Register  |   |   |  Calendar  |  Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #1 
http://iwin.iwd.state.ia.us/iowa/PubReader?itemid=00003778


Iowa Workforce Development
Iowa's Employment Security Agency

 

Occupational Employment Statistics
 
The Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Wage Survey provides employment and wage estimates by occupation. The OES Survey is a nation-wide survey which contacts 400,000 establishments annually to obtain detailed data. There are over 6,000 establishments contacted annually in Iowa. The OES survey is a Federal-State cooperative program between the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and State Workforce Agencies including Iowa Workforce Development. BLS provides the procedures and technical support, draws the sample, and produces the survey materials, while the State Agencies collect the data.
 
Ames, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area
Cedar Rapids, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area
Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL Metropolitan Statistical
Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area
Dubuque, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area
Iowa City, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area
Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA Metropolitan Statistical Area
Sioux City, IA-NE-SD Metropolitan Statistical Area
Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA Metropolitan Statistical Area
Northeast Iowa
Northwest Iowa
Southwest Iowa
Southeast Iowa


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Will

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 104
Reply with quote  #2 
You da Man!  How did you find this information? 

__________________
Children Need Both Parents
Roland

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 105
Reply with quote  #3 

Can this be used when taking someone back to court in child support cases? Is this something that can be used as to say this is how much you could make if you have degree in this area? I am just wondering if an attorney would use some of us sort as saying you can make this if you used your degree and not just whatever job you had. Does that make sense?

maizej

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 95
Reply with quote  #4 

I hope they can not use this. I live in Washington and am considered part of the Iowa CIty area; however, the wages are significantly different. I actually took this to my boss and got laughed at.


__________________
“We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.”

Abraham Lincoln

Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #5 

It can be used because it is from the Iowa Workforce Development, which is a state agency.  However, usually the judge will impute the income you have or use your pre-established income history.  Where this comes into play, is when the cp decides to voluntarily work "part-time" or "not-at-all" and thus you present this to the judge as cp's "potential earnings" for a 40 hour work week.


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
jessr1973

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 120
Reply with quote  #6 

But couldn't this be used againist a ncp when they "choose" to not work full time? Isn't it the same thing?

Big_Eric

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 907
Reply with quote  #7 

Good luck getting the judge to impute income to the CP, or even getting an attorney to help you with that. I tried to ask the judge to impute income to my ex and got shut down like Harry. In fact, Harry got more syllables out of his mouth than I did. I wish it were so though.


__________________
Eric E. Durnan
Wadena, Iowa

[i]I don't see the glass as being half full or half empty. I see the glass as being twice as large as it needs to be. [/b]
JudyChat

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 919
Reply with quote  #8 

Well, we were able to impute potential earnings to my husband's ex.  It wasn't because of hubby's attorney though, it was because HUBBY pushed the issue and said he was more than willing to litigate that issue. 

Big_Eric

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 907
Reply with quote  #9 

Really? Drop me a line telling me that story. I'd love to hear it so maybe I know how to do it next go around, and yes, there is going to be a next time. I'm actually happy to hear that a judge did that.


__________________
Eric E. Durnan
Wadena, Iowa

[i]I don't see the glass as being half full or half empty. I see the glass as being twice as large as it needs to be. [/b]
JudyChat

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 919
Reply with quote  #10 

Well, it wasn't a judge.  It was a settlement out of court.  Kind of tells me that she didn't want the money issues winding up in court at all.

ironeagle

Avatar / Picture

Coordinator I.C.O.S.
Registered:
Posts: 815
Reply with quote  #11 

Personally I think everyone needs to be very warry about wether to use presumed incomes to establish child support. Honestly I think that if the law stated that all child support must be based off of actual earned income, and that when income is at zero, so is child support, there would be alot less arrears. I honestly believe presumed income orders are the leading cause of child support debt owed. It would be a great defense in a way, but I'm concerned that if we use it as a defense tactic that we may only be further persuading the idea of presumed orders rather than fighting against them.


__________________
"I am one of many and together we will prevail!"
khar59

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 269
Reply with quote  #12 
Again, I'm late on posting on this or any subject.

I feel that it is a fair and equitable system that does take into account the earnings of each household including our partners.

The basis of this would be to determine that each household is able to ensure a fair and just standard of living. No one should be burdened by CS payments to the extent that they are unable to support their families.

Every child and every adult has the right to food, shelter, warmth, clothing, education and the opportunities that economic advantages afford us. When you unfairly burden parents with CS payments that severely affects their ability to provide for their households how is that humane?

When we as adults choose to enter relationships we need to accept that there will be a certain amount of monetary obligation to that family, whether it is a blended family or not. There are so many factors to all of these things and that is why there needs to be full assessment of each household and a reasonable amount of personal obligation from all parties.

You can please some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. However, bleeding one parent for no apparent reason than you can by enablement of the courts is just ludicrous.

It is a well known fact that people in poverty are so focused on providing the basics for their families (survival) that this constant state of high alert takes all their enegies, thus robbing their families of the emotional support that they need.



__________________
The focal point of all reforms should be human liberation, and the respect for human value and human rights. The free development of each individual is the basis for all social progress. - Xu Wenli on Freedom 1944.
lovemyboys

Member
Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #13 
my question is, could this be used in a case where the CP's new spouse owns a business and CP works there for "no pay"? Also does anyone know how Rental Property that CP owns but doesn't rent affects income calculations for child support modifications and does CSRU take these into account? Or do I have to take it to a judge?
ironeagle

Avatar / Picture

Coordinator I.C.O.S.
Registered:
Posts: 815
Reply with quote  #14 

kahr, you have a good insight into the issue. I think you'll find that, that is why, especially in cases of 50/50 custody, fathers are angry that they still have to pay child support orders upwards of $900 dollars a month to fill the financial gap in their ex's yearly income. For people who are poor and trying to work out payment plans to C.S.R.U the unit never bothers to ask if you can afford you house payment or rent, or if you have enough groceries in your house for the month, or if you are in need of medical care. They don't care if you have enough to live on , they only care that you pay x amount to appease the child support. Because most ncp's are not eligable for public assistance during their poverty, theuy are often times unable to provide the child support and end up with their licenses sanctioned or in prison for being poor.


__________________
"I am one of many and together we will prevail!"
lovemyboys

Member
Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #15 
yes please explain that to me. I am not eligible for any assistance because I am the NCP and can't deduct ANYTHING from my gross income for child support payments to even qualify, yet the CP doesn't have to claim child support to get assistance and she gets a household member deduction.
ironeagle

Avatar / Picture

Coordinator I.C.O.S.
Registered:
Posts: 815
Reply with quote  #16 

LMB, the problem is that no one can really explain the reason why ncp's pay all the money, get taxed on money they never even hold in their hands, and get zero deductions, while the cp pays no taxes on the unearned child support income, gets all the tax cuts and refunds, is eligible for public assistance etc, etc. The only deduction I have is that it's all about the federal incentive dollars the states get and they keep praying on the poor me single mother story so they just keep giving the cp's all the breaks. It's imparative to the state that they continue to help the "sacred cows" so they can continue to convince the general public that child support is for poor mothers who's exes ran away from their children. Because if the cp's start to believe that child suipport is unfair then they will loose their only cop out on how this is all for the best interest of the children.


__________________
"I am one of many and together we will prevail!"
ironeagle

Avatar / Picture

Coordinator I.C.O.S.
Registered:
Posts: 815
Reply with quote  #17 

I'd like to update my opinion on pressumed orders. I think that pressumed income for either parent should be illegal, unless the parent for whom imputing income is suggested agrees to impute against themselves. This is because imputing creates either one of two problems it can create unrealistic support orders that are too high and a ncp can't afford to pay it and goes into manufactured arrears or the order is redculously low causing unfairness to cps who require child support because they cannot afford to work, or can't find employment and have no other source of income to provide for the parents' child.


__________________
"I am one of many and together we will prevail!"
Chad

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,320
Reply with quote  #18 

your right iron and if one the CPs income is lowered then so should child support as both parent's should contribute equally to the raising of the child or if all else being equal maby it would be better for the child to live with the parent who can financially support them.


__________________
What's wrong with socialism in one sentence:
When you implement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.
BBW

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 357
Reply with quote  #19 
The problem here is like many with this system. It's intent is being misused. In my situation, what do you do when the other parent deliberately avoids working and is fully capable? Is was the intent to catch people like this, not to get people who are trying and having difficulty. The solution is to get this system changed (people and legislatively) to do what it was intended. Again, is all comes back to the courts and their unwillingness to do their jobs. You take them on and the other things will follow naturally.

__________________
The amount of success you have in solving a problem is directly proportional to the amount of constructive energy you put into solving it.
lcald

Member
Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #20 

Can I ask what you mean by fully "capable"?

 

I am not trying to be condescending here, however this “capable” term is a frustrating issue for me too...

 

I was one that made a very good living by “my” standards as a single mom (over 60k a year + bonus) I then had our child and for the first year the NCP was good and watched our child for 1/2 the time (court ordered), so we could both concentrate on a career. At that time his child support was ordered to merely pay for 1/2 of our Childs daycare (about 200 a month)....

 

Then one day he comes to me with "work" wants more from him and he needs to reduce time with our child. He requested a few hours on Wed. evening and every other weekend with our son as he has to concentrate on his career so he may provide for his "real" family one day. He also let me know that I needed to keep in mind “work” would also require him to travel and he may need to miss some ordered visitations. He actually took me back to court to reduce his visitation time and the judge approved it on the grounds he needed to be financially stable for the best interest of the child??? OK, he was making over 20K less than me a year??? But the judge would risk my career over his???? 

 

So in the past 4 years I have lost my freedom to be successful, because our child always comes first in my eyes. I have lost two high paying jobs due to attendance. As there are rules on when you can and can't send a child to daycare and rules on how many hours a day a child is allowed to stay in daycare. Also when I had to travel for work he would always decline to help me out. He constantly reminds me of his court ordered visitation and he will do NO MORE than what is ordered of him which are 2 hours on Wed and every other weekend. I begged him and his attorney to take our child overnight on Wed’s and he declined. He has missed over 15 visitations in 4 years and NEVER made any of them up (his work schedule doesn't allow it).

 

So since then I have taken him back to court and I have had CS readjusted which equated to 4 times the original amount. NOW he feels he is being treated unfair. AND fortunately for me I am called every name in the book on a monthly basis due to his drastic increase in CS. Yet, I have given up a lucrative career, a sense of self being, and dependency all because of a father who cannot participate 50/50.

 

But tell me what am I to do as the single mom without the support of the other parent time wise? And not to mention I have to be the one to “explain” why dad isn’t there??? My only satisfaction is that our child will grow old enough one day to ask his own questions to his own father.

 

Yes, while I agree I am "capable" it becomes merely "impossible" without the other parents support.

 

If this is the wrong forum to express this opinion I apologize, please direct me to the correct one. J

BBW

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 357
Reply with quote  #21 
I mean capable in the respect that the parent pulls their weight and responsibility. In my case you have a mother who can work but chooses to stay unemployed and live off of child support and state assistance. This is because she does not want to get up in the morning, listen to her employer, etc. In your case, if all is true, then you have a parent similar to my ex in the respect that they put their own wants before their children. These poor choices occur both by mothers and fathers. I'll say what I believe is going to be the case in my situation and may be what happens in yours. And that is, you are sacrificing for your kids and they are not dumb and will grow up knowing which parent gave a you know what about them. My day starts at 4:45am and ends at 11pm when I have them. I work full time and then some to support them. I have given up better pay to do this. But my kids are the focus. I hear your story and it is not the first. This may be Iowafathers website but it encompasses both genders who want equality and what is best for the children. It is a battle that is gaining and will change the system for the better in the future.

__________________
The amount of success you have in solving a problem is directly proportional to the amount of constructive energy you put into solving it.
ironeagle

Avatar / Picture

Coordinator I.C.O.S.
Registered:
Posts: 815
Reply with quote  #22 
Blah blah, capable nothing presumptions don't equal dollars it create arrears or gyps parents out of reasonable support. It makes no difference if you think mom should pay equal to you, or not, all parents are  responsible for all of the child's costs regardless of how much the other parent contributes. Period.

__________________
"I am one of many and together we will prevail!"
BBW

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 357
Reply with quote  #23 
Maybe I need to clarify a little more. If the one parent has a 25k-30k a year job and quits it to live on welfare and child support then they fail in their responsibility and should not have JPC or primary care. The other parent should not be held to make up the difference because someone is bitter or sour and decides to be selfish.

__________________
The amount of success you have in solving a problem is directly proportional to the amount of constructive energy you put into solving it.
beatupbutnotdeadbeat

Member
Registered:
Posts: 13
Reply with quote  #24 
How this worked for me-

I was doing a modification because my oldest (1 of 2) turns 18 in Jan and has moved out of her mother's house.  My ex was also planning to move to the Pittsburgh, PA area. 

I looked up LPN wages for the Pittsburgh area on the dept of labor website and gave the information to my lawyer.  My ex has been making about $14/hr as an LPN here in Iowa, but in negotiations between the lawyers, she admitted that in PA she could make $20/hr.(based on the DOL stats)  The new child support was calculated based on that amount.  It went from almost $700 to just under $400 a month (dropping 1 child and using new income levels)

No judges were involved till the agreed upon modification was presented for the judge to sign.

Obviously, my ex is stupid.  Had she fought this, the judge probably wouldn't have gone for the imputed income amount.

I think my ex didn't want to rack up any more lawyer fees so agreed to it.  Now she has put off the move.  Perhaps the cost of her lawyer took away her moving money?

I know many don't have such luck as I did, but this is one way to use the dept of labor stats.
Litcuriosu94

Member
Registered:
Posts: 1
Reply with quote  #25 

I am an unemployed union fitter, I was making good money when i worked 40 hrs.  I was let go in July. I lived on umemployment with half of that going to my ex.  I am now living in a building with the use of a camper.  I don't want to "short change" my children. I am almost homeless.  Won't be able to see my kids, and will still have to come up with money to stay up with paying my support.  I went to a lawyer to see what it would take to modify my child support.  I will cost me over $1600.00 to get it changed if see doesn't fight it.  I am having trouble buying enough food for my kids when they are with me.  All the primary parent has to do is file a piece of paper to have my wages looked at to get a raise.  where is the justice in this one sided system.

BBW

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 357
Reply with quote  #26 
The justice begins when you start educating yourself with the resources available here and start asserting your rights. It can be done because other members have done it. It isn't easy but it is worth it in the end. Hang in there and get to a meeting site.

__________________
The amount of success you have in solving a problem is directly proportional to the amount of constructive energy you put into solving it.
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #27 

Yes, you need to get to a  support meeting and educate yourself of the legal process.


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
kimmerben

Member
Registered:
Posts: 1
Reply with quote  #28 

I am not sure where to turn and need advice.  When my husband divorced he paid for the ex to attend school to "better herself".  She attended school and in the end was not awarded a certificate because she basically flunked out.  Since then she has never worked full time, only works enough so that she can receive  child support and  gov. assistance.  Now with the new guidelines they have increased his support by 51%.  At no point has anyone ever looked at her work ethic...she chooses to not work full time and the children are both in school full time.  Is there any hope to challenge the new support?

Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #29 
Take the issue to Court in a private action. A judge can impute income to her under the new guidelines.
__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
bunches

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 261
Reply with quote  #30 
I am back looking up information even though my last attempts were somewhat succesful the last time I had to go to court.  We have a new development as my ex has been fired from her job in October-November.  Of course she waited the exact amount of time she had to in order to contact CRSU to modify my child support.  We now have 2 children still under her care as cp.  She is requesting more child support because she has been denied unemployment, has remarried, and she worked one temp job which didn't work out because immediately began asking for time off.  She is not working with an attorney just through CRSU.  I must tell you straight up that I already pay half of my check to health insurance, life insurance, disability insurance, and child support.  So my question is if I push the inputed income suggested here and half of my check is already going to taking care of my children, can she get more money?  I really don't have the money to get an attorney.  I did this pro se the last time legal issues came up, and I feel like I was half successful.  I was able to get out of paying for college expenses because my son failed out just as I said he would.  I also got the medical expenses changed so that I am not immediately having to pay half of all bills she has to pay $500 first.  I just don't know how much more she can get from me when I already pay half of my check out.  I am wanting to suggest my middle son coming to live with me.  Then we both have one child and no support would be needed.  Please let me know if I am correct that she can't get anymore support from me when I am already paying half.
Thank you
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #31 
50% is the most they can take out so you have nothing to loose and everything to gain.
__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
bunches

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 261
Reply with quote  #32 

With her not working then she won't be allowed to just live off of the child support by having it raised then.  When I called CRSU yesterday they also have "forgotten" that extra is being taken out of my check for the last time we went back to court. So I am ahead now.  Gee too bad they won't refund it back to me.

Chad

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,320
Reply with quote  #33 
They will refund it to you, when my ex lied and said I wasn't paying they took out extra untill I proved she was lieing, they gave me a refund, also when I switched jobs and had an overlap where I worked both for two weeks. they garnished both checks and again I got a refund. Just ask because they definatly won't bring it up unless you ask.

oh and if you can get the reason she was fired and its was her fault (if unemployment was denied then that was definatly the case) then she is voluntarily not working and yes you can imput income is such a case.



__________________
What's wrong with socialism in one sentence:
When you implement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.
bunches

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 261
Reply with quote  #34 

How do I find out why she was fired?  Is that something I can ask her former employer?  She has never given me the exact reason except to say that she was going to fight her termination.  She has filed some sort of suit against her former employer according to the Iowa Court Online search system.  Then do I request from CRSU that they use what she could be making or what she was making since she was terminated?

bunches

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 261
Reply with quote  #35 
Well just to update you CRSU sent me paperwork today.  In it they put her income at $1609 per month when before she was fired from her job she was making $3116.  Therefore my child support will now go up over $100.00 a month.  This means that they will now be taking out more than half of my check.  They also have in this order they are going to seek an order for me to pay a cash amount for medical support.  I already carry health insurance on the kids.  I don't understand what this is for. 

How do I appeal? 
Chad

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,320
Reply with quote  #36 

go to a meeting and talk to Brian. You can fight their recomendations in court. Stay calm Show a Judge that CSRU wouldn't leave you with anything if they got their way. You may want to find something in the court order to modify and make some changes in your favor as well.


__________________
What's wrong with socialism in one sentence:
When you implement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.
BBW

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 357
Reply with quote  #37 
Typically you would file a modification of child support in court to ask the court to impute her income. The bigger argument that no one has taken up is the constitutionality of the state to violate your rights to life liberty and pursuit of happiness, the fundamental right to parent, and discrimination by taking your property(I.E. income) The big question is how they can come into your life and determine that they know better how to raise and support your children. Have you been convicted of neglect? How is it that the state does not  tell anyone else how to raise their children until abuse or neglect comes into play but they can if you are divorced? What statues did you break? The answer is none.  One day someone will take up this unconstitutional issue and run with it all the way  to the US Supreme court. CRSU does this because no one takes them to court all the way on these fundamental issues. Yes, this would be a heck of a long journey but one person has to begin. If they come back to me, the fight will be on.

__________________
The amount of success you have in solving a problem is directly proportional to the amount of constructive energy you put into solving it.
Chad

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,320
Reply with quote  #38 

The first time they try to raise my child support I will do this. I will wait for them to file then also make them provide me with an atourney as any other time the state vs someone they have to provide you with one. But this fight will take some money, I don't have much so may need some support. That is part of the reason CSRU takes so much its because they want to make sure you don't have enough left to put up a good fight against them. We also need to get the word out about how much they cost the taxpayers. $50,000,000 in Iowa alone. That would fix a lot of roads, make a lot of schools better, ect. If someone dose take up the fight I will be the first to donate to the leagal fees and am willing to help in anyway I can. I'd love to see CSRU dismantled and forced to pay compesaition to everyone they've hurt.


__________________
What's wrong with socialism in one sentence:
When you implement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.
BBW

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 357
Reply with quote  #39 
You would be hard pressed to find an attorney with the skill and more important motivation to do this. Instead of money, you could help pull the research that will stop them with no legitimate argument. There are a number of people here ready to do so when the right person decides to stop this. A dozen or more people here researching the statues and case law will have a far more benefit to shut these guys down from destroying family units.

__________________
The amount of success you have in solving a problem is directly proportional to the amount of constructive energy you put into solving it.
Greegor

Member
Registered:
Posts: 5
Reply with quote  #40 
I know that the slur "deadbeat Dad" is often used wrongly,
but I know of one guy who was by HIS choice so uninvolved
with his kid that he only wanted his kid for Christmas because
HIS MOMMY insisted on it.
 
Most of his actions as a parent to the child have been
only because his Mommy pushed him to do it so
that SHE could have visitation with the kid.
 
He's about 40 years old and still lives in his Mommy
and Daddy's house, no rent, no utilities, nothing.
 
His income is nearly zero not because he cannot
get work but because he CHOOSES not to work.
 
He works at the local auditorium setting up
bleachers and folding chairs so he can fancy
himself to be a "roadie" and tell himself he's "cool".
 
Isn't a case like this where the guy is CHOOSING
to not work exactly what IMPUTED income is for?
 
Brought up imputed income and Judge would
not do it.
 
Somewhere I saw where there is a FEDERAL
avenue a parent can raise hell with the state
for such stuff.   Got any info on that?
 
Before that he was only asked to chip in
$100 a month and it got all the way up
to $ 10K because he was such a loser.
 
He could have gotten out and collected
pop and beer cans to pay the piddly $100 /month!
 
The ""Child Protection"" morons tried to make
this sows ear into a silk purse, too.
 
They put him in liquor treatment and he kept
riding his bicycle to his favorite bar every day,
even while he was in liquor treatment.
 
DHS never was a bit concerned with his
kid picking up any of his nasty behavior.
 
His brother does it too.
 
Doesn't CPS think that is BAD PARENTING??
 
How many 40 year old Momma's Boys do you
think are laying around their Mommy's house
rent and utility free and presumeably getting
an allowance?    Choosing NOT to work though he could.
 
Will CSRU continue to collect every tax refund
they can to reimburse the working mother
even after the kid is 18?
 
Is there any Statute of Limitations that will let that
deadbeat skate out of paying his measly $10 K debt
that was accrued at only $100 per month?
 
On visits he buys the kid stuff but the
kid has mentioned seeing his Mommy
handing him the cash for doing even that!
 
The kid brought it up!
She know's it's his Mommy's cash.
 
To me the wierdest part is that the 40
year old deadbeat's DAD allowed this crap
to go on as well, before he died a few years back.
 
What the heck is IMPUTED INCOME for
if DHS/CSRU won't even use it in a
rediculous case like this??

Chad

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,320
Reply with quote  #41 

First of all how many mommas boys are lazy and still living at home because momma did it on free handouts from Uncle Sam, the state, and Babys Daddy courtesy of CSRU. kids learn what is tought them. And really what incentive dose this guy have to work if their going to take away anything he makes?


__________________
What's wrong with socialism in one sentence:
When you implement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.
IAsoldier

Member
Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #42 
I am an active duty soldier and I am trying to find the answer to this question:  Are my entitlements taken into consideration when CRSU calculates my support obligation or is it only my base pay?

Any help is appreciated!
RJL

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 345
Reply with quote  #43 

it's all a game the courts play to keep you busy and add more hurdles to see your child. if it was fair there wouldn't be this site. i don't know how to make evil people be good.

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!