<p>We never know who is posting or if the problem is real on these boards. As a result, addressing the points and questions as if they are or ignoring the post if it is truly trollish is the high road to take. It serves no purpose to make certain accusation and rude comments.</p>
<p>I’m going to say this ONE more time.</p>
<p>The OP has filed the NCP Profile for the upcoming school year. If there is a notion of impropriety noted, the SCHOOL will make this determination. OP needs to also understand that students DO get NCP waivers one year…and not the next…for varieties of reasons.</p>
<p>I don’t see where any impropriety would show on that PROFILE. It would verify that the the OP didn’t pay a dime towards his D’s support for 2010 because he did not. But most schools that use PROFILE do not care about that. They just want those financial and unless the student can get a NCP PROFILE waiver, an expected contribution, whether it comes or not, is calculated for the NCP. </p>
<p>The possible impropriety would likely be in the NCP PROFILE waiver for the year before, if indeed the ex got one. The fraud would be if the FAFSA and PROFILE did not include child support payments that were made in 2009 that should have been reported on the ex’s fin aid docs. But that is not up to the OP to investigate, and he has no right to those papers as they do not affect him. None of this is any of his business. His business is to pay the back support and the college payment as dictated in the divorce decree. He really didn’t even have to comolete the PROFILE. No one “makes” you do that. If he did not, it might even be favorable for the D in terms of getting aid as it would be further evidence that a NCP waiver should be given.</p>
<p>Cpt, it is not clear to me if the student took a gap year, making the 2009 payments irrelevant (but this story has wound around so I wasnt clear). </p>
<p>I am sorry you regard my comments as rude. I do not support helping anyone who is delinquent in child support payments. I beleive it did serve a purpose my asking about this. </p>
<p>Anyone suggesting that OP just state in writing that he will make payments – that is absurd. OP has already signed in writing that he would pay.</p>
<p>You don’t need to apologize to me. The comment I found most rude was about the OP’s name which had absolutely NOTHING to do with the situation at all. Who cares if the name is male/female? S/he could be of either sex, you know. That was irrelevant to the situation> The apology should go to the OP. </p>
<p>As for the child support situation, the payments have to be made, not promised to be made. That is something, I believe has been very clear in my posts. I don’t think anyone here gave the OP any corner to hide on that one. Gotta pay them, gotta pay the college agreement amounts. A gap year would not make a difference; child support still has to be pad. Op indicated clearly that payments were current until 2010 when 4 payments in a row were refused by electronic transfer. Whether that is true, there is no way to tell anymore than anything else that is said. It certainly is possible, and if true, there is evidence of that easily obtainable. But that still doesn’t make OP exempt from the payments. All correspondence about the financials should be in writing between those two exes as there is clearly a communication problem </p>
<p>The bottom line to all of this is that it’s really none of the OP’s business as to what is happening as he has been put out of the loop. He needs to pay what he is supposed to pay and make sure it is all documented. That he feels manipulated and deceived is understandable if indeed what was told to him was so told as it appears that some of it was totally untrue. But the child support still stands and if there is a college cost and the child did go to college which should be verified by documents sent directly from the college, he needs to pay what he agreed to pay. </p>
<p>This whole financial aid system for colleges is really quite complex. For someone first encountering it, the FAFSA/PROFILE situation is especially puzzling. The same with the way loans work. For someone just given pieces of the story, it can really be crazy. Especially when the pieces don’t add up. It’s none of OP’s business what the ex does in terms of taking out loans for college, but if there has been some true fraud in the statements; and I see no clear evidence of it though it’s possible, it’a always possible, it is certainly the OP’s business that his D is not involved in it. I see lots of possible manipulation, deception, gamesmanship but no outright fraud, and, yes, I am only going on what the OP says. Have to. Otherwise there is no issue at all. It’s all we have.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>There have been inconsistencies in what OP has says. First he says 10,000 in CS arrearage, now 10,000 per year. I find it hard to believe Dad doesnt know. If this is SM, I think it is relevant and not OT. I am certain you know more about finaid than I do, but I suspect I know more about divorce/CS than you do. It is not unheard of for Dad to misrepesent facts to new wife (OMG), resulting in stories that upon reflection do not make sense or are inconsistent. I am not apologizing.ever to anyone who is delinquent in CS. I am appalled that anyone on this thread wants to help OP, other than to say pay the CS and then come back here. </p></li>
<li><p>Post 54, the poster says OP should agree to pay in writing. Thats stupid. He has already agreed to pay.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>*The OP has filed the NCP Profile for the upcoming school year. If there is a notion of impropriety noted, the SCHOOL will make this determination. OP needs to also understand that students DO get NCP waivers one year…and not the next…for varieties of reasons. *</p>
<p>Very true…</p>
<p>However, the potential problem is that if the ex got the waiver by saying that the NCP refused to do the paperwork, refuses to support the student, etc, that could be a problem IF the NCP attempts to correct such statements. It would be one thing for the NCP to say…well, I’ve changed my mind, and now i will do forms/pay/etc. But, to expose his ex as a liar to the school is opening a big ole can of worms which could result in Jane hating her dad for the rest of his life. </p>
<p>At this point, the possible fact that the ex may have outright lied should not really be the big concern of the OP. His concern should be proceeding in a way that will not cause Jane to be hurt or disown him for causing trouble for her and/or her mom. The OP needs to realize that Jane is likely much, much, much closer to her mom than she is to him simply because the mom has been the custodial parent. And, if the divorce was long ago, then Jane’s loyalty to her mom may be very deep.</p>
<p>I disagree with some of you on a few subtle points. </p>
<p>1) What he was originally asking was whether he would be a party to the fraud if he paid for part of an education that was fraudulently obtained. I think that’s a fair and interesting question. I don’t know the answer to that one. Some of you attorneys probably do, but it’s not obvious to this layperson. </p>
<p>2) It could be that the ex was not accepting the child support payments electronically to avoid claiming them on the financial aid forms and then would ask for them by check later after the package was determined. If the ex was purporting a fraud, this could be part of it. </p>
<p>3) He had already filed the PROFILE without being asked, thereby nuking his ex’s attempt to claim a waiver that he was out of the picture. There is no evidence that this waiver was fraudulently obtained, but it might have been. Furthermore, he said that he would only pay his obligation based on the state tuition. Poor Jane was already hosed at this point. The net result is for the school to conclude that a) he is in the picture and b) he will not pay his fair share of the private, only half the state cost. THIS SPITEFUL AND VINDICTIVE ACT OCCURRED BEFORE HE GOT HERE. </p>
<p>4) What help have we given him, really, telling him to see an attorney for the first question,(for which he had to pay), telling him to pay his child support, telling him what a louse he is. </p>
<p>I agree wholeheartedly with cptofthehouse, that after it was clear that by paying what he owed, he wasn’t being a party to a fraud even if there was one, he should have kept out of it. It’s none of his business how much anybody else spends or borrows. Filling out the PROFILE before he was asked probably caused harm. </p>
<p>The rest of what we saw here is some pretty ugly stuff, I agree. </p>
<p>I think all kids deserve better parents, but such is life.</p>
<p>I agree with most all of what you’ve written, Classicrockerdad, without getting into labeling the actions, because, as you have written, there is a lot here we don’t know and can only guess. We gotta go by what the OP writes unless it is an something that is outright untrue. </p>
<p>I am not a lawyer and I don’t know anything what the rules are about fraud. That is a serious accusation and not one I would make without the facts right there. </p>
<p>When the OP gets his child support and college payments current, Jane will have more in terms of funds for college than many kids in this situation, and it was all made clear in the divorce decree. There was no question as to what she was going to get from NCP in her case. Child support while in college and 1/2 of SUNY tution. Yes, the college is going to expect more from the Dad via PROFILE but that isn’t his problem any more than it is for any parent who does not want to pay EFC. If Sue and Jane wanted to attempt to get through an expensive private school, that was their business, and the OP is only liable for the payments as outlined.</p>
<p>It appears that Sue decided that it would be easier to remove the NCP from the picture entirely by getting a PROFILE waiver. Whether the 2009 child support payments and the decree about the 1/2 of SUNY tution was reported, we can only speculate. There is nothing for the OP to report in terms of support on PROFILE because he did not pay any that year. But the school will go by what assets and income he has, not by the agreement.</p>
<p>I don’t know the rules for NCP PROFILE waivers, but I have a feeling that if the parent is paying support as he was in 2009 and has been active in the student’s life as he has said he was, and willing to complete PROFILE as he says he was and has done for 2010, that there is some deception here on part of Sue. It would be easier for most all divorced/separate families to just say the NCP won’t fill out the PROFILE and get a waiver, but that isn’t the way it works. None of us know how this waiver works, but I get the feeling that it does involve the NCP refusing to complete the PROFILE and if he was never even asked, that does pose a problem for Jane and Sue. </p>
<p>I mean, think about it, how much simpler it would make things if no one had to get a NCP PROFILE? Without it, none of the NCP’s income and assets cannot be taken into account as it is for all of the kids with divorced and separated parents who work within the system and have the danged form completed to their detriment. I know kids who knew that PROFILE schools were off limits for them pretty much because their NCP had more income/assets than s/he would want used to his payment request. They would have loved to have just not had the thing completed. And then there are the ones who have to beg, plead, bother the NCP to complete the PROFILE because s/he is dragging the feet. </p>
<p>And it seems to me, that this parent would feel the same as to what he is willing to pay for college regardless of whether he is NCP or primary. Many kids have intact families who have ability to pay and won’t or can’t despite financials that come up with a certain figure. We see so many posts of that sort. This gal had the advantage of knowing upfront what she was getting for the 4 years of college in writing. And it appears to me that they weren’t interested in sharing the info with the college to the point of not pushing those missing child support payments, with the ex possibly deliberately refusing them for 2010, that is, if the OP is tellling the truth. Yes, it was dumb and negligent for him to just quit paying after 4 payments were declined, but if he is not hiding any motions from them to get those payments, something is not right here, and now the ex wants the loan paid–not back child support and college money paid to her, but her PLUS loan paid. </p>
<p>Again, I am going by what is written as that is all we have.</p>
<p>There is a lot that OP has written to give us color. That he doesn’t want this kid going to a school he can not afford for his other kids. That he doesn’t want his Xwife incurring debt. Thats what he wrote. It clearly indicated he refuses to accept that his X can make her own decisions. And that is what he is willing to write on a board? Is there any wonder she might be willing to forgoe CS to avoid this guy? </p>
<p>I agree there may be situations where divorce leads to finaid fraud. I just don’t understand why in other threads people say walk away from it if not your problem, but here ?</p>
<p>
CS is for the child. It should not be about her (the ex).</p>
<p>I’m not looking at the color. I don’t care and neither do the other posters care how he FEELS abut the decision. Posters have been clear that it is none of his business and told him so. All he has to do is pay what he owes by decree. That’s it. And if he is perfectly willing to fill out PROFILE and fills it out, then that is his wife and kid’s problem, not his. He is supposed to do so, though no one would make him. That he was not even asked is an issue. If all NCPs refused to complete PROFILE and that is all it takes to get a waiver, then what a great loophole that would be for those who work it. And for the ones, who do what they are supposed to do and complete it? Their kids get assessed what the contribution calculation from it is. Something not right here, in my opinion. </p>
<p>I am just trying to address the facts and have no sympathy for the OP’s non payment of child support or his opinions about what his D and ex should and shouldn’t be doing.</p>
<p>And again, going by what the OP has posted, the child support was being paid as impersonally as possible–just by auto electronic payment. And then it suddenly was not being accepted. Took the OP 4 months to notice, and, yes, I can see that happening. Not good record and bill tracking, but if you’ve got these auto payment going out for a while, it’s easy just to take them for granted and not really take a close look. He should have shot off an e-mail, written a certified letter, done something to let the ex know the payments were not being accepted. So, there is blame and negligence here. But if the OP is not holding this back, the ex was not asking for the money either. Very strange. But not at all shy about asking for payment for that PLUS loan in 2011 rather than a check for the child support and tuition agreement. </p>
<p>The electronic payment made it easy to avoid dealing with the guy and new bank info should have been given if the ex changed banks. All could have been done by certified mail or email which would be on record. She is not avoiding the guy right now, she wants the payment to be made for her PLUS loan after a year and a half of not getting any and she specifically tells him not to complete the PROFILE. </p>
<p>Now of course all of this could be one big colorful story as any post could be or parts of it not true, essential facts left out, but as I keep stressing, we can only address the points as given to us.</p>
<p>Erin, I agree with you. Of course neither of know what is going on. But I do know the state will be glad to handle payments for a parent.</p>
<p>Cpt, NYS will be glad to take money and handle. Easy as can be.</p>
<p>If not paying child support is illegal, then is not accepting those payments for the benefit of the child also illegal?</p>
<p>I still believe that the OP started his research and took the actions he did for the sole purpose of getting Jane out of her current college for reasons of his own and the collateral damage was of no consequence to him. Like Kayf, I have personal experience and I am seeing all the warning signs and justifications used to cover up controlling, manipulative behavior. I can also understand why a mother and a now adult daughter would go to great lengths to get away from someone like that. It would just be so ideal if the financial aid professionals at Jane’s college got the same signals and worked out something for her. Heck, maybe they already have.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^Ahem. That would be me. And it was not “stupid.” Putting his statement in writing, as I suggested, does a few important things.</p>
<p>The foremost is this: it protects the OP from his alleged and, what I believe to be, disingenuous fear of being prosecuted for fraud based on his ex-wife’s actions. Do I believe he would be prosecuted for fraud anyway? No. Do I believe he is truly motivated by such a fear? No. But if he is speaking truthfully, and if he is truly afraid of being prosecuted for fraud by paying his legal obligation while his ex-wife files for an NCP waiver, then it will help him in any future proceedings to have his sentiments about that alleged fraud in writing. If he upholds his legal obligations while the ex-wife simultaneously tries to cheat the system, he will better be able to establish his disagreement with, innocence over, and genuine lack of control over what his ex-wife might decide to do. This was the MAIN reason I suggested in writing.</p>
<p>Secondly, if the OP could take my advice (and I dont believe he would or could), by saying what he supposedly believes (Im going to be honest about this whole thing and pay my legal share; I hope youll be honest too), he would ostensibly be internally relieved of the responsibility of lording his beliefs over his former wife. He will have just done all that HE is actually capable of doing stating his desires to his ex- and taking care of what he CAN control his OWN obligations. There is no further need to try to lord his desires over her to do so is futile and over-controlling. Reasonable, justly motivated people with good boundaries recognize this. They say what they want and then they have to let it go. All the satisfaction comes from saying what you hope for because thats all youre going to get.</p>
<p>And third, putting intentions in writing is always helpful and smart between parties who cannot seem to get on the same page. The ex-wife will have his intentions in writing and know where he stands – not merely his intentions to pay what he has always been legally obligated to pay, but also his intentions as to how he’s going to handle the college payments (directly to the daughter, to the ex-wife, to the college with the NCP waiver – perhaps this detail is already specified in the decree). This could alter the ex-wifes future actions, if she was going to do anything unethical, as she will have been forewarned in writing. The OP can be reminded of his recent commitments that are once again in black and white. The now-adult daughter will know where she stands in terms of what is available and coming to her, as well as what each of her parents is willing or unwilling to do. All parties have clear communication, in writing, versus a he-said/she-said situation. Should Janes life be thrown asunder by this mess, shell be less confused as to how she got there.</p>
<p>I did not intend to imply that by putting things “in writing” the OP will magically keep his commitments. I know much better than that.</p>
<p>I happen to know a lot about divorce and NCP waivers. All of my own kids have had NCP waivers since the oldest applied for college. I have never lied or gamed the system to get them. I know how they work. I know what a huge host of schools require in regards to them. (Ive probably gotten them from about 25-30 private schools over time.) I know also, as a matter of fact, that there ARE schools whose websites say they require them only to find out, when actually trying to file for one, that they are NOT in fact required! (That one was a surprise.) For a lot of schools, NCPs are not very easily obtained (though we have been awarded one by every school to which we have applied).</p>
<p>whoops. Can’t edit my message properly! So I’ll delete it instead.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well said, cpt. I agree completely. It’s good to recognize when we’re viewing a post through the filter of our own experiences and biases, and perhaps step back a bit to look at the larger picture. Not always easy, of course.</p>
<p>What’s interesting to me is that when one parent is expressing a belief that another parent is taking on way too much debt, debt that might be crippling in the long term, this is most often taken as a realistic concern. In this thread’s case it’s taken as being controling. I’d be concerned if my ex were taking on what I view to be an unsupportable amount of debt in order to pay for my sons’ colleges. It’s his choice, of course, and I could let it go, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t still be concerned.</p>
<p>OP is a year and a half late on his child support. He had better start paying, not saying he’s going to pay. In his case, he should go to NY State and forward the payments there so that there is no problem of the ex not cashing checks or claiming she didn;t get payment. I think that is an excellent idea. </p>
<p>Maybe he is trying to sabotage things and is making up a smoke screen. Doesn’t matter. Still stuck paying the child support and the college amount as stated in the divorce decree. It’s not as though he has to pay any more because the D is going to a more expensive school. His support is capped and fixed. And he got away without filling out PROFILE for a year and doesn’t have to fill out this year either. It’s a pain in the neck to fill out that form… But he should. There is a moral, societal reason he should. Because he either foolishly, or maliciously did not pay child support for a year and a half, he now is in danger of being hauled to court and sued for it, interest, fines and attornies. Hope he has the money stashed somewhere , because if he nibbled away at it, it’s going to be tough to come up with all of that plus the college payment. </p>
<p>So yes, it is possible that he is just being spiteful that his D didn’t leave her custodial mom to go live with step mom, him and 4 kids and commute to go to a state college in a area that is not home to her and not on her list of places to go, colleges to atttend. Because of that he wants to pull the rug out from under her and the ex. </p>
<p>If that is so, he certainly did it in a stupid way… Now he has reinforced any image of deadbeat dad on record since he didn’t pay a cent of child support in 2010. If anything, that supports getting a waiver for his PROFILE… Had he paid it, there would be some difficulty in casting him as a non participating parent. But now there is proof positive. Didn’t pay court ordered money. He has given merit to anything his ex has said about him to get the waiver. He’s actually helped them out, intentionally or not.</p>
<p>But for the future, it is certainly not right for him to stash the child support payments to pay after college or pay off Sue’s PLUS loans so that Jane gets more aid. THAT is fraud. </p>
<p>None of this really matters. The bottom line is that he has to pay what he owes. The school has to make the decision as whether this deadbeat dad’s PROFILE which will clearly show no child support paid should be waived or not. Whatever he pays in 2011, will impact the 2012-13 financial aid award. Hopefully, Sue banks it and uses it towards the school bill and that it is sufficient. Maybe Jane’ s school is generous about NCP waivers.</p>
<p>This thread really isn’t about the OP and his issue anymore, as far as I am concerned, since I think his situation has been well discussed. I was a bit taken aback by how some posters responded with assumptions. Yes, I could come up with a lot of assumptions too. As I posted above, it certainly did not escape me that the poster could have been trying to go on a vendetta. But I don’t think that is the way we should approach questions asked. To make the assumption that someone is being mean spirited or cheating or lying just because your experience has shown that cases like the one given has been that way, is wrong, unless there is some factual evidence there. In this case, that the child support was delinquent, is something that had to be addressed since it was according to the OP. He did not have to tell the truth about it. He could have said, no, true or not, and we’d have no way of knowing. That he said, it was, and gave the time period and circumstance makes it an item to address. Not a good thing for him, in this case. So why harp on it and make it a thread about child support? No one is giving him an inch on that issue either. He has to pay it or had penalties on the line regardless of whether his ex had it returned to him. </p>
<p>Where it starts going OT is when posters start attacking others, particularly the OP for things that have nothing to do with the situation. So what if his name is can be male or female, but is usually female. One of my kids’ has a name like that. So do a number of folks I know. Why suddenly accusing the OP that he is a she and is the step mom? Where do you get that? Maybe it is true, but not relevant and not provable. and hurtful if not true. It is not right to assume base motives and accuse that way just because that has been your experience when there is not the solid evidence to support it. If the OP on any thread is lying or has base motives, it still should not change the answer to the question at hand. Others who are reading this forum may genuinely want an answer to the question and not have any such garbage. The questions are valid even if the intent, the poster, the facts are not. We cannot tell if someone is a ■■■■■ unless the question is truly inflammatory in which case, let’s not be a big fat billy goat walking across that bridge. Many trollish questions are valid ones.</p>