really your daughter is the primary caregiver of your child, men this one especially take so many things for granted, we women need to stop being doormats
Dad is conniving! No wonder they got divorced. He doesn’t have proper transport for his kid to/from school & now he’s worried about $3,746. He was wrong. PERIOD
Another manipulating narcissist who feels entitled to overrule the Court and write his own program, use his daughter to back up the plan of having his child over 50%, emergency calls to the ex wife to drive to and collect child and get more money! He deserves to be held accountable and for contempt of Court.
Dude it was your responsibility even if your ex-wife was doing it! The daughter moving out suddenly sends red flags immediately. And then the person who was supposed to be picking up the son suddenly stopped? What's the common denominator in all of this - the ex husband. And missing 7 days in 6 weeks? They would send a truancy officer after him.
Technically it is a contract just like marriage is! Marriages back in the day before court was introduced by States were never seen as a contract of a government state laws but a contract between two people usually married by a church! The States saw the potential to make money when they decided that in order for a marriage to be recognized that it must be through an official agent registered through the state they reside in, which can be anybody today who takes an online class to be ordained! The State's are responsible for making these court cases a contract's case! These court proceedings are Civil in nature so that in plain terms means its a contract, an order a judge signs binding you to follow the order( contract) or face criminal proceedings for not following the order (contract) According to our Constitution, marriage nor child support should be an arrestable offense because it's a civil matter! When the State's asw how they could benefit then they changed the law and in essence have skirted the Constitution! Think about it, the state uses public funds to help those who are under a certain pay range right? Now say that obliger falls behind on support for whatever reason the State takes action and basically brings them to court to comply but while doing this they charge you interest and jail time if don't comply! Mind you they are using our money to support these kids and our funds to for these court hearings! When these people get caught up do we the public get a cut of the interest they made using our money? Nope! This is a money business and the State's will say that they do this in the best interest of the child lol!
@@I__Love_Lamp that’s an interesting way of thinking about it, though you seem to be completely ignoring the 10th amendment and asserting that the constitution of the United States says things that I don’t really think that it says, but that’s an interesting way of interpreting it
@@djcruiselover3827 Classic sovcit nonsense. You were a lot nicer about it than I would have been. The bottom line is that sovereign citizens believe that all civil law is contract law, and that's simply not true. There are many categories of civil law. The difference between contract law and family law is that in contract law, you have to agree to terms in order to be required to follow them, and that's not the case in child custody law. You CAN agree on terms, and IF the court also agrees, then those terms will be recognized as the way things are going to be. But the court also has the right to tell you what to do, whether you like it or not! And you still have to do it, whether you ever agreed to it or not. Because the only factor the court has to consider in ruling on child custody cases is the best interests of the child. They can rule in favor of one individual or the other, or tear up an agreement that both parents voluntarily signed and order something totally different... all if the judge thinks that's in the best interests of the child. So the notion that because marriage is a form of contract -- which it is, though it has several specifics about it which normal contracts don't share, including the way in which it is dissolved -- somehow child custody is a form of contract is nonsense. Child custody is the decision of the court -- lock, stock and barrel. If the parents are permitted to agree on a plan for custody, it's only because the judge chooses to permit that plan, because they believe the parents' choice of plan *is* what's in the best interests of the child... and the judge still gets to tell both parents what to do whether they submit such a plan or no.
@@djcruiselover3827 Thank you. I hadn't seen the entire video when I wrote that, and after seeing it I understand a bit better how a mistaken belief that this was a contractual situation could have come about. The judge went pretty far into the subject of how he wasn't going to get into whether or not the agreement between the parties was a good idea, he was just there to enforce it. I can see how easily someone could read that as this being a matter of contract law, but it isn't really. The only reason there exists a parenting plan in the first place for the judge to enforce is because either he or some previous judge accepted the parenting plan as valid, because they thought it was in the best interests of the child. So, with no new evidence regarding it *not* any longer being in the best interests of the child, the judge isn't going to re-hear any potential changes to the parenting plan just because the father wants him to. But it's not that he can't. It's that he doesn't see a reason to.
His dilemma is to just leave the kid after school until they call Mom? Also, saying you dropped him off and picked him up several times over 2 months isn't something to brag about. Not saying who the "transportation person" is, is kind of weird. I understand both sides but it doesn't sound good.
God forbid you get extra time with your kid, sir. That must have been so hard on you. Some dads in this same court fighting for a few extra hours a week.
To think if I had kids I would be RICH by now - except for the fact I'm suppose to feed, clothe, school, iPhone, etc the child. Looks like I came out ahead after all.😂
Father's tax claim was nonsense. First it was an error by his tax preparer. Then it was due to a provision of the parenting agreement not being followed.
So is the split 48 vs 52 percent, he is most likely quibbling over a few hundred dollars. That is a level of control i have not witnessed. Mom lost a full year of benefits from the child on taxes, now that adds up quickly.
Dad is correct that federal tax law allows him to take the deduction if he has the child for over 50% of the time. The judge is right that if dad does not follow the agreement he can be penalized by the judge.
Who watches the child when dad is at work and the "transportation" drops him off? Or before school after dad leaves for work? I'd bet the adult daughter moved out because dad was using her as free childcare and gave her the old "as long as I'm letting you live here" speech. He just didn't think she'd bounce.
I work for a law firm and get a little involved with family law. You would not believe how much exes will spend on attorneys to argue over relatively small dollars like the child tax exemption and child tax credit. They play games over taking the child as an exemption because the divorce decree gets to take the exemption in, for example, even years. 2023 is an odd year but you don't file those taxes until 2024 which is an even year. Rarely is it a genuine misunderstanding on the part of one of the exes. 90% of the time one or both are playing games.
I'm not so sure. Men cannot win. Courts hold them responsible for paying child support then they get penalized for not spending all of their visitation time with their kid because they are working in order to pay the child support. Men cannot win.
Narcissist wants everyone else (adult daughter, grandma) to do the daily chores of parenting (transportation, homework), whilst he waltzes in to have fun time with his son.
His voice is really off-putting. He uses the narcissist drone, and he has a really weird downward lilt in most of his words because he's trying to sound dismissive.
Unless you're on papers from a court, they can't. You can move every single day if you want. You just can't move your child if the court is in your business and says you can't. That's a pretty good reason to parent like an adult and not let the gov't have to do it for you. And I absolutely do think "be more careful with whom you procreate" is the 1st rule of good parenting.
If the tax preparer mixed up he could amend it. Also Mom could paper file and challenge it, although that takes a lot longer Btw the IRS doesn't actually care about parenting plans and can get mean about exemptions.
Imo I'd go by the parenting plan unless it's grossly illegal (you'd be surprised what I've seen judges order. I saw one final divorce decreed that had the couple filing as joint married couple... AFTER the divorce was final. If it's final they aren't married! I couldn't believe it when I saw that order. I told them to go to a tax attorney because I was not going to sign that return as a tax preparer
@Jim-hj4py I feel like you didn't watch the video before commenting. They are each include the child as a dependent, one on even and one on odd years. The IRS doesn't care whi does whay as long as both don't claim the same person.
@@Jim-hj4py whoever had the child in their home the most nights is who gets the deduction, according to the IRS. Like I said, the IRS does not care about what the divorce decree says or a judge orders. Now, the only way the IRS will know is if it's reported to them of course, but legally the deduction goes to whichever parent actually has the kid most nights, no matter what it says on the order. There are credits that can "travel" between parents like the child tax credit or the additional child tax credit, but the dependent deduction goes to the parent who actually houses the child the most number of nights in a year. Like I said, I've seen judges order some wild crap that's actually not legal in federal tax law, family court is state and doesn't care about federal tax law and the IRS is federal and does not care about state family court
Dad file an appeal. She cant keep her kid and get paid for it. Idc what t that order says. I agree with dad. So y'all saying if she has the kid 0 percent of the time just because its ordered she should still be able to file? I dont think so
Right there when you said “I don’t care what the order says “ that’s immediately the moment you lost because the only thing that matters is what the order says. Now you could file to have the order amended in the future but no appeals court is going to help you whatsoever because you violated a court order.
![เปิดบ้าน พี่ตูน Bodyslam หลังใหม่คนแรก ที่ภูเก็ต l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/flFwcmyDQSk/mqdefault.jpg)
Dad is a boldfaced liar and immature. No wonder the adult daughter ghosted him. You can read between the lines here.
really your daughter is the primary caregiver of your child, men this one especially take so many things for granted, we women need to stop being doormats
Dad is conniving! No wonder they got divorced. He doesn’t have proper transport for his kid to/from school & now he’s worried about $3,746. He was wrong. PERIOD
My thoughts exactly!
Claims it was an error on part of the person who prepared his taxes. Then tries to justify why it’s okay!
Another manipulating narcissist who feels entitled to overrule the Court and write his own program, use his daughter to back up the plan of having his child over 50%, emergency calls to the ex wife to drive to and collect child and get more money! He deserves to be held accountable and for contempt of Court.
Dude it was your responsibility even if your ex-wife was doing it! The daughter moving out suddenly sends red flags immediately. And then the person who was supposed to be picking up the son suddenly stopped? What's the common denominator in all of this - the ex husband. And missing 7 days in 6 weeks? They would send a truancy officer after him.
This Judge is always a fun watch. He has no patience for foolishness.
Dude, this is not a contract. This is an order of the court. He could easily hold you in contempt and throw you in jail.
Technically it is a contract just like marriage is! Marriages back in the day before court was introduced by States were never seen as a contract of a government state laws but a contract between two people usually married by a church! The States saw the potential to make money when they decided that in order for a marriage to be recognized that it must be through an official agent registered through the state they reside in, which can be anybody today who takes an online class to be ordained! The State's are responsible for making these court cases a contract's case! These court proceedings are Civil in nature so that in plain terms means its a contract, an order a judge signs binding you to follow the order( contract) or face criminal proceedings for not following the order (contract) According to our Constitution, marriage nor child support should be an arrestable offense because it's a civil matter! When the State's asw how they could benefit then they changed the law and in essence have skirted the Constitution! Think about it, the state uses public funds to help those who are under a certain pay range right? Now say that obliger falls behind on support for whatever reason the State takes action and basically brings them to court to comply but while doing this they charge you interest and jail time if don't comply! Mind you they are using our money to support these kids and our funds to for these court hearings! When these people get caught up do we the public get a cut of the interest they made using our money? Nope! This is a money business and the State's will say that they do this in the best interest of the child lol!
@@I__Love_Lamp that’s an interesting way of thinking about it, though you seem to be completely ignoring the 10th amendment and asserting that the constitution of the United States says things that I don’t really think that it says, but that’s an interesting way of interpreting it
@@djcruiselover3827 Classic sovcit nonsense. You were a lot nicer about it than I would have been.
The bottom line is that sovereign citizens believe that all civil law is contract law, and that's simply not true. There are many categories of civil law. The difference between contract law and family law is that in contract law, you have to agree to terms in order to be required to follow them, and that's not the case in child custody law. You CAN agree on terms, and IF the court also agrees, then those terms will be recognized as the way things are going to be.
But the court also has the right to tell you what to do, whether you like it or not! And you still have to do it, whether you ever agreed to it or not. Because the only factor the court has to consider in ruling on child custody cases is the best interests of the child. They can rule in favor of one individual or the other, or tear up an agreement that both parents voluntarily signed and order something totally different... all if the judge thinks that's in the best interests of the child.
So the notion that because marriage is a form of contract -- which it is, though it has several specifics about it which normal contracts don't share, including the way in which it is dissolved -- somehow child custody is a form of contract is nonsense. Child custody is the decision of the court -- lock, stock and barrel. If the parents are permitted to agree on a plan for custody, it's only because the judge chooses to permit that plan, because they believe the parents' choice of plan *is* what's in the best interests of the child... and the judge still gets to tell both parents what to do whether they submit such a plan or no.
@@norarivkis2513 well said
@@djcruiselover3827 Thank you. I hadn't seen the entire video when I wrote that, and after seeing it I understand a bit better how a mistaken belief that this was a contractual situation could have come about.
The judge went pretty far into the subject of how he wasn't going to get into whether or not the agreement between the parties was a good idea, he was just there to enforce it. I can see how easily someone could read that as this being a matter of contract law, but it isn't really. The only reason there exists a parenting plan in the first place for the judge to enforce is because either he or some previous judge accepted the parenting plan as valid, because they thought it was in the best interests of the child.
So, with no new evidence regarding it *not* any longer being in the best interests of the child, the judge isn't going to re-hear any potential changes to the parenting plan just because the father wants him to. But it's not that he can't. It's that he doesn't see a reason to.
His dilemma is to just leave the kid after school until they call Mom? Also, saying you dropped him off and picked him up several times over 2 months isn't something to brag about. Not saying who the "transportation person" is, is kind of weird. I understand both sides but it doesn't sound good.
Having children just to get child tax exemptions is unacceptable. Not even a funny joke. 😒
I keep thinking of a very old movie title: "Father's Little Dividend."
I don't know, guess we were stupid, but we did, one year for me, one year for her father
@@louiseporterbridges2040 I love that movie ❤
When you're more afraid of the IRS than CPS.
Dad really thinks he’s a super special boy.
He's an idiot. He's just making things up as he goes along.
It was an accident!!! But let me explain why I did it and why I won't change it. Ugh!
God forbid you get extra time with your kid, sir. That must have been so hard on you. Some dads in this same court fighting for a few extra hours a week.
I am not a fan of this geezer. He wants a pat on the back and money for spending time with his own child!
"I had to buy a bike to keep up with him...." are you kidding me, this sperm donor places money before human life
Dude you don’t have a leg to stand on! Always do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do.
"Ok, what are you opposing?" "pretty much all of it". 😅 I'm gonna enjoy this!
To think if I had kids I would be RICH by now - except for the fact I'm suppose to feed, clothe, school, iPhone, etc the child. Looks like I came out ahead after all.😂
Father's tax claim was nonsense. First it was an error by his tax preparer. Then it was due to a provision of the parenting agreement not being followed.
Tax agent's will prepare your return based on information provided by the taxpayer
Then he would have amended it but the mum usurped this by taking him to court. Couldn't he have done it anyway if that was his intention.
His "I'm correct, you're wrong" patronising voice is damned irritating.
Until he gets the order modified, he has to follow the order that’s in place.
Brave to act this way in Judge Rickie’s courtroom…..
The tone of that first "yes" from the dad was enough for to know he's an ass.
So is the split 48 vs 52 percent, he is most likely quibbling over a few hundred dollars. That is a level of control i have not witnessed. Mom lost a full year of benefits from the child on taxes, now that adds up quickly.
Meg, I'm with you, always ready to see Judge Ricky.
Dad is correct that federal tax law allows him to take the deduction if he has the child for over 50% of the time. The judge is right that if dad does not follow the agreement he can be penalized by the judge.
Who watches the child when dad is at work and the "transportation" drops him off? Or before school after dad leaves for work? I'd bet the adult daughter moved out because dad was using her as free childcare and gave her the old "as long as I'm letting you live here" speech. He just didn't think she'd bounce.
Most likely the kid is alone which depending on the age could be either illegal or at least not a great idea.
@@maggmasterthere's only TWO options wow what a low IQ take 😅
The daughter moving out spontaneously, plus the other care provider ghosting him seems odd.
You sound lazy af
@@chula686not odd….common denominator….dad
Both these people deserve a hundred years in jail for naming a child Wyatt Watkins.
Awwww….😂😂😂😂
Lol
He claimed kid on taxes on purpose
I work for a law firm and get a little involved with family law. You would not believe how much exes will spend on attorneys to argue over relatively small dollars like the child tax exemption and child tax credit. They play games over taking the child as an exemption because the divorce decree gets to take the exemption in, for example, even years. 2023 is an odd year but you don't file those taxes until 2024 which is an even year. Rarely is it a genuine misunderstanding on the part of one of the exes. 90% of the time one or both are playing games.
I know it is difficult but the father doesn't seem to fully grasp the fact that his child is even more important than his job.
I'm not so sure. Men cannot win. Courts hold them responsible for paying child support then they get penalized for not spending all of their visitation time with their kid because they are working in order to pay the child support. Men cannot win.
@17:26 "it was THIS moment, he knew he FUNKED up"...😂😂😂
Narcissist wants everyone else (adult daughter, grandma) to do the daily chores of parenting (transportation, homework), whilst he waltzes in to have fun time with his son.
The child is the one suffering. The father is choking on his own strong hold. What a prick!
GO JUDGE
Guess this guy never heard of filing a motion.
I like this Judge for some reason ❤
Judge Ricky always looks so sad.
Handsome tho
I guess looking at the worst of people on a daily basis has that effect.
Wouldn't you be sad being a Family Court Judge and hearing this crap EVERY day?
His voice is really off-putting. He uses the narcissist drone, and he has a really weird downward lilt in most of his words because he's trying to sound dismissive.
Federal tax returns aren't difficult to amend but some states make it a tedious paper process.
The part of the judge played by Tommy Lee Jones.
I never have cared for that Attorney..I think she hates men.
It seems so strange to hear the school term starting in August. Our schools (Ontario) don't start until September.
In farming states like Kansas, the planting/harvesting season for farmers still governs the school calendar.
Some of us who live in beach communities also start in Sept (we never start until after the Labor Day holiday).
I love your voice. And yes, I love Judge Ricke too!
Good loving gone bad. 😂
No wonder daughter bailed. He was having her parent her little brother.
There’s that Verizon Service! Unstable
I don't like that the court thinks they can control how often someone moves.
Kids need stability.
Unless you're on papers from a court, they can't. You can move every single day if you want. You just can't move your child if the court is in your business and says you can't. That's a pretty good reason to parent like an adult and not let the gov't have to do it for you. And I absolutely do think "be more careful with whom you procreate" is the 1st rule of good parenting.
We worked for the same company, we moved every 3-4 years to keep our employment. Our son did fine over the many moves and it didn't hurt him a bit.
It is also "verifiable" that this dad is a DB...just saying.
I want to know the background for this "parenting plan".
That poor mother looks as though she is ill and frail. They are certainly an odd couple. I wonder if she looked different when they got married.
If the tax preparer mixed up he could amend it. Also Mom could paper file and challenge it, although that takes a lot longer
Btw the IRS doesn't actually care about parenting plans and can get mean about exemptions.
Imo I'd go by the parenting plan unless it's grossly illegal (you'd be surprised what I've seen judges order. I saw one final divorce decreed that had the couple filing as joint married couple... AFTER the divorce was final. If it's final they aren't married! I couldn't believe it when I saw that order. I told them to go to a tax attorney because I was not going to sign that return as a tax preparer
Depends a lot on which parent can use the child as a dependent, it can't be both of them.
Whichever Parent is considered "primary" gets the deduction, however whichever parent provides medical coverage can have that portion deductible.
@Jim-hj4py I feel like you didn't watch the video before commenting. They are each include the child as a dependent, one on even and one on odd years.
The IRS doesn't care whi does whay as long as both don't claim the same person.
@@Jim-hj4py whoever had the child in their home the most nights is who gets the deduction, according to the IRS. Like I said, the IRS does not care about what the divorce decree says or a judge orders. Now, the only way the IRS will know is if it's reported to them of course, but legally the deduction goes to whichever parent actually has the kid most nights, no matter what it says on the order. There are credits that can "travel" between parents like the child tax credit or the additional child tax credit, but the dependent deduction goes to the parent who actually houses the child the most number of nights in a year. Like I said, I've seen judges order some wild crap that's actually not legal in federal tax law, family court is state and doesn't care about federal tax law and the IRS is federal and does not care about state family court
👋😻👋
Dad file an appeal. She cant keep her kid and get paid for it. Idc what t that order says. I agree with dad. So y'all saying if she has the kid 0 percent of the time just because its ordered she should still be able to file? I dont think so
Right there when you said “I don’t care what the order says “ that’s immediately the moment you lost because the only thing that matters is what the order says. Now you could file to have the order amended in the future but no appeals court is going to help you whatsoever because you violated a court order.