Equity Clause and Child Support

I think you better read the law and not just the tables.(1) There is an equity clause when you look at things so take the time and read it, or ask your lawyer, he should have told you that, my lawyer did! If you want me to research it and send you the link when I get home tonight let me know but stop this shit. You can always find time to talk to me about money but you rarely call me about the kids school or parent/teacher or anything so who is keeping this agreement? You are the one trying to usurp and change it all the time so who do you think will look like the fool. You set the rules yourself you dummy!! Next time you email me it better be about the sneakers I just bought or something to do with the girls and not just being a money grubbing sack of shit all the time. I am more than happy to provide this info in a court setting. I can show a pattern of when you contact me around my paydays you loser. If your man's 200K is not enough, find a job. (2) When you come to court you better bring a complete list of names and contacts that you have applied to so they can be checked because I believe not one word of what you say anymore.

(1) No research will need to be completed by this Deplorable Deadbeat Dad. He knows I am smarter than to take his "word" for anything. Although I knew there was no such thing as an equity clause I decided to research it anyway, just in case I was wrong. By the way, the 200k that he is referring to is my boyfriend's income, not mine. The following is the result of the research I completed:

Judges must follow the guidelines In most cases, if parents ask the court to decide
the amount of child support under the Divorce Act , the judge must refer to the guide
lines in setting the amount.There are two possible exceptions to this rule. In these
two situations, the judge may order a different amount of child support. But, the
judge must first look at what the guideline amount would be before adjusting the
child support. The two possible exceptions are:

* special provisions; and
* consent orders.

The receiving parent is expected to contribute to the costs of raising the children
in proportion to his or her income. The standards of living of the children and the
receiving parent are interrelated because they live together. Any money that the
receiving parent spends on the household will also benefit the children.



 Child support is the joint responsibility of both parents, not their new
     spouses.
 
 
 The guiding principle of the Federal Child Support Guidelines is that both
     parents should share the same portion of their income with their child as
     they would if they had continued to live together. The federal guidelines do
     not require the courts to consider a new spouse's income.

     If a parent does not supply the documents needed to prove income, the court
     may order that he or she do so or face serious penalties. The penalties could
     include being found in contempt of court or having to pay the other parent's
     legal costs.

(2)   The Deplorable Deadbeat is fighting paying $400.00 a month for child support and criticizing
       me for not working.  Well, for one thing I have always been the parent who provides
       the necessities of life to our children.  Another thing, when we were together I paid the car
       payment, rent, and child care while his money went "up in smoke".  So the fact that he is
       demanding a list of businesses that I have applied for work to is appalling.  He seems to
       forget that I am the parent who cares for these children on a daily basis and makes sure
       that all of their needs and wants are provided for  (with a whopping $600.00 a month to
       do so).

Irrational Reasons Not To Pay Child Support

Irrational as defined by a dictionary: Not consistent with or using reason; "irrational fears"; "irrational animals".

One element in the soul is irrational and one has a rational principle-Aristotle.

If this is true then what happens to a soul that has completely lost the rational principle? It seems as if I have been dealing with such a person and I was curious so I "googled" it. Aristotle's Theory of Contrariety was the first web page listed so I clicked on it and soon realized I didn't need or want to know the answer. No matter how many papers, theories, or studies I read, I am never going to understand someone who has totally lost his "rational principle" or complete and utter lunacy nor do I want to.

What I do want to understand are the irrational reasons why a person thinks they should not help support their children.

I was recently offered answers to this question by a deadbeat dad, with so many "issues" he would make an incredible and fascinating case study for any professional. The following is the first, of many, "insightful and entertaining" posts to come:

The following post is a reason as to why a man should not pay $200.00 every two weeks for two children in child support, as explained by an irrational deadbeat:

If you think that you are a great mom being a money grubber then leave it at that. What kind of a person wants more than 200K per year for their family. It is greedy and disgusting of you to ask and I will fight that point in court. Go through the law and read it, support is at the judges discretion so remember that. If you look greedy what do you think would happen? Do you think you are going to get all of this money. I would suggest to stop this BS and get yourself a job, You are not looking, that is why. Wait til I get you in court cause you will look like a complete idiot. Anyone that would spend money on a lawyer rather than spend it on their kids is really only looking to be greedy and that is it. Why is your money for the lawyer not enough to get you through until you get a job? Because there will be no job and you know it you joke.

This "person" currently does not pay any child support and has clearly lost his "rational principle"