request an adjustment of your child support at the Domestic Relations Office. In light of this information, they will most likely lower the amount of child support you must pay per month.

Now, you have already mentioned that you buy things for your children and that you see them with some regularity. Tell your children to keep a list of neccessities that they need but do not have when you are not with them that you can look at when you see them (in a journal or whatever they find appropriate, for example). Use the extra money you now have from the reduced child support burden to buy these items for them directly so that they may take them home.

It's a little unorthodox, but it indirectly takes some of the money out of the hands of your ex and allows you to make sure it is spent directly upon your children even without a court order for earmarks.

If you need any other information (and cannot currently access an attorny, which you should do immediately!) then I would recommend this little site:
http://www.nwls.org/Child_Support.htm

Which is run by Northwestern Legal Services. There is, of course, also the official information site set up by the PA state government:
http://www.humanservices.state.pa.us/csws/program_controller.aspx?SelectionIdBottom=0&PageId=CSWS/program_information.ascx&sub=overview

But it's not nearly as helpful as you'd think it would be so I wouldn't recommend it.

Keep us updated, I hope everything goes well.

Having 'nice clothes' is a luxury. One that not everyone can afford.

Anyone who can buy a new vehicle, expensive furniture, and a bigscreen TV can afford a set of dress-up clothes for her children.

Child support is directly linked to income in every Canadian and US jurisdiction.

Linked in that there is a maximum cap on how much you pay determined by your income? Or linked in that the particular amount you are paying is always determined proportionally somehow by your income?

I can't speak to laws now, but I know the latter was not true in my state when my parents divorced. My mother was actually willing to forgo child support, but was told that she was not legally able to do so. Instead, a basic minimum child support payment was used - without any paperwork regarding income being provided by my father (who didn't even bother to show up for the proceedings - something that really pissed off the judge).

Perhaps you're just in a bad mood, but I can assure you that the U.S studies the legal systems of other common law countries. The very notion that we're some isolated bastion is foolish. The only real 'prejudice' I've noticed from them in that regard is their incredulity at the idea of any American law student studying at a foreign law university (which, I suspect, has more to do with ABA's attempts to unfairly control the market for new U.S attorneys then anything else. This is something the U.S government went after them once about as well).

It is taken as gospel here on NSG (and backed up by most popular US posters) that the US is a bastion of ignorance and isolation, period.

They'll call you a liar for saying otherwise.

I wasn't leaping into this because that other fellow, Kry, seemed to be saying what I would say and I didn't feel the need to be redundant, but I've got to say hold it here.

Perhaps you're just in a bad mood, No more than usual :p

but I can assure you that the U.S studies the legal systems of other common law countries. The very notion that we're some isolated bastion is foolish. I've yet to see a case from the US that makes reference to decisions made in other commonlaw nations. In Canada, decisions made in the superior courts of other commonlaw nations is not binding...but it can be extremely persuasive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe that is the case in the US, outside public international law, n'est pas?

Therefore what you study, as foundational, is not quite the same as the way we continuously look to new case-law coming out of all the commonlaw countries...and why we can do bizarre things like make 4th amendment arguments when we try to convince the Supreme Court of Canada that the FLIR does indeed constitute a search (epic fail on that one unfortunately) :P

It is taken as gospel here on NSG (and backed up by most popular US posters) that the US is a bastion of ignorance and isolation, period.

They'll call you a liar for saying otherwise.

DK, hush. We're talking about the law, which you've already admitted you never actually practiced after all. Your little comments really don't relate.

Anyone who can buy a new vehicle, expensive furniture, and a bigscreen TV can afford a set of dress-up clothes for her children.


Obviously not. You think those things are free? If you buy a bigscreen TV, expensive furniture and a new vehicle, you CAN'T afford dress-up clothes for the children, surely.

If you believe the anecdotal expensive stuff, anyway. Given how much Neo acts like he hates his ex, he could be stretching the truth, or making it up completely.

- Snipped because you mak good points -

I'm amused that you noted I was stretching it. But that's what we're taught in the program I'm in; read the law and stretch it. You do make some good points that I will concede to you.

However, on the point of the interest of the child, if you do look at the different legislations, such as the Divorce Act and Federal Child Support Guidelines - both federal statutes, btw - both acts emphasize the interests of the child in the legal proceedings.

You brought up another point in a later post governing "informal" agreements. Unless both parties specifically request a court order, in Canada, parties can pay other amounts. If they have a signed contract and it is reasonable, a court will uphold it, even if the party paying the support isn't paying the guideline amount. The guidelines are merely for people who can't work it out between themselves. The courts here will uphold it if it is reasonable.

:D

Including courts in the United States, which do not care even remotely what THE LAWS IN CANADA say.
What is relevant here is the laws of Pennsylvania, which as I recall were considerably different, and probably still are: but NeoB ought to ask someone presently licensed to practice family law in that state.

I was using it to address Neesika, since we're both Canadian and I thought it would serve to make a point. I was speaking in general terms when I addressed Neo B before.

To everyone else, we only have the facts that Neo B is offering.

We can only work with those. He could easily be feeling resentment toward his ex for any number of reasons. These are his children too; why shouldn't he feel paternal?

I call my lawyer most every night.

Linked in that there is a maximum cap on how much you pay determined by your income? Or linked in that the particular amount you are paying is always determined proportionally somehow by your income?

I can't speak to laws now, but I know the latter was not true in my state when my parents divorced. My mother was actually willing to forgo child support, but was told that she was not legally able to do so. Instead, a basic minimum child support payment was used - without any paperwork regarding income being provided by my father (who didn't even bother to show up for the proceedings - something that really pissed off the judge).
Linked as in it is determined proportionally by your income (if you file said income), or absent such proof (depending on the maintenance office, they may or may not go to the ends of the earth to find out about ALL your income, declared or otherwise) you'll generally be fit into the lowest table, which is often $0- whatever poverty line is set in that jurisdiction. (here's it's $0 - $15000 for most provinces, but you don't actually pay anything if you're making $8000 or less a year)

In the US (wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_support_in_the_United_States)), exactly how the tables are calculated vary, just as they do province to province here, but the unifying factor is income. In the case of your parents, are you sure the 'minimum' was awarded? Because in Canada, the minimum child support payment can literally be $1 a month, if you're making $8100 a year. The judge could have accepted evidence your mother had about the previous year's income to determine the payment, which could be rebutted by your father if he had evidence of a lower income, or by the maintenance enforcement office if they went after him to determine real income.

I know that maintenance enforcement has gotten a lot stronger over the last few decades, especially in terms of the ways they can enforce judgments...but I don't know of any jurisdiction that makes a child support determination on a major criteria other than income.

I call my lawyer most every night.

It's a good thing most Canadian Bar Associations don't have a bright line rule about not sleeping with clients.

I call my lawyer most every night.

*Original post idea removed*

*Obscure reference noticed*

That must be quite expensive. Lawyers don't come cheap.

No more than usual :p
I've yet to see a case from the US that makes reference to decisions made in other commonlaw nations.

That's because people freak out if the courts even mention law in other countries.


Obviously not. You think those things are free? If you buy a bigscreen TV, expensive furniture and a new vehicle, you CAN'T afford dress-up clothes for the children, surely.

That's just it. You shouldn't buy those things until you've provided for your children and you still have extra money.

In my mind, it's really the other way around. If you haven't bought these sorts of things for your children, you cannot afford those luxuries.

If you believe the anecdotal expensive stuff, anyway. Given how much Neo acts like he hates his ex, he could be stretching the truth, or making it up completely.

I've actually not gotten the impression that Neo hates his ex. He certainly seems to be frustrated with her, but I've never gotten the impression that there's a great deal of enmity from his side.

That said, I've stated more than once in this thread that we don't have her side of the story. For the purposes of this discussion, however, I'm going on the idea that what Neo B says is pretty much true. If it is, she certainly wouldn't be the first parent to place her own wants before the needs of her children. And assuming that he's telling the truth about her parents buying her a house and paying for utilities and property taxes on it, it seems pretty damn likely that she's a spoiled brat.

Anyone who can buy a new vehicle, expensive furniture, and a bigscreen TV can afford a set of dress-up clothes for her children.



it doesnt matter. as long as the kids are taken care of the courts arent going to micromanage the way the custodial parent spends child support. nor are they going to let the non-custodial parent do so.

unless it can be shown that she is neglecting the kids and spending all the money on drugs, solo vacations, presents for her boyfriends, etc. they arent going to do anything about it. it doesnt take much of an imagination to figure how much worse the load of family court would be if the non custodial parent could bring it to court every time the ex buys a new sofa.

none of this being true if the correct lawyer is hired--the one who is in solid with the old boys network and who can get any judge to rule in his/her favor no matter how petty the suit.

That's just it. You shouldn't buy those things until you've provided for your children and you still have extra money.


Which could well be the case. Kids have been known to make up excuses, especially when the parents put themselves in a position to be used against one another. Neo has made it clear he doesn't trust his ex, and kids aren't stupid. If he asks his kid (who has been refusing to cut his hair for 6 months) why his hair is so long, 'mommy did it'.

Or it could be that 'church clothes' are entirely unimportant to the parent who doesn't take them to church. WHich is totally reasonable.

If Neo wants to take them rock-climbing, racing driving, or to church, it's his job to make sure they have the right outfits.


I've actually not gotten the impression that Neo hates his ex. He certainly seems to be frustrated with her, but I've never gotten the impression that there's a great deal of enmity from his side. For the purposes of this discussion, however, I'm going on the idea that what Neo B says is pretty much true.

I follow a more House-esque belief system. I assume that everyone is lying about everything. I have reason to believe a few things about a few people on NSG, but I no more believe that NeoB is strapped for cash with an evil ex wife who fiscally abuses her children, than I do that Fass is gay or a doctor, or that Andaras really is/was a hardline commie.

For the sake of discussion, I assume that all facts are mutable, and that everyone on the forum is a 14 year old boy typing on his mom's computer while she's at bingo.

In the US (wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_support_in_the_United_States)), exactly how the tables are calculated vary, just as they do province to province here, but the unifying factor is income. In the case of your parents, are you sure the 'minimum' was awarded? Because in Canada, the minimum child support payment can literally be $1 a month, if you're making $8100 a year. The judge could have accepted evidence your mother had about the previous year's income to determine the payment, which could be rebutted by your father if he had evidence of a lower income, or by the maintenance enforcement office if they went after him to determine real income.

The judge told her he was setting it at the minimum amount which, IIRC was $200 per child.

I do believe that you can get out of child support payments altogether if you are below a certain income level, but that is something he would have had to actually provide paperwork for.

Not that it mattered in the end, he made two payments total - and one of them bounced.

I know that maintenance enforcement has gotten a lot stronger over the last few decades, especially in terms of the ways they can enforce judgments...but I don't know of any jurisdiction that makes a child support determination on a major criteria other than income.

The impression I got from what my mother was told (which admittedly is ...what...third-hand information?) is that GA had a set minimum and that she could have asked for higher payments than that, which then would have been reviewed.

I think I tried to look it up once for a child support discussion here and the best I could find on GA regulation in this area is that it changes all the time and that, if you are below a certain income level, you can be excused from paying child support payments until you are in a better financial situation.

I'm amused that you noted I was stretching it. But that's what we're taught in the program I'm in; read the law and stretch it. You do make some good points that I will concede to you. I noted it because I do it allllllllllll the time :D But I'm also used to getting called on it rather harshly if I can't quite get the case law to support it.

The problem is when I try to do it in the non-legal area. "No, you cannot classify sushi as a vegetable just because they are both raw."

However, on the point of the interest of the child, if you do look at the different legislations, such as the Divorce Act and Federal Child Support Guidelines - both federal statutes, btw - both acts emphasize the interests of the child in the legal proceedings. Yes, but the way 'best interests of the child' is interpreted varies greatly depending on the issue. In issues of relocation, for example, the Gordon v. Geortz (http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1996/1996rcs2-27/1996rcs2-27.html) test is:

1. Material change in circumstance affecting the child which was either not foreseen or could not reasonably have been contemplated by the judge who made the original order and
2. Whether the move is in the best interests of the child.

The way a court will determine the second part of that test, the 'best interests' aspect is going to be directly related to the impact of the move in an economic, social and psychological sense. 'Best interests of the child' in other family law proceedings will be interpreted differently, depending on the elements.

Just how 'best interests of the child' is applied is what is frustrating, because it's very much open to interpretation.



You brought up another point in a later post governing "informal" agreements. Unless both parties specifically request a court order, in Canada, parties can pay other amounts. If they have a signed contract and it is reasonable, a court will uphold it, even if the party paying the support isn't paying the guideline amount. The guidelines are merely for people who can't work it out between themselves. The courts here will uphold it if it is reasonable. The court is more likely to uphold it if the amount being paid is in excess of the statutory amount. But because this is a right of the child, if the amount is lower than the statutory amount, the courts will rarely justify upholding the contract, just as they will not allow a custodial parent to 'waive' support if it becomes an issue that reaches the court.

Informal agreements are great...as long as it never goes to court. At that point, it's best if you cover your ass, as the paying parent.

it doesnt matter. as long as the kids are taken care of the courts arent going to micromanage the way the custodial parent spends child support. nor are they going to let the non-custodial parent do so.

unless it can be shown that she is neglecting the kids and spending all the money on drugs, solo vacations, presents for her boyfriends, etc. they arent going to do anything about it. it doesnt take much of an imagination to figure how much worse the load of family court would be if the non custodial parent could bring it to court every time the ex buys a new sofa.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that a non-custodial parent should be able to bring it to court every time the ex buys something - even something extravagant.

But a pattern of behavior is another question.


Which could well be the case.

It could but, like I said, I'm going on the basic assumption that Neo B is being truthful here.

In fact, based on what he has said, she really couldn't afford those things even without the added costs she might have incurred for haircuts and clothing. She had to borrow the money for them and is now taking some of the money from the child support payments to repay that loan.

Or it could be that 'church clothes' are entirely unimportant to the parent who doesn't take them to church. WHich is totally reasonable.

"Church clothes" is just another way to say "dress up clothes". It really isn't reasonable to assume that these children never attend anything for which they would dress up.

I follow a more House-esque belief system. I assume that everyone is lying about everything.

I assume that everyone might be lying, but I don't have any reason to believe that every single sentence typed on the forum is a lie.

And the only way to really have a productive discussion on a topic like this is to take the details as they're provided.

For the sake of discussion, I assume that all facts are mutable, and that everyone on the forum is a 14 year old boy typing on his mom's computer while she's at bingo.

Is this why you won't come visit me?

Do you have a link? I'm interested to see how they'd set that up, and what the process of reporting is.

No that didn't come from an Internet source, but admittedly it didn't come from an actual attorney either, so I'll refrain from commenting on that further until I've spoken to one, then I'll come back and share my findings with you guys.

Dem, here's a good site (http://www.supportguidelines.com/links.html).

The newest GA provision dealing with calculating child support is found here (http://www.lexis-nexis.com/hottopics/gacode/default.asp)...note it's related directly to income.

How it's changed over the years is likely not in regards to different methods of determining the amount based on something other than income...but rather is more likely to have incorporated changes to the determination of income based on relevant factors (like health insurance, personal medical expenses of the paying parents, etc).

Scroll to the bottom to find the actual table (though take note of EVERYTHING the court can consider when determining child support amounts, it's insane)...if you're making less than $800 a month it appears that you'd not be paying anything in child support.

No more than usual :p I've yet to see a case from the US that makes reference to decisions made in other commonlaw nations. In Canada, decisions made in the superior courts of other commonlaw nations is not binding...but it can be extremely persuasive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe that is the case in the US, outside public international law, n'est pas?

Aha, now this is a different creature. Yes, U.S courts are extremely loathe to factor in decisions from other nations. Most of them justify this by quoting the Constitution's self-establishment as the 'supreme law of the land'. Thus, unless another nation was somehow governed by the U.S constitution they don't consider its rulings relevant.

From your previous comment, notably here and here:


in Canada we actually study the law of other commonlaw countries...unlike legal training in the US


I took you to be speaking of the legal universities of the U.S, which have a much more open mind about such things compared to the courts themselves.

In spite of that, I believe there have been two rulings in U.S courts citing rulings in foreign nations. I'll have to see if I can find them, both are very minor.

Also, you might find this interesting, currently the opponents of capital punishment here in the U.S are using the rulings/laws against it in foreign courts as grounds for getting it declared an 'unusual' form of punishment (which would make it illegal here). If they are successful, you might see a bit of a change in what I said earlier about the courts.

Therefore what you study, as foundational, is not quite the same as the way we continuously look to new case-law coming out of all the commonlaw countries...and why we can do bizarre things like make 4th amendment arguments when we try to convince the Supreme Court of Canada that the FLIR does indeed constitute a search (epic fail on that one unfortunately) :P

Indeed, that is very true and I have no dispute with it. Our legal/political proceedings are almost never as fun to read/watch because of things like that. ;)

Also, for Neo B, there is an online listing for Divorce and Family Law Attorny's for all of Pennsylvania. You can find it here:
http://pa.optimuslaw.com/family.divorce.elder.law.htm

In case you haven't found a specific attorney yet.

Hotwife

It is taken as gospel here on NSG (and backed up by most popular US posters) that the US is a bastion of ignorance and isolation, period.

They'll call you a liar for saying otherwise.


Look at my join date. I'm familiar with the tradition of this board, though I'll admit all of the current faces are new and unknown to me. Thank you, however.

For the sake of discussion, I assume that all facts are mutable, and that everyone on the forum is a 14 year old boy typing on his mom's computer while she's at bingo.Don't be silly. That's clearly too many bingo players. My mommy plays bridge.

The fundamental elements of family law in regards to child support ARE SIMILAR in every Canadian and US jurisdiction.
EXCEPT in the particular respect that you are focussing on:
"the larger problem is the way she seems to be smack talking him to his kid[s]. In terms of what is ultimately going to be more harmful to the kids, I'd say that as long as they're kept fed and clothed, the money is much less important (and also harder to make an issue out of)."

Admittedly my experience in US family law is limiting to watching my own parents' knock-down-drag-out fights over the years, and a bare handful of cases before I deciding lawyering was not to my taste, but: you believe that, since Canadian courts WOULD be likely to see "her smack-talking him to the kids" as an issue, but WOULD NOT be likely to see "how she spends the money" as an issue, that US courts would be the same. It is precisely the reverse: US courts don't give a damn about the parents denigrating each other to the kids; they do get interested about the money.

Absurd levels of enforcement of the "fiduciary" responsibility of the parent receiving child support used to occur fairly often where the relationships were contentious: a separate bank account where the childrens' money went; explanations for every transfer from "their" account to "hers" (this is their share of the mortgage payment, etc.); shoeboxes full of receipts from every trip to the grocery store, appropriately pro-rated. OK, you cite that now there are only a dozen states that still routinely require "accountings"; but I expect that in the US, a complaint that the mother is spending the money on herself rather than on the kids WILL get the court's attention, while a complaint that the mother is talking trash WILL NOT.

Also, for Neo B, there is an online listing for Divorce and Family Law Attorny's for all of Pennsylvania. You can find it here:
http://pa.optimuslaw.com/family.divorce.elder.law.htm

In case you haven't found a specific attorney yet.


Thanks very much!

EXCEPT in the particular respect that you are focussing on:
"the larger problem is the way she seems to be smack talking him to his kid[s]. In terms of what is ultimately going to be more harmful to the kids, I'd say that as long as they're kept fed and clothed, the money is much less important (and also harder to make an issue out of)."

Admittedly my experience in US family law is limiting to watching my own parents' knock-down-drag-out fights over the years, and a bare handful of cases before I deciding lawyering was not to my taste, but: you believe that, since Canadian courts WOULD be likely to see "her smack-talking him to the kids" as an issue, but WOULD NOT be likely to see "how she spends the money" as an issue, that US courts would be the same. It is precisely the reverse: US courts don't give a damn about the parents denigrating each other to the kids; they do get interested about the money.

Hilarious. I proved you to be absolutely wrong on the other points you asserted ferociously, and apparently you liked it so much you came back for more. Nice attempt to shift the topic too. I stated that the courts are not going to get too interested in how the custodial parent spends the child support money...they WILL get very interested, very fast if child support is not paid. Wait, sorry, I'll let you finish:


Absurd levels of enforcement of the "fiduciary" responsibility of the parent receiving child support used to occur fairly often where the relationships were contentious: a separate bank account where the childrens' money went; explanations for every transfer from "their" account to "hers" (this is their share of the mortgage payment, etc.); shoeboxes full of receipts from every trip to the grocery store, appropriately pro-rated. OK, you cite that now there are only a dozen states that still routinely require "accountings"; but I expect that in the US, a complaint that the mother is spending the money on herself rather than on the kids WILL get the court's attention, while a complaint that the mother is talking trash WILL NOT.For someone who admits you don't actually know much on the subject, you sure like to speak in absolutes. As I've pointed out above, you seem not to understand the issue at all, I hope I've managed to clarify it for you.

I'd like you to first of all, prove your assertion that these 'aburd levels of enforcement of the fiduciary responsibility of the custodial parent' existed. The way you've phrased it makes it seems like that was the blanket norm, and it just magically disappeared, leaving only a few states who 'still' require this.

Now I will turn to a very common clause in divorce settlements:

"Neither party shall interfere with the other's contact with the children. Neither one will speak negatively about the other to the children."

Where such a clause is not included in the settlement, courts have been only too willing to order such, when the issue has been brought before them. This can be included in a parenting order, a protection order, a contact order, or any other order dealing with custody and access. Let's list a few, hmmm?

Wyoming:
Inman v. Williams (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/wyomingstatecases/2008/2008wy81.pdf) where the court ordered:

15. Neither party shall denigrate nor disparage the other to
or in the presence of the minor children, and both parties shall
endeavor to set aside their differences to respect the other‟s
role in their children's life so that the children may enjoy the
benefit of both parents.

Conneticut
Elaine Brown-Foster v. Ernest J. Foster, [2001] Conn. Super. LEXIS 3305.

7. Neither parent should speak negatively about the other parent to the children.

Minnesota
State of Minnesota vs. Joey James Varnet, [2003] Minn. App. LEXIS 443.

(part of the court's order):
"and he shall not disparage or speak negatively about the other parent with the children or allow others to do so."

Montana
Phelps v. Phelps, [2006] Mont. Dist. LEXIS 1078.
"4. Neither parent shall disparage, criticize, or otherwise speak negatively about the other parent in front of the children."

New York
Matter of J.R.Y. v. D.E.Y., [2008] NY Slip Op 51629U.
Neither parent shall speak negatively about the other to the children, nor [***104] shall they do so in the children's presence. Each parent will ensure that no other person speaks negatively of the other parent to the children. The Court will view a violation of this provision very seriously.

I can list many, many, many more.

The clause I have referred to at the beginning of this is a standard clause of divorce settlements in both the US and Canada, and even when it is not included, the courts, acting in the best interests of the child, will make an order to that effect if given reason to.


The following list (http://www.co.travis.tx.us/dro/children_rights.asp) is an excellent guide to what the courts will take a very narrow view of in terms of parental behaviour.


So no. I'm sorry. Once again you are flat wrong. As I stated at the outset, in terms of Neo B's relationship with his children, and their well-being, it would seem that money is not nearly a big of an issue as the way their mother smack talks Neo B to them.

Just to reiterate:
but I expect that in the US, a complaint that the mother is spending the money on herself rather than on the kids WILL get the court's attention, while a complaint that the mother is talking trash WILL NOT

You expect wrongly. Other than the handful of state that provide mechanisms to force custodial parents to provide a full accounting of the way child support it spent, you are going to have to have a very compelling case before the court is going to pay you any mind. In contrast, issues related to 'smack talking' can be approached in a myriad of different ways, and are taken very seriously by the court due to the shift toward interpreting family law legislation in the light of the 'best interests of the child' both in Canada, and the US.

Ok, maybe everything I think I know is totally out of date. My mom filled me with bile about my father every time I was going to see him, and as soon as I arrived, he would fill me with bile about her; but what kept them going back to court was the money. I always took it for granted that's how things usually run.

I've always found it either weird or a bit odd that the way you determine whether or not you need a lawyer is to go see a lawyer. A bit of clever job security there, I think.

I've always found it either weird or a bit odd that the way you determine whether or not you need a lawyer is to go see a lawyer. A bit of clever job security there, I think.

Muahahahahahaahahaha...that's nothing! Consider it...you generally need to be a lawyer before you can be a judge, and many law makers are also trained legally, and as lawyers find new and novel ways to walk their client's through loopholes, greater legal training is needed to ensure that said loopholes are closed, and law makers are forced to create even more complex legislation to avoid such problems...it's a self-perpetuating system made even better by self-regulation, and the prosecution of 'paralegals' who attempt to provide legal services at cheaper rates.

Oooooh yeah.

Ok, maybe everything I think I know is totally out of date. My mom filled me with bile about my father every time I was going to see him, and as soon as I arrived, he would fill me with bile about her; but what kept them going back to court was the money. I always took it for granted that's how things usually run.

I don't argue that this is usually how things play out in fact. People's understandings of their rights and responsibilities no doubt have a great deal to do with this and 'trash talking' the other parent is so common (and easy) that it's sort of become a divorce tradition. Usually the parties feel the only way they can vindicate themselves against the shit the other is throwing at them is to go to court over money.

I will never, ever, ever practice family law. No one wins. It seems to be the area of law where you see the absolute worst depths people will sink to in order to hurt those they once loved.

I am glad that family law is evolving, and that more note is being taken of the way that asshole parents can mess with their kids. In Alberta, you can't file a document in court related to custody etc without taking a Parenting After Separation course through the court (it's free). That's one way we're trying to deal with the common ways parents hurt their kids during separation and divorce.

But that evolution also means there is more protection there for the bond between BOTH parents and the child. That, to me, is much more important than money.

No, seriously, your ex is a bitch. Stop trying to be reasonable and talk to a lawyer and see what your options are.

I don't argue that this is usually how things play out in fact.
The question is how the attitude of the courts plays out, in fact. I didn't touch much family law either, so I don't know what judges really do; I do know that in a lot of other areas of the law, what you see in the statute books may or may not have much to do with the real world.
I am glad that family law is evolving
I hope that is true. I should point out that I'm a lot older than most on this board, and when I talk about my childhood I am going back to days when most states did not allow divorce at all without convincing proof of adultery or brutality (my parents evaded that by a brief bogus stay in one of the "quickie divorce" states). I think family-law courts in those days basically looked at divorced parents as quasi-criminals, who must need close supervision since they couldn't stick it out till-death-do-you-part like good Christians were supposed to.

The question is how the attitude of the courts plays out, in fact. I didn't touch much family law either, so I don't know what judges really do; I do know that in a lot of other areas of the law, what you see in the statute books may or may not have much to do with the real world.

I hope that is true. I should point out that I'm a lot older than most on this board, and when I talk about my childhood I am going back to days when most states did not allow divorce at all without convincing proof of adultery or brutality (my parents evaded that by a brief bogus stay in one of the "quickie divorce" states). I think family-law courts in those days basically looked at divorced parents as quasi-criminals, who must need close supervision since they couldn't stick it out till-death-do-you-part like good Christians were supposed to.
those were the good old days eh?

you either had to figure out a way to have one of you stay in nevada for 6 months or you had to decide which one of you would take the adultery rap.

back in the MORAL days...

No, seriously, your ex is a bitch. Stop trying to be reasonable and talk to a lawyer and see what your options are.

The most succinct, and accurate advice so far :D

The question is how the attitude of the courts plays out, in fact. I didn't touch much family law either, so I don't know what judges really do; I do know that in a lot of other areas of the law, what you see in the statute books may or may not have much to do with the real world.That's why I went to the cases. But before you make it to court, you have to even be aware of the fact that you can ask the court to intervene in what most people still consider to be an unavoidable facet of divorce (alienation from one parent). It doesn't have to be.

Gods I hate this topic.

No, seriously, your ex is a bitch. Stop trying to be reasonable and talk to a lawyer and see what your options are.
roger that!

"Church clothes" is just another way to say "dress up clothes". It really isn't reasonable to assume that these children never attend anything for which they would dress up.


I don't know. A pair of jeans and a t-shirt are kind of an informal uniform for kids, just like they are for us grown ups. :)


And the only way to really have a productive discussion on a topic like this is to take the details as they're provided.


On a topic like this , maybe. But I actually assume everything is a fiction even more in bloggy look-at-me threads like this one.


Is this why you won't come visit me?

Yes.

No - actually, it's just incredibly bad planning. And/or bad timing.

Sooner or later, though. We're supposed to be going somewhere for gyros, I think, right?

Don't be silly. That's clearly too many bingo players. My mommy plays bridge.

I think a lot of them are 'amateur' bingo moms. Maybe illicit backroom bingo clubs - wouldn't show up on the official stats.

But before you make it to court, you have to even be aware of the fact that you can ask the court to intervene in what most people still consider to be an unavoidable facet of divorce (alienation from one parent).
Yeah, but I was thinking in terms of what a judge in reality is going to want to get involved in.

Daddy says kiddy told him that mommy called him an asshole drunk; mommy denies ever saying such a thing, but claims kiddy told her that daddy called her a crack whore. In deciding the relative credibility of these hearsay claims, the judge should in theory call the kid to the witness stand, but what judge is really going to want to put the kid on the spot like that? Issue a general order, "Both of you shut up about each other!" and call it a day, is what the judge is going to do.

Now if there's something more tangible to sink teeth into, say daddy bought the toddler a new teddy bear and mommy threw it in the trash, yeah, emotional abuse of the kids is going to attract more interest than how the money is spent. But compared to a pure he-said-she-said about who is the worst trash-talker, I think "the kids don't have anything nice to wear" is a more viable issue.