Thread: British Government will cancel passports

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...4---b000-.html

(a) State disbursement unit
(1) In general
In order for a State to meet the requirements of this section, the State agency must establish and operate a unit (which shall be known as the “State disbursement unit”) for the collection and disbursement of payments under support orders—
(A) in all cases being enforced by the State pursuant to section 654 (4) of this title; and
(B) in all cases not being enforced by the State under this part in which the support order is initially issued in the State on or after January 1, 1994, and in which the income of the noncustodial parent is subject to withholding pursuant to section 666 (a)(8)(B) of this title.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...7----000-.html

(a) Establishment of guidelines; method
Each State, as a condition for having its State plan approved under this part, must establish guidelines for child support award amounts within the State. The guidelines may be established by law or by judicial or administrative action, and shall be reviewed at least once every 4 years to ensure that their application results in the determination of appropriate child support award amounts.

Now, in my case the court of jurisdiction was FL (despite my living in OR; it's irrelevent....you need to look at the laws and figure out where you get the best deal), therefore, even if I make $1,000,000 next year they can't take a penny more. At most the law allows for a 5% differential upon review of child support awards and even if I became a millionaire my support payments could only go up $10 a month.

Many people get screwed by lawyers and by not understanding the law; I didn't use an attorney and I read OR and FL law throughly before proceeding to decide where best to file for divorce.

I will agree that the child support laws are nonsense, but, with some planning they can be beaten. For example, when considering awards, the courts look at current income levels. Think about this and how it can apply. And, due to the loophole, my income can go up and at best over the next 6 years the support award might increase to a maximum of $225 per month.

New laws? Are some of the inequities being addressed? I will be reading this over the next few days Bookmarked the site my kids are 26 & 24 now (divorced when they were 4 & 2) kinda late for me.
Doubt if things have changed that much though.

A 'hot' topic.

I know women who raised their children in hardship, because in the majority of cases, the guy splits, the woman ends up with the children. Since the topic has been extendded beyond the UK, let me also remind of the many, many women in places like the PHilippines and THailand, who have been abandoned without ever seeing anything but the back of the guy when he walked out -just that was quite a relief in many cases.
The bars in Pattaya are full of these women, and, this is where the circle closes, are screwd for a few baht by the expats who've run away from their obligations back home.

Complains about child-support by privileged Western men? The irony of it!

Looks like surasak was a careful planner and did the right thing. Yeah, American women are vapid bitches and make terrible wives but still they struggle financially as much as the men. That's why marriage was created, to support each other.

My cousin used to work with the CSA when they first started to ruin people's lives. She was on course to be one of the senior staff in her area, but she quit because of all the suffering the agency was causing to decent people, and the fact that it was extremely biased towards the women and the criteria didn't seem to take into account the realities of life.

One person I know went to court and managed to get his payment set at a nominal fee of 5 pence a year. That was about 15 years ago, I guess he'll be in for a huge back payment of 75 pence now!

Originally Posted by Frankie

Just the kind of mentality that makes the abuses of this system so palatable to everyone. All men with huge debts they will never be able to pay are "beer swilling louts."

And Stroller didn't say that all support defaulting fathers were beer swilling louts.

You may be wearied with my defence of women, but you can be very wearying also.
I have never heard you say anything about a western woman that is not prefaced by fat, greedy, lazy, lying and concluded with bitch.

I find that very wearying too.

For every story you have about being badly treated by women, I could give you hundreds. Not financial, but brutal.

Originally Posted by friscofrankie

Not saying any women that gets support is a lying bitch and I am sure you have a reading the comprehension to see that, if you could just remove the feminist glasses.

There has been a lot of talk about "bitches" here, though, and getting worked up when I mention "beer-swilling lager-louts". Maybe both is true in some cases, but both wrong as a generalisation.

Lily wearing "feminist glasses"? - laughable, she's one of the few chicks brave enough to regularly participate on this board.

Originally Posted by stroller

Lily wearing "feminist glasses"? - laughable, she's one of the few chicks brave enough to regularly participate on this board.

chicks??

thats a bit sexist isn't it, old chap?

Joint accounts cannot be raided nor can joint tax returns be confiscated. If that happens the joint owner (the one not liable for the obligation) can file a lawsuit against the government to get the money back.

There are ways to beat the system.

Originally Posted by KID

I was lucky to get custody of my 2 kids in the divorce !!!! it was tough raising them alone, but I would not have wanted it any other way !!!

How much is she paying you per month for raising her children?

Originally Posted by surasak

Joint accounts cannot be raided nor can joint tax returns be confiscated. If that happens the joint owner (the one not liable for the obligation) can file a lawsuit against the government to get the money back.

I am not referring to joint accounts, sir.

I realize that; hence the reason why a obligator of child support needs to have joint owners on assets until the age of emancipation.

There are many loopholes that are beneficial to the obligator IF the obligator is aware of what he can do to legally protect his ass(ets).

Will you Seppos fuck off. This was about the UK system, not the US.

Much of the experience and theory behind this knows no boundaries. Where do you think the idea of taking passports originated?

^India?

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Will you Seppos fuck off. This was about the UK system, not the US.

True.

We've been off-topic.

OK, UK men that owe money to their ex's shout out!!

I have to agree 100% with Frankie on this.
In a divorce the deck is stacked against the man.
When I got divorced I gave the bitch the house, car everything. She was a doctor making decent money.
At the time of the divorce I was living in a tent in a friends back yard and working odd jobs not making much money. They(the court and her bitch attorney!) still awarded her an exorbitant child support payment based on what I should have been making!!!! I was essentially homeless and jobless.
She still had a job the house (I bought and paid for)!
Fucked was putting it mildly!

If I ever think of getting married again I'll just find a woman I don't like and buy her a house instead. It will save me much trouble.

It's no wonder so many men come here to Thailand and think they've died and gone to heaven after going through some of this shit western women put you through.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Will you Seppos fuck off. This was about the UK system, not the US.

I knew you Brits had PENIS ENVY but now you have payment envy also !!!!

taking things just a little to far now ain't ya boy's !!