Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment! chat & forums.

online dating service

REGISTER | MAIL/PROFILE | HELP | NOW ONLINE | SEARCH | RATING | FORUMS | SUCCESS STORIES

Posted In Forum:

Home

login

Show ALL Forums

Author

Thread: Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!

Joined: 7/7/2007

Msg: 260 (view)

Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment! Posted: 1/27/2008 8:48:38 AM
In the states this is what we face with dead beat dad's For the record, there are deadbeat mothers as well as deadbeat fathers. Deadbeat parents exist. It's gender neutral. The soundbyte of "deadbeat dad" just seems to sound better. A deadbeat parent can even have custody of the child(ren). There are some married couples I'd identify as deadbeats due to the basic lack of care and/or understanding encessary to rear children, not just financially, but emotinoally and psychologically, as well. The bottom line, to me, is some people should never get married, or at least not to one another. And of those who do, some should never have children. At least not together, if at all. And if not married, they never should have had sex to begin with! OK, rant over....

Joined: 7/7/2007

Msg: 259 (view)

Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment! Posted: 1/27/2008 7:17:43 AM
Constituitional? The fact that various states set different % for CS tells us that there is nothing "constituitional" about the way they are set.Besides judges have always changed this % based on their discretion! Respectfully, that is BULL$HIT. It's painfully obvious you: a. Have no children. b. Are not an attorney (or barrister as you Canadians call them). You may be a first year law student but I doubt that. c. Have no legal support for your position. Being you're from Canada, and assuming you're not originally from the US, I don't expect you to know a damn thing about the US Constitution, and your quoted comment just confirmed my suspicion. First and foremost, the setting of statutory child support guidelines is a state matter, not one for the Federal government. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution secures the rights for the states to govern any matter not specifically delegated to the United States within the Constitution. Even so, the Fourteenth Amendment later broadened the concept of Due Process to indicate that, while a State can certainly pass its own laws on state issues, it cannot treat its citizens in a manner which violates Due Process. Creating a suspect classification of citizenry, as you indicate is the answer to the problem by instituting a cap on child support, violates Due Process. Pure and simple. It violates Due Process by allowing the wealthy to pay less on a percentage basis than another individual who is less wealthy would have to pay as and for child support. That's a suspect classification, and by analogy it smacks of "SEPARATE BUT EQUAL" Jim Crow laws which were racially motivated and deemed to violate Due Process. But in a larger sense, it also violates the due process of the minor children because THE CHILDREN, who have no say in the amtter at all, certainly didn't ask for their stubborn, greedy, ignorant, idiotic, selfish parents to decide THEY didn't want to be married any longer. You miss the entire point completely when you fail to realize none of this even matters if the persons involved remained married. I understand the guidelines will also apply to unmarried couples who have children but most of the time you DON'T find anyone caring too much if an unwed person pays for his/her children, it's usually looked upon as doing the right thing, but it's not the focal point of this argument. In no state can a trial judge, when applying a statutory guideline for minimum child support, arbitrarily deviate from the percentage to be less than the minimum without the most compelling of reasons. Discretion, as you define discretion, is not even in the equation. In Lake County, Illinois, the judges' deviation from the guidelines is always to INCREASE the amount, not decrease it, with compelling evidence the needs of the child(ren) requuire more to be sufficiently met. A child needs shouldnt be based on the NCP's income. And how do you think the children's needs are met when the parents DO NOT GET DIVORCED??? Let me take a stab at guessing it has at least something to do with the income of their parents. In UK for eg. If you make less, you pay a lesser %, if more a high % but up to a CAP! Do yourself and all of us a favor and read the statute before you comment any further on this issue with regard to my practice. 750 ILCS 5/505 Plug it into Google or Yahoo and you'll get the statute. You throw out tons of references with no way to verify them. Illinois law is right there. Go look at it. And provide some sort of reference material for yourself if you choose to continue spouting off about laws of this country or that. This thread has been a big eye-opener for me and I thank the OP for it. An eye opener or a chance to engage in mental masturbation? You missed the entire point of the OP. He wanted to know if his friend could cap his child support payments in an antenuptial agreement. The simple answer is no. His income can likely drastically change which would entitle his child(ren) to more support. That would violate the Due Process of the child(ren), and any court in the US would strike that provision of an antenuptial agreement for such reason. Seems like you took the thread and made it your own to shine a spotlight on your inadequate legal arguments in an attempt to sound as if you really know what you are talking about. I'm certainly not taking personal aim at you by saying that, and please understand, I find your point of view is eloquently stated and vigorously defended, if lacking in support. But if you choose to continue this debate, have some firepower in your arsenal and show us all the "law" as you claim it to be, in whatever jurisdiction you choose to use as an example. I only use Illinois and, generally, the United States, because this is where I live and practice. Frankly, I couldn't care less about the UK or Canada's laws on this, or most any other, issue. They do not apply to me or my practice.

Joined: 7/7/2007

Msg: 256 (view)

Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment! Posted: 1/26/2008 7:59:36 PM
IF the NCP were to lose his job or dies, does it mean these $84K/yr kids cant go on? Or will the govt step in to make up the shortfall? Most judgments for child support require the non-custodial parent to obtain a life insurance policy to secure child support in the event of death. Losing the job means a material change in circumstances which leads to a reduction in child support payments. A cap on child support will do no good. I'm not sure what it's like in Canada, but in the USA, it would likely be deemed unconstitutional for a state to set up a cap scheme. It would create a suspect classification of citizenry which cannot survive constitutional muster, which is a married person who decides to have a child or children and then has the ability to not pay the same percentage of his/her income toward his/her children for getting divorced. The cap will likely be less than the percentage the legislature adopted for the wealthier persons and would stick the low and middle class in the breadbasket. Besides, I've heard the debate hundreds of times from my own clients, even those who aren't extremely wealthy at all. It's never going to happen. The legislature has defined what is acceptable for child support based upon number of children, indicating what would have likely been spent on the kids had the couple stayed married. For one child, that percentage is 20% of the gross income, for two, it's 28%. Up to 6 and more children, it's 50%!! The "sense" in my example of spending $84,000.00 a year on 2 children (and that example uses GROSS, not NET because the OP only gave what appeared to be a GROSS income figure) is the very essence of the statute -- equal treatment under the law. Do you think the legislature pulled an arbitrary number out of the clear blue sky for this? The cap you propose would require such an arbitrary figure and that would likely result in being deemed an unconstitutional act.

Joined: 7/7/2007

Msg: 250 (view)

Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment! Posted: 1/25/2008 2:34:18 PM
As far as legal rights go, those children would be getting $84,000 a year in support. How is that "rightful" support to a child? It isn't like they'd That's enough to modestly support an entire family, nevermind two children. Looking back at my childhood, I was fairly well-off (well fed, well clothed, lots of toys and other crap for entertainment, big home, good school, etc...) I really doubt my parents ever spent more than $750-1500 a month on me to support that sort of lifestyle, and that would fall between 5-10% of their combined income. You missed the point entirely. The stautory minimum inIllinois for child support for two minor children is 28% of the net income of the person ordered to pay child support. End of discussion. There is no "wiggle room" on this. The more someone makes, the more he/she has to pay based on the guidelines. In the county where I practice most, the "exceptions" to this rule are all but thrown out the window, in practical sense, there are no exceptions to the minimums. If you don't believe it, look at the statute. Just plug 750 ILCS 5/505 into Google. And how is it rightful? It's rightful in the sense that some other perosn who makes $50,000.00 a year would pay 28% of HIS/HER net income ($14,000.00 gross) just like the perosn who makes $300,000.00 a year muct pay 28% of his/her net income($84,000.00 gross). But remember, the amount is based on NET income, not GROSS.... Still, it applies to everyone equally. That's how it's rightful. Aruge with the legislature or the Illinois Supreme Court if you don't like it. Or don't live in Illinois, then it won't apply to you. But all states have similar schemes for child support.

Joined: 7/7/2007

Msg: 246 (view)

Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment! Posted: 1/25/2008 7:44:02 AM
Pardon the typos.... $3000,000.00 per year, not $3,000.00

Joined: 7/7/2007

Msg: 245 (view)

Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment! Posted: 1/25/2008 7:42:57 AM
Well, OP, I'm an attorneuy in Illinois. This is not legal advice by any stretch, but in this state, the statutory minimum child supoprt payment for two children is 28% of the non-custodial parent's net monthly income. If your frined lived in Illinois and makes $3,000.00 a year, 28% of his GROSS monthly income is $7,000.00. I don't know what his net income is, but $2,500.00 woud certainly NOT cover child support for two children in Illinios with that kind of income. Your friend sounds like a rich cheapskate if he wants to cheat his UNBORN children of their rightful support. He probably shouldn't have children and moreover, any provision of an antenuptial agreement attempting to limit future child support is likely to be deemed void, as the amoutn can fluctuate based upon changes in income. He probably shouldn't even get married if he's that worried about supporting his kids even before they're born, yet he makes a ton of money. And lastly, the woman in this situation must be a gold digger. On second thought, maybe they'll make a couple of lawyers rich someday....

Joined: 7/7/2007

Msg: 379 (view)

Why do guys always do this to me? Does anyone else have this problem?... Posted: 1/11/2008 12:56:40 PM
OP, it's the story of my life...women have bene diong that to me for years... Things usually start off great, get semi-serious, then the brakes are hit -- HARD -- and NOT by me. I don't know why it happens, I'll never profess to know, and frankly, I expect it now. The most recent told me the exact same things I've heard from all the others...I was "great", I treated her well, I'm such a nice guy...and yet somehow it translates into I'm not worthy of her time...maybe because I wasn't an a$$hole to her? Who the hell knows....

Joined: 7/7/2007

Msg: 161 (view)

Why women wont date seperated men Posted: 1/3/2008 3:55:51 PM
There's a reason why most single women won't date "separated" men, and it's likely the same reason most single men won't date "separated" women... THE DIVORCE AIN'T OVER YET! I'm a lawyer. I know marital dissolution takes time. Mostly the time is due to the parties stalling, wanting more money, fighting over a coffe pot or a 401(k). But the fact is, until the judge signs the final order, a party is still married to the person from whom he/she is separated. That's why single people do not date separated people. Get it? It's not rocket science.

Joined: 7/7/2007

Msg: 1 (view)

I'm I'm so good, why am I not good enough? Posted: 11/23/2007 8:45:54 PM
I've been dating a girl I thought was great. Last week she told me she didn't want to "lead me on" anymore, and that she didn't "feel that spark"...this after 4 months of nearly exclusive dating (exclusive on my part, and not certain on hers, but likely close to it). Every day I learned something new about her that I REALLY liked, or wanted to delve deeper into, and then this, which came right out of the blue for me. But even though I'm a "super great guy and will make some girl happy someday" she doesn't "feel that spark" and it's now basically in the can. Newsflash: I've been the "great person," "wonderful man" and all around "good guy" in every past relationship I've been in. If I'm so good, wonderful and great, why is it I never end up with who I want to be with? They all SAY I'm great, woderful, good, etc. but I suppose I'm not good enough, wonderful enough or great enough. What gets me is they always seem to think they're doing me a favor by setting me free. Maybe it's to keep their psyches in check, to feel good about themselves for stepping on my ego and my hear tin one shot. It's a variation on the "It's not you, it's me" routine, isn't it? So what does anyone else have to say? I'm all ears... and this is me this year..

Show ALL Forums