Court date soon

Well, I have proffered several possible resolutions to the siutation that my children's mother and I are in. So far there is no word back from her. Our court date is set for next Tuesday, April 4th at 9:45 a.m. and I will be the primary caregiver for our children over the next 4 days. So, I assume that we will not be negotiating prior to the court date. Its a shame that this has occurred - a shame on so many levels. Because she refuses to negotiate anything with me directly, we will pay the "court time" fees for hour(get the pun?) attorneys which will be far more expensive. It's a shame because I would gladly forget all past offenses so that we could co-parent our children together. A shame that she cannot be mature enough to negotiate matters with me directly and avoid all of this legal business involving attorneys, court dates, threats, etc. I can't begin to explain the sense of frustration I feel when I know down deep in my gut that all of this is based solely on one thing and one thing only...revenge. This nice, "Christian" woman is hell-bent to see me miserable. So,everytime I start climbing out of the hole she dug for me, she throws more dirt on top.....I will post again when my court date is over or sooner if her she responds to my (>1 week old)offers. I may be in jail this time next week. Depends on what happens in court and the days that lead up to it the court date.

Some facts that support my cause...

From the U.S. Census Bureau:

1. Fathers with Joint Custody pay 90.2% of all child support ordered while fathers with limited visitation rights pay 79.1%, fathers with no visitation rights pay 44.5%. Bottom line: You want fathers to pay child support: give them what is theirs to start with - their children!

2. 30% of custodial mothers have never asked for or wish to recieve child support.

3. 25% of custodial mothers who do not receive child suport it is because the father is unable to pay (unemployed, disabled, dead, etc.)

4. 11% of custodial mothers not recieving child suport do not have a support order.

5. Of over ten million custodial mothers only 7% (1 in 14) recieve no support because of a "deadbeat dad".

OK, so all of this begs the question: WHERE IS THE EPIDEMIC IN "DEADBEAT DADS" THAT HAS BEEN SO AVIDLY PORTRAYED IN THE MEDIA AND POLITICIANS WHINE ABOUT REPEATEDLY? The fact of the matter is that vast majority of fathers pay child support and pay it on time (particularly if they see their children on a regular basis). The other very tragic and sad fact of the matter is that most of the fathers who do not pay are indigent, unemployed, homeless, wanderers, vagrants, or cannot pay due to some life issue. So what happens is that the majority of us get blamed for what a few bad apples do...we are present and we are available and so the custodial mothers, the courts, the legislatures, the child support machine of the government, etc. vigorously pursue those they can and treats us ALL like we are deadbeats. If you don't beleive me just get in the system and get involved.

In the eyes of the system: we are ALL guilty until proven innocent and must pay exorbident amounts of "child support" (read: alimony) that far exceed what is reasonably needed to raise a child. In addition we are told we must provide healthcare, dental, vision insurance, insure our lives for large sums to the benefit the custodial mother if we die, pay 50% of all "extramural activities", and then have to give up dependency exemptions on our income tax to the custodial mother....is this not absurd?!?! Honestly, think about it: If our children are not "dependent" on us, why is the mother so tyranical when it comes to us providing support?

Let me give you one example of the system treating one as guilty from the get-go: I just got through sending my "annual fee" to the Clerk of the 18th Judicial Circuit in Illinois. What is the "annual fee" for, you may ask? It is for the privilege of having them deduct my "child support" (read: alimony) payments as a garnishment of my wages from my employer. I have never missed a child suppport payment but this is mandated by the state of Illinois. You must have your child support deducted from your wages whether you have ever missed a payment or not. Its done automatically. And for this lovely act, they charge you an "annual fee" of $36.00 and are thinking about raising it. Here is what bothers me: A "fee" is what is paid for a service that is rendered. Services are acts performed at the request of an individual. I have never requested this service, so it is not a service in reality, it is tax, duty, or fine. How does one pay a fine without an infraction having evere occurred? Well, there we go again, the infraction is I am a noncustodial father and therefore presumed guilty until proven innocent and since this is called a fee rather than a fine, I cannot prove my innocence. This is crazy, circular logic in my book.

The other aspect of this that just irritates the heck out of me is that the federal government gives the state kickbacks for collecting child support through this system. So, actually, the state is double-dipping from the feds (read: my income taxe money)and from me (my annual fee)to collect money directly from my check to send to my children's mother that far exceeds what she reasonably needs to raise the children....oh, and by the way, does she bare any responsibility financially for raising the children? Evidently not..... What a crock of fecal matter this is.

The system is so full of inconsistencies, injustices, etc. that it truly embarasses me to be be an American citizen when I think of it.

Child support changes in Georgia - Please adopt these in Illinois!

Many fathers expect to pay less; many mothers outraged

By CRAIG SCHNEIDER
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 03/16/06

Alison and Zachary Holladay divorced more than three years ago, but the tension between them these days is crackling like two crossed wires.

The Holladays, who live in separate houses in Roswell and have three children, are at odds over his child support payments because of a law that goes into effect July 1.

Alison Holladay is a mother of three who fears the proposed new child support law would reduce the child support she receives.

Brian Ellis is a noncustodial father who is hoping the new law will reduce his child support payments.

The new system of calculating child support could reduce the payments for many noncustodial parents, most of whom are men. The law mandates that child support be calculated based on the incomes of both parents, unlike the existing system that focuses mainly on the income of the parent who does not have custody.

Zachary, a manager for a high- tech company, plans to petition the court to reduce his payments, since he believes his child support order of $2,800 a month is more than his ex-wife needs, or spends, on the children.

Alison, who has custody of the children, says the changes will unfairly reduce her support and will force her to sell her home and cut into the children’s lifestyle.

Both are readying for a fight.

Even though the law doesn’t take effect for more than three months, estranged couples are already crunching numbers and contacting lawyers to figure out the effect on them, said Stephen Steele, a family law attorney in Marietta and chairman of the family law section of the State Bar of Georgia.

Randy Kessler, an Atlanta family law attorney, said about 25 mothers and fathers have called him this year about the prospective changes. Some have hired him, and a half-dozen already have filed court papers requesting a reduction.

“The fuses are being lit,” Kessler said.

The law passed last year established the new method of calculating child support and set the start date as July 1, 2006. It also included a “parenting time” adjustment that would give the noncustodial parent a reduction on child support if the parent spends a certain amount of time with the children.

This year, the Legislature is revisiting the law, debating some specifics and adding an economic table that estimates the basic costs of raising a child. Senate Bill 382 passed the Senate in February and now awaits House approval.

Because most of the new child support guidelines passed last year, a new system, in some form, is expected to start in July.

While some attorneys expect fathers to rush to the courthouse requesting child support reduction, opinions differ as to whether that will occur.

Some Georgia court officials say they expect an increase in requests to modify child support awards, but they don’t know how much of an increase.

Some lawyers are sending out letters to clients alerting them to the changes.

“We think it’s going to open the floodgates,” said Atlanta attorney Jonathan Levine. “We think the fathers will come in waves.”

Many mothers will fight

The guidelines represent the biggest change in calculating child support in years, experts say. The current law, which focuses on the income of the noncustodial parent, often awards about 20 percent of that parent’s income for a child.

Noncustodial parents with upper-middle incomes and above will be the most affected. Lower-income parents might see slight increases in their payments. About 85 percent of custodial parents are women, according to the U.S. Census.

The new law will not automatically change existing child support agreements. A parent first must go to court or press their former spouse to agree to a change.

Some who believe they are paying too much intend to seek lower payments.

“I’m looking ahead. I’ve looked at the numbers,” said Barry Harrington, a software writer in Canton. He has crunched his own numbers and is shooting for a reduction of up to 25 percent, or $800 a month.

Meanwhile parents with custody, most of them mothers, are preparing to defend their spending in court by keeping better records, filing away bills for groceries and summer camp, attorneys say.

Steele, the Marietta attorney, said he is cautioning some noncustodial fathers that they may not receive the break they hoped for. That’s because the formula includes the costs of child care and health insurance, which can result in an increase, he said.

Some support could go up

For low-income parents, the bill says a judge may adjust a child support agreement so the parent can afford to pay it and still be self-supporting. But the monthly child support amount cannot drop below $75.

For people with a combined income of more than $30,000 a month, the judge also may increase the amount of support.

The bill contains a table that would be used to calculate child support payments. The table, which takes up 18 pages in the bill, matches the two parents’ combined monthly income against the costs of providing children with the basic needs of shelter, food and clothing.

SB 382 also includes a provision that would give noncustodial parents a reduction on their payments if they spend at least 121 days a year with their children.

In some instances, the prospective changes already have influenced the outcome of child support fights, attorneys say. In some cases, the mothers and fathers had anticipated the law’s effect and crafted agreements so they wouldn’t have to come back to court three months later.

Brian Ellis said the prospect of the new law gave him the leverage to renegotiate.

Ellis, a business technology consultant from Roswell, hired a lawyer and persuaded his former wife to reduce his child support by about $1,000 a month, or about 25 percent.

“The new law is a tool, not a weapon,” said Ellis, 40.

He believes the new system is more structured and specific than the old one, and may spark fewer arguments between former spouses.

His ex-wife, Elan Knecht, disagrees. She said the child support she had been receiving for their two children was fair, and that the children’s lifestyle will suffer because of the decrease.

“I am absolutely livid over his use of the new guidelines,” she said. She said she cut a deal with her former husband because she thought she might fare worse if he pursued the matter further. “Fear is what made me settle.”

Ellis spent about $17,000 in attorney costs to obtain the reduction, as well as some other modifications in visitation. His ex-wife spent $15,000 fighting it.

The costs of pursuing a reduction can range from a few thousand dollars for a simple case in which both parties agree to $25,000 for a complex, contested case that goes to trial, attorneys say.

To change a child support agreement, a parent would have to qualify for a change of at least 15 percent. The agreement would have to be approved by the courts.

Rush may not materialize

More than 30 states have an “income shares” child support system. Most have used it for many years.

Among the handful of states that have adopted the system in the past 20 years, none has seen a rush to the courthouse, said Laura Morgan, a Virginia family law attorney who has helped states craft new guidelines.

Morgan, who also operates a Web site called supportguidelines.com, said many parents don’t foresee enough of a change under the new system to warrant altering their existing agreement.

The measure has been largely supported by noncustodial fathers in groups such as Georgians for Child Support Reform. Zachary Holladay has joined that group and he expects to file for a reduction in his child support on “Day One” of the new law.

He expects his child support to drop from about $2,800 a month to $1,500.

“The tables have turned,” he said. “This is going to be a major equalizer.”

A critical part of the new bill is the calculation table that figures the cost of providing children with basic needs. That cost would be divided between the parents based on their incomes.

The court would then factor in the costs of health care and day care and could also consider the costs of activities such as dance lessons, football camp and swimming instruction.

Many custodial parents, most of whom are mothers, say the old method was fair, and that they are already contributing as much money as they can toward taking care of their children.

“Financially, it’s going to be devastating,” said Alison Holladay.

She attended a seminar of a Marietta support group for women going through divorce called Visions Anew, which is educating women on the upcoming law. There, she plugged her numbers into a computer program that estimated her new child support.

Holladay, an event planner who earns far less than her former husband, said that when she saw her numbers, she was shocked. She expects his child support may drop by about half, and he agrees.

“I was devastated for me,” she said. “I was devastated for my children.”

She said she would have to sell her home and cut back on her children’s’ activities.

Zachary Holladay disagrees with his former wife on this point.

Some relief in sight?? How long will this take, though?

This is from the ancpr.org website. I want to sign up as a plaintiff.

Across U.S., Non-Custodial Parents Sue
Posted in Courts and Legislatures, News by ANCPR on the March 7th, 2006
By Wendy McElroy
Ifeminist.net
At least 28 federal class action suits in 28 states have been filed in the last two weeks on behalf of non-custodial parents (NCPs). The defendants are the individual states.

The plaintiffs claim to represent an estimated 25 million non-custodial parents — primarily fathers — whose right to equal custody of minor children in situations of dispute is allegedly being violated by family courts across the nation.

Family law is traditionally a state matter, but the federal government has assumed greater control in the area over the last few decades. Thus, the plaintiffs are appealing to the Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court precedent and acts of Congress “to vindicate and restore their various inalienable rights.”

In short, federal law is being asked to trump state practice in custody matters.

According to the suits, state practices appear to be “willful, reckless, and/or negligent fraud, deceit, collusion, and/or abuse of powers” with a “systematic pattern of obstructing, hindering, and/or otherwise thwarting the rightful and lawful conclusion of due process” of non-custodial parents in child custody proceedings.

In particular, fathers protest the widespread practice of almost automatically granting sole custody to mothers in divorce disputes.

The 28-plus class action suits are identical, as any future suits will be. The ultimate goal is for every state and U.S. possession to be represented in one large consolidated action. Indeed, Torm L. Howse — president of the Indiana Civil Rights Council and coordinator of the suits — says that paperwork is under way for submission to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, a legal body which has the authority to transfer such multiple civil cases to a single district court.

If this happens, every single non-custodial parent in America will be represented by the class action suit, which is nothing more than a lawsuit brought by one person or a small group on behalf of an entire class who shares a grievance.

What specific relief is being sought?

The sweeping legal goals are spelled out in a press release. The main relief sought from federal court is the immediate “restoration/elevation to equal custodial status” of all current non-custodial parents against whom no allegations of abuse or neglect have been proven and who have an ongoing relationship with the child.

The establishment of equal custody embraces several other reliefs.

For example, the “prohibition of custodial move-aways of minor children [more than 60 miles] from their original physical residences with natural parents.” Also, the “abolishment of forced/court-ordered child support in most cases.” Support of the child would be borne by each parent during their own parenting time.

The Plaintiffs argue for restoration of equal custody not merely for the sake of non-custodial parents but also for children’s welfare. The press release cites a much-touted study entitled “Child Adjustment in Joint-Custody Versus Sole-Custody Arrangements,” which was published in the APA’s Journal of Family Psychology. The study concluded, “Children in joint physical or legal custody were better adjusted than children in sole-custody settings, but no different from those in intact families.”

In this sense, the suits also advocate children’s rights.

Other reliefs being sought are financial in nature; some of them take the suits into murky areas. For example, the suits ask for “reimbursement” from custodial parents to non-custodial parents of any state-ordered child support that exceeded the “maximum limits of federal law.” This ceases to be an appeal to constitutional or parental rights and instead pits one set of civil law against another, with retroactive penalties being imposed.

In addition, the suits ask for “various damages against the Defendant [the state named] in the aggregate value of $1,000,000 payable per Plaintiff.” The court awards would be “executable upon all monies, property, chattels, assets, goods, pecuniary interest and anything whatsoever of any value” owned or controlled by the State. The suits request that “an appropriate portion” of the award be provided by the liquidation or direct transfer of title of “unused, abandoned, or unnecessary state property and assets.”

The number of non-custodial parent plaintiffs who sign on to a federal class action cannot be predicted but it could run into millions; the collective damages could run into billions or even trillions of dollars. Unfortunately, this gives the appearance of pursuing profit rather than justice.

When asked to elaborate on the amount of damages, Howse clarified, “We are preparing, later this week, to offer proposed settlements that will waive the vast majority of damages, among other things, in exchange for a quick restoral of equal custody rights, a few forms of tax abatements/credits to balance what custodial parents have enjoyed for years and some other basic and related issues, like the setting up of neutral visitation exchange centers, and the like.”

He added, “It has never been about winning large amounts of money from the states … It’s about restoring the lives of our children, and restoring our own lives.”

I genuinely hope the settlements come to pass. Stripped of their financial demands, the suits could go a long way toward removing what I believe to be the worst laws governing child custody in disputed divorce.

At bare minimum, they are raising the profile of an issue that will not go away: the crying need of non-custodial parents, especially fathers, to know their children.

And the equal need of children to embrace both parents.

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, “Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century” (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.

Want to know why men are afraid of commitment? Read this.

This is from the Alliance for Noncustodial Parents' Rights website. It is so true. While I do not advocate living together without marriage I certainly empathize with the sentiments reflected herein. In today's environment, and based on my personal experience, I am not so sure I can recommend marriage, either.

From Courtship To Courtroom by Jed Abraham.

If I could offer a young man one piece of sage advice,it would be this:

DON’T GET MARRIED.

Don’t do it. Come the divorce, as come it probably will, the courts will systematically shear you of your children, your house, and huge amounts of your income for twenty years. Don’t do it. It isn’t worth it.
Nothing is.

My saying this usually brings, from women, cries that I’m an extremist or woman-hater. No. The problem is not women, but the courts. Men can behave every bit as
reprehensibly as women, though they go about it differently. But the judicial system, which is politicized to the gills, utterly favors women over
men in divorce cases, without remorse, decency, or concern for children.

Should you doubt this, read, before you pop the most foolish of questions, From Courtship to Courthouse by the divorce lawyer Jed Abraham.*

Writes Abraham, “If you’re like most men, you’re married, or you hope to marry some day. You think you deserve to live happily ever after, but if things don’t work out that way, you’ll get a civilized divorce and move on. You’ll stay pals with your ex,
and you’ll see your kids as often as you want.

“You have no idea what you’re getting into.”

And you don’t. Not the faintest freaking clue. A few facts from Abraham:

“The odds are 50% that your marriage will end in divorce. The odds are 70% that your divorce will be filed by your wife. The odds are 80% that your wife will get custody of your children-plus child support, alimony, and/or a hefty chunk of your property.”

That is how it is.

Yes, I know: You don’t think this applies to you. Cup Cake loves you. She would never behave in such a way. Think again. You have no conception of the hatred that
divorce engenders. Men are callous; women are mean. When a family breaks up, when a life dreamed of disappears in flames and emotions go limbic, women are
not the kinder sex, and certainly not the more rational. And Cup Cake will have the absolute upper hand, with the full power of the state to help her
express her dissatisfaction with you.

Abraham: “If your wages are not withheld and you fail to pay your child support, the State will garnish your pay, slap liens on your property, intercept your tax
refunds, report you to credit agencies, discontinue your driver’s license, suspend your professional and business permits, hold you in contempt of court, put
your face on a wanted poster, throw you in jail, and deny you food stamps. But if your ex doesn’t spend that very same support on the children, the State will
do. . . nothing.”

It gets worse. There is, for example, “imputed income.” This means that your child support will be based not on what your children need, not on what you
earn, but on what the court decides you could earn.

Don’t do it.

If you love Cup Cake, live with her. Be kind to her. Be loyal to her. She may be as nice as you think she is: Many women are. Buy her roses. Just don’t marry her, or have children with her. If the laws were even-handed, marriage would be an admirable
institution. The laws aren’t equal.

But it’s the kids she’ll use, should things get nasty, to tear your guts out. If you’re sure that Cup Cake won’t do this, you’re crazy. True, she may not. Not
all women do, or not to the same degree. But you won’t know until it’s too late. And the courts will do anything she wants.

Abraham: “Your ex will warm to calling all the shots. She may cancel your visitation now and then. If she’s truly mean-spirited, she’ll go much further. Under the
cover of her court-appointed role as sole custodian, she’ll systematically sever your relationship with the children. She’ll badmouth you to them. She’ll schedule
their extracurricular activities during your visitation time. For good measure, she may accuse you of domestic violence and child abuse.”

Think “joint custody” is the answer? The courts won’t enforce it. What are you going to do-sue Mommy? The kids will hate you for it. Do you believe in pre-nups?
The courts ignore them. Read Abraham. It’s all there.

Then, says Abraham, there’s the killer: “More efficiently, your ex may simply move with the children to a distant community, with the law’s acquiescence.”

Kids are the crunch, guys. They hurt. And she will know it, and use it. The courts will help her. At bottom, the position of the courts is that the
children are her property, like furniture. Judges don’t care about you at all.

Ever drive away from what used to be your home, with your daughter of four streaking across the parking lot, yelling, “Daddy! Daddy! Please come back!”-and
you can’t?

Ever have your little girl of four say, “Daddy, can I get my birthday present early?”

“Why, Pumpkin?”

“Well. . . after the divorce we might move, and I won’t see you again.”

That’s what you are in for, guys. Don’t do it. You’ll be suicidally depressed, miss your kids to the point of desperation, be almost frantic-and the courts will
make sure you can do nothing about it. The ex will probably enjoy it.

That’s the reality. Don’t believe it? Talk to men who have been there.

Why do women do these things? Not because they’re evil. Cup Cake is probably a perfectly decent woman in her dealing with the rest of the earth. She’ll do it
because she hates you, which is the normal outcome of a divorce. She’ll do it because she can. She’s furious because the marriage didn’t work, which will be
entirely your fault.

And the law gives her every incentive: She will get the house, the kids, the child support-and she knows she will. If women knew they had an even chance of not
getting custody, of having to pay child support, the divorce rate would drop like a prom dress and joint custody would suddenly mean joint custody. Women love
their children as much as men do.

But that’s not how it is. The courts encourage divorce, and they rape men. Get used to it.

Abraham: “The odds are it doesn’t pay for you to marry and have kids.”

That’s a fact, guys. Think about it.

* From Courtship To Courtroom by Jed Abraham. Amazon
has it, $14.95

My problem is I keep thinking life is going to be fair

During 2-a-day practices in the hot days of August in Arkansas, we'd be running grass drills and generally wishing we were dead - then my college football coach would yell at us: "Its hard but its fair - if you had a good home ya shoulda stayed there!". Sometimes he'd abbreviate it and just say: "Its hard but its fair, men - hard but fair!"

Maybe this supported my already slanted view of the world instilled in me by my parents - that life was supposed to be fair. And, ever since, I continue to expect fairness, fair play, even dealing, especially with our government and our courts. After all, we're the best there is in the world, right? Well, I am consistently disappointed.

My family court appearance yesterday, was another example. My previous (3rd so far) attorney had mistakenly entered an "Agreed Order" which was intended to increase my child support (yet again). I had reveiwed the financial plan (FinPlan in atty-speak) but had not approved an increase - yet. My atty entered the order without my permission, saying: "its 28% of your after tax income and that's just what it is. There is no need to contest this." (Note to the ill-informed: I have 2 children by my previous marriage and in IL, the "Guidelines" say if you have 2 kids, the court will apply a guideline of 28% of net income. According to IL code, these are clearly guidelines but the courts use the term "statutory minimal guidelines". I have read the statutes several times and have never seen this phrase used. Its atty speak for how they decide to apply the guidelines, I guess.) Well, I had a few other matters to negotiate and did not want to give away the farm (or increase) just yet. So, I go into court yesterday with a motion to vacate the "Agreed Order" with my new atty (4th one since divorce proceedings started) contending that I had not agreed to the order and thus it could not be an "Agreed Order". Basically, I was read the riot act by the judge, who decided to threaten me with jail time (actually, this does not bother me at all, but would be a nice break from my life at this point) and fines (that double every day until they are paid) and my ex's attorney's fees, etc. All sorts and manners of issues were discussed for the 3 hours I was in court yesterday that neither I nor my new atty were prepared to discuss - and there was never a ruling on the motion to vacate the "Agreed Order". I am left with the impression that I was verbally punished for exercising my right to Due Process.

So what were the "other issues" discusse? Evidently, my ex wants 28% of income FROM ALL SOURCES - not just my primary job. I am in the Army Reserve and she wants 28% of that income as well. And, this goes back retroactive to 2003. By the way, at the time of the divorce decree she already had been granted 60% of my retirement from the Army Reserve when I hit age 60 - when I am eligible to collect. We were married for only 11 years of my service and I have not hit my 20 year mark yet but she gets 60% at retirement. By the same logic, if we had been married for all 20 years of my service, she would get it all. Right?

Evidently the judge believes I erred in my judgement by placing 100% of my Army Reserve income in a 529 College Savings plan for our 2 children. Good job, Mr. ILDAD. Way to put your children first. But, Mr. ILDAD, you also owe there mother 28% in addition to the 100% of military income you gifted your children for the college savings plan.

Now before anyone reading this begins to think I am a deadbeat who does not take care of his children, keep this in mind. I pay nearly 20K per year in after tax income for the "child support" of my kids. I pay for their health insurance, I save thousands per year in a college savings plan, I insure my life for $350,000 with my children as sole beneficiaries. In addition, my children spend approx. 35-40% of their time in my care and, if course, this is not cheap. But, I guess, the courts in Illinois think this is not enough. My ex, on the other hand, is re-married has a nice house (much nicer than mine), is not significanlty employed (despite a Master's degree and teaching certificate), takes the kids on very nice vacations (Carribean island vacations, cruises, etc.) while I take them to my parents' house in SC every summer. In short, she has a much nicer lifestyle - mostly at my expense, and nicer than I can afford for myself. Oh, and there's another hitch. My children have two step-brothers who live with them at their mom's house. My ex's husband has custody and guess how much he gets in Child Support for his two sons? None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. I guess in Illinois you only pay Child Support if you are male. Of course, my thinking is that I really am supporting his kids also.

Well, I am down to my last option and I would like anyone reading this to give me their opinion. The last option at this point is to say to my ex: Fine. You want 28% of my military pay too, I'll pay what I am told to by the courts - retroactive to 2003. But, then, I quit. It ain't worth it. I would simply stop my creditable service to the Army Reserves at 18.5 years. I am on a voluntary indefinite status right now anyway. So, I can just quit. Yes, I know its just shy of attaining the 20 years that will make me eligible for retirement. I guess my logic is: what's the point? The government collects around 35% in taxes and witholdings and my ex gets 28%, I get to keep the remaining 37%. Thanks, but no thanks. I think at this stage in my life I could do with the extra time to spend with my kids and forego the added income. Plus, nowadays, there is the constant threat of deployment looming over my head. (I'm a veteran of Desert Storm, I don't care to go back to Iraq.). But here's the catch. If I quit my Reserve service, she gets no retirement either. I also get no retirement but again, if she is getting 60% when I turn 60 and the govt gets another 35% is it really worth my weekends and 2 -3 weeks of active duty in the summer? I really am starting to think its a zero sum game. At some point, one has to weigh the value of their time, quality of their own life and what benefit they are gaining by continuing on in the service. I love my country (despite what it has put me through since being divorced). I am proud to serve. I love my colleagues in the Reserves. However, I think at this point, my time is more valuable to me and to my family than the minimal compensation that I would be able to keep after witholdings and 28% is paid to my ex in "child support".

I'll post more later but I welcome comments - good and bad.