No, they are reluctant to hire someone laid off from a large company. The employer thinks he will go back to the company if recalled . This happened to my husband. 😢😢😢
If a person is laid off, they should never use YTD like that. Obviously the amount will be more because the YTD is the wages he was earning when he was working. Obviously he's not making that much if he's laid off. It's unreal how many ways courts screw dads over. Even now, when they know that he's laid off and making almost $20K less than what he was, they still make him pay the higher amount with a promise that they will fix it in January. But getting the courts to do a refund is like pulling steel needles through teeth. They will find a way not to give him that money. Dad should just pay what he can afford and let the courts figure it out in January.
She is "missing" money? Does she work? I was a single Mom i know hard things are. But you work through it. I never counted on Child Support. I took care of my kids .
🥳 congratulations you accepted bare minimum whoooooo. If I had kids I’m coming for every last penny they can get. Yes- I have a high paying job but didn’t make the kid myself. If dad doesn’t have it he better go find it! Laid off my ssa. Should’ve thought about that before you LAID ON me!
@@guccilady1017 What a bone headed, conceited and mocking comment. You make money but you want more of a hypothetical man's money, none of that says kids need their father, he just has to pay 😂. You're the poster child of abstinence, your face should be on condom ads everywhere in the world.
Isn’t it in the best interest of the child that the father actually has money to take care of the child when the child is with him? And a roof over his head? This family court bull shit has go to stop ,
My point exactly, when you take from dad and transfer to the other parent you reduce the amount dad also has to care for the child. Instead of encouraging women to do more you place it all on the dad. The law is outdated and illegal.
Yep, a totally legitimate cause of action, which should have been rubber stamped in two seconds. Instead, the Plaintiff will waste the savings of any retroactive adjustment in additional lawyer's fees due to redundant hearings. If he got "rehired" the other side could always claw it back. But the facts today favor the Plaintiff, entirely. Of course, the State Supreme Court would favor the Plaintiff, since the relief requested is to the letter of the law. But there's no easy way to get an immediate appellate hearing; not to mention the ridiculous cost of appeal. The result here is just stringing someone along for no legal purpose.
I disagree, child support remains the same until the next hearing. In the mean time the father continues to go into the arrears, and maybe they will adjust it later on.
@@trillside1 Yep, a continuance is not in the Plaintiff's best interests. It should have been a slam dunk, because a layoff is a perfectly legitimate cause of action, by law. Unfortunately, the costs just to file a motion and have an attorney make multiple redundant appearances is counterproductive to the relief sought.
You know, it's absolutely phenomenal how the courts expect dads to continue paying the larger amount until the next hearing, all the while him losing money that he doesn't have, in the expectation that he will get it back in January if he is still laid off. But here's the thing. Getting the courts to do a refund to dads is like pulling steel needles through teeth. And most likely he's going to have to pay his lawyer to make it happen so that he won't actually get that money back because it's all going on lawyer's fees. If I were dad, I'd pay mom however much he can afford and have the courts figure it out in January. If they complain, I'd tell them that he couldn't afford anymore than that with his bills.
@@jessicaarmstrong5035 i fully agree but they don’t care. That’s more flaws in the current system. If money was such a big issue that they claim, to the point of threatening noncustodial parents with arrest for missed payments, then why are custodial parents not required to financially support.
The attorney knows how to navigate and not push the Judge too hard. It's a long game, you can't win it all on one play in first quarter. You need the Judge to be amenable when the case is reheard, so that he'll follow the law and backdate the change in circumstances. If you get on the Judge's bad side, he might dismiss the case outright, or even rule the other way, based on fuzzy math like the FOC was using.
They need to change child support these parents need to have a job instead of depending on child support to live on. Child support is for the support for the child, need childcare while you work child support pays for that. It's not for hair,nails,bags,gas,car note or anything else you should have a job already paying for.that..
These women need to get off their asses and work.
No need when they have daddy government to force men into jail if they dont work.
No, they are reluctant to hire someone laid off from a large company. The employer thinks he will go back to the company if recalled . This happened to my husband. 😢😢😢
She just said they use year to date on pay check, not true. They use whatever number will provide the most child support 😊
If a person is laid off, they should never use YTD like that. Obviously the amount will be more because the YTD is the wages he was earning when he was working. Obviously he's not making that much if he's laid off. It's unreal how many ways courts screw dads over. Even now, when they know that he's laid off and making almost $20K less than what he was, they still make him pay the higher amount with a promise that they will fix it in January. But getting the courts to do a refund is like pulling steel needles through teeth. They will find a way not to give him that money. Dad should just pay what he can afford and let the courts figure it out in January.
Can't believe they are addressing her questions at the end with her confusion instead of saying we cant act as your lawyer and offer you legal advice.
These single moms are absolute menaces to society.
It's an epidemic these new women
That's for sure.what would happen if the husband passed.
@@carolynrandle5454Exactly! What is her plan B in that case? What happened to being strong and independent?
This judge sided with the father for once , THE END OF THE WORLD IS NEAR, THE APOCALYPSE MUST BE HERE
😂😂for real
Or it means it’s time to reflect on your biases 😭
Yeah he's a moron.
She is "missing" money? Does she work? I was a single Mom i know hard things are. But you work through it. I never counted on Child Support. I took care of my kids .
🥳 congratulations you accepted bare minimum whoooooo. If I had kids I’m coming for every last penny they can get. Yes- I have a high paying job but didn’t make the kid myself. If dad doesn’t have it he better go find it! Laid off my ssa. Should’ve thought about that before you LAID ON me!
@@guccilady1017 What a bone headed, conceited and mocking comment.
You make money but you want more of a hypothetical man's money, none of that says kids need their father, he just has to pay 😂.
You're the poster child of abstinence, your face should be on condom ads everywhere in the world.
@@guccilady1017Then give them to the father and you wouldn't need help.
@@guccilady1017You sound pretty dumb 😂
@@guccilady1017when Beyonce was singing about strong and independent women, she was not referring to you.
Isn’t it in the best interest of the child that the father actually has money to take care of the child when the child is with him? And a roof over his head? This family court bull shit has go to stop ,
And lady you’re short because he doesn’t have it , and you’re asking for money that is simply not there
You give it to him then
@@movingforward2570 he has no job child support should be amended
My point exactly, when you take from dad and transfer to the other parent you reduce the amount dad also has to care for the child. Instead of encouraging women to do more you place it all on the dad. The law is outdated and illegal.
He was laid off wtf
Yep, a totally legitimate cause of action, which should have been rubber stamped in two seconds. Instead, the Plaintiff will waste the savings of any retroactive adjustment in additional lawyer's fees due to redundant hearings. If he got "rehired" the other side could always claw it back. But the facts today favor the Plaintiff, entirely.
Of course, the State Supreme Court would favor the Plaintiff, since the relief requested is to the letter of the law. But there's no easy way to get an immediate appellate hearing; not to mention the ridiculous cost of appeal. The result here is just stringing someone along for no legal purpose.
Wow this judge sided with the father.
For real. Needs to be written down in history
I disagree, child support remains the same until the next hearing. In the mean time the father continues to go into the arrears, and maybe they will adjust it later on.
@@trillside1 Yep, a continuance is not in the Plaintiff's best interests. It should have been a slam dunk, because a layoff is a perfectly legitimate cause of action, by law. Unfortunately, the costs just to file a motion and have an attorney make multiple redundant appearances is counterproductive to the relief sought.
I never relied on child support he only paid like 60.00 a month for 2 kids and still owed money when he died in hospice.
I didn't see the case you mentioned if it's yours then who cares smh 🙄
@TadJenkins I was talking about the case where the woman was complaining dad was laid off and saying she was short on money because of it
Mom open your eyes and see that dad needs a little help right now. Do the right thing mom 🙄
Glad she dressed for court. Volleyball court
You know, it's absolutely phenomenal how the courts expect dads to continue paying the larger amount until the next hearing, all the while him losing money that he doesn't have, in the expectation that he will get it back in January if he is still laid off. But here's the thing. Getting the courts to do a refund to dads is like pulling steel needles through teeth. And most likely he's going to have to pay his lawyer to make it happen so that he won't actually get that money back because it's all going on lawyer's fees. If I were dad, I'd pay mom however much he can afford and have the courts figure it out in January. If they complain, I'd tell them that he couldn't afford anymore than that with his bills.
@@jessicaarmstrong5035 that’s another issue court doesn’t care about dads bills either
@henrypeterson7411 I get that but considering how many baby mamas don't have jobs and live off their exes child support perhaps they should.
@@jessicaarmstrong5035 i fully agree but they don’t care. That’s more flaws in the current system. If money was such a big issue that they claim, to the point of threatening noncustodial parents with arrest for missed payments, then why are custodial parents not required to financially support.
Man... the day when these courts change and be fair... women are going to go crazy....
Ridiculous
The man was too nice... Why would he say he doesn't mind delaying it..
The attorney knows how to navigate and not push the Judge too hard. It's a long game, you can't win it all on one play in first quarter. You need the Judge to be amenable when the case is reheard, so that he'll follow the law and backdate the change in circumstances. If you get on the Judge's bad side, he might dismiss the case outright, or even rule the other way, based on fuzzy math like the FOC was using.
They need to change child support these parents need to have a job instead of depending on child support to live on. Child support is for the support for the child, need childcare while you work child support pays for that. It's not for hair,nails,bags,gas,car note or anything else you should have a job already paying for.that..
CS is for the state. Not for the child.
Some women think there children are a free meal ticket! Seems this is one of them. If you can't support your child then let dad raise them .
This judge is a disgrace to man behind judge this email together, and the judge enjoy stuck in the man right😮
I agree.
Friend of the court, should be changed to Friend of the Mothers.
Can see why they split up.
🎻🎻🎻🎻