patrick.net

turtledove says

Ahh, mell.... As much as I would love to blame the left, and we all know how much entertainment I derive from that activity, it was actually the right that introduced the laws that formalized c/s calculations, penalties, and enforcement agencies. This was done innocently enough. It was done as a way to get people off the welfare rolls. The left then came in and really twisted it, flying it all under the flag of women's rights and "the best interest of the children." The funny thing is, the very people the law was designed to help weren't actually the biggest beneficiaries... It's the rich bitches who have enough of YOUR money to drag it through the courts who are the biggest beneficiaries.

The right caved after consistent pressure from the left. Of course they saw an opportunity to reduce government spending by fucking over the men. Most party-line Republicans are cuckservatives who do not distinguish themselves at all from the leftists cultural-marxists in many important matters. Utterly useless. That's why the flight-plan usually never changes much, no matter who is in charge. I am confident though that the left will be able to destroy free speech, civil liberties and capitalism faster than the right ;) In the end they are all bothers-in-arms who legalized insider trading for themselves while making it a serious crime for the general public. Even if they have to pay child support / vaginimony, they will have made enough (taxpayer-stolen) money to pay for it.

Would the child support and alimony rulings be different if the situation had been reversed - a stay at home dad with two little children, who had not worked after graduating in order to take care of them, and a high-flying physician mother?

FP says

Would the child support and alimony rulings be different if the situation had been reversed - a stay at home dad with two little children, who had not worked after graduating in order to take care of them, and a high-flying physician mother?

I'm not sure the high-flying part is accurate, but in the state of GA at the time they got divorced, the children went to the mother 99% of the time. Pretty much anything short of the mother attempting to kill her children meant the calves belonged with the cow. That said, the non-custodial parent then had to pay 23% of gross income for two children to the custodial parent. So, my guess is she still would have gotten the children, and he would have had to pay 23% of imputed income based on the job that the court thinks he could obtain. It happened all the time.

turtledove says

and he would have had to pay 23% of imputed income based on the job that the court thinks he could obtain. It happened all the time.

Presumably the job he would get will not be high paying. Would he be getting alimony from her then? Also 23% of income for child support is not that outrageous, imho. I have estimated that in our family about 50% our expenses are directly or indirectly related to the children. This does not include savings for education.

FP says

Presumably the job he would get will not be high paying. Would he be getting alimony from her then? Also 23% of income for child support is not that outrageous, imho. I have estimated that in our family about 50% our expenses are directly or indirectly related to the children. This does not include savings for education.

**Note** Everything I say is about Georgia. Laws are different in other states. Georgia was one of the worst in the country. Cobb County was THE worst. (seriously, if you live in Cobb County and you know you're heading down the road to divorce, suggest a move over to DeKalb or Fulton. Do it now! Trust me on this one.).

The income would be imputed based on the job that the judge would decide you should have. So let's say you have an engineering degree, but was a stay at home dad. Your income would be imputed based on what engineers earn. Hard to believe, but it's true. Before income shares (which passed in 2007), the non-custodial parent always paid and was the only one ever expected to pay. It was assumed that the custodial parent was already "paying" by virtue of the fact that the kids reside with her.

As for 50% of your expenses being spent on your children, I agree with you to a certain degree. As an intact family, you and your wife decide together what expenses you have. You choose a house you can afford, you decide what lessons you can afford, you decide on what schools you can afford, you decide on what health plans you can afford, you decide if you can afford to have one parent be a stay-at-home-parent, etc...

Furthermore, the percentage is supposed to represent the non-custodial parent's share of expenses. So, if each parent were contributing 23% of gross, you'd have almost 100% of one person's net (assuming two incomes) being spent on children and we all know that's just absurd. (2007 income shares helped to fix this problem, so that's a good thing). Also, the straight percentage model doesn't work because the money that's spent on kids actually goes down as the income goes up. People who make $2 million a year, don't spend $1 million a year to meet the needs of their children? That's ridiculous! But the law didn't see it that way. They claimed to make exceptions for extraordinary incomes, but the judges rarely deviated from the percentage calculation. As far as they are concerned, the price of milk and bread are a function of a person's income.

When you get divorced, you are taking a pie and splitting it between people. Clearly, that means that the portion of the pie that each person may have is going to be smaller than the original pie. However, the GA courts never saw that. Everything must be done to maintain the standard of living for the children. So, since the kids ALWAYS stayed with momma, momma ALWAYS got the house. Because the house was affordable only when everyone lived under the same roof, most guys find themselves in terrible apartments barely scraping by. There was just no money left over to support a decent second residence.

Sometimes, we have to give up things when we make certain choices. For example... When my husband and I started our practice, we gave up lots of things... Extra curricular activities were cut down significantly, clothes shopping went away completely... I actually got hand-me-downs for the kids at the start of 6th grade... The quality was great and the kids didn't notice the difference, but the point is... when a family is in tact and economic circumstances change, we make adjustments... But when there's a divorce, the courts don't see it that way.

I swear on a stack of bibles that a guy I know spent the night in jail because he was a programmer who lost his job after the dot-com crash and the judge felt that he should have been able to find a job within three months. When the guy came back to ask for a reduction because the only job he could get was one that paid much less than the one he had that he lost, the judge told him that he had faith that the guy could find another job so he wasn't going to reduce the support obligation. (Cobb County, BTW).

zzyzzx says

There's no reason why you have to have children.

Unless you are one of those people who don't feel complete without it. It isn't necessarily logical... but the urge can be very strong. No one could have talked me into childlessness.

zzyzzx says

There's no reason why you have to have children.

Mine are the result of many generations of careful artificial selection, resulting in a perfect genetic mix. That by itself is a good enough reason. :)

turtledove says

Unless you are one of those people who don't feel complete without it. It isn't necessarily logical... but the urge can be very strong. No one could have talked me into childlessness.

Having children is the best thing ever.

Ironman says

Is she a teenager yet?? That will change, count on it!!

She's 12. No doubt I will become the stupidest person on the planet in the next couple of years.... But for now, she's everything a parent could want.

Ding dong the witch is dead!

So, as it always goes when you have your own business, one must constantly negotiate the ups and downs of cash flow. So now that the settlement funds have cleared and my 8 IVF cases from China all started last week, I'm firmly back in feast mode. So, after 15 years of her crap, we're finally done. I don't think it's completely sunk in, yet.

I found out what got her panties all in a bunch. You see, when we told her that we were very close to a settlement, we made the mistake of mentioning that. Our intentions were good. We just wanted to put her mind at ease. Like, "you're definitely getting paid by such-and-such date," as an assurance that she wouldn't have to wait if something changed our IVF/surgical caseload. We wanted her to rest assured that this was coming to an end.

The reason I know she got greedy is that her attorney actually called the settlement attorney trying to find out what the settlement amount was. Of course, our attorney wouldn't tell her anything. The crazy attorney then told our attorney that she had our permission not only to know the full amount, but also to DRAW funds directly from the escrow account!!!! WTF!?!? Then she tried to award herself attorney's fees. Remember, she had been okay and supportive all the way up until she found out about the settlement... then only when she heard she was getting paid, for sure, by a certain date, did she decide to engage an attorney. She didn't need to hire an attorney in order to get paid. We already agreed to it.

So, ex-wifey got all excited that we might be getting something that she thinks she's entitled to...

One thing this experience has done is cooled my jets about remodeling the house. We're just not strong enough, yet. So even though it's exciting to put some crap behind us... and had a giant bolus of IVF cases come in (in addition to the regular caseload), I've decided that giving it another year is probably the best move. So, the kitchens and the bathrooms stay as they are for a little while longer. I'm focusing on the huge accomplishments that have been made since last year... Last summer, I wasn't sure if I could afford food; this summer I was worried about coming up with private school tuition. I need to learn to enjoy each accomplishment as it happens and realize that it will be fun to remodel no matter when we do it. Everything doesn't have to happen now.

Besides if she's stupid enough to try to come after attorney's fees, I want to make sure she spends every dime of what I sent her. And that will take money on my part. I will make more. She won't.

turtledove is deplorable says

then only when she heard she was getting paid, for sure, by a certain date, did she decide to engage an attorney. She didn't need to hire an attorney in order to get paid. We already agreed to it.

So, ex-wifey got all excited that we might be getting something that she thinks she's entitled to...

Perhaps I'm wrong, but you might be misreading this. If I had to guess, my gut tells me the ex is into some attorney for money - the attorney was advising the ex but that attorney never made an official appearance with the court for a number of reasons (i.e. because its more difficult to withdraw). However, once there was a settlement on the table, the attorney (possibly doing this on contingency) makes an appearance to ensure he/she gets paid. Otherwise, the ex could take all the funds, not pay the attorney and that attorney may have to dicker with her on fees - this happens ALOT in other types of litigation.

So yeah, it seems silly the attorney would file right after a settlement is reached, but its the only way the attorney can obtain priority of payment. Granted, the ex'es counsel could/should have called your counsel to explain this was just to take a portion of payment/not a reason to sound the alarms. Still if the ex is half the POS you claim her to be, this is perhaps the only way can otherwise explain what seems to be a silly filing.

CDon says

So yeah, it seems silly the attorney would file right after a settlement is reached, but its the only way the attorney can obtain priority of payment. Granted, the ex'es counsel could/should have called your counsel to explain this was just to take a portion of payment/not a reason to sound the alarms. Still if the ex is half the POS you claim her to be, this is perhaps the only way can otherwise explain what seems to be a silly filing.

No filings have occurred. Just a threat of a filing after we agreed to pay. Now there's nothing to file, unless she wants to try to go after unnecessary attorney's fees... which wouldn't surprise me... but would be really stupid.

She's claiming that the attorney's fees are $2,500.... all of which were supposedly billed in the last month.

I think she got hosed. She was probably talking to some of her girlfriends and one of them said, "You should go after him because what if he runs off with all the money." So she got scared and hired her little friend who probably does "law" in her spare time. Her friend made her think that she needed her to be sure she'd get the money.

No judge is going to go for that. She can make the argument... In my humble experience, judge's very rarely order attorney's fees... And we have no history of not doing exactly what we say we are doing. We were communicative, we paid as the money came in.... I'm sure her little attorney friend made her paranoid that I (remember, I'm a sore spot for her) might be spending money on my kids... Which I don't deny... but as the only person between her and me who actually works at my medical practice, she's going to have a hard time arguing that I'm entitled to ZERO income. I've been through this many times before. In the early years, she took him to court repeatedly, convinced that we had money stashed all over the world. She never won a case. I'm not worried.

She would question everything that was ever purchased, claiming that we should pay her more... The judge never bought it. The judge always maintained that I (TD) have a right to work. That I am not responsible for her children... That I can spend my money on whatever I see fit. Like I said, she's tried it before and failed.

If she tries to now claim attorney's fees when there was no reason whatsoever for her to decide to hire an attorney a month ago, I will make sure she spends every dime of the $33k I sent her pursuing the action. She should know that about me by now.

turtledove is deplorable says

No filings have occurred. Just a threat of a filing after we agreed to pay.

Perhaps I misunderstood when in your original post you said "They weren't waiting until September 15th. They already opened the case with the state."

turtledove is deplorable says

I'm not worried.

You shouldn't be. You are right, they wouldn't get attys fees. However, I am saying the only reason the Exes attorney made an appearance/demand letter is to get a cut of the 33K payment to the ex (i.e. $2,500 to him/her, $30,500 to ex) - either way it doesn't affect what you pay. It is highly unlikely that minimal filings would incur $2,500 in a month. Likely, that is an unofficial tally that has been kept by her bs friend attorney by advising her over time. Again, its the only reason I can possibly explain why someone would hire an attorney when they were already told a check was en route.

CDon says

Perhaps I misunderstood when in your original post you said "They weren't waiting until September 15th. They already opened the case with the state."

I'm sorry. I didn't understand your question. I meant two different things when I said opening the case with the state and "filing." Filing would be filing a case in court. Opening up a case with the state, anyone can do. That doesn't need a lawyer. She may have had her lawyer do it on her behalf, but she could have done it herself, too.

Yes, she did open a case with the state, but she didn't give them any real information. So, this was nothing more than a sabre rattle, most likely at the behest of her attorney. The debt is paid, so she there's no account. Since she didn't give them any real information then the account doesn't serve any purpose. I didn't know that, at the time. We got a letter, so I assumed that she reported it. But apparently, she didn't.

Filing, on the other hand, would be like "contempt of court." Her attorney threatened that, too, but since we weren't served, nothing was filed. And it wouldn't matter now, because the case would have to be dismissed, as the complaint doesn't exist anymore.

It was a silly exercise on her part. Changed nothing... she got paid when we told her she'd get paid.