Russell Arrested 3/17/08

[coffeeseven]

It appears that the "family" was living on a take home pay of ~$30k before the split. Because the "ex" wasn't working, the state gave her 1/2 of what the breadwinner made. That's pretty harsh with such a small "pot", but it isn't really uncommon.

Doesn't make it right

In your situation, according to what you've told us, your ex got to keep her pay without it being included in the calculations, you were not credited against your support obligations for payment of medical insurance or bills, you weren't allowed to take the children for tax purposes, you paid for all the clothes/bills/supplies/etc for your children, you took the time to take your children to appointments and even with all that, you also said that your ex was getting food stamps!  Shocked ... How's that work?  BangHead

When asked by the judge for her financials she just ignored it and the judge went ahead and made a ruling anyway. Now that I know what I know it'll never happen again. I have no idea how she got food stamps.

My personal case aside I can't see a straight line in this forced support system. We need relief and reform.

[FreelanceFreedomFighter]

I never said it was "right", just that it wasn't uncommon. 

I think that not providing true and attested financials in that situation should cause a contempt charge... at least in the current system. There's got to be a better way... 

[coffeeseven]

I think that not providing true and attested financials in that situation should cause a contempt charge... at least in the current system. There's got to be a better way... 

Emphasis mine. I agree. In a perfect world it should work that way. No one of them seems to be able to interpret the law like any other. The more I know of judges the more I realize their profession is more of an art than a science. Very, very bad and dangerous artists most of them. Their brush and canvas has the potential to imprison, impoverish or kill.

[Caleb]

I don't know. Maybe I'm just helplessly idealistic. But it seems to me that the best way to work out child support in the tragic event of divorce is this:

1) Parents have joint custody
2) Each pays for the kids needs while they are with them, and is generous with buying clothing and other gifts.
3) Insurance, etc., is worked out amicably between the two parents.

Is this a bad formula somehow? Alicia and I didn't have kids, and I'm thankful for that. But I've spent a lot of time thinking about what would have happened if we had had kids, and this formula just seems like the best all around. It is fair to both parents and children.

[RussellsEx]

A couple of notes....the $111,000 is before penalties and interest charges. This is what they told me.

By the way..I have never said the amounts were fair. They were based on income at the time, and their 'formula', for whatever thats worth, but it seemed like a ridiculous amount of money to me too. I felt that half would have been much more in line with what we really needed, which would have been about $600 mo. (For three kids, I think I was being incredibly reasonable.) I did try to work with him outside of the courts for a number of years too. But what became unreasonable was his unwillingness to pay anything, after that first year. I completely related to his frustration, and so 'offered' lots of different scenarios whereby he would have 'felt better' about how the money was being spent. (I offered this, not because I wa blowing the money we had, but because I could see that philosophically, he was becoming entrenched in his view to just not pay.) I suggested the tuition bill, or grocery amount, or giving it directly to a third party of his choosing, to avoid any conflict he might have felt with me.  These suggestions were laughed at.

[AntonLee]

I'm not a parent, so maybe someone who is out there can help me out. . . . with this whole money mess.

how much does an average kid cost a month to live?  I would think that a kid wouldn't eat $200 worth of food in a month by itself right?  Or am I completely out of my mind on this?

it's crap like this that makes me not want to get married.

[Caleb]

well, I think the idea or the justification that the courts have for the higher figures is that kids also need clothes. And shelter. So, like me, because I don't have kids I pay $500 bucks for a fairly small room. If I had 3 kids, I would need at least a 3 bedroom house, which would cost me at least $1000 to $1100, for even something very basic. That's about a $600 difference. Kid's aren't cheap, obviously.  Overall, I think it's tragic, because it seems that the parent that isn't awarded custody gets the very raw end of the deal. Not just financially, which is what most people are looking at, but also emotionally. People want to be with their kids, and even if you get visitation, I can only imagine how that feels to only get to see your kids once a week or something. For a movie that I think shows that aspect of it, I love Mrs. Doubtfire.

By the way..I  have never said the amounts were fair. They were based on income at the time, and their 'formula', for whatever thats worth, but it seemed like a ridiculous amount of money to me too. I felt that half would have been much more in line with what we really needed, which would have been about $600 mo. (For three kids, I think I was being incredibly reasonable.) I did try to work with him outside of the courts for a number of years too. But what became unreasonable was his unwillingness to pay anything, after that first year. I completely related to his frustration, and so 'offered' lots of different scenarios whereby he would have 'felt better' about how the money was being spent. (I offered this, not because I wa blowing the money we had, but because I could see that philosophically, he was becoming entrenched in his view to just not pay.) I suggested the tuition bill, or grocery amount, or giving it directly to a third party of his choosing, to avoid any conflict he might have felt with me.  These suggestions were laughed at.

This is why I wish that your church would have worked with both of you at the time, because I think we can all agree that the state of California's arbitrary formula doesn't leave anybody feeling like justice is done. Also, I know that Russell was an OTR truck driver. But now, he doesn't have a license, so his income has shifted, but the court order stays the same. Russell would have to keep going back to court, dragging you right along, every time his circumstances shifted if he was going to go that route.

Mindy, would you be willing to write a note to the judge to ask that they please see to his matter as soon as possible? From what you've told me, and from the research that I have done and that Jack has done, I think most of us on this forum realize now that you can't just snap your fingers and make any outcome you want happen in this, any more than we can. But it seems that some of the people at the court are taking a perverse delight in delaying this, the clerk for one, and Russell isn't even being given his hearing. The judge is supposed to review all this within 30 days, but that isn't happening. I realize that you can't force the judge to hear his case, but I think a note from the mother that says, "Hey, I'm over here wondering if you're going to see Mr. Kanning's case so we can get on with figuring out the details" might at least persuade the judge to move it along. As of now, the clerk refuses to tell Kat any information, and she's as much in the dark here as all of us are.

[coffeeseven]

Her note should be to the prosecuting state's attorney. He/she represents the people of California that are so seemingly angry at Russell. Judges are more or less arbitrators between the prosecuting and defense attorneys, then he (judge) bees the final wordmeister.

[FreelanceFreedomFighter]

No one of them {judges} seems to be able to interpret the law like any other. The more I know of judges the more I realize their profession is more of an art than a science. Very, very bad and dangerous artists most of them. Their brush and canvas has the potential to imprison, impoverish or kill.

coffee7, I think we really agree on most of these issues. IMNSHO, it is a major problem that judges across the board interpret the laws in so many varied, unique and "inventive" ways. In many cases, it isn't even an art vs a science, but rather a "person wearing a black robe"'s personal opinion and imposition of their personal morality on a captive audience that must obey at the point of a gun. The laws are supposed to be impartial and "blind", but I've never met a judge who was truly either... 

[FreelanceFreedomFighter]

By the way..I have never said the amounts were fair. They were based on income at the time, and their 'formula', for whatever thats worth, but it seemed like a ridiculous amount of money to me too. I felt that half would have been much more in line with what we really needed, which would have been about $600 mo. (For three kids, I think I was being incredibly reasonable.)

It does sound incredibly reasonable. In CA, as in all other states, the parties do not have to follow the formula/guidelines. If you felt that the $1260 "seemed like a ridiculous amount of money" and you "felt that half would have been much more in line with what {you} really needed", you could have, at any point, successfully filed for the court to reduce the amount to that lower level. Also, at the point where, regardless of whether payments were happening or not, the employment and income that was originally used in the formula/guidelines became no longer available, all it would have taken was for you to ask the court to revise the amount based on the new income... OR you could have, at that point asked for an amount that you didn't feel was "ridiculous". Also, since the formula/guidelines in every state have a place to include the custodial parent's income, when you started working to support your newly divided family, giving this information and having the amount modified to reflect that would have lowered the judgment amount as well... but again, simply stating that you were seeking a lower amount, "in line with what you really needed", would have modified the judgment regardless. While there is no denying that Russell refused to participate in the court setup, the records as shown seem to strongly indicate that you (perhaps through the advice of your attorney) were more than willing to take full advantage of that.

I did try to work with him outside of the courts for a number of years too.

Once it was "inside" the courts, the only way to change anything is "inside" the courts...

But what became unreasonable was his unwillingness to pay anything, after that first year. ... I suggested the tuition bill, or grocery amount, or giving it directly to a third party of his choosing, to avoid any conflict he might have felt with me.  These suggestions were laughed at.

I've already stated my position on responsibility and duty to one's child(ren). Learning more and more, the only "innocent" parties I see in this are 4 children and Kat...

[RussellsEx]

Russell was responsible for correcting these things...not me. The burden legally is on him. The court determined the amount, and I did not feel any compulsion to correct them. At that point, he wasn't willing to do anything, in or out of court...and obviously still isn't. What I did or didn't do made/makes absolutely no difference. Its like playing baseball with a wall. I can't negotiate with myself...And lets be realistic here...do you think Russell will ever pay $139,000? Do you think he'd pay $70,000? What difference does it make? Morally, he has not cared one whit for the kids. "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."

[Raineyrocks]

I don't know. Maybe I'm just helplessly idealistic. But it seems to me that the best way to work out child support in the tragic event of divorce is this:

1) Parents have joint custody
2) Each pays for the kids needs while they are with them, and is generous with buying clothing and other gifts.
3) Insurance, etc., is worked out amicably between the two parents.

Is this a bad formula somehow? Alicia and I didn't have kids, and I'm thankful for that. But I've spent a lot of time thinking about what would have happened if we had had kids, and this formula just seems like the best all around. It is fair to both parents and children.

That would be great Caleb!   That's how my daughter and my grandson's father worked things out and it's so nice, it actually taught me a big lesson too.  When my grandson was born I was bugging her to file for child support and thank god she never listened and trusted her heart and handled things her way.  I never thought it could be handled so nicely because I've seen what a lot of divorced people in my family went through that I never even looked at it your way or my daughters.  Live and Learn that's what it's all about!

[RussellsEx]

I couldn't agree more with the fact the our three children are the innocent victims here (Kat and Kira are innocent bystanders)...which is why they need someone to stand up for them. They don't have the wherewithal to do it. If some have misapplied the system (and I know many who have), it does not change the fact that I am not doing so. I want what is fair for them. 'Nothing' is not fair. Russell paid approximately $1000 mo for one year. But the kids didn't stop needing food/clothes/shelter after that. I find it interesting that his 'high moral ground' only serves him. $12,000 to last 3 kids (ages 2,8,9) til they're 18....(Since everyone else is crunching the numbers...)

Someone mentioned a scenario whereby the non-custodial father would work 65 hrs a week, giving half his paycheck to his kids. The flip side of that is a single custodial mom working two jobs, to make up for the dad who refuses to pay. Either way, the kids lose.

(Also, when I spoke with my attorney, he informed me that I was not allowed to ask for less than $1200. Maybe I was misinformed, but its my understanding that the state decides at that point, what your child needs, based on all applicable streams of income. My brother sat in on the meeting with me, and both of us were incredulous at this.)

[ny2nh]

I'm not a parent, so maybe someone who is out there can help me out. . . . with this whole money mess.

how much does an average kid cost a month to live?  I would think that a kid wouldn't eat $200 worth of food in a month by itself right?  Or am I completely out of my mind on this?

it's crap like this that makes me not want to get married.

I don't have kids either....and it would be hard to determine the exact amount it costs to feed a child for a month - because obviously the custodial parent is feeding themselves as well and presumably the grocery bill would not simply double because there are two people. Living alone, I can easily spend $30-40 per week on groceries.....add to that cereal, more milk, juices, etc.....and I could easily see how my food bill alone could double if I had say a 6 year old child living with me.

Child support does not only cover the cost of food.....it should contribute to the cost of housing, utilities, etc. To have been looking for about $600/month for 3 kids seems more than reasonable to me.

Keep in mind that I get equally frustrated when the custodial parent is not working (for no specific reason) and that now becomes the financial problem for the working non-custodial parent. He's an idea - get shared custody.

[ny2nh]

But it seems that some of the people at the court are taking a perverse delight in delaying this, the clerk for one, and Russell isn't even being given his hearing. The judge is supposed to review all this within 30 days, but that isn't happening. I realize that you can't force the judge to hear his case, but I think a note from the mother that says, "Hey, I'm over here wondering if you're going to see Mr. Kanning's case so we can get on with figuring out the details" might at least persuade the judge to move it along. As of now, the clerk refuses to tell Kat any information, and she's as much in the dark here as all of us are.

without knowing any specifics in THIS case and that particular court - I do know that the courts are unbelievably backed up. I inquired how long it would take before I received a an order from a judge, and was told that even once the judge made the decision, it would take 6-8 weeks before I actually received the order. So - it might not be that they are intentionally delayed this particular case but that it is just in the pile of many, many family and marital cases that the judge needs to rule on.