Texas Attorney General-Victoria Office
by David
(Alexandria, VA )
Well it's done! I have posted other blogs about my pending case with the Texas Attorney General. My case began when my ex and I had an argument about her boyfriend striking my daughter with a belt. After I threatened to report her to child protective services, she threatened to take me back to court for more child support. Three weeks later, I received a notice to attend a Child Support Review Process (CSRP).
This meeting was to bring the parents together without going to court. Here's the fallacy: The AG's office sent me some literature that said we as parents could agree on a child support amount. Trust me when I say this; that's not true! By law, the AG's office must seek 20% of a non-custodial parents income regardless what the literature says. It's a ploy to make you think there's room for negotiation. BTW, they will demand your pay records as a condition of attending. So, unless you want to fully agree with the AG's decision, attending the meeting is useless.
If you're looking to buy time though, attend the meeting and give them what they want, but don't agree with anything. If you do, an increase will begin immediately. If you don't provide pay records, there won't be a meeting and they will subpoena the records and add the costs to the court fees. Guess what? As the non-custodial parent, you have to pay them too. Don't expect them to place any liability on the custodial parent.
By not agreeing to the CSRP, they will schedule a hearing within a couple months. The longer it takes, the more money you get to keep. However, they make back date it. Regardless, unless you bounce from job to job, you will lose your case.
The AG also implies they don't represent either parent. That's somewhat of a misnomer. No one can refute the fact they don't represent the non-custodial parent. However, the custodial parent and the AG's office share the same interests. They both seek to get paid and use the children as an excuse to do so.
In my case, the assistant AG handling the case implied I was a bad father for not wanting to give more money for the interests of my child. I fired back by stating my ex would use the money to buy a new car, clothes, and jewelry for herself. I also conceded that I would sign the order if my ex could explain how she would spend $1700.00 a month for one child. The Asst AG said "she don't have too". And, as many of you fellow Texans should know, the state could care less about how much money she makes.
After realizing I was in a no-win situation with a bunch of feminist pigs, I walked out of the courtroom. Unfortunately, the relationship with my daughter has been strained and I refuse to speak with her anymore. Sounds sad, but the other parent (as most will do) has put the importance of money of the importance of a relationship. As far as I'm concerned, everything my daughter eats or wears, the place she lives in, or the things she enjoys is a result of my labor and income; not her moms.
My advice: If the parents can settle the matter without involving the AG, you’ll both be better off and the parent-child relationship will continue. Other than that: Don't have any more kids.
Just remember--Love for others is temporary, love for money is endless.
