Questions, Oregon divorce: kids, taxes, student loans...

[Fatheroffour]

Hmmm.

Your attorneys advice doesn't jibe with what you just posted about getting all you can now and giving back what you deem appropriate later, which is good advice BTW.

[PHRoG]

Hmmm.

Your attorneys advice doesn't jibe with what you just posted about getting all you can now and giving back what you deem appropriate later, which is good advice BTW.

Well, I guess that really depends on how "all you can get" is defined.

Shared custody is what I want, I don't want full custody, just to disobey the order and let them stay there outside the assigned times when I'm away.

He said shared custody pretty much keeps the state out of it, and if she challenges custody later, or starts refusing to let me see them, we can bring her up for contempt, or push for full custody based on violence record.

But, I still don't see her trying to keep the kids from me, or use them as leverage. This isn't the first separation we've experienced, and it was never a problem before. She's just not like that with them. But I think the attorney had good reason to push for shared.

I might be biased, but I believe her reaction will initially be to get upset about what I'm asking for...but, once she calms down and considers everything, I think she'll end up agreeing with it.

But who knows...this is just the first step, if she counters, he said I can do a 180, and push for full custody at that point.

Thanks,
PHRoG

[BartSimpson]

I might be biased, but I believe her reaction will initially be to get upset about what I'm asking for...but, once she calms down and considers everything, I think she'll end up agreeing with it.

In like 20 years or so.

Elements of your post make me sure you are falling on your sword, because your attorney says it's a good deal and you are not familiar with the divorce industrial complex. You have so much faith in an episode of violence that you have already dismissed - when she can even the playing field with a simple accusation against you.

[Fatheroffour]

Well, I guess that really depends on how "all you can get" is defined.

Shifting goal post makes communication difficult. How many different ways can you define "All you can get."?

You move out, she gets primary, you will pay guideline support. That's all pretty standard and you don't need an attorney to get it. That your attorney says that you can pay her and not go through the state because you have no record of not paying her before is a huge red flag to me that says someone doesn't really know what they are doing.

[PHRoG]

That your attorney says that you can pay her and not go through the state because you have no record of not paying her before is a huge red flag to me that says someone doesn't really know what they are doing.

What makes you say that?

[PHRoG]

Most non-custodial parents use income withholding to fulfill their child support obligation. This means a child support payment is automatically withheld from the parent’s paycheck and sent to the Child Support Program.

If granted an exception, the non-custodial parent may choose an alternative method of payment such as an electronic withdrawal from their bank account, payment by check, money order or Western Union wire transfer.

source: http://oregonchildsupport.gov/faqs/index.shtml

I don't have a paycheck, so it can't be withheld from one. As of right now, my only income is student loans.

He said most just go through the state, but it's not required if the other party agrees.

[BartSimpson]

There is a huge advantage of record keeping by going through the State system. Explain the disadvantages you see?

I am making a note here that you have a theme of "keep the State out of it" which is impossible. It is very telling when you say such.

[Fatheroffour]

Just for the sake of discussion, let's assume your child is 1 and you faithfully hand your ex a CS check on time, every time and for the full amount for the next 17 years.

But due to an error, or pure evil, at the end of your CS obligation she claims you have not paid all you owe. You must then prove you have. You must prove every payment.

The state doesn't care about cancelled checks you lost in a move a decade ago. It doesn't care your bank went out of business. It doesn't care about what's fair. It doesn't care about logic or how you can prove the last 10 years but not the 7 before.

Prove it or pay it again.


It is to any recipient of child support advantage to request an accounting as the end of the obligation because any payment that can't be proven must be paid. Anything over is a gift.

However, the state won't argue with its own numbers so paying through the state generally prevents such accounting boondoggles.

Your attorney makes good money to warn you of such things. This would be a red flag staked on his competence.


Here is a previous thread on the subject with others input.
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=42990&hilit=paid+years

[PHRoG]

Just for the sake of discussion, let's assume your child is 1 and you faithfully hand your ex a CS check on time, every time and for the full amount for the next 17 years.

But due to an error, or pure evil, at the end of your CS obligation she claims you have not paid all you owe. You must then prove you have. You must prove every payment.

The state doesn't care about cancelled checks you lost in a move a decade ago. It doesn't care your bank went out of business. It doesn't care about what's fair. It doesn't care about logic or how you can prove the last 10 years but not the 7 before.

Prove it or pay it again.


It is to any recipient of child support advantage to request an accounting as the end of the obligation because any payment that can't be proven must be paid. Anything over is a gift.

However, the state won't argue with its own numbers so paying through the state generally prevents such accounting boondoggles.

Your attorney makes good money to warn you of such things. This would be a red flag staked on his competence.


Here is a previous thread on the subject with others input.
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=42990&hilit=paid+years

It's a personal preference. I'd rather not be involved with the state any more than I'm required to be. It's my opinion that any involvement with the government tends to complicate life. If I have the option to handle it all without them, I'm taking it.

He mentioned the benefits you brought up about the record keeping as well. I understand your reasoning. While I appreciate your concern, and even agree that it can make some things easier; I'd rather deal with a bit of record keeping, over dealing with them at all.

I'd pay her electronically and keep accurate records. Doing so won't be a problem for me, unless modern civilization comes to an end. I don't keep paper checks, hell, I don't even have checks. I don't even keep paper anymore...it's all scanned and shredded. I keep an extremely rigorous backup routine that includes multiple off-site locations over SSL, as well as encrypted USB keys located on-site, and in a safe deposit box.

I'm more concerned about other aspects I might be missing in the conditions I listed above.

Thanks again,
PHRoG

[BartSimpson]

I'd rather not be involved with the state any more than I'm required to be. It's my opinion that any involvement with the government tends to complicate life. If I have the option to handle it all without them, I'm taking it.

The option of including the State was exercised when you got married. It's too late to say you don't like the government involved now.