follow up to Peru trip report

[mudd]

Well, I received a letter from Grasila today, I guess the man changed his mind after the girl told him that she was going to talk to an Immigration lawyer. I think the guy was trying to have his cake without paying for it, so to speak. In any case, I told her to have her friend contact the lawyer anyways so she will understand what she will have to do, just in case he turns back into the slime ball again. I hope it works out and she doesn’t have to use the court system to ruin this guys life, and hers also. I guess one lesson from all this would be, if you think you can just bring them here for a “test drive” it just might backfire on you and leave you paying a lot of money for 18 years.

[Cali vet]

... in response to follow up to Peru trip report, posted by mudd on Sep 3, 2003

Would like to hear more on your Lima visit. The girl sounds like just about any Cali girl...never heard of "planificacion".

[Cali vet]

... in response to follow up to Peru trip report, posted by mudd on Sep 3, 2003

.

[moam]

... in response to follow up to Peru trip report, posted by mudd on Sep 3, 2003

And even longer than that if the kid continues with education after high school.

[Michael B]

... in response to Re: follow up to Peru trip report, posted by moam on Sep 3, 2003

Texas law is until they are 18 unless they are still in high school. If they are still in high school, pay through the school year they are in when they turn 18 (in other words, if they flunk a couple of time, you don't wind up paying until they are 20, only 18 plus the rest of that school year). 20% of your income for the first child and 5% for each additional child (rounded up [never down, ha ha] to an even amount like 800.00 instead of 787.56 each month), plus maintain health insurance on the child(ren) and pay 1/2 of any medical treatment or prescriptions not covered by insurance (such as applied toward deductable or not a covered procedure, over the insurance company approved price etc.) and non-custodial parent bears all travel expenses for visitation. If 'supervised' visitation is ordered, non-c parent bears all that expense too. Texas can (and will, they aren't the least bit hesitant about it) garnish wages for child support and related expenses and revoke state licenses (driver, plumber, electrician, architect etc. if the paying parent falls behind). Despite all these expenses, the non-c parent can NOT claim the child(ren) as income tax dependent(s). Only good deal the non-c parent gets is the right to demand that the child stays a resident of the county where the divorce (and/or custody case) is decided or a contigious county.--Now this could prove interesting (although the feds would probably prevail)--suppose the feds order her deported and the Texas state court orders that she have custody and the child live in the county?

BTW, Texas is real tough about going after men to collect money, but doesn't do crap to women who deny the father visitation. (Personally, I've never been garnished because I've never been behind and I've never had the X give any visitation problems either, but I've seen other people have both problems).

[lswote]

... in response to Re: Re: follow up to Peru trip report, posted by Michael B on Sep 3, 2003

Michael, I don't know when that law was enacted or if it is statewide or local, but when I married my Texan ex-wife back in 1986 she had 3 young children from her first husband and she was award $75 a child per month.  She is from east Texas in a little town called Newton, near Jasper, and perhaps the law is just not enforced there as it is very much "good ole boy" country.  The father of my ex-wife's children never paid so much as a dime the whole 13 years I was married to her.  She filed some claim with some department or something in Austin where we lived but as far as I know nothing every came of it because we never received squat from him.  

I think everybody's mileage will vary and it isn't an automatic slam/dunk that this woman will get benefits, or more importantly, that if she gets awarded benefits that they would actually be paid.

[Michael B]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: follow up to Peru trip repor..., posted by lswote on Sep 4, 2003

Things have changed a LOT in Texas since 1986, you wouldn't recognize the place. Sure, a dedicated deadbeat can still beat the system by (on purpose) getting fired from his job everytime a garnishment order catches up to him or by painting houses off the books or such, but (so they tell me) it's getting harder and harder every day. Naturaly (as some other poster mentioned) the state tends to go after the welfare cases first, but all the license bureaus cross check the SSN's against open cases and that makes it harder to hide. BTW, you'd be suprized (or maybe not) how many women claim they have 'absolutly no idea' who the father(s) of their kid(s) are, they're just SURE it isn't they guy they're currently shacked with, hee hee, after all, they wouldn't wouldn't have gin and crack money if HIS wages were garnished.

[Pete E]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: follow up to Peru trip repor..., posted by lswote on Sep 4, 2003

Times are changing.In California the STATE pays the child support to the custody parent(95% the wife I think).Then the STATE collects from the guy.Even in cases like your ex wife if the wife aggressively pursues getting the support it can make all the difference.But I'm sure methods in 2003 are better than in 1986.
Even in Colombia,of all places,they will aggressively pursue the father IF THE MOTHER AGGRESSIVELY PUSHES IT.A Colombiano I know was threatened with jail if he didn't pay up.He paid.The other ex never pushed it and got nothing.

Pete

[roadken]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: follow up to Peru trip r..., posted by Pete E on Sep 4, 2003

In California,they only pay the ex when she is on assistance
from the state.The child support collected goes to re-imburse the state for the welfare costs.It is a big scam by the state when they say they will collect for you.They will however refuse to renew or even revoke license's if you are not current.That includes drivers,lawyers,realtor,etc...

[Pete E]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: follow up to Peru tr..., posted by roadken on Sep 4, 2003

Guess I need to remember where I heard the story,it was an actual case,a friend of my sons I think.I think it goes beyond women on welfare but I'm not sure.But bottom line,unless you totally disapear or go underground they are going to get you.Bet some of our latin country ex patriots are there for this reason.
I know about the licence thing.My barber has been working out of his house for about 8 years after they took his licence.I showed up for my appointment and the state was there in his shop,he said I can't work now,I will call you later.
A real estate broker I know had his license threatened but he proved he had actually paid.
Another poor guy I knew had huge child support because of his salary.His salary dropped 50%,he made a deal with his wife to lower the payment.When he married someone else she got mad and went after him for the full amount from day one.The judge says sorry,you should have come back to court to get the amount adjusted,you have to pay her.This was 2 months in to a new marriage with a friend of mine.It caused alot of problems but they got through it.Ex wife totally sits on her butt,getting by on the child support.

Pete