Posted on 06/18/2004 5:19:17 PM PDT by the bottle let me down
Here is the dissenting opinion's description of the effect of the court's order:
My own calculations suggest that, assuming defendant's income does not much change (and again ignoring the attorneys' fee award) defendant is required to pay more than two-thirds of his after-tax income to plaintiff for the first four years; some sixty percent in the fifth year; about half of it in years six through ten; and nearly a third of it for five years after that. It is not until fifteen years after the award that defendant's obligations (at that point consisting only of maintenance) diminish to something like twelve percent of his income (calculating both the income and the obligations on an after-tax basis).
(Emphasis added)
(Excerpt) Read more at courts.state.ny.us ...
Anybody want to tell me why a sane man would ever get married in New York?
It's a form of suicide, like choosing to smoke or do drugs.
Think of it as Evolution In Action
So9
Tell them to KMA and move! If you have a house - destroy it first.
I would outsource myself.
He doesn't make much money,
Five thousand dollars per.
Some judge who thinks he's funny
Says, "You give six to her."
The guy says, "Judge,
"What if I fail?
The judge says, "Bud,
"You'll go to jail!
"You'd better keep her.
"My boy, it's cheaper
"Than makin' whoopee."
Constructive abandonment; that's better than one of my 2, 12 pack lines.
Constructive abandonment is reason for a divorce. It is not reason for using Title IV-D legislation in arriving at a child support award, as if is nessecary to demonstrate a need for this kind of order. It is within the equitable power of the court to determine what is the proper amount to award in this case based on the level of support enjoyed durring the marriage. The Title IV-D program is confined to establishing an order for contribution and/or reimbursement.
Wow! You took 4 months for that response? Let me research this and I'll try to get back to you by Christmas!
The program's been misapplied for alot longer than 4 months, and I've been researching this material and pressing a subject matter jurisdiction argument for alot longer too. If you need help before Christmas on your research, let me know.
If you're serious about doing some research, follow the history of your revised statutes. Minnesota's authority is derived from our 1937 aid to dependent children act. "Dependent children" are the subject of the law, and a finding of dependency is required for the state to acquire jurisdiction under this program.
Do you know what a "dependent child" is? It's defined in federal and state law. You should really look it up. Also keep in mind, the subject class of a law is not changed be amendment. This law is justified on the basis of dependency, a state's pecuniary interest.
Now you have my interest! It's been a long time since I traversed the history of the subject, but I think it is quite true that in New York support matters were originally in fact only brought when the state's interest became involved. I was wondering just today in reviewing a petition for support brought against one of my clients why the standard form has a paragraph to the effect that "I have applied for support services to the Department of Social Services" when that clearly is not the case many times. Any case law that you know of determining the subject?
Here is a case that describes the courts first duty to determine whether there is a need, before they determine what amount is due: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mn&vol=apppub%5C9610%5C997&invol=1
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.