"Child Support" money?

[Chris]

Family kourt forces a man to give "child support" cash to the woman. She
uses such proceeds to purchase lottery tickets, alcoholic beverages,
cigarettes, gifts for her lover, and bon bons. How is this "child support"
money?

[Gini52]

In article <jPtsb.10$6G3.8@fed1read06>, Chris says...
>
>Family kourt forces a man to give "child support" cash to the woman. She
>uses such proceeds to purchase lottery tickets, alcoholic beverages,
>cigarettes, gifts for her lover, and bon bons. How is this "child support"
>money?
===
It's the "trickle down" effect--You know, "Reaganomics." In the case of middle
income dads, the presumption is that if you give them (CPs) way more than they
need, there is a greater chance that enough will "trickle down" to the kids to
keep them from starving. Note: This does not include CS ordered to low income
dads that does not meet the basic needs of the child or upper income dads who
are not subject to CS guidelines.
===
===
>
>

[Jon]

So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
drink?

FYI. Child support "dollars" can be spent on anything the CP wants,
as long as they have already had to beg, borrow or steal from others to make
up the the deadbeat's share before he decided to pay.


"Gini52" > wrote in message
...
> In article <jPtsb.10$6G3.8@fed1read06>, Chris says...
> >
> >Family kourt forces a man to give "child support" cash to the woman. She
> >uses such proceeds to purchase lottery tickets, alcoholic beverages,
> >cigarettes, gifts for her lover, and bon bons. How is this "child
support"
> >money?
> ===
> It's the "trickle down" effect--You know, "Reaganomics." In the case of
middle
> income dads, the presumption is that if you give them (CPs) way more than
they
> need, there is a greater chance that enough will "trickle down" to the
kids to
> keep them from starving. Note: This does not include CS ordered to low
income
> dads that does not meet the basic needs of the child or upper income dads
who
> are not subject to CS guidelines.
> ===
> ===
> >
> >
>

[Dave]

"Jon" > wrote in message
news:Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01...
> So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
> drink?
>

Child support should not be used for anything other than for supporting the
child.

> FYI. Child support "dollars" can be spent on anything the CP
wants,
> as long as they have already had to beg, borrow or steal from others to
make
> up the the deadbeat's share before he decided to pay.
>

Real nice, labeling all fathers as deadbeats.

With the number of comcast email accounts you are now using and the level of
usenet abuse to this NG it is only a matter of time before your account is
suspended for TOS violation.

>
> "Gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <jPtsb.10$6G3.8@fed1read06>, Chris says...
> > >
> > >Family kourt forces a man to give "child support" cash to the woman.
She
> > >uses such proceeds to purchase lottery tickets, alcoholic beverages,
> > >cigarettes, gifts for her lover, and bon bons. How is this "child
> support"
> > >money?
> > ===
> > It's the "trickle down" effect--You know, "Reaganomics." In the case of
> middle
> > income dads, the presumption is that if you give them (CPs) way more
than
> they
> > need, there is a greater chance that enough will "trickle down" to the
> kids to
> > keep them from starving. Note: This does not include CS ordered to low
> income
> > dads that does not meet the basic needs of the child or upper income
dads
> who
> > are not subject to CS guidelines.
> > ===
> > ===
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

[Gini52]

In article <Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01>, Jon says...
>
>So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
>drink?

====
Well, how about if the NCP tells the judge he can't pay that much because he
needs a drink and a lottery ticket?
====

>FYI. Child support "dollars" can be spent on anything the CP wants,
>as long as they have already had to beg, borrow or steal from others to make
>up the the deadbeat's share before he decided to pay.

====
FYI. You are wrong. "Child support dollars can be spent on anything the CP
wants" as long as the children aren't starving. She can squander on time
payments just as easily as late payments.
===
===

[Jon]

So it abuse to have an opinion different from yours deadbeat?


"Dave" <dave@freedoms-door> wrote in message
...
>
> "Jon" > wrote in message
> news:Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01...
> > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
> > drink?
> >
>
> Child support should not be used for anything other than for supporting
the
> child.
>
> > FYI. Child support "dollars" can be spent on anything the CP
> wants,
> > as long as they have already had to beg, borrow or steal from others to
> make
> > up the the deadbeat's share before he decided to pay.
> >
>
> Real nice, labeling all fathers as deadbeats.
>
> With the number of comcast email accounts you are now using and the level
of
> usenet abuse to this NG it is only a matter of time before your account is
> suspended for TOS violation.
>
> >
> > "Gini52" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article <jPtsb.10$6G3.8@fed1read06>, Chris says...
> > > >
> > > >Family kourt forces a man to give "child support" cash to the woman.
> She
> > > >uses such proceeds to purchase lottery tickets, alcoholic beverages,
> > > >cigarettes, gifts for her lover, and bon bons. How is this "child
> > support"
> > > >money?
> > > ===
> > > It's the "trickle down" effect--You know, "Reaganomics." In the case
of
> > middle
> > > income dads, the presumption is that if you give them (CPs) way more
> than
> > they
> > > need, there is a greater chance that enough will "trickle down" to the
> > kids to
> > > keep them from starving. Note: This does not include CS ordered to low
> > income
> > > dads that does not meet the basic needs of the child or upper income
> dads
> > who
> > > are not subject to CS guidelines.
> > > ===
> > > ===
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Cameron Stevens]

"Dave" <dave@freedoms-door> wrote in message
...
>
> "Jon" > wrote in message
> news:Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01...
> > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
> > drink?
> >
>
> Child support should not be used for anything other than for supporting
the
> child.

Supporting the mother *is* supporting the child. I know what you mean but
there's no sane or reasonable way to enforce this.

[The Dave©]

> Jon wrote:
> So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
> drink?
>
> FYI. Child support "dollars" can be spent on anything the CP
> wants, as long as they have already had to beg, borrow or steal from
> others to make up the the deadbeat's share before he decided to pay.

So, you admit that CS is really general income for the CP (read:
mother), and should be taxed accordingly?

[Moon Shyne]

"Dave" <dave@freedoms-door> wrote in message
...
>
> "Jon" > wrote in message
> news:Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01...
> > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
> > drink?
> >
>
> Child support should not be used for anything other than for supporting the
> child.

So I use the child support to support the children, and buy my lottery ticket
with my own money.

Now........... how can you tell which dollar was which? They all look the same.

>
> > FYI. Child support "dollars" can be spent on anything the CP
> wants,
> > as long as they have already had to beg, borrow or steal from others to
> make
> > up the the deadbeat's share before he decided to pay.
> >
>
> Real nice, labeling all fathers as deadbeats.
>
> With the number of comcast email accounts you are now using and the level of
> usenet abuse to this NG it is only a matter of time before your account is
> suspended for TOS violation.
>
> >
> > "Gini52" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article <jPtsb.10$6G3.8@fed1read06>, Chris says...
> > > >
> > > >Family kourt forces a man to give "child support" cash to the woman.
> She
> > > >uses such proceeds to purchase lottery tickets, alcoholic beverages,
> > > >cigarettes, gifts for her lover, and bon bons. How is this "child
> > support"
> > > >money?
> > > ===
> > > It's the "trickle down" effect--You know, "Reaganomics." In the case of
> > middle
> > > income dads, the presumption is that if you give them (CPs) way more
> than
> > they
> > > need, there is a greater chance that enough will "trickle down" to the
> > kids to
> > > keep them from starving. Note: This does not include CS ordered to low
> > income
> > > dads that does not meet the basic needs of the child or upper income
> dads
> > who
> > > are not subject to CS guidelines.
> > > ===
> > > ===
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Gini52]

In article >, Cameron Stevens
says...
>
>
>"Dave" <dave@freedoms-door> wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Jon" > wrote in message
>> news:Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01...
>> > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
>> > drink?
>> >
>>
>> Child support should not be used for anything other than for supporting
>the
>> child.
>
>Supporting the mother *is* supporting the child. I know what you mean but
>there's no sane or reasonable way to enforce this.
=====
Of course there is. Our government requires us to maintain receipts for all tax
deductions for, what--7 years? We call it insane and unreasonable but the
government has no problem requiring us to do it. There is no reason a CP should
not be subject to audit if there is reason to believe CS is being misused. All
she needs to do is keep a shoebox for receipts should there be a question. This
would not apply however, if the amount ordered is in line with the actual
reasonable costs of a child. In that case, there is little room for
"discretionary spending."
==
==

[Gini52]

In article >, Moon Shyne says...
>
>
>"Dave" <dave@freedoms-door> wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Jon" > wrote in message
>> news:Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01...
>> > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
>> > drink?
>> >
>>
>> Child support should not be used for anything other than for supporting the
>> child.
>
>So I use the child support to support the children, and buy my lottery ticket
>with my own money.
>
>Now........... how can you tell which dollar was which? They all look the same.
=====
The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
=====
=====

[The Dave©]

> Gini52 wrote:
> >Supporting the mother is supporting the child. I know what you mean
> but >there's no sane or reasonable way to enforce this.
> =====
> Of course there is. Our government requires us to maintain receipts
> for all tax deductions for, what--7 years? We call it insane and
> unreasonable but the government has no problem requiring us to do it.
> There is no reason a CP should not be subject to audit if there is
> reason to believe CS is being misused. All she needs to do is keep a
> shoebox for receipts should there be a question. This would not apply
> however, if the amount ordered is in line with the actual reasonable
> costs of a child. In that case, there is little room for
> "discretionary spending." ==
> ==

Trying to be reasonable here, but if we did do this (and I think we
should), I would not expect 100% of CS to be literally directly applied
to the child. Something along the lines of 75% to 80% would be fine
with me. Factor in (real) costs in housing, etc., also.

[Gini52]

In article >, The Dave© says...
>
>> Gini52 wrote:
>> >Supporting the mother is supporting the child. I know what you mean
>> but >there's no sane or reasonable way to enforce this.
>> =====
>> Of course there is. Our government requires us to maintain receipts
>> for all tax deductions for, what--7 years? We call it insane and
>> unreasonable but the government has no problem requiring us to do it.
>> There is no reason a CP should not be subject to audit if there is
>> reason to believe CS is being misused. All she needs to do is keep a
>> shoebox for receipts should there be a question. This would not apply
>> however, if the amount ordered is in line with the actual reasonable
>> costs of a child. In that case, there is little room for
>> "discretionary spending." ==
>> ==
>
>Trying to be reasonable here, but if we did do this (and I think we
>should), I would not expect 100% of CS to be literally directly applied
>to the child. Something along the lines of 75% to 80% would be fine
>with me. Factor in (real) costs in housing, etc., also.
====
I agree. Only the "lifestyle" support (the amount of money ordered that exceeds
the ordinary costs of a child) should be accounted for. This is not difficult.
In fact, it is quite simple. It is only "unreasonable and outrageous" for those
who prefer not to disclose how they spend the money. If the state is going to
mandate a lifestyle, it is only logical that the state mandate the lifestyle be
maintained.
====
====

[Cameron Stevens]

"Gini52" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Cameron Stevens
> says...
> >Supporting the mother *is* supporting the child. I know what you mean but
> >there's no sane or reasonable way to enforce this.
> =====
> Of course there is. Our government requires us to maintain receipts for
all tax
> deductions for, what--7 years? We call it insane and unreasonable but the
> government has no problem requiring us to do it. There is no reason a CP
should
> not be subject to audit if there is reason to believe CS is being misused.
All
> she needs to do is keep a shoebox for receipts should there be a question.
This
> would not apply however, if the amount ordered is in line with the actual
> reasonable costs of a child. In that case, there is little room for
> "discretionary spending."
> ==

I agree with the principle and I know this will be a challenge for those
people who are especially challenged to budget or manage their money.

Cameron

[Gini52]

In article >, Cameron Stevens
says...
>
>
>"Gini52" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, Cameron Stevens
>> says...
>> >Supporting the mother *is* supporting the child. I know what you mean but
>> >there's no sane or reasonable way to enforce this.
>> =====
>> Of course there is. Our government requires us to maintain receipts for
>all tax
>> deductions for, what--7 years? We call it insane and unreasonable but the
>> government has no problem requiring us to do it. There is no reason a CP
>should
>> not be subject to audit if there is reason to believe CS is being misused.
>All
>> she needs to do is keep a shoebox for receipts should there be a question.
>This
>> would not apply however, if the amount ordered is in line with the actual
>> reasonable costs of a child. In that case, there is little room for
>> "discretionary spending."
>> ==
>
>I agree with the principle and I know this will be a challenge for those
>people who are especially challenged to budget or manage their money.
===
Might I suggest that it isn't "their money?" Therein lies the contention with
the system. The money for which "we" are requesting an accounting is money that
one parent gave to the other parent exclusively for the financial needs of the
child. At no time does this money belong to the CP (in theory :-). Curious isn't
it that monies seen by the state (& the CP) as the CPs' is all theoretical--it
is only the money of the NCP that is a legal mandate.
===
===
>
>Cameron
>
>

[Tiffany]

Gini52 > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Moon Shyne
says...
> >
> >
> >"Dave" <dave@freedoms-door> wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> "Jon" > wrote in message
> >> news:Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01...
> >> > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take
a
> >> > drink?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Child support should not be used for anything other than for supporting
the
> >> child.
> >
> >So I use the child support to support the children, and buy my lottery
ticket
> >with my own money.
> >
> >Now........... how can you tell which dollar was which? They all look
the same.
> =====
> The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
> =====
> =====
>

But then comes into play that you can show a receipt for a food bill but
can't say for sure who eats the food. You can buy clothes, show a receipt
but not now for sure who the clothes were bought for. I know for
infants/toddlers it may state on the receipt that the clothes were of that
general size but what about when your kid gets older? My daughter wears
about the same size clothes as me. There is a way around everything.... just
as business people know how to get around the IRS and claim stuff that
shouldn't be claimed.

T

[Moon Shyne]

"Gini52" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Moon Shyne says...
> >
> >
> >"Dave" <dave@freedoms-door> wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> "Jon" > wrote in message
> >> news:Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01...
> >> > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
> >> > drink?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Child support should not be used for anything other than for supporting the
> >> child.
> >
> >So I use the child support to support the children, and buy my lottery ticket
> >with my own money.
> >
> >Now........... how can you tell which dollar was which? They all look the
same.
> =====
> The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.

So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some other place
where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream from the ice cream truck
because they don't issue receipts?

> =====
> =====
>

[Tiffany]

Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, Moon Shyne
says...
> > >
> > >
> > >"Dave" <dave@freedoms-door> wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>
> > >> "Jon" > wrote in message
> > >> news:Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01...
> > >> > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or
take a
> > >> > drink?
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Child support should not be used for anything other than for
supporting the
> > >> child.
> > >
> > >So I use the child support to support the children, and buy my lottery
ticket
> > >with my own money.
> > >
> > >Now........... how can you tell which dollar was which? They all look
the
> same.
> > =====
> > The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
>
> So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some other
place
> where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream from the ice cream
truck
> because they don't issue receipts?
>
> > =====
> > =====
> >
>
>

You think those things are necessities that your x should be paying for?

T

[Gini52]

In article >, Moon Shyne says...
>
>
>"Gini52" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, Moon Shyne says...
>> >
>> >
>> >"Dave" <dave@freedoms-door> wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >> "Jon" > wrote in message
>> >> news:Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01...
>> >> > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
>> >> > drink?
>> >> >
>> >>
>>>> Child support should not be used for anything other than for supporting the
>> >> child.
>> >
>>>So I use the child support to support the children, and buy my lottery ticket
>> >with my own money.
>> >
>> >Now........... how can you tell which dollar was which? They all look the
>same.
>> =====
>> The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
>
>So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some other place
>where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream from the ice cream truck
>because they don't issue receipts?
====
Yep. It comes from your percent share. (My proposal is, however, that only the
amount over reasonable actual expenses should be subject to accounting.)
====
====


>

[The Dave©]

> Tiffany wrote:
> But then comes into play that you can show a receipt for a food bill
> but can't say for sure who eats the food. You can buy clothes, show a
> receipt but not now for sure who the clothes were bought for. I know
> for infants/toddlers it may state on the receipt that the clothes
> were of that general size but what about when your kid gets older? My
> daughter wears about the same size clothes as me. There is a way
> around everything.... just as business people know how to get around
> the IRS and claim stuff that shouldn't be claimed.
>
> T

Yes, there is a way around everything, but it would still help. We're
changing our money to help thwart counterfieters, we don't just throw
our hands up and give in. Same thing here.

[The Dave©]

> Moon Shyne wrote:
> > The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
>
> So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some
> other place where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream
> from the ice cream truck because they don't issue receipts?

Apparently not. If you are so selfish with your own money that you
can't spring for an ice cream, this will be a problem, won't it?

[Gini52]

In article >, Tiffany says...
>
>
>Gini52 > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, Moon Shyne
>says...
>> >
>> >
>> >"Dave" <dave@freedoms-door> wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >> "Jon" > wrote in message
>> >> news:Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01...
>> >> > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take
>a
>> >> > drink?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Child support should not be used for anything other than for supporting
>the
>> >> child.
>> >
>> >So I use the child support to support the children, and buy my lottery
>ticket
>> >with my own money.
>> >
>> >Now........... how can you tell which dollar was which? They all look
>the same.
>> =====
>> The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
>> =====
>> =====
>>
>
>But then comes into play that you can show a receipt for a food bill but
>can't say for sure who eats the food. You can buy clothes, show a receipt
>but not now for sure who the clothes were bought for. I know for
>infants/toddlers it may state on the receipt that the clothes were of that
>general size but what about when your kid gets older? My daughter wears
>about the same size clothes as me. There is a way around everything.... just
>as business people know how to get around the IRS and claim stuff that
>shouldn't be claimed.
>
>T
======
Soooooo....what you're saying is that because some people cheat on their taxes,
CPs should not be subject to accounting for CS? :-)

Look, this is not difficult. I'm not proposing that necessities be accounted
for. Food, clothing, shelter would be allotted at a fixed rate for the
jurisdiction (as is done for foster kids). The extras should be accounted for
(lifestyle). If the CP is going to claim the child is taking riding and dance
lessons, the receipts for those payments should be in the box. If the child
gives up dance and takes up drums, the receipts should be in the box. If the
child's clothing desires are in excess of the base allotment, the receipts go in
the box. There must be a standard of what expenses are anticipated for the
child. It happens in virtually every other area of financial management.
===
===
>
>

[Fighting For Kids]

That would be an extreme amount of Americans!!!!!

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:19:21 -0500, "Cameron Stevens"
> wrote:

>
>"Gini52" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, Cameron Stevens
>> says...
>> >Supporting the mother *is* supporting the child. I know what you mean but
>> >there's no sane or reasonable way to enforce this.
>> =====
>> Of course there is. Our government requires us to maintain receipts for
>all tax
>> deductions for, what--7 years? We call it insane and unreasonable but the
>> government has no problem requiring us to do it. There is no reason a CP
>should
>> not be subject to audit if there is reason to believe CS is being misused.
>All
>> she needs to do is keep a shoebox for receipts should there be a question.
>This
>> would not apply however, if the amount ordered is in line with the actual
>> reasonable costs of a child. In that case, there is little room for
>> "discretionary spending."
>> ==
>
>I agree with the principle and I know this will be a challenge for those
>people who are especially challenged to budget or manage their money.
>
>Cameron
>

[Fighting For Kids]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:45:28 -0500, "Tiffany"
> wrote:


>> > =====
>> > The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
>>
>> So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some other
>place
>> where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream from the ice cream
>truck
>> because they don't issue receipts?
>>
>> > =====
>> > =====

>
>You think those things are necessities that your x should be paying for?
>
>T
>
It could be.. if the street fair is selling school supplies cheaper
than walmart and you buy them there isnt that still spending money on
the child's basic needs?

I can think of all kinds of necessity items one could by at a street
fair vs a store. All brand new items often less expensive than at
the stores themselves.

[Fighting For Kids]

On 12 Nov 2003 18:45:30 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:


>====
>Yep. It comes from your percent share. (My proposal is, however, that only the
>amount over reasonable actual expenses should be subject to accounting.)
>====
>====


But what is a reasonable amount? Not one person here has agreed to any
amount proposed.

[Tiffany]

Gini52 > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Tiffany says...
> >
> >
> >Gini52 > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article >, Moon Shyne
> >says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Dave" <dave@freedoms-door> wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Jon" > wrote in message
> >> >> news:Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01...
> >> >> > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or
take
> >a
> >> >> > drink?
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Child support should not be used for anything other than for
supporting
> >the
> >> >> child.
> >> >
> >> >So I use the child support to support the children, and buy my lottery
> >ticket
> >> >with my own money.
> >> >
> >> >Now........... how can you tell which dollar was which? They all look
> >the same.
> >> =====
> >> The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
> >> =====
> >> =====
> >>
> >
> >But then comes into play that you can show a receipt for a food bill but
> >can't say for sure who eats the food. You can buy clothes, show a receipt
> >but not now for sure who the clothes were bought for. I know for
> >infants/toddlers it may state on the receipt that the clothes were of
that
> >general size but what about when your kid gets older? My daughter wears
> >about the same size clothes as me. There is a way around everything....
just
> >as business people know how to get around the IRS and claim stuff that
> >shouldn't be claimed.
> >
> >T
> ======
> Soooooo....what you're saying is that because some people cheat on their
taxes,
> CPs should not be subject to accounting for CS? :-)
>
> Look, this is not difficult. I'm not proposing that necessities be
accounted
> for. Food, clothing, shelter would be allotted at a fixed rate for the
> jurisdiction (as is done for foster kids). The extras should be accounted
for
> (lifestyle). If the CP is going to claim the child is taking riding and
dance
> lessons, the receipts for those payments should be in the box. If the
child
> gives up dance and takes up drums, the receipts should be in the box. If
the
> child's clothing desires are in excess of the base allotment, the receipts
go in
> the box. There must be a standard of what expenses are anticipated for the
> child. It happens in virtually every other area of financial management.
> ===
> ===
> >
> >
>

I agree there needs to be accountability like you. But that is something
that will end up in the hands of the government (like the whole cs thing)
and surely would be just as corrupt. Shame, isn't it? I also don't think
that CS should be awarded over what is necessary so that would eliminate
accounting for the extra's. :)

T

[Tiffany]

The Dave© > wrote in message
...
> > Moon Shyne wrote:
> > > The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
> >
> > So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some
> > other place where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream
> > from the ice cream truck because they don't issue receipts?
>
> Apparently not. If you are so selfish with your own money that you
> can't spring for an ice cream, this will be a problem, won't it?

Well, I don't think it should be a nickel-dime thing. CP's should be
accountable for the large sums of money that doesn't seem to go to the kids,
not a mere $2.50 for an ice cream.

T

[Gini52]

In article >, Fighting For Kids
says...
>
>On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:45:28 -0500, "Tiffany"
> wrote:
>
>
>>> > =====
>>> > The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
>>>
>>> So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some other
>>place
>>> where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream from the ice cream
>>truck
>>> because they don't issue receipts?
>>>
>>> > =====
>>> > =====
>
>>
>>You think those things are necessities that your x should be paying for?
>>
>>T
>>
>It could be.. if the street fair is selling school supplies cheaper
>than walmart and you buy them there isnt that still spending money on
>the child's basic needs?
>
>I can think of all kinds of necessity items one could by at a street
>fair vs a store. All brand new items often less expensive than at
>the stores themselves.
=====
Logic dictates that incidental spending be attributable to the CP's percent
share. The NCP is not responsible for the entire financial output for the
child(ren). Y'all didn't forget about that part, did you?
=====
=====

[Tiffany]

Gini52 > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Tiffany says...
> >
> >
> >Gini52 > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article >, Moon Shyne
> >says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Dave" <dave@freedoms-door> wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Jon" > wrote in message
> >> >> news:Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01...
> >> >> > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or
take
> >a
> >> >> > drink?
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Child support should not be used for anything other than for
supporting
> >the
> >> >> child.
> >> >
> >> >So I use the child support to support the children, and buy my lottery
> >ticket
> >> >with my own money.
> >> >
> >> >Now........... how can you tell which dollar was which? They all look
> >the same.
> >> =====
> >> The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
> >> =====
> >> =====
> >>
> >
> >But then comes into play that you can show a receipt for a food bill but
> >can't say for sure who eats the food. You can buy clothes, show a receipt
> >but not now for sure who the clothes were bought for. I know for
> >infants/toddlers it may state on the receipt that the clothes were of
that
> >general size but what about when your kid gets older? My daughter wears
> >about the same size clothes as me. There is a way around everything....
just
> >as business people know how to get around the IRS and claim stuff that
> >shouldn't be claimed.
> >
> >T
> ======
> Soooooo....what you're saying is that because some people cheat on their
taxes,
> CPs should not be subject to accounting for CS? :-)
>
> Look, this is not difficult. I'm not proposing that necessities be
accounted
> for. Food, clothing, shelter would be allotted at a fixed rate for the
> jurisdiction (as is done for foster kids). The extras should be accounted
for
> (lifestyle). If the CP is going to claim the child is taking riding and
dance
> lessons, the receipts for those payments should be in the box. If the
child
> gives up dance and takes up drums, the receipts should be in the box. If
the
> child's clothing desires are in excess of the base allotment, the receipts
go in
> the box. There must be a standard of what expenses are anticipated for the
> child. It happens in virtually every other area of financial management.
> ===
> ===
> >
> >
>

Actually, I just wanted to add, I do think a CP should be able to prove in
one way or another where any money goes. If my ex WAS sending his money, I
could definitely show that it went to pay for part of my daughter's braces,
that part of it went to pay for her clothes she needs or the other 'stuff'
she always seems to need. Its not a complicated task. He definitely couldn't
say the money wasn't going to her. But there in lies the problem that is
stated over and over again in here...... most NCP's are paying outrageous
amounts, while me and him set a fair amount we both agreed on. In the end it
didn't matter but that is for another time. lol

T

[Gini52]

In article >, Fighting For Kids
says...
>
>On 12 Nov 2003 18:45:30 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:
>
>
>>====
>>Yep. It comes from your percent share. (My proposal is, however, that only the
>>amount over reasonable actual expenses should be subject to accounting.)
>>====
>>====
>
>
>But what is a reasonable amount? Not one person here has agreed to any
>amount proposed.
====
I have repeatedly suggested that a reasonable amount is commensurate with the
amount states pay for foster children. This includes regional COL variances.
====
====

[Gini52]

In article >, Tiffany says...
>
>
>Gini52 > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, Tiffany says...
>> >
>> >
>> >Gini52 > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> In article >, Moon Shyne
>> >says...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"Dave" <dave@freedoms-door> wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Jon" > wrote in message
>> >> >> news:Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01...
>> >> >> > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or
>take
>> >a
>> >> >> > drink?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Child support should not be used for anything other than for
>supporting
>> >the
>> >> >> child.
>> >> >
>> >> >So I use the child support to support the children, and buy my lottery
>> >ticket
>> >> >with my own money.
>> >> >
>> >> >Now........... how can you tell which dollar was which? They all look
>> >the same.
>> >> =====
>> >> The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
>> >> =====
>> >> =====
>> >>
>> >
>> >But then comes into play that you can show a receipt for a food bill but
>> >can't say for sure who eats the food. You can buy clothes, show a receipt
>> >but not now for sure who the clothes were bought for. I know for
>> >infants/toddlers it may state on the receipt that the clothes were of
>that
>> >general size but what about when your kid gets older? My daughter wears
>> >about the same size clothes as me. There is a way around everything....
>just
>> >as business people know how to get around the IRS and claim stuff that
>> >shouldn't be claimed.
>> >
>> >T
>> ======
>> Soooooo....what you're saying is that because some people cheat on their
>taxes,
>> CPs should not be subject to accounting for CS? :-)
>>
>> Look, this is not difficult. I'm not proposing that necessities be
>accounted
>> for. Food, clothing, shelter would be allotted at a fixed rate for the
>> jurisdiction (as is done for foster kids). The extras should be accounted
>for
>> (lifestyle). If the CP is going to claim the child is taking riding and
>dance
>> lessons, the receipts for those payments should be in the box. If the
>child
>> gives up dance and takes up drums, the receipts should be in the box. If
>the
>> child's clothing desires are in excess of the base allotment, the receipts
>go in
>> the box. There must be a standard of what expenses are anticipated for the
>> child. It happens in virtually every other area of financial management.
>> ===
>> ===
>> >
I agree there needs to be accountability like you. But that is something
>that will end up in the hands of the government (like the whole cs thing)
>and surely would be just as corrupt. Shame, isn't it? I also don't think
>that CS should be awarded over what is necessary so that would eliminate
>accounting for the extra's. :)
>
>T
====
Exactly. If the state doesn't want to provide a system of accounting for
lifestyle support, it has no business awarding it in the first place.
====
===
>
>

[Fighting For Kids]

On 12 Nov 2003 19:01:04 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:


>>
>>But then comes into play that you can show a receipt for a food bill but
>>can't say for sure who eats the food. You can buy clothes, show a receipt
>>but not now for sure who the clothes were bought for. I know for
>>infants/toddlers it may state on the receipt that the clothes were of that
>>general size but what about when your kid gets older? My daughter wears
>>about the same size clothes as me. There is a way around everything.... just
>>as business people know how to get around the IRS and claim stuff that
>>shouldn't be claimed.
>>
>>T
>======
>Soooooo....what you're saying is that because some people cheat on their taxes,
>CPs should not be subject to accounting for CS? :-)
>
>Look, this is not difficult. I'm not proposing that necessities be accounted
>for. Food, clothing, shelter would be allotted at a fixed rate for the
>jurisdiction (as is done for foster kids). The extras should be accounted for
>(lifestyle). If the CP is going to claim the child is taking riding and dance
>lessons, the receipts for those payments should be in the box. If the child
>gives up dance and takes up drums, the receipts should be in the box. If the
>child's clothing desires are in excess of the base allotment, the receipts go in
>the box. There must be a standard of what expenses are anticipated for the
>child. It happens in virtually every other area of financial management.
>===
>===
>


What is a reasonable amount for necessities? The low amounts set by
the cheap governmentt and their budget allotment to foster care
programs or on actual costs of raising a child. The government doesnt
just figure that these foster kids should get x amount because thats
what it costs, they look at their budget for foster care programs and
say based on our budget we can afford to pay x amount per child.

[Dave]

"Jon" > wrote in message
news:Eqzsb.136270$ao4.428012@attbi_s51...
> So it abuse to have an opinion different from yours deadbeat?
>

Spamming this newsgroup with multiple accounts is.

>
> "Dave" <dave@freedoms-door> wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jon" > wrote in message
> > news:Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01...
> > > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
> > > drink?
> > >
> >
> > Child support should not be used for anything other than for supporting
> the
> > child.
> >
> > > FYI. Child support "dollars" can be spent on anything the CP
> > wants,
> > > as long as they have already had to beg, borrow or steal from others
to
> > make
> > > up the the deadbeat's share before he decided to pay.
> > >
> >
> > Real nice, labeling all fathers as deadbeats.
> >
> > With the number of comcast email accounts you are now using and the
level
> of
> > usenet abuse to this NG it is only a matter of time before your account
is
> > suspended for TOS violation.
> >
> > >
> > > "Gini52" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article <jPtsb.10$6G3.8@fed1read06>, Chris says...
> > > > >
> > > > >Family kourt forces a man to give "child support" cash to the
woman.
> > She
> > > > >uses such proceeds to purchase lottery tickets, alcoholic
beverages,
> > > > >cigarettes, gifts for her lover, and bon bons. How is this "child
> > > support"
> > > > >money?
> > > > ===
> > > > It's the "trickle down" effect--You know, "Reaganomics." In the case
> of
> > > middle
> > > > income dads, the presumption is that if you give them (CPs) way more
> > than
> > > they
> > > > need, there is a greater chance that enough will "trickle down" to
the
> > > kids to
> > > > keep them from starving. Note: This does not include CS ordered to
low
> > > income
> > > > dads that does not meet the basic needs of the child or upper income
> > dads
> > > who
> > > > are not subject to CS guidelines.
> > > > ===
> > > > ===
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Dave]

"Jon" > wrote in message
news:Eqzsb.136270$ao4.428012@attbi_s51...
> So it abuse to have an opinion different from yours deadbeat?
>

Spamming this newsgroup with multiple accounts is.

>
> "Dave" <dave@freedoms-door> wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jon" > wrote in message
> > news:Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01...
> > > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
> > > drink?
> > >
> >
> > Child support should not be used for anything other than for supporting
> the
> > child.
> >
> > > FYI. Child support "dollars" can be spent on anything the CP
> > wants,
> > > as long as they have already had to beg, borrow or steal from others
to
> > make
> > > up the the deadbeat's share before he decided to pay.
> > >
> >
> > Real nice, labeling all fathers as deadbeats.
> >
> > With the number of comcast email accounts you are now using and the
level
> of
> > usenet abuse to this NG it is only a matter of time before your account
is
> > suspended for TOS violation.
> >
> > >
> > > "Gini52" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article <jPtsb.10$6G3.8@fed1read06>, Chris says...
> > > > >
> > > > >Family kourt forces a man to give "child support" cash to the
woman.
> > She
> > > > >uses such proceeds to purchase lottery tickets, alcoholic
beverages,
> > > > >cigarettes, gifts for her lover, and bon bons. How is this "child
> > > support"
> > > > >money?
> > > > ===
> > > > It's the "trickle down" effect--You know, "Reaganomics." In the case
> of
> > > middle
> > > > income dads, the presumption is that if you give them (CPs) way more
> > than
> > > they
> > > > need, there is a greater chance that enough will "trickle down" to
the
> > > kids to
> > > > keep them from starving. Note: This does not include CS ordered to
low
> > > income
> > > > dads that does not meet the basic needs of the child or upper income
> > dads
> > > who
> > > > are not subject to CS guidelines.
> > > > ===
> > > > ===
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Gini52]

In article >, Fighting For Kids
says...
>
>On 12 Nov 2003 19:01:04 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>But then comes into play that you can show a receipt for a food bill but
>>>can't say for sure who eats the food. You can buy clothes, show a receipt
>>>but not now for sure who the clothes were bought for. I know for
>>>infants/toddlers it may state on the receipt that the clothes were of that
>>>general size but what about when your kid gets older? My daughter wears
>>>about the same size clothes as me. There is a way around everything.... just
>>>as business people know how to get around the IRS and claim stuff that
>>>shouldn't be claimed.
>>>
>>>T
>>======
>>Soooooo....what you're saying is that because some people cheat on their taxes,
>>CPs should not be subject to accounting for CS? :-)
>>
>>Look, this is not difficult. I'm not proposing that necessities be accounted
>>for. Food, clothing, shelter would be allotted at a fixed rate for the
>>jurisdiction (as is done for foster kids). The extras should be accounted for
>>(lifestyle). If the CP is going to claim the child is taking riding and dance
>>lessons, the receipts for those payments should be in the box. If the child
>>gives up dance and takes up drums, the receipts should be in the box. If the
>>child's clothing desires are in excess of the base allotment, the receipts go in
>>the box. There must be a standard of what expenses are anticipated for the
>>child. It happens in virtually every other area of financial management.
>>===
>>===
>>
>
>
>What is a reasonable amount for necessities? The low amounts set by
>the cheap governmentt and their budget allotment to foster care
>programs or on actual costs of raising a child. The government doesnt
>just figure that these foster kids should get x amount because thats
>what it costs, they look at their budget for foster care programs and
>say based on our budget we can afford to pay x amount per child.
====
Well, how much does the state require intact families to spend on their kids?
Maybe we should start there.
====
====
>
>

[Fighting For Kids]

But what is necessary? Thats another debate in itself. Gini's
governmental foster care payments, SSI payments, govt daycare
payments? The bare minimum? Shopping at Goodwill, walmart, JC
Pennys, Gap?

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:33:07 -0500, "Tiffany"
> wrote:

>
>Gini52 > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, Tiffany says...
>> >
>> >
>> >Gini52 > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> In article >, Moon Shyne
>> >says...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"Dave" <dave@freedoms-door> wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Jon" > wrote in message
>> >> >> news:Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01...
>> >> >> > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or
>take
>> >a
>> >> >> > drink?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Child support should not be used for anything other than for
>supporting
>> >the
>> >> >> child.
>> >> >
>> >> >So I use the child support to support the children, and buy my lottery
>> >ticket
>> >> >with my own money.
>> >> >
>> >> >Now........... how can you tell which dollar was which? They all look
>> >the same.
>> >> =====
>> >> The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
>> >> =====
>> >> =====
>> >>
>> >
>> >But then comes into play that you can show a receipt for a food bill but
>> >can't say for sure who eats the food. You can buy clothes, show a receipt
>> >but not now for sure who the clothes were bought for. I know for
>> >infants/toddlers it may state on the receipt that the clothes were of
>that
>> >general size but what about when your kid gets older? My daughter wears
>> >about the same size clothes as me. There is a way around everything....
>just
>> >as business people know how to get around the IRS and claim stuff that
>> >shouldn't be claimed.
>> >
>> >T
>> ======
>> Soooooo....what you're saying is that because some people cheat on their
>taxes,
>> CPs should not be subject to accounting for CS? :-)
>>
>> Look, this is not difficult. I'm not proposing that necessities be
>accounted
>> for. Food, clothing, shelter would be allotted at a fixed rate for the
>> jurisdiction (as is done for foster kids). The extras should be accounted
>for
>> (lifestyle). If the CP is going to claim the child is taking riding and
>dance
>> lessons, the receipts for those payments should be in the box. If the
>child
>> gives up dance and takes up drums, the receipts should be in the box. If
>the
>> child's clothing desires are in excess of the base allotment, the receipts
>go in
>> the box. There must be a standard of what expenses are anticipated for the
>> child. It happens in virtually every other area of financial management.
>> ===
>> ===
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>I agree there needs to be accountability like you. But that is something
>that will end up in the hands of the government (like the whole cs thing)
>and surely would be just as corrupt. Shame, isn't it? I also don't think
>that CS should be awarded over what is necessary so that would eliminate
>accounting for the extra's. :)
>
>T
>

[Fighting For Kids]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:40:36 -0500, "Tiffany"
> wrote:

Outrages amounts? What to you is a reasonable amount?
4755 is the average support thats been ordered for BOTH mothers and
fathers. Thats about 400.00 for each case, not each child. Is that
reasonable?

Can you spend that on one child? How about two? Three?
Would that cover at least half of the childs expenses?

"Most" NCP's dont pay outrageous amounts, im sure that there are SOME
that do. Just like SOME Cp's dont use their support check for the
childs expenses and SOME do. Im sure to them it seems outrageous
because it comes out of their check. Like some people think the gov't
taking the amount of taxes out of their paycheck is "outrageous."


>Actually, I just wanted to add, I do think a CP should be able to prove in
>one way or another where any money goes. If my ex WAS sending his money, I
>could definitely show that it went to pay for part of my daughter's braces,
>that part of it went to pay for her clothes she needs or the other 'stuff'
>she always seems to need. Its not a complicated task. He definitely couldn't
>say the money wasn't going to her. But there in lies the problem that is
>stated over and over again in here...... most NCP's are paying outrageous
>amounts, while me and him set a fair amount we both agreed on. In the end it
>didn't matter but that is for another time. lol
>
>T
>

[Chris]

"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave" <dave@freedoms-door> wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jon" > wrote in message
> > news:Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01...
> > > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
> > > drink?
> > >
> >
> > Child support should not be used for anything other than for supporting
the
> > child.
>
> So I use the child support to support the children, and buy my lottery
ticket
> with my own money.
>
> Now........... how can you tell which dollar was which? They all look the
same.

If you can afford the lottery ticket, then why do you need "child support"
money?

>
> >
> > > FYI. Child support "dollars" can be spent on anything the CP
> > wants,
> > > as long as they have already had to beg, borrow or steal from others
to
> > make
> > > up the the deadbeat's share before he decided to pay.
> > >
> >
> > Real nice, labeling all fathers as deadbeats.
> >
> > With the number of comcast email accounts you are now using and the
level of
> > usenet abuse to this NG it is only a matter of time before your account
is
> > suspended for TOS violation.
> >
> > >
> > > "Gini52" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article <jPtsb.10$6G3.8@fed1read06>, Chris says...
> > > > >
> > > > >Family kourt forces a man to give "child support" cash to the
woman.
> > She
> > > > >uses such proceeds to purchase lottery tickets, alcoholic
beverages,
> > > > >cigarettes, gifts for her lover, and bon bons. How is this "child
> > > support"
> > > > >money?
> > > > ===
> > > > It's the "trickle down" effect--You know, "Reaganomics." In the case
of
> > > middle
> > > > income dads, the presumption is that if you give them (CPs) way more
> > than
> > > they
> > > > need, there is a greater chance that enough will "trickle down" to
the
> > > kids to
> > > > keep them from starving. Note: This does not include CS ordered to
low
> > > income
> > > > dads that does not meet the basic needs of the child or upper income
> > dads
> > > who
> > > > are not subject to CS guidelines.
> > > > ===
> > > > ===
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Fighting For Kids]

On 12 Nov 2003 19:37:19 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:


>>>You think those things are necessities that your x should be paying for?
>>>
>>>T
>>>
>>It could be.. if the street fair is selling school supplies cheaper
>>than walmart and you buy them there isnt that still spending money on
>>the child's basic needs?
>>
>>I can think of all kinds of necessity items one could by at a street
>>fair vs a store. All brand new items often less expensive than at
>>the stores themselves.
>=====
>Logic dictates that incidental spending be attributable to the CP's percent
>share. The NCP is not responsible for the entire financial output for the
>child(ren). Y'all didn't forget about that part, did you?
>=====
>=====


Did I say that ALL that should be paid for by the NCP?? No. I said
that it could be conceivable that a parent could buy NECESSITIES at a
street fair vs. a store in which case a "receipt" wouldnt be provided.

[Fighting For Kids]

On 12 Nov 2003 20:01:01 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:


>====
>Exactly. If the state doesn't want to provide a system of accounting for
>lifestyle support, it has no business awarding it in the first place.
>====
>===


So what do you propose is a reasonable amount for support? You say
foster care expenditures, but what is that? Are they based on the
actual cost to raise a child, or what the governments budget will
allow them to spend?

[Chris]

"Gini52" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Fighting For Kids
> says...
> >
> >On 12 Nov 2003 19:01:04 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>But then comes into play that you can show a receipt for a food bill
but
> >>>can't say for sure who eats the food. You can buy clothes, show a
receipt
> >>>but not now for sure who the clothes were bought for. I know for
> >>>infants/toddlers it may state on the receipt that the clothes were of
that
> >>>general size but what about when your kid gets older? My daughter wears
> >>>about the same size clothes as me. There is a way around everything....
just
> >>>as business people know how to get around the IRS and claim stuff that
> >>>shouldn't be claimed.
> >>>
> >>>T
> >>======
> >>Soooooo....what you're saying is that because some people cheat on their
taxes,
> >>CPs should not be subject to accounting for CS? :-)
> >>
> >>Look, this is not difficult. I'm not proposing that necessities be
accounted
> >>for. Food, clothing, shelter would be allotted at a fixed rate for the
> >>jurisdiction (as is done for foster kids). The extras should be
accounted for
> >>(lifestyle). If the CP is going to claim the child is taking riding and
dance
> >>lessons, the receipts for those payments should be in the box. If the
child
> >>gives up dance and takes up drums, the receipts should be in the box. If
the
> >>child's clothing desires are in excess of the base allotment, the
receipts go in
> >>the box. There must be a standard of what expenses are anticipated for
the
> >>child. It happens in virtually every other area of financial management.
> >>===
> >>===
> >>
> >
> >
> >What is a reasonable amount for necessities? The low amounts set by
> >the cheap governmentt and their budget allotment to foster care
> >programs or on actual costs of raising a child. The government doesnt
> >just figure that these foster kids should get x amount because thats
> >what it costs, they look at their budget for foster care programs and
> >say based on our budget we can afford to pay x amount per child.
> ====
> Well, how much does the state require intact families to spend on their
kids?

Last I checked.... NOTHING.

> Maybe we should start there.
> ====
> ====
> >
> >
>

[Chris]

"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, Moon Shyne
says...
> > >
> > >
> > >"Dave" <dave@freedoms-door> wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>
> > >> "Jon" > wrote in message
> > >> news:Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01...
> > >> > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or
take a
> > >> > drink?
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Child support should not be used for anything other than for
supporting the
> > >> child.
> > >
> > >So I use the child support to support the children, and buy my lottery
ticket
> > >with my own money.
> > >
> > >Now........... how can you tell which dollar was which? They all look
the
> same.
> > =====
> > The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
>
> So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some other
place
> where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream from the ice cream
truck
> because they don't issue receipts?

I COULD be wrong, but I believe that you are legally entitled to a receipt.

>
> > =====
> > =====
> >
>
>

[Chris]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On 12 Nov 2003 18:45:30 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:
>
>
> >====
> >Yep. It comes from your percent share. (My proposal is, however, that
only the
> >amount over reasonable actual expenses should be subject to accounting.)
> >====
> >====
>
>
> But what is a reasonable amount? Not one person here has agreed to any
> amount proposed.

That ought to be left up to the parent to decide; dontcha think?

[Chris]

"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> The Dave© > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Moon Shyne wrote:
> > > > The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
> > >
> > > So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some
> > > other place where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream
> > > from the ice cream truck because they don't issue receipts?
> >
> > Apparently not. If you are so selfish with your own money that you
> > can't spring for an ice cream, this will be a problem, won't it?
>
> Well, I don't think it should be a nickel-dime thing. CP's should be
> accountable for the large sums of money that doesn't seem to go to the
kids,
> not a mere $2.50 for an ice cream.

$2.50 here, $2.50 there. Nickels and dimes add up to dollars.

>
> T
>
>

[Chris]

"Jon" > wrote in message
news:AjCsb.187030$e01.681443@attbi_s02...
> What I am saying is this: The actual physical child support dollars that
> come in the form of a check from the Family Support Registry do not have
to
> be spent on the children if the custodial parent has already had to take
> the NCP's share out of their own income to pay direct and indirect child
> expenses for any given month. This is not rocket science.

If they've already paid for such expenses out of their own pocket, then they
don't need the "child support" money, do they?

> "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Jon wrote:
> > > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
> > > drink?
> > >
> > > FYI. Child support "dollars" can be spent on anything the CP
> > > wants, as long as they have already had to beg, borrow or steal from
> > > others to make up the the deadbeat's share before he decided to pay.
> >
> > So, you admit that CS is really general income for the CP (read:
> > mother), and should be taxed accordingly?
>
>

[Gini52]

In article >, Fighting For Kids
says...
>
>On 12 Nov 2003 19:37:19 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:
>
>
>>>>You think those things are necessities that your x should be paying for?
>>>>
>>>>T
>>>>
>>>It could be.. if the street fair is selling school supplies cheaper
>>>than walmart and you buy them there isnt that still spending money on
>>>the child's basic needs?
>>>
>>>I can think of all kinds of necessity items one could by at a street
>>>fair vs a store. All brand new items often less expensive than at
>>>the stores themselves.
>>=====
>>Logic dictates that incidental spending be attributable to the CP's percent
>>share. The NCP is not responsible for the entire financial output for the
>>child(ren). Y'all didn't forget about that part, did you?
>>=====
>>=====
>
>
>Did I say that ALL that should be paid for by the NCP?? No.
====
Now you're getting flustered again. I didn't say YOU said that ALL should be
paid by the NCP. It was a simple statement of fact.
===
I said
>that it could be conceivable that a parent could buy NECESSITIES at a
>street fair vs. a store in which case a "receipt" wouldnt be provided.
===
And your point?
===
===

[The Dave©]

> Cameron Stevens wrote:
> I agree with the principle and I know this will be a challenge for
> those people who are especially challenged to budget or manage their
> money.

Life is full of requirements that we're not all proficient at. We get
through it, anyway.

[The Dave©]

> Tiffany wrote:
> > > So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some
> > > other place where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream
> > > from the ice cream truck because they don't issue receipts?
> >
> > Apparently not. If you are so selfish with your own money that you
> > can't spring for an ice cream, this will be a problem, won't it?
>
> Well, I don't think it should be a nickel-dime thing. CP's should be
> accountable for the large sums of money that doesn't seem to go to
> the kids, not a mere $2.50 for an ice cream.

And I don't think that accounting for 100% of CS is reasonable, either,
precisely because at that level it is getting petty. 75% or so would
be fine, enough to give a good solid indication that the money is being
spent for its intended purpose. That would be most sizable purchases
and expenses.

[Fighting For Kids]

Which is ???

On 12 Nov 2003 19:58:16 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:


>====
>I have repeatedly suggested that a reasonable amount is commensurate with the
>amount states pay for foster children. This includes regional COL variances.
>====
>====

[Fighting For Kids]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:52:56 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:


>> ====
>> Well, how much does the state require intact families to spend on their
>kids?
>
>Last I checked.... NOTHING.
>
>> Maybe we should start there.
>> ====
>> ====

Actually in a round about way the govt does. If you dont spend money
on your children by giving them clothing, food, ect they take your
child away or throw your ass in jail for neglect.

[Fighting For Kids]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:56:39 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:


>
>That ought to be left up to the parent to decide; dontcha think?
>

If a utopia exsisted, yes. It doesn't. Some parents are able to come
to reasonable agreements that work for them. Some parents are not
able to reach a reasonable agreement and must have a third party
intervene. Whether it be a mediator or judge.

[Fighting For Kids]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:58:41 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:

>
>$2.50 here, $2.50 there. Nickels and dimes add up to dollars.
>
Yep they sure do. They just keep adding and adding on to the overall
expense to raising a child dont they?

[Fighting For Kids]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:54:44 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:


>I COULD be wrong, but I believe that you are legally entitled to a receipt.
>

lol, you may be legally entitled but that doesnt mean you are going to
get one.

[Fighting For Kids]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:42:57 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:


>
>If you can afford the lottery ticket, then why do you need "child support"
>money?
>

WOW!!! It only costs a dollar to raise a child?

[Chris]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:52:56 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>
>
> >> ====
> >> Well, how much does the state require intact families to spend on their
> >kids?
> >
> >Last I checked.... NOTHING.
> >
> >> Maybe we should start there.
> >> ====
> >> ====
>
> Actually in a round about way the govt does. If you dont spend money
> on your children by giving them clothing, food, ect they take your
> child away or throw your ass in jail for neglect.

Untrue. You can provide food, clothing, etc. and not spend one thin dime.
However, that does NOT address the question. I understand the question to be
inquiring about the mandatory number of dollars intact families must spend.
So, the answer is?

[Chris]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:56:39 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>
>
> >
> >That ought to be left up to the parent to decide; dontcha think?
> >
>
> If a utopia exsisted, yes. It doesn't. Some parents are able to come
> to reasonable agreements that work for them. Some parents are not
> able to reach a reasonable agreement and must have a third party
> intervene. Whether it be a mediator or judge.

And WHO'S the judge as to whether or not they need a judge? "Reasonable" is
a matter of opinion subject to the individual.

[Chris]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:58:41 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>
> >
> >$2.50 here, $2.50 there. Nickels and dimes add up to dollars.
> >
> Yep they sure do. They just keep adding and adding on to the overall
> expense to raising a child dont they?

Red herring.

[Chris]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:54:44 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>
>
> >I COULD be wrong, but I believe that you are legally entitled to a
receipt.
> >
>
> lol, you may be legally entitled but that doesnt mean you are going to
> get one.

You are legally entitled to wake up tomorrow morning, but that doesn't mean
someone won't put a bullet in your head tonight. What's your point?

[Chris]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:42:57 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>
>
> >
> >If you can afford the lottery ticket, then why do you need "child
support"
> >money?
> >
>
> WOW!!! It only costs a dollar to raise a child?

That's one dollar LESS than the ordered "child support". Again, WHY do you
need it?

[Moon Shyne]

"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Gini52" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >, Moon Shyne
> says...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >"Dave" <dave@freedoms-door> wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >>
> > > >> "Jon" > wrote in message
> > > >> news:Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01...
> > > >> > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or
> take a
> > > >> > drink?
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> Child support should not be used for anything other than for
> supporting the
> > > >> child.
> > > >
> > > >So I use the child support to support the children, and buy my lottery
> ticket
> > > >with my own money.
> > > >
> > > >Now........... how can you tell which dollar was which? They all look
> the
> > same.
> > > =====
> > > The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
> >
> > So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some other
> place
> > where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream from the ice cream
> truck
> > because they don't issue receipts?
> >
> > > =====
> > > =====
> > >
> >
> >
>
> You think those things are necessities that your x should be paying for?

I think those are the sort of things that many, if not most, parents
occasionally purchase for their kids, whether the marriage is intact or not.

There are any number of things that I purchase for my children that I don't get
a receipt for - lunch tickets for school, for example (at 1.55 (elementary
school) and 1.85 (junior high), a nutritious bargain at that price) - I was
questioning the requirement that you can only buy things for which you get a
receipt.

>
> T
>
>

[Moon Shyne]

"Gini52" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Fighting For Kids
> says...
> >
> >On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:45:28 -0500, "Tiffany"
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> > =====
> >>> > The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
> >>>
> >>> So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some other
> >>place
> >>> where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream from the ice cream
> >>truck
> >>> because they don't issue receipts?
> >>>
> >>> > =====
> >>> > =====
> >
> >>
> >>You think those things are necessities that your x should be paying for?
> >>
> >>T
> >>
> >It could be.. if the street fair is selling school supplies cheaper
> >than walmart and you buy them there isnt that still spending money on
> >the child's basic needs?
> >
> >I can think of all kinds of necessity items one could by at a street
> >fair vs a store. All brand new items often less expensive than at
> >the stores themselves.
> =====
> Logic dictates that incidental spending be attributable to the CP's percent
> share. The NCP is not responsible for the entire financial output for the
> child(ren). Y'all didn't forget about that part, did you?

Considering that the CS I receive is less than half the actual expenses for the
children, nope, I sure didn't forget that part.

> =====
> =====
>

[Cameron Stevens]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> > Cameron Stevens wrote:
> > I agree with the principle and I know this will be a challenge for
> > those people who are especially challenged to budget or manage their
> > money.
>
> Life is full of requirements that we're not all proficient at. We get
> through it, anyway.

You might. I might... There is a huge number of people who likely can't cope
with this requirement.

I can see a base amount, Anything over and above the base amount must be
justified. So for example the average CP would get $250/month (just a number
not based on reality) then if she required more than that she would need to
establish the reasons through Application and justification. This process
would be through the CS agency and would not involve courts. The father
would then be ASKED to pay more, he must establish his income through full
disclosure and his income is factored into the overall income between the
two parents.

Consideration: If the NCP's income is verifiably lower and her income is low
or non-existant, the state's welfare would top-up (money from thin air).

Just ideas.

[Moon Shyne]

"Gini52" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, The Dave© says...
> >
> >> Gini52 wrote:
> >> >Supporting the mother is supporting the child. I know what you mean
> >> but >there's no sane or reasonable way to enforce this.
> >> =====
> >> Of course there is. Our government requires us to maintain receipts
> >> for all tax deductions for, what--7 years? We call it insane and
> >> unreasonable but the government has no problem requiring us to do it.
> >> There is no reason a CP should not be subject to audit if there is
> >> reason to believe CS is being misused. All she needs to do is keep a
> >> shoebox for receipts should there be a question. This would not apply
> >> however, if the amount ordered is in line with the actual reasonable
> >> costs of a child. In that case, there is little room for
> >> "discretionary spending." ==
> >> ==
> >
> >Trying to be reasonable here, but if we did do this (and I think we
> >should), I would not expect 100% of CS to be literally directly applied
> >to the child. Something along the lines of 75% to 80% would be fine
> >with me. Factor in (real) costs in housing, etc., also.
> ====
> I agree. Only the "lifestyle" support (the amount of money ordered that
exceeds
> the ordinary costs of a child) should be accounted for.


Who gets to determine the "ordinary costs" of a child? What happens in the case
of low income parents, who can't meet that standard?


This is not difficult.
> In fact, it is quite simple. It is only "unreasonable and outrageous" for
those
> who prefer not to disclose how they spend the money. If the state is going to
> mandate a lifestyle, it is only logical that the state mandate the lifestyle
be
> maintained.
> ====
> ====
>

[Moon Shyne]

"Gini52" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Moon Shyne says...
> >
> >
> >"Gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article >, Moon Shyne
says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Dave" <dave@freedoms-door> wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Jon" > wrote in message
> >> >> news:Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01...
> >> >> > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
> >> >> > drink?
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>>> Child support should not be used for anything other than for supporting
the
> >> >> child.
> >> >
> >>>So I use the child support to support the children, and buy my lottery
ticket
> >> >with my own money.
> >> >
> >> >Now........... how can you tell which dollar was which? They all look the
> >same.
> >> =====
> >> The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
> >
> >So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some other place
> >where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream from the ice cream
truck
> >because they don't issue receipts?
> ====
> Yep. It comes from your percent share. (My proposal is, however, that only the
> amount over reasonable actual expenses should be subject to accounting.)

Who gets to decide what "reasonable expenses" are?


> ====
> ====
>
>
> >
>

[Moon Shyne]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> > Moon Shyne wrote:
> > > The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
> >
> > So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some
> > other place where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream
> > from the ice cream truck because they don't issue receipts?
>
> Apparently not. If you are so selfish with your own money that you
> can't spring for an ice cream, this will be a problem, won't it?

Considering that the CS I currently receive is less than half the actual
expenses for the children, you would be way off base in your remark.

[Moon Shyne]

"Chris" > wrote in message news:sZDsb.251$6G3.28@fed1read06...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Dave" <dave@freedoms-door> wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Jon" > wrote in message
> > > news:Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01...
> > > > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
> > > > drink?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Child support should not be used for anything other than for supporting
> the
> > > child.
> >
> > So I use the child support to support the children, and buy my lottery
> ticket
> > with my own money.
> >
> > Now........... how can you tell which dollar was which? They all look the
> same.
>
> If you can afford the lottery ticket, then why do you need "child support"
> money?

I work 2 jobs, in order to be able to afford some of the extras - I would think
that I'm permitted to spend even just a little of it on myself? The child
support money is the children's father's contribution towards the cost of
raising them, since he does nothing for or with them on his own.


>
> >
> > >
> > > > FYI. Child support "dollars" can be spent on anything the CP
> > > wants,
> > > > as long as they have already had to beg, borrow or steal from others
> to
> > > make
> > > > up the the deadbeat's share before he decided to pay.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Real nice, labeling all fathers as deadbeats.
> > >
> > > With the number of comcast email accounts you are now using and the
> level of
> > > usenet abuse to this NG it is only a matter of time before your account
> is
> > > suspended for TOS violation.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "Gini52" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > In article <jPtsb.10$6G3.8@fed1read06>, Chris says...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Family kourt forces a man to give "child support" cash to the
> woman.
> > > She
> > > > > >uses such proceeds to purchase lottery tickets, alcoholic
> beverages,
> > > > > >cigarettes, gifts for her lover, and bon bons. How is this "child
> > > > support"
> > > > > >money?
> > > > > ===
> > > > > It's the "trickle down" effect--You know, "Reaganomics." In the case
> of
> > > > middle
> > > > > income dads, the presumption is that if you give them (CPs) way more
> > > than
> > > > they
> > > > > need, there is a greater chance that enough will "trickle down" to
> the
> > > > kids to
> > > > > keep them from starving. Note: This does not include CS ordered to
> low
> > > > income
> > > > > dads that does not meet the basic needs of the child or upper income
> > > dads
> > > > who
> > > > > are not subject to CS guidelines.
> > > > > ===
> > > > > ===
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Moon Shyne]

"Chris" > wrote in message news:ZdEsb.258$6G3.133@fed1read06...
>
> "Jon" > wrote in message
> news:AjCsb.187030$e01.681443@attbi_s02...
> > What I am saying is this: The actual physical child support dollars that
> > come in the form of a check from the Family Support Registry do not have
> to
> > be spent on the children if the custodial parent has already had to take
> > the NCP's share out of their own income to pay direct and indirect child
> > expenses for any given month. This is not rocket science.
>
> If they've already paid for such expenses out of their own pocket, then they
> don't need the "child support" money, do they?

So they had to use an additional share of their own income to cover the
children's expenses - now they've got no money left to also cover their own
expenses, since they were covering the NCP's share - what would you suggest,
they hold off being able to eat dinner till next month?

>
> > "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > Jon wrote:
> > > > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
> > > > drink?
> > > >
> > > > FYI. Child support "dollars" can be spent on anything the CP
> > > > wants, as long as they have already had to beg, borrow or steal from
> > > > others to make up the the deadbeat's share before he decided to pay.
> > >
> > > So, you admit that CS is really general income for the CP (read:
> > > mother), and should be taxed accordingly?
> >
> >
>
>

[Gini52]

In article >, Moon Shyne says...
>
>
>"Gini52" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, Fighting For Kids
>> says...
>> >
>> >On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:45:28 -0500, "Tiffany"
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>> > =====
>> >>> > The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
>> >>>
>> >>> So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some other
>> >>place
>> >>> where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream from the ice cream
>> >>truck
>> >>> because they don't issue receipts?
>> >>>
>> >>> > =====
>> >>> > =====
>> >
>> >>
>> >>You think those things are necessities that your x should be paying for?
>> >>
>> >>T
>> >>
>> >It could be.. if the street fair is selling school supplies cheaper
>> >than walmart and you buy them there isnt that still spending money on
>> >the child's basic needs?
>> >
>> >I can think of all kinds of necessity items one could by at a street
>> >fair vs a store. All brand new items often less expensive than at
>> >the stores themselves.
>> =====
>> Logic dictates that incidental spending be attributable to the CP's percent
>> share. The NCP is not responsible for the entire financial output for the
>> child(ren). Y'all didn't forget about that part, did you?
>
>Considering that the CS I receive is less than half the actual expenses for the
>children, nope, I sure didn't forget that part.
=====
But, apparantly you didn't get the part where I stated that accountability
should not be applied to lower income NCPs where the ordered support amount
doesn't cover actual expenses. Only *lifestyle* support should be subject to
accountability and *then* only the amount which exceeds the states' basic needs
amount. My proposal doesn't apply to you at all so go for the ice cream and have
a great time :-)
=====
=====

>

[Gini52]

In article >, Moon Shyne says...
>
>
>"Gini52" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, The Dave© says...
>> >
>> >> Gini52 wrote:
>> >> >Supporting the mother is supporting the child. I know what you mean
>> >> but >there's no sane or reasonable way to enforce this.
>> >> =====
>> >> Of course there is. Our government requires us to maintain receipts
>> >> for all tax deductions for, what--7 years? We call it insane and
>> >> unreasonable but the government has no problem requiring us to do it.
>> >> There is no reason a CP should not be subject to audit if there is
>> >> reason to believe CS is being misused. All she needs to do is keep a
>> >> shoebox for receipts should there be a question. This would not apply
>> >> however, if the amount ordered is in line with the actual reasonable
>> >> costs of a child. In that case, there is little room for
>> >> "discretionary spending." ==
>> >> ==
>> >
>> >Trying to be reasonable here, but if we did do this (and I think we
>> >should), I would not expect 100% of CS to be literally directly applied
>> >to the child. Something along the lines of 75% to 80% would be fine
>> >with me. Factor in (real) costs in housing, etc., also.
>> ====
>> I agree. Only the "lifestyle" support (the amount of money ordered that
>exceeds
>> the ordinary costs of a child) should be accounted for.
>
>
>Who gets to determine the "ordinary costs" of a child? What happens in the case
>of low income parents, who can't meet that standard?
=====
I've already stated these things in the thread but will again:
Accountability does not apply to orders that do not cover the basic needs which
are determined starting with the base need the state establishes for foster
kids. Because your support does not cover the basic needs, you will not be
subject to accountability.
====
====

[Gini52]

In article >, Moon Shyne says...
>
>
>"Gini52" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, Moon Shyne says...
>> >
>> >
>> >"Gini52" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> In article >, Moon Shyne
>says...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"Dave" <dave@freedoms-door> wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Jon" > wrote in message
>> >> >> news:Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01...
>>>> >> > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
>> >> >> > drink?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >>>> Child support should not be used for anything other than for supporting
>the
>> >> >> child.
>> >> >
>> >>>So I use the child support to support the children, and buy my lottery
>ticket
>> >> >with my own money.
>> >> >
>>>> >Now........... how can you tell which dollar was which? They all look the
>> >same.
>> >> =====
>> >> The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
>> >
>>>So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some other place
>> >where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream from the ice cream
>truck
>> >because they don't issue receipts?
>> ====
>>Yep. It comes from your percent share. (My proposal is, however, that only the
>> amount over reasonable actual expenses should be subject to accounting.)
>
>Who gets to decide what "reasonable expenses" are?
=====
Already posted.
=====
=====

[Paul Fritz]

"Gini52" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Moon Shyne
says...
> >
> >
> >"Gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article >, Fighting For
Kids
> >> says...
> >> >
> >> >On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:45:28 -0500, "Tiffany"
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>> > =====
> >> >>> > The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some
other
> >> >>place
> >> >>> where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream from the ice
cream
> >> >>truck
> >> >>> because they don't issue receipts?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> > =====
> >> >>> > =====
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>You think those things are necessities that your x should be paying
for?
> >> >>
> >> >>T
> >> >>
> >> >It could be.. if the street fair is selling school supplies cheaper
> >> >than walmart and you buy them there isnt that still spending money on
> >> >the child's basic needs?
> >> >
> >> >I can think of all kinds of necessity items one could by at a street
> >> >fair vs a store. All brand new items often less expensive than at
> >> >the stores themselves.
> >> =====
> >> Logic dictates that incidental spending be attributable to the CP's
percent
> >> share. The NCP is not responsible for the entire financial output for
the
> >> child(ren). Y'all didn't forget about that part, did you?
> >
> >Considering that the CS I receive is less than half the actual expenses
for the
> >children, nope, I sure didn't forget that part.
> =====
> But, apparantly you didn't get the part where I stated that accountability
> should not be applied to lower income NCPs where the ordered support
amount
> doesn't cover actual expenses. Only *lifestyle* support should be subject
to
> accountability and *then* only the amount which exceeds the states' basic
needs
> amount. My proposal doesn't apply to you at all so go for the ice cream
and have
> a great time :-)

......moonie is once again playing games.......since she is the one that is
determining what the childrens expenses are. Lifestyle support should NOT be
part of the CS equaltion. It is simply a gross violation of a person's basic
constitutional rights. The state has determined the amount required to
supply a child with their basic needs (foster care payments) Each parent
sould be responsible for half, and anything else should be up to the
individual parent's choosing......NOT at the whim of the CP like moonie.

> =====
> =====
>
> >
>

[Tiffany]

Gini52 > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Fighting For Kids
> says...
> >
> >On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:45:28 -0500, "Tiffany"
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> > =====
> >>> > The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
> >>>
> >>> So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some
other
> >>place
> >>> where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream from the ice
cream
> >>truck
> >>> because they don't issue receipts?
> >>>
> >>> > =====
> >>> > =====
> >
> >>
> >>You think those things are necessities that your x should be paying for?
> >>
> >>T
> >>
> >It could be.. if the street fair is selling school supplies cheaper
> >than walmart and you buy them there isnt that still spending money on
> >the child's basic needs?
> >
> >I can think of all kinds of necessity items one could by at a street
> >fair vs a store. All brand new items often less expensive than at
> >the stores themselves.
> =====
> Logic dictates that incidental spending be attributable to the CP's
percent
> share. The NCP is not responsible for the entire financial output for the
> child(ren). Y'all didn't forget about that part, did you?
> =====
> =====
>

Good point...... and I do have to add, I don't know if it is law but I have
had to demand receipt for things I have bought at unusual places. I didn't
care if it was on a crappy piece of paper. Prove is prove.

T

[Tiffany]

Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Gini52" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >, Moon Shyne
> > says...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >"Dave" <dave@freedoms-door> wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> "Jon" > wrote in message
> > > > >> news:Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01...
> > > > >> > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or
> > take a
> > > > >> > drink?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Child support should not be used for anything other than for
> > supporting the
> > > > >> child.
> > > > >
> > > > >So I use the child support to support the children, and buy my
lottery
> > ticket
> > > > >with my own money.
> > > > >
> > > > >Now........... how can you tell which dollar was which? They all
look
> > the
> > > same.
> > > > =====
> > > > The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
> > >
> > > So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some
other
> > place
> > > where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream from the ice
cream
> > truck
> > > because they don't issue receipts?
> > >
> > > > =====
> > > > =====
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > You think those things are necessities that your x should be paying for?
>
> I think those are the sort of things that many, if not most, parents
> occasionally purchase for their kids, whether the marriage is intact or
not.
>
> There are any number of things that I purchase for my children that I
don't get
> a receipt for - lunch tickets for school, for example (at 1.55 (elementary
> school) and 1.85 (junior high), a nutritious bargain at that price) - I
was
> questioning the requirement that you can only buy things for which you get
a
> receipt.
>
> >
> > T
> >
> >
>
>

You don't think if it came down to it, you couldn't get the school to write
you a receipt? I am sure they would, especially if the government was
requesting it. Besides, your ex should only have to pay half of that. And
whether a marriage is intact or not, ice cream is not necessary. If you
can't afford it, don't get it.

T

[Tiffany]

Gini52 > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Moon Shyne
says...
> >
> >
> >"Gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article >, Moon Shyne
says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Gini52" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> In article >, Moon Shyne
> >says...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Dave" <dave@freedoms-door> wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Jon" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01...
> >>>> >> > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or
take a
> >> >> >> > drink?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >>>> Child support should not be used for anything other than for
supporting
> >the
> >> >> >> child.
> >> >> >
> >> >>>So I use the child support to support the children, and buy my
lottery
> >ticket
> >> >> >with my own money.
> >> >> >
> >>>> >Now........... how can you tell which dollar was which? They all
look the
> >> >same.
> >> >> =====
> >> >> The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
> >> >
> >>>So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some other
place
> >> >where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream from the ice
cream
> >truck
> >> >because they don't issue receipts?
> >> ====
> >>Yep. It comes from your percent share. (My proposal is, however, that
only the
> >> amount over reasonable actual expenses should be subject to
accounting.)
> >
> >Who gets to decide what "reasonable expenses" are?
> =====
> Already posted.
> =====
> =====
>

It seems we pick this apart but forget logic. lol

T

[Tiffany]

Chris > wrote in message news:bcEsb.257$6G3.227@fed1read06...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The Dave© > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > Moon Shyne wrote:
> > > > > The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
> > > >
> > > > So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some
> > > > other place where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream
> > > > from the ice cream truck because they don't issue receipts?
> > >
> > > Apparently not. If you are so selfish with your own money that you
> > > can't spring for an ice cream, this will be a problem, won't it?
> >
> > Well, I don't think it should be a nickel-dime thing. CP's should be
> > accountable for the large sums of money that doesn't seem to go to the
> kids,
> > not a mere $2.50 for an ice cream.
>
> $2.50 here, $2.50 there. Nickels and dimes add up to dollars.
>
> >
> > T
> >
> >
>
>

True it does, but if one can't afford ice cream and needs child support to
pay for it........ maybe they shouldn't buy the ice cream.

T

[Tiffany]

Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>
> "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Moon Shyne wrote:
> > > > The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
> > >
> > > So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some
> > > other place where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream
> > > from the ice cream truck because they don't issue receipts?
> >
> > Apparently not. If you are so selfish with your own money that you
> > can't spring for an ice cream, this will be a problem, won't it?
>
> Considering that the CS I currently receive is less than half the actual
> expenses for the children, you would be way off base in your remark.
>
>

Some receive no financial support.

[Tiffany]

Chris > wrote in message news:p5Gsb.293$6G3.120@fed1read06...
>
> "Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:54:44 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >I COULD be wrong, but I believe that you are legally entitled to a
> receipt.
> > >
> >
> > lol, you may be legally entitled but that doesnt mean you are going to
> > get one.
>
> You are legally entitled to wake up tomorrow morning, but that doesn't
mean
> someone won't put a bullet in your head tonight. What's your point?
>
>

Wow.... I do think you are right about the receipt thing too. So if you are
needing receipts, wouldn't it be suggested you don't buy from someone who
won't give it to you? Duh. lol

T

[The Dave©]

> Moon Shyne wrote:
> > > > The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
> > >
> > > So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some
> > > other place where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream
> > > from the ice cream truck because they don't issue receipts?
> >
> > Apparently not. If you are so selfish with your own money that you
> > can't spring for an ice cream, this will be a problem, won't it?
>
> Considering that the CS I currently receive is less than half the
> actual expenses for the children, you would be way off base in your
> remark.

That's not what you said. You're avoiding the point. Your statement
gave no indication that you were talking only about you, specifically.
Can you address the response to your own point, or not?

[Chris]

"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Gini52" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > In article >, Moon
Shyne
> > > says...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >"Dave" <dave@freedoms-door> wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> "Jon" > wrote in message
> > > > > >> news:Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01...
> > > > > >> > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket
or
> > > take a
> > > > > >> > drink?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Child support should not be used for anything other than for
> > > supporting the
> > > > > >> child.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >So I use the child support to support the children, and buy my
> lottery
> > > ticket
> > > > > >with my own money.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Now........... how can you tell which dollar was which? They all
> look
> > > the
> > > > same.
> > > > > =====
> > > > > The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
> > > >
> > > > So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some
> other
> > > place
> > > > where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream from the ice
> cream
> > > truck
> > > > because they don't issue receipts?
> > > >
> > > > > =====
> > > > > =====
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > You think those things are necessities that your x should be paying
for?
> >
> > I think those are the sort of things that many, if not most, parents
> > occasionally purchase for their kids, whether the marriage is intact or
> not.
> >
> > There are any number of things that I purchase for my children that I
> don't get
> > a receipt for - lunch tickets for school, for example (at 1.55
(elementary
> > school) and 1.85 (junior high), a nutritious bargain at that price) - I
> was
> > questioning the requirement that you can only buy things for which you
get
> a
> > receipt.
> >
> > >
> > > T
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> You don't think if it came down to it, you couldn't get the school to
write
> you a receipt? I am sure they would, especially if the government was
> requesting it.

As far as I know, she is legally entitled to a receipt.

> Besides, your ex should only have to pay half of that. And
> whether a marriage is intact or not, ice cream is not necessary. If you
> can't afford it, don't get it.
>
> T
>
>

[Chris]

"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> Moon Shyne > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > Moon Shyne wrote:
> > > > > The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
> > > >
> > > > So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some
> > > > other place where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream
> > > > from the ice cream truck because they don't issue receipts?
> > >
> > > Apparently not. If you are so selfish with your own money that you
> > > can't spring for an ice cream, this will be a problem, won't it?
> >
> > Considering that the CS I currently receive is less than half the actual
> > expenses for the children, you would be way off base in your remark.
> >
> >
>
> Some receive no financial support.

As it SHOULD be, unless they are receiving voluntary welfare donations.

>
>

[Chris]

"Gini52" > wrote in message
...
> In article <Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01>, Jon says...
> >
> >So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
> >drink?
>
> ====
> Well, how about if the NCP tells the judge he can't pay that much because
he
> needs a drink and a lottery ticket?

EXCELLENT !

> ====
>
> >FYI. Child support "dollars" can be spent on anything the CP wants,
> >as long as they have already had to beg, borrow or steal from others to
make
> >up the the deadbeat's share before he decided to pay.
>
> ====
> FYI. You are wrong. "Child support dollars can be spent on anything the CP
> wants" as long as the children aren't starving. She can squander on time
> payments just as easily as late payments.

Actually, she can spend it on anything that she desires even if her children
ARE starving........ LEGALLY !

> ===
> ===
>

[Chris]

"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chris" > wrote in message
news:sZDsb.251$6G3.28@fed1read06...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Dave" <dave@freedoms-door> wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Jon" > wrote in message
> > > > news:Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01...
> > > > > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or
take a
> > > > > drink?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Child support should not be used for anything other than for
supporting
> > the
> > > > child.
> > >
> > > So I use the child support to support the children, and buy my lottery
> > ticket
> > > with my own money.
> > >
> > > Now........... how can you tell which dollar was which? They all look
the
> > same.
> >
> > If you can afford the lottery ticket, then why do you need "child
support"
> > money?
>
> I work 2 jobs, in order to be able to afford some of the extras - I would
think
> that I'm permitted to spend even just a little of it on myself?

I agree, but it's irrelevant.

> The child
> support money is the children's father's contribution towards the cost of
> raising them, since he does nothing for or with them on his own.

Correction: the "child support" money is FREE CASH paid to YOU by the father
(be it directly or indirectly) to be spent at your discretion..... LEGALLY
!

>
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > FYI. Child support "dollars" can be spent on anything the
CP
> > > > wants,
> > > > > as long as they have already had to beg, borrow or steal from
others
> > to
> > > > make
> > > > > up the the deadbeat's share before he decided to pay.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Real nice, labeling all fathers as deadbeats.
> > > >
> > > > With the number of comcast email accounts you are now using and the
> > level of
> > > > usenet abuse to this NG it is only a matter of time before your
account
> > is
> > > > suspended for TOS violation.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Gini52" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > In article <jPtsb.10$6G3.8@fed1read06>, Chris says...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Family kourt forces a man to give "child support" cash to the
> > woman.
> > > > She
> > > > > > >uses such proceeds to purchase lottery tickets, alcoholic
> > beverages,
> > > > > > >cigarettes, gifts for her lover, and bon bons. How is this
"child
> > > > > support"
> > > > > > >money?
> > > > > > ===
> > > > > > It's the "trickle down" effect--You know, "Reaganomics." In the
case
> > of
> > > > > middle
> > > > > > income dads, the presumption is that if you give them (CPs) way
more
> > > > than
> > > > > they
> > > > > > need, there is a greater chance that enough will "trickle down"
to
> > the
> > > > > kids to
> > > > > > keep them from starving. Note: This does not include CS ordered
to
> > low
> > > > > income
> > > > > > dads that does not meet the basic needs of the child or upper
income
> > > > dads
> > > > > who
> > > > > > are not subject to CS guidelines.
> > > > > > ===
> > > > > > ===
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Chris]

"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chris" > wrote in message
news:ZdEsb.258$6G3.133@fed1read06...
> >
> > "Jon" > wrote in message
> > news:AjCsb.187030$e01.681443@attbi_s02...
> > > What I am saying is this: The actual physical child support dollars
that
> > > come in the form of a check from the Family Support Registry do not
have
> > to
> > > be spent on the children if the custodial parent has already had to
take
> > > the NCP's share out of their own income to pay direct and indirect
child
> > > expenses for any given month. This is not rocket science.
> >
> > If they've already paid for such expenses out of their own pocket, then
they
> > don't need the "child support" money, do they?
>
> So they had to use an additional share of their own income to cover the
> children's expenses - now they've got no money left to also cover their
own
> expenses, since they were covering the NCP's share - what would you
suggest,
> they hold off being able to eat dinner till next month?

Obviously, they ARE eating dinner; otherwise, they wouldn't be alive to pay
for ANY expense.

>
> >
> > > "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > > Jon wrote:
> > > > > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or
take a
> > > > > drink?
> > > > >
> > > > > FYI. Child support "dollars" can be spent on anything the
CP
> > > > > wants, as long as they have already had to beg, borrow or steal
from
> > > > > others to make up the the deadbeat's share before he decided to
pay.
> > > >
> > > > So, you admit that CS is really general income for the CP (read:
> > > > mother), and should be taxed accordingly?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Fighting For Kids]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:00:33 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:


>
>Untrue. You can provide food, clothing, etc. and not spend one thin dime.
>However, that does NOT address the question. I understand the question to be
>inquiring about the mandatory number of dollars intact families must spend.
>So, the answer is?
>

How exactly can you do all that and not spend one dime? Stealing?
Please let me know because I sure would like to get in on that deal.

[Fighting For Kids]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:39:50 -0500, "Paul Fritz"
> wrote:

>

>
>.....moonie is once again playing games.......since she is the one that is
>determining what the childrens expenses are. Lifestyle support should NOT be
>part of the CS equaltion. It is simply a gross violation of a person's basic
>constitutional rights. The state has determined the amount required to
>supply a child with their basic needs (foster care payments) Each parent
>sould be responsible for half, and anything else should be up to the
>individual parent's choosing......NOT at the whim of the CP like moonie.
>
>> =====
>> =====

Foster care payments are determined based on what money the govt has
alloted in its budget to be spent on Foster care. Its not necessarily
based on what the actual cost is to raise a child.

If there is a "budget cut" those amounts if foster care is one of the
programs that gets cut will be less.

[Fighting For Kids]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:02:34 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:

>
>"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:56:39 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >That ought to be left up to the parent to decide; dontcha think?
>> >
>>
>> If a utopia exsisted, yes. It doesn't. Some parents are able to come
>> to reasonable agreements that work for them. Some parents are not
>> able to reach a reasonable agreement and must have a third party
>> intervene. Whether it be a mediator or judge.
>
>And WHO'S the judge as to whether or not they need a judge? "Reasonable" is
>a matter of opinion subject to the individual.
>

Usually one of the people in the parties. Our state has madatory
mediation requirements in all divorces (im not sure about the custody
and child support arrangements in which the parents were not married)
I think thats a good step because it forces people to sit down and try
and make a resonable agreement. Some mediations dont work out and
the court is the next step.

Who decides in any lawsuit if a judge is needed?

[Fighting For Kids]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:04:31 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:

>
>"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:58:41 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >$2.50 here, $2.50 there. Nickels and dimes add up to dollars.
>> >
>> Yep they sure do. They just keep adding and adding on to the overall
>> expense to raising a child dont they?
>
>Red herring.
>

They do. They do. Just like they add up for you they add up for the
other parent.

[Fighting For Kids]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:07:53 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:

>
>"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:54:44 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>>
>>
>> >I COULD be wrong, but I believe that you are legally entitled to a
>receipt.
>> >
>>
>> lol, you may be legally entitled but that doesnt mean you are going to
>> get one.
>
>You are legally entitled to wake up tomorrow morning, but that doesn't mean
>someone won't put a bullet in your head tonight. What's your point?
>
What's yours?

[[email protected]]

Chris ...
In most states, there is no accountability on how CS is spent. If your
child is not being taken care of properly, then you jump in with both
feet and make sure the money goes where it's supposed to.


nm

[Indyguy1]

Gini52 wtote:

>In article >, Fighting For Kids
>says...
>>
>>On 12 Nov 2003 18:45:30 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>====
>>>Yep. It comes from your percent share. (My proposal is, however, that only
>the
>>>amount over reasonable actual expenses should be subject to accounting.)
>>>====
>>>====
>>
>>
>>But what is a reasonable amount? Not one person here has agreed to any
>>amount proposed.
>====
>I have repeatedly suggested that a reasonable amount is commensurate with the
>amount states pay for foster children. This includes regional COL variances.

How can one set amount for all children in the same geopgraphical area be
reasonable? Should Trump pay CS at the same rate as Joe Average who earns 40K?

In the same county you can have poverty level and millionares paying CS. Is it
really reasonable for a millionare to pay the same CS as the poverty level
person?

Should children that have been raised all of their lives stop getting the
creature comforts they have been getting because their parents divorce?

Of course the obligatory *the NCP can then contribute anything they want above
the base support* is expected. However the problem lies in that without being
forced to provide above foster care level of support some will choose to spend
on themselves, their new SO, or just about anything other than their child.

I happen to know someone that DOES save receipts and sends copies of every
receipt to her ex, as he kept bellyaching about how he paid too much. All it
has done is create more animosity between the two of them. He calls her and
questions why his kids can't eat plain hamburgers rather than chicken nuggets.
From what I have seen it just leads to nitpicking.

I do feel CPs should be responsible for showing how the CS is spent, that way
any nogoodnicks will have to straighten up. Overall I bet if all were required
to show where the CS money is going there would be a lot less of *I pay too
much* but a lot more critical comments that will virtually make no differance
at all in the end.

Mrs Indyguy
>====
>====
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Indyguy1]

Gini52 wtote:

>In article >, Fighting For Kids
>says...
>>
>>On 12 Nov 2003 18:45:30 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>====
>>>Yep. It comes from your percent share. (My proposal is, however, that only
>the
>>>amount over reasonable actual expenses should be subject to accounting.)
>>>====
>>>====
>>
>>
>>But what is a reasonable amount? Not one person here has agreed to any
>>amount proposed.
>====
>I have repeatedly suggested that a reasonable amount is commensurate with the
>amount states pay for foster children. This includes regional COL variances.

How can one set amount for all children in the same geopgraphical area be
reasonable? Should Trump pay CS at the same rate as Joe Average who earns 40K?

In the same county you can have poverty level and millionares paying CS. Is it
really reasonable for a millionare to pay the same CS as the poverty level
person?

Should children that have been raised all of their lives stop getting the
creature comforts they have been getting because their parents divorce?

Of course the obligatory *the NCP can then contribute anything they want above
the base support* is expected. However the problem lies in that without being
forced to provide above foster care level of support some will choose to spend
on themselves, their new SO, or just about anything other than their child.

I happen to know someone that DOES save receipts and sends copies of every
receipt to her ex, as he kept bellyaching about how he paid too much. All it
has done is create more animosity between the two of them. He calls her and
questions why his kids can't eat plain hamburgers rather than chicken nuggets.
From what I have seen it just leads to nitpicking.

I do feel CPs should be responsible for showing how the CS is spent, that way
any nogoodnicks will have to straighten up. Overall I bet if all were required
to show where the CS money is going there would be a lot less of *I pay too
much* but a lot more critical comments that will virtually make no differance
at all in the end.

Mrs Indyguy
>====
>====
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Bob Whiteside]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:40:36 -0500, "Tiffany"
> > wrote:
>
> Outrages amounts? What to you is a reasonable amount?
> 4755 is the average support thats been ordered for BOTH mothers and
> fathers. Thats about 400.00 for each case, not each child. Is that
> reasonable?

The $4,755 is the amount CP's claim has been ordered and this number is from
1999 orders that could have been modified upward twice since the Census data
was collected. For perspective it needs to be stated this average CS amount
includes teenage mothers aged 15 and up who have had children with very low
income teenage boys, as well as adult children over the age of majority for
CS but under age 21. The $4,755 does not include healthcare insurance and
reimbursements, life insurance, daycare, etc. that are add-ons to the basic
CS order. And it does not include education CS paid directly to adult
children attending college. It also does not account for the additional
support value for non-cash support that 60% of CP's report receiving from
NCP's.

The average CS award has got to be at least $400-500 per month more than the
Census shows when you consider all the other factors NCP's are required to
pay.

The government has an agenda to make CS payments and collections sound low
to continually increase the guideline amounts and justify the $4 billion
bureaucracy that has been created to chase down NCP's.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:40:36 -0500, "Tiffany"
> > wrote:
>
> Outrages amounts? What to you is a reasonable amount?
> 4755 is the average support thats been ordered for BOTH mothers and
> fathers. Thats about 400.00 for each case, not each child. Is that
> reasonable?

The $4,755 is the amount CP's claim has been ordered and this number is from
1999 orders that could have been modified upward twice since the Census data
was collected. For perspective it needs to be stated this average CS amount
includes teenage mothers aged 15 and up who have had children with very low
income teenage boys, as well as adult children over the age of majority for
CS but under age 21. The $4,755 does not include healthcare insurance and
reimbursements, life insurance, daycare, etc. that are add-ons to the basic
CS order. And it does not include education CS paid directly to adult
children attending college. It also does not account for the additional
support value for non-cash support that 60% of CP's report receiving from
NCP's.

The average CS award has got to be at least $400-500 per month more than the
Census shows when you consider all the other factors NCP's are required to
pay.

The government has an agenda to make CS payments and collections sound low
to continually increase the guideline amounts and justify the $4 billion
bureaucracy that has been created to chase down NCP's.

[Fighting For Kids]

If your child isnt being taken care of properly you probably would
have CPS on your steps, knocking at your door. To take your children
away.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 14:47:31 -0500 (EST), wrote:

>Chris ...
>In most states, there is no accountability on how CS is spent. If your
>child is not being taken care of properly, then you jump in with both
>feet and make sure the money goes where it's supposed to.
>
>
>nm

[Fighting For Kids]

If your child isnt being taken care of properly you probably would
have CPS on your steps, knocking at your door. To take your children
away.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 14:47:31 -0500 (EST), wrote:

>Chris ...
>In most states, there is no accountability on how CS is spent. If your
>child is not being taken care of properly, then you jump in with both
>feet and make sure the money goes where it's supposed to.
>
>
>nm

[Indyguy1]

Chris wrote:

>
>"Jon" > wrote in message
>news:AjCsb.187030$e01.681443@attbi_s02...
>> What I am saying is this: The actual physical child support dollars that
>> come in the form of a check from the Family Support Registry do not have
>to
>> be spent on the children if the custodial parent has already had to take
>> the NCP's share out of their own income to pay direct and indirect child
>> expenses for any given month. This is not rocket science.
>
>If they've already paid for such expenses out of their own pocket, then they
>don't need the "child support" money, do they?

Clarify please. Are you trying to say if the CP earns enough to totally support
their child that the NCP shouldn't have to pay any CS?

My niece is employed. She remarried and her new husband earns a considerable
amount. Should her ex no longer pay CS because the two of them can do it on
their own? You know the really sad thing is that her new DH would gladly do so,
he loves his SD. If given the chance to not pay her ex would take the offer in
a heart beat, speaks volumes about him doesn't it.

Mrs Indyguy


>
>> "The Dave©" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > > Jon wrote:
>> > > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
>> > > drink?
>> > >
>> > > FYI. Child support "dollars" can be spent on anything the CP
>> > > wants, as long as they have already had to beg, borrow or steal from
>> > > others to make up the the deadbeat's share before he decided to pay.
>> >
>> > So, you admit that CS is really general income for the CP (read:
>> > mother), and should be taxed accordingly?
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Indyguy1]

Chris wrote:

>
>"Jon" > wrote in message
>news:AjCsb.187030$e01.681443@attbi_s02...
>> What I am saying is this: The actual physical child support dollars that
>> come in the form of a check from the Family Support Registry do not have
>to
>> be spent on the children if the custodial parent has already had to take
>> the NCP's share out of their own income to pay direct and indirect child
>> expenses for any given month. This is not rocket science.
>
>If they've already paid for such expenses out of their own pocket, then they
>don't need the "child support" money, do they?

Clarify please. Are you trying to say if the CP earns enough to totally support
their child that the NCP shouldn't have to pay any CS?

My niece is employed. She remarried and her new husband earns a considerable
amount. Should her ex no longer pay CS because the two of them can do it on
their own? You know the really sad thing is that her new DH would gladly do so,
he loves his SD. If given the chance to not pay her ex would take the offer in
a heart beat, speaks volumes about him doesn't it.

Mrs Indyguy


>
>> "The Dave©" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > > Jon wrote:
>> > > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
>> > > drink?
>> > >
>> > > FYI. Child support "dollars" can be spent on anything the CP
>> > > wants, as long as they have already had to beg, borrow or steal from
>> > > others to make up the the deadbeat's share before he decided to pay.
>> >
>> > So, you admit that CS is really general income for the CP (read:
>> > mother), and should be taxed accordingly?
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Bob Whiteside]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:02:34 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:56:39 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >That ought to be left up to the parent to decide; dontcha think?
> >> >
> >>
> >> If a utopia exsisted, yes. It doesn't. Some parents are able to come
> >> to reasonable agreements that work for them. Some parents are not
> >> able to reach a reasonable agreement and must have a third party
> >> intervene. Whether it be a mediator or judge.
> >
> >And WHO'S the judge as to whether or not they need a judge? "Reasonable"
is
> >a matter of opinion subject to the individual.
> >
>
> Usually one of the people in the parties. Our state has madatory
> mediation requirements in all divorces (im not sure about the custody
> and child support arrangements in which the parents were not married)
> I think thats a good step because it forces people to sit down and try
> and make a resonable agreement. Some mediations dont work out and
> the court is the next step.
>
> Who decides in any lawsuit if a judge is needed?

This is called negotiating in the shadow of the court. It's a joke. The
attorney for the mother will tell her: "Here is what you can expect to get
if we go to a judge. Don't agree to anything less than that." The whole
mediation process is set up to fail. It's a waste of time and taxpayer
money.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:02:34 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:56:39 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >That ought to be left up to the parent to decide; dontcha think?
> >> >
> >>
> >> If a utopia exsisted, yes. It doesn't. Some parents are able to come
> >> to reasonable agreements that work for them. Some parents are not
> >> able to reach a reasonable agreement and must have a third party
> >> intervene. Whether it be a mediator or judge.
> >
> >And WHO'S the judge as to whether or not they need a judge? "Reasonable"
is
> >a matter of opinion subject to the individual.
> >
>
> Usually one of the people in the parties. Our state has madatory
> mediation requirements in all divorces (im not sure about the custody
> and child support arrangements in which the parents were not married)
> I think thats a good step because it forces people to sit down and try
> and make a resonable agreement. Some mediations dont work out and
> the court is the next step.
>
> Who decides in any lawsuit if a judge is needed?

This is called negotiating in the shadow of the court. It's a joke. The
attorney for the mother will tell her: "Here is what you can expect to get
if we go to a judge. Don't agree to anything less than that." The whole
mediation process is set up to fail. It's a waste of time and taxpayer
money.

[Gini52]

In article >,
says...
>
>Chris ...
>In most states, there is no accountability on how CS is spent. If your
>child is not being taken care of properly, then you jump in with both
>feet and make sure the money goes where it's supposed to.
====
Actually, many states do have such statutes. The problem is that they are never
enforced. Florida's statutes specifically forbid the CP from using CS for
her/his personal expenses but it's window dressing--one of those "pretend
remedies" enacted to make it appear the state gives a damn.
====
====
>
>
>nm
>

[Gini52]

In article >,
says...
>
>Chris ...
>In most states, there is no accountability on how CS is spent. If your
>child is not being taken care of properly, then you jump in with both
>feet and make sure the money goes where it's supposed to.
====
Actually, many states do have such statutes. The problem is that they are never
enforced. Florida's statutes specifically forbid the CP from using CS for
her/his personal expenses but it's window dressing--one of those "pretend
remedies" enacted to make it appear the state gives a damn.
====
====
>
>
>nm
>

[TeacherMama]

Fighting For Kids > wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:02:34 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:


> >
> >And WHO'S the judge as to whether or not they need a judge? "Reasonable" is
> >a matter of opinion subject to the individual.
> >
>
> Usually one of the people in the parties. Our state has madatory
> mediation requirements in all divorces (im not sure about the custody
> and child support arrangements in which the parents were not married)
> I think thats a good step because it forces people to sit down and try
> and make a resonable agreement. Some mediations dont work out and
> the court is the next step.

What state do you live in, FFK? I think mandatory mediation is a
great idea! Does it seem to work well? Any stats on that?

[TeacherMama]

Fighting For Kids > wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:02:34 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:


> >
> >And WHO'S the judge as to whether or not they need a judge? "Reasonable" is
> >a matter of opinion subject to the individual.
> >
>
> Usually one of the people in the parties. Our state has madatory
> mediation requirements in all divorces (im not sure about the custody
> and child support arrangements in which the parents were not married)
> I think thats a good step because it forces people to sit down and try
> and make a resonable agreement. Some mediations dont work out and
> the court is the next step.

What state do you live in, FFK? I think mandatory mediation is a
great idea! Does it seem to work well? Any stats on that?

[TeacherMama]

How much longer are you ordered to pay child support, Chris?

"Chris" > wrote in message news:<83Psb.333$6G3.233@fed1read06>...
> "Gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01>, Jon says...
> > >
> > >So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
> > >drink?
> >
> > ====
> > Well, how about if the NCP tells the judge he can't pay that much because
> he
> > needs a drink and a lottery ticket?
>
> EXCELLENT !
>
> > ====
> >
> > >FYI. Child support "dollars" can be spent on anything the CP wants,
> > >as long as they have already had to beg, borrow or steal from others to
> make
> > >up the the deadbeat's share before he decided to pay.
> >
> > ====
> > FYI. You are wrong. "Child support dollars can be spent on anything the CP
> > wants" as long as the children aren't starving. She can squander on time
> > payments just as easily as late payments.
>
> Actually, she can spend it on anything that she desires even if her children
> ARE starving........ LEGALLY !
>
> > ===
> > ===
> >

[TeacherMama]

How much longer are you ordered to pay child support, Chris?

"Chris" > wrote in message news:<83Psb.333$6G3.233@fed1read06>...
> "Gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01>, Jon says...
> > >
> > >So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
> > >drink?
> >
> > ====
> > Well, how about if the NCP tells the judge he can't pay that much because
> he
> > needs a drink and a lottery ticket?
>
> EXCELLENT !
>
> > ====
> >
> > >FYI. Child support "dollars" can be spent on anything the CP wants,
> > >as long as they have already had to beg, borrow or steal from others to
> make
> > >up the the deadbeat's share before he decided to pay.
> >
> > ====
> > FYI. You are wrong. "Child support dollars can be spent on anything the CP
> > wants" as long as the children aren't starving. She can squander on time
> > payments just as easily as late payments.
>
> Actually, she can spend it on anything that she desires even if her children
> ARE starving........ LEGALLY !
>
> > ===
> > ===
> >

[Gini52]

In article >, Indyguy1 says...
>
>Gini52 wtote:
>
>>In article >, Fighting For Kids
>>says...
>>>
>>>On 12 Nov 2003 18:45:30 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>====
>>>>Yep. It comes from your percent share. (My proposal is, however, that only
>>the
>>>>amount over reasonable actual expenses should be subject to accounting.)
>>>>====
>>>>====
>>>
>>>
>>>But what is a reasonable amount? Not one person here has agreed to any
>>>amount proposed.
>>====
>>I have repeatedly suggested that a reasonable amount is commensurate with the
>>amount states pay for foster children. This includes regional COL variances.
>
>How can one set amount for all children in the same geopgraphical area be
>reasonable? Should Trump pay CS at the same rate as Joe Average who earns 40K?
====
Your view is different than mine on this. We've been here before. You believe
support should be ordered commensurate with SOL (theoretical--as it is never
enforced elsewhere). Until the state comes to *your* home (I know yours is
intact as mine is :-) and requires you to spend a defined percentage of your
income on your children, it has no right do it to divorced/never married
dads/NCPs.
====
>
>In the same county you can have poverty level and millionares paying CS. Is it
>really reasonable for a millionare to pay the same CS as the poverty level
>person?
====
Yes. Children in "broken" families should have no more rights to SOL than kids
in intact homes. The government should not be in the business of mandating
lifestyle. Period. If it is--it *must* mandate *all* parents to fund the
lifestyle and be willing to enforce it. To mandate lifestyle *only* on NCPs (not
CPs and not intact families) is simply a violation of equal protection. To
presume a SOL on kids from broken homes but not kids from intact homes is a
violation of equal protection as well.
===
>
>Should children that have been raised all of their lives stop getting the
>creature comforts they have been getting because their parents divorce?
===
Again, it is a violation of equal protection to mandate a lifestyle be funded by
an NCP, but not a CP and not for kids in intact homes. As in intact families,
financial decisions should be made by the parents without government intrusion.
===
>
>Of course the obligatory *the NCP can then contribute anything they want above
>the base support* is expected. However the problem lies in that without being
>forced to provide above foster care level of support some will choose to spend
>on themselves, their new SO, or just about anything other than their child.
===
As in intact families, lifestyle is not a matter to be enforced by the state.
The state's interest is to make certain kids have basic needs met.
==
>
>I happen to know someone that DOES save receipts and sends copies of every
>receipt to her ex, as he kept bellyaching about how he paid too much. All it
>has done is create more animosity between the two of them. He calls her and
>questions why his kids can't eat plain hamburgers rather than chicken nuggets.
>From what I have seen it just leads to nitpicking.
===
Nitpicking is an individual matter. It is better than the consequences of state
mandated lifestyle CS for which it refuses to account.
===
>
>I do feel CPs should be responsible for showing how the CS is spent, that way
>any nogoodnicks will have to straighten up. Overall I bet if all were required
>to show where the CS money is going there would be a lot less of *I pay too
>much* but a lot more critical comments that will virtually make no differance
>at all in the end.
===
I'm sure there would be greater compliance if the state were as interested in
whether the child is benefiting from the money as it is from extracting it from
NCPs.
===
===
>
>Mrs Indyguy
>>====
>>====
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Gini52]

In article >, Indyguy1 says...
>
>Gini52 wtote:
>
>>In article >, Fighting For Kids
>>says...
>>>
>>>On 12 Nov 2003 18:45:30 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>====
>>>>Yep. It comes from your percent share. (My proposal is, however, that only
>>the
>>>>amount over reasonable actual expenses should be subject to accounting.)
>>>>====
>>>>====
>>>
>>>
>>>But what is a reasonable amount? Not one person here has agreed to any
>>>amount proposed.
>>====
>>I have repeatedly suggested that a reasonable amount is commensurate with the
>>amount states pay for foster children. This includes regional COL variances.
>
>How can one set amount for all children in the same geopgraphical area be
>reasonable? Should Trump pay CS at the same rate as Joe Average who earns 40K?
====
Your view is different than mine on this. We've been here before. You believe
support should be ordered commensurate with SOL (theoretical--as it is never
enforced elsewhere). Until the state comes to *your* home (I know yours is
intact as mine is :-) and requires you to spend a defined percentage of your
income on your children, it has no right do it to divorced/never married
dads/NCPs.
====
>
>In the same county you can have poverty level and millionares paying CS. Is it
>really reasonable for a millionare to pay the same CS as the poverty level
>person?
====
Yes. Children in "broken" families should have no more rights to SOL than kids
in intact homes. The government should not be in the business of mandating
lifestyle. Period. If it is--it *must* mandate *all* parents to fund the
lifestyle and be willing to enforce it. To mandate lifestyle *only* on NCPs (not
CPs and not intact families) is simply a violation of equal protection. To
presume a SOL on kids from broken homes but not kids from intact homes is a
violation of equal protection as well.
===
>
>Should children that have been raised all of their lives stop getting the
>creature comforts they have been getting because their parents divorce?
===
Again, it is a violation of equal protection to mandate a lifestyle be funded by
an NCP, but not a CP and not for kids in intact homes. As in intact families,
financial decisions should be made by the parents without government intrusion.
===
>
>Of course the obligatory *the NCP can then contribute anything they want above
>the base support* is expected. However the problem lies in that without being
>forced to provide above foster care level of support some will choose to spend
>on themselves, their new SO, or just about anything other than their child.
===
As in intact families, lifestyle is not a matter to be enforced by the state.
The state's interest is to make certain kids have basic needs met.
==
>
>I happen to know someone that DOES save receipts and sends copies of every
>receipt to her ex, as he kept bellyaching about how he paid too much. All it
>has done is create more animosity between the two of them. He calls her and
>questions why his kids can't eat plain hamburgers rather than chicken nuggets.
>From what I have seen it just leads to nitpicking.
===
Nitpicking is an individual matter. It is better than the consequences of state
mandated lifestyle CS for which it refuses to account.
===
>
>I do feel CPs should be responsible for showing how the CS is spent, that way
>any nogoodnicks will have to straighten up. Overall I bet if all were required
>to show where the CS money is going there would be a lot less of *I pay too
>much* but a lot more critical comments that will virtually make no differance
>at all in the end.
===
I'm sure there would be greater compliance if the state were as interested in
whether the child is benefiting from the money as it is from extracting it from
NCPs.
===
===
>
>Mrs Indyguy
>>====
>>====
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Gini52]

In article >, TeacherMama
says...
>
>Fighting For Kids > wrote in message
>...
>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:02:34 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> >And WHO'S the judge as to whether or not they need a judge? "Reasonable" is
>> >a matter of opinion subject to the individual.
>> >
>>
>> Usually one of the people in the parties. Our state has madatory
>> mediation requirements in all divorces (im not sure about the custody
>> and child support arrangements in which the parents were not married)
>> I think thats a good step because it forces people to sit down and try
>> and make a resonable agreement. Some mediations dont work out and
>> the court is the next step.
>
>What state do you live in, FFK? I think mandatory mediation is a
>great idea! Does it seem to work well? Any stats on that?
===
Florida has it. I'm sure it has limited worth, however.
===
===

[Gini52]

In article >, TeacherMama
says...
>
>Fighting For Kids > wrote in message
>...
>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:02:34 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> >And WHO'S the judge as to whether or not they need a judge? "Reasonable" is
>> >a matter of opinion subject to the individual.
>> >
>>
>> Usually one of the people in the parties. Our state has madatory
>> mediation requirements in all divorces (im not sure about the custody
>> and child support arrangements in which the parents were not married)
>> I think thats a good step because it forces people to sit down and try
>> and make a resonable agreement. Some mediations dont work out and
>> the court is the next step.
>
>What state do you live in, FFK? I think mandatory mediation is a
>great idea! Does it seem to work well? Any stats on that?
===
Florida has it. I'm sure it has limited worth, however.
===
===

[Paul Fritz]

Typical moonie mode.......turning a thread into 'about her"
"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> > Moon Shyne wrote:
> > > > > The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
> > > >
> > > > So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some
> > > > other place where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream
> > > > from the ice cream truck because they don't issue receipts?
> > >
> > > Apparently not. If you are so selfish with your own money that you
> > > can't spring for an ice cream, this will be a problem, won't it?
> >
> > Considering that the CS I currently receive is less than half the
> > actual expenses for the children, you would be way off base in your
> > remark.
>
> That's not what you said. You're avoiding the point. Your statement
> gave no indication that you were talking only about you, specifically.
> Can you address the response to your own point, or not?

[The Beast]

"Jon" > wrote in message
news:Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01...
> So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
> drink?
>
> FYI. Child support "dollars" can be spent on anything the CP
wants,
> as long as they have already had to beg, borrow or steal from others to
make
> up the the deadbeat's share before he decided to pay.
>
>....decided to pay?!?!?......
> "Gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <jPtsb.10$6G3.8@fed1read06>, Chris says...
> > >
> > >Family kourt forces a man to give "child support" cash to the woman.
She
> > >uses such proceeds to purchase lottery tickets, alcoholic beverages,
> > >cigarettes, gifts for her lover, and bon bons. How is this "child
> support"
> > >money?
> > ===
> > It's the "trickle down" effect--You know, "Reaganomics." In the case of
> middle
> > income dads, the presumption is that if you give them (CPs) way more
than
> they
> > need, there is a greater chance that enough will "trickle down" to the
> kids to
> > keep them from starving. Note: This does not include CS ordered to low
> income
> > dads that does not meet the basic needs of the child or upper income
dads
> who
> > are not subject to CS guidelines.
> > ===
> > ===
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
.....more like FORCED To pay under threat of a gun. I sometimes think people
like you wont be happy until we cant shyt with out a court order.

[The Beast]

"Jon" > wrote in message
news:Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01...
> So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
> drink?
>
> FYI. Child support "dollars" can be spent on anything the CP
wants,
> as long as they have already had to beg, borrow or steal from others to
make
> up the the deadbeat's share before he decided to pay.
>
>....decided to pay?!?!?......
> "Gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <jPtsb.10$6G3.8@fed1read06>, Chris says...
> > >
> > >Family kourt forces a man to give "child support" cash to the woman.
She
> > >uses such proceeds to purchase lottery tickets, alcoholic beverages,
> > >cigarettes, gifts for her lover, and bon bons. How is this "child
> support"
> > >money?
> > ===
> > It's the "trickle down" effect--You know, "Reaganomics." In the case of
> middle
> > income dads, the presumption is that if you give them (CPs) way more
than
> they
> > need, there is a greater chance that enough will "trickle down" to the
> kids to
> > keep them from starving. Note: This does not include CS ordered to low
> income
> > dads that does not meet the basic needs of the child or upper income
dads
> who
> > are not subject to CS guidelines.
> > ===
> > ===
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
.....more like FORCED To pay under threat of a gun. I sometimes think people
like you wont be happy until we cant shyt with out a court order.

[The Beast]

"Cameron Stevens" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Dave" <dave@freedoms-door> wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jon" > wrote in message
> > news:Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01...
> > > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
> > > drink?
> > >
> >
> > Child support should not be used for anything other than for supporting
> the
> > child.
>
> Supporting the mother *is* supporting the child. I know what you mean but
> there's no sane or reasonable way to enforce this.
>
>
>
You are assuming that the current enforcement practices are reasonable!

[The Beast]

"Cameron Stevens" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Dave" <dave@freedoms-door> wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jon" > wrote in message
> > news:Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01...
> > > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
> > > drink?
> > >
> >
> > Child support should not be used for anything other than for supporting
> the
> > child.
>
> Supporting the mother *is* supporting the child. I know what you mean but
> there's no sane or reasonable way to enforce this.
>
>
>
You are assuming that the current enforcement practices are reasonable!

[AZ Astrea]

"Chris" > wrote in message
news:O3Psb.335$6G3.63@fed1read06...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Chris" > wrote in message
> news:ZdEsb.258$6G3.133@fed1read06...
> > >
> > > "Jon" > wrote in message
> > > news:AjCsb.187030$e01.681443@attbi_s02...
> > > > What I am saying is this: The actual physical child support dollars
> that
> > > > come in the form of a check from the Family Support Registry do not
> have
> > > to
> > > > be spent on the children if the custodial parent has already had to
> take
> > > > the NCP's share out of their own income to pay direct and indirect
> child
> > > > expenses for any given month. This is not rocket science.
> > >
> > > If they've already paid for such expenses out of their own pocket,
then
> they
> > > don't need the "child support" money, do they?
> >
> > So they had to use an additional share of their own income to cover the
> > children's expenses - now they've got no money left to also cover their
> own
> > expenses, since they were covering the NCP's share - what would you
> suggest,
> > they hold off being able to eat dinner till next month?
>
> Obviously, they ARE eating dinner; otherwise, they wouldn't be alive to
pay
> for ANY expense.
>
---------------------
Chris, I absolutely agree with what you are saying. I think it's proof in
itself that there is/was enough money to raise the kids if those kids have
in fact been raised. It's proof that cs is not for the support of kids.
Intact families run the whole spectrum of income levels from millionaires to
families living in their car and the kids do manage to get 'raised'.

~AZ~

> >
> > >
> > > > "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > > Jon wrote:
> > > > > > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or
> take a
> > > > > > drink?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > FYI. Child support "dollars" can be spent on anything
the
> CP
> > > > > > wants, as long as they have already had to beg, borrow or steal
> from
> > > > > > others to make up the the deadbeat's share before he decided to
> pay.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, you admit that CS is really general income for the CP (read:
> > > > > mother), and should be taxed accordingly?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[AZ Astrea]

"Chris" > wrote in message
news:O3Psb.335$6G3.63@fed1read06...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Chris" > wrote in message
> news:ZdEsb.258$6G3.133@fed1read06...
> > >
> > > "Jon" > wrote in message
> > > news:AjCsb.187030$e01.681443@attbi_s02...
> > > > What I am saying is this: The actual physical child support dollars
> that
> > > > come in the form of a check from the Family Support Registry do not
> have
> > > to
> > > > be spent on the children if the custodial parent has already had to
> take
> > > > the NCP's share out of their own income to pay direct and indirect
> child
> > > > expenses for any given month. This is not rocket science.
> > >
> > > If they've already paid for such expenses out of their own pocket,
then
> they
> > > don't need the "child support" money, do they?
> >
> > So they had to use an additional share of their own income to cover the
> > children's expenses - now they've got no money left to also cover their
> own
> > expenses, since they were covering the NCP's share - what would you
> suggest,
> > they hold off being able to eat dinner till next month?
>
> Obviously, they ARE eating dinner; otherwise, they wouldn't be alive to
pay
> for ANY expense.
>
---------------------
Chris, I absolutely agree with what you are saying. I think it's proof in
itself that there is/was enough money to raise the kids if those kids have
in fact been raised. It's proof that cs is not for the support of kids.
Intact families run the whole spectrum of income levels from millionaires to
families living in their car and the kids do manage to get 'raised'.

~AZ~

> >
> > >
> > > > "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > > Jon wrote:
> > > > > > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or
> take a
> > > > > > drink?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > FYI. Child support "dollars" can be spent on anything
the
> CP
> > > > > > wants, as long as they have already had to beg, borrow or steal
> from
> > > > > > others to make up the the deadbeat's share before he decided to
> pay.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, you admit that CS is really general income for the CP (read:
> > > > > mother), and should be taxed accordingly?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Cameron Stevens]

"The Beast" > wrote in message
.com...
>
> "Cameron Stevens" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > Supporting the mother *is* supporting the child. I know what you mean
but
> > there's no sane or reasonable way to enforce this.
> >
> You are assuming that the current enforcement practices are reasonable!

No... It doesn't matter if the practices are reasonable. Paying the mom,
regardless of the amount of fairness, supports the child. How WELL the child
is supported is then left to the mom (CP, sorry).

Cameron

[Cameron Stevens]

"The Beast" > wrote in message
.com...
>
> "Cameron Stevens" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > Supporting the mother *is* supporting the child. I know what you mean
but
> > there's no sane or reasonable way to enforce this.
> >
> You are assuming that the current enforcement practices are reasonable!

No... It doesn't matter if the practices are reasonable. Paying the mom,
regardless of the amount of fairness, supports the child. How WELL the child
is supported is then left to the mom (CP, sorry).

Cameron

[Fighting For Kids]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:32:16 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> wrote:


>The $4,755 is the amount CP's claim has been ordered and this number is from
>1999 orders that could have been modified upward twice since the Census data
>was collected.

Or modified downward.


For perspective it needs to be stated this average CS amount
>includes teenage mothers aged 15 and up who have had children with very low
>income teenage boys, as well as adult children over the age of majority for
>CS but under age 21.

WHo probably make up a small portion of the reported numbers. If I
remember the majority of support was given to those 21 and up.


The $4,755 does not include healthcare insurance and
>reimbursements, life insurance, daycare, etc. that are add-ons to the basic
>CS order.

It very well may. My state includes daycare expenses in the support
order already added in. Life insurance? Reimbursements? Those are
judgements that are seperate from the CS order anyway. I dont know
one person who got life insurance ordered. I have seen reimbursement
for medical expenses or extrordinary expense like braces, private
school, etc. However, most children dont go to private school and
many dont need braces.

And it does not include education CS paid directly to adult
>children attending college.

Where did you see this statement?

It also does not account for the additional
>support value for non-cash support that 60% of CP's report receiving from
>NCP's.

What is non-cash support?

>
>The average CS award has got to be at least $400-500 per month more than the
>Census shows when you consider all the other factors NCP's are required to
>pay.

Possibly in some cases but not all. In some cases this could be less.

>
>The government has an agenda to make CS payments and collections sound low
>to continually increase the guideline amounts and justify the $4 billion
>bureaucracy that has been created to chase down NCP's.

I doubt that.
>

[Fighting For Kids]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:32:16 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> wrote:


>The $4,755 is the amount CP's claim has been ordered and this number is from
>1999 orders that could have been modified upward twice since the Census data
>was collected.

Or modified downward.


For perspective it needs to be stated this average CS amount
>includes teenage mothers aged 15 and up who have had children with very low
>income teenage boys, as well as adult children over the age of majority for
>CS but under age 21.

WHo probably make up a small portion of the reported numbers. If I
remember the majority of support was given to those 21 and up.


The $4,755 does not include healthcare insurance and
>reimbursements, life insurance, daycare, etc. that are add-ons to the basic
>CS order.

It very well may. My state includes daycare expenses in the support
order already added in. Life insurance? Reimbursements? Those are
judgements that are seperate from the CS order anyway. I dont know
one person who got life insurance ordered. I have seen reimbursement
for medical expenses or extrordinary expense like braces, private
school, etc. However, most children dont go to private school and
many dont need braces.

And it does not include education CS paid directly to adult
>children attending college.

Where did you see this statement?

It also does not account for the additional
>support value for non-cash support that 60% of CP's report receiving from
>NCP's.

What is non-cash support?

>
>The average CS award has got to be at least $400-500 per month more than the
>Census shows when you consider all the other factors NCP's are required to
>pay.

Possibly in some cases but not all. In some cases this could be less.

>
>The government has an agenda to make CS payments and collections sound low
>to continually increase the guideline amounts and justify the $4 billion
>bureaucracy that has been created to chase down NCP's.

I doubt that.
>

[Bob Whiteside]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:32:16 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >The $4,755 is the amount CP's claim has been ordered and this number is
from
> >1999 orders that could have been modified upward twice since the Census
data
> >was collected.
>
> Or modified downward.

Downward modifications are rare. The national CSE site shows they occur in
only 4% of the modifications.

>
>
> For perspective it needs to be stated this average CS amount
> >includes teenage mothers aged 15 and up who have had children with very
low
> >income teenage boys, as well as adult children over the age of majority
for
> >CS but under age 21.
>
> WHo probably make up a small portion of the reported numbers. If I
> remember the majority of support was given to those 21 and up.

It's two different categories. The young girls age 15-17 account for a
small number of support cases and they are considered statistically too
small of a group to extend out to the total population. The other category
are adult children aged 18-21 who still live with their former CP mother,
but because of their age they are no longer included on CS orders in states
where CS ends at 18 or 19. Also, children living at home, but having CS
paid directly to them would fit into this category too.

>
>
> The $4,755 does not include healthcare insurance and
> >reimbursements, life insurance, daycare, etc. that are add-ons to the
basic
> >CS order.
>
> It very well may. My state includes daycare expenses in the support
> order already added in. Life insurance? Reimbursements? Those are
> judgements that are seperate from the CS order anyway. I dont know
> one person who got life insurance ordered. I have seen reimbursement
> for medical expenses or extrordinary expense like braces, private
> school, etc. However, most children dont go to private school and
> many dont need braces.

Life insurance is ordered all the time to gurantee the CS is paid if the NCP
dies before the children reach the age of majority. Some states have case
law preventing a judge from forcing an NCP to designate the children as
beneficiaries. In those states they tell the fathers they have a choice -
either take out the required insurance in the amount the court sets, or the
court will reserve the right to create a constructive trust over the
father's assets in the event of his death in the same amount.

>
> And it does not include education CS paid directly to adult
> >children attending college.
>
> Where did you see this statement?

It isn't in the Census report. However, CS ordered to be paid directly to
the adult child is not CS ordered to be paid to the CP mother. In some
cases, the judgment creditor is changed from the mother to the child. This
can account for a child living in the CP's home without the mother receiving
any CS for the child.

>
> It also does not account for the additional
> >support value for non-cash support that 60% of CP's report receiving from
> >NCP's.
>
> What is non-cash support?

I've answered this question twice. See page 6 of the report. 60% of CP's
report receiving at least one form of non-cash support from NCP's. This
includes gifts, clothes, food and groceries, medical expenses other than
healthcare insurance, child care, and summer camp reimbursements.
>
> >
> >The average CS award has got to be at least $400-500 per month more than
the
> >Census shows when you consider all the other factors NCP's are required
to
> >pay.
>
> Possibly in some cases but not all. In some cases this could be less.

It's just a guess on my part that these items can add $400-500 per month.
Let me share some of my own experience with this. While I was paying CS for
my daughter attending college, I also agreed to pay all of her school
expenses not covered by student and parent loans. I also paid her car
insurance, all of her medical expenses, and bought her a laptop to use at
school. That stuff adds up very fast.

>
> >
> >The government has an agenda to make CS payments and collections sound
low
> >to continually increase the guideline amounts and justify the $4 billion
> >bureaucracy that has been created to chase down NCP's.
>
> I doubt that.

So why do you think CSE inflates the amount of CS due by including in their
statistics the amount they would collect if the 50% of parents without
formal CS agreements were included in their caseload? Why do you think CSE
has forced every new or newly modified CS order through their agencies for
collection? Have you noticed CSE is collecting fewer and fewer welfare
reimbursement dollars while their non-TANF collections are rising
dramatically? The answers are simple - they are trying to take credit for a
big caseload that they do nothing to collect to make it look like they are
effective to Congress. It's all smoke and mirrors.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:32:16 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >The $4,755 is the amount CP's claim has been ordered and this number is
from
> >1999 orders that could have been modified upward twice since the Census
data
> >was collected.
>
> Or modified downward.

Downward modifications are rare. The national CSE site shows they occur in
only 4% of the modifications.

>
>
> For perspective it needs to be stated this average CS amount
> >includes teenage mothers aged 15 and up who have had children with very
low
> >income teenage boys, as well as adult children over the age of majority
for
> >CS but under age 21.
>
> WHo probably make up a small portion of the reported numbers. If I
> remember the majority of support was given to those 21 and up.

It's two different categories. The young girls age 15-17 account for a
small number of support cases and they are considered statistically too
small of a group to extend out to the total population. The other category
are adult children aged 18-21 who still live with their former CP mother,
but because of their age they are no longer included on CS orders in states
where CS ends at 18 or 19. Also, children living at home, but having CS
paid directly to them would fit into this category too.

>
>
> The $4,755 does not include healthcare insurance and
> >reimbursements, life insurance, daycare, etc. that are add-ons to the
basic
> >CS order.
>
> It very well may. My state includes daycare expenses in the support
> order already added in. Life insurance? Reimbursements? Those are
> judgements that are seperate from the CS order anyway. I dont know
> one person who got life insurance ordered. I have seen reimbursement
> for medical expenses or extrordinary expense like braces, private
> school, etc. However, most children dont go to private school and
> many dont need braces.

Life insurance is ordered all the time to gurantee the CS is paid if the NCP
dies before the children reach the age of majority. Some states have case
law preventing a judge from forcing an NCP to designate the children as
beneficiaries. In those states they tell the fathers they have a choice -
either take out the required insurance in the amount the court sets, or the
court will reserve the right to create a constructive trust over the
father's assets in the event of his death in the same amount.

>
> And it does not include education CS paid directly to adult
> >children attending college.
>
> Where did you see this statement?

It isn't in the Census report. However, CS ordered to be paid directly to
the adult child is not CS ordered to be paid to the CP mother. In some
cases, the judgment creditor is changed from the mother to the child. This
can account for a child living in the CP's home without the mother receiving
any CS for the child.

>
> It also does not account for the additional
> >support value for non-cash support that 60% of CP's report receiving from
> >NCP's.
>
> What is non-cash support?

I've answered this question twice. See page 6 of the report. 60% of CP's
report receiving at least one form of non-cash support from NCP's. This
includes gifts, clothes, food and groceries, medical expenses other than
healthcare insurance, child care, and summer camp reimbursements.
>
> >
> >The average CS award has got to be at least $400-500 per month more than
the
> >Census shows when you consider all the other factors NCP's are required
to
> >pay.
>
> Possibly in some cases but not all. In some cases this could be less.

It's just a guess on my part that these items can add $400-500 per month.
Let me share some of my own experience with this. While I was paying CS for
my daughter attending college, I also agreed to pay all of her school
expenses not covered by student and parent loans. I also paid her car
insurance, all of her medical expenses, and bought her a laptop to use at
school. That stuff adds up very fast.

>
> >
> >The government has an agenda to make CS payments and collections sound
low
> >to continually increase the guideline amounts and justify the $4 billion
> >bureaucracy that has been created to chase down NCP's.
>
> I doubt that.

So why do you think CSE inflates the amount of CS due by including in their
statistics the amount they would collect if the 50% of parents without
formal CS agreements were included in their caseload? Why do you think CSE
has forced every new or newly modified CS order through their agencies for
collection? Have you noticed CSE is collecting fewer and fewer welfare
reimbursement dollars while their non-TANF collections are rising
dramatically? The answers are simple - they are trying to take credit for a
big caseload that they do nothing to collect to make it look like they are
effective to Congress. It's all smoke and mirrors.

[The Beast]

So...
"Cameron Stevens" > wrote in message
...
>
> "The Beast" > wrote in message
> .com...
> >
> > "Cameron Stevens" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > > Supporting the mother *is* supporting the child. I know what you mean
> but
> > > there's no sane or reasonable way to enforce this.
> > >
> > You are assuming that the current enforcement practices are reasonable!
>
> No... It doesn't matter if the practices are reasonable. Paying the mom,
> regardless of the amount of fairness, supports the child. How WELL the
child
> is supported is then left to the mom (CP, sorry).
>
> Cameron
>
>
....we leave mom(CP ,sorry) to her(it's ,sorry);) own devices, unchecked,
unbalanced. GREAT IDEA!

You know...just because a legislative body makes a law, any law, does not
make it right!
People from the left in this country have been telling us for years that
morality cannot be legislated upon. Well, friend, that is exactly what CS
legislation is! Laws governing what I or someone else think is right. With
that said, I don't have a problem supporting my children. What I have a
problem with is some government equation telling me how much it costs to
rise MY children. YOU CANNOT tell me how to raise my children or how much I
SHOULD spend on them. IOW's NO ONE SHOULD HAVE MORAL AUTHORITY OVER ME
BESIDES MY CREATOR!!! Not you, not a court, and especially not some elected
"official" that is sucking up PAC money like a cheap whore on the docks on
payday.
However, I would be interested in a system that allowed a NCP to pay a CP
without the blood-stained hands of the court involved. A contract, if you
will, between two consenting adults(novel concept, huh?). And in this day of
technology this would be very easy. Hell, I can pay my phone bill while I'm
driving down the road @ 70mph, why cant I pay my ex electronically and cut
out the middle man(govco)?

[The Beast]

So...
"Cameron Stevens" > wrote in message
...
>
> "The Beast" > wrote in message
> .com...
> >
> > "Cameron Stevens" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > > Supporting the mother *is* supporting the child. I know what you mean
> but
> > > there's no sane or reasonable way to enforce this.
> > >
> > You are assuming that the current enforcement practices are reasonable!
>
> No... It doesn't matter if the practices are reasonable. Paying the mom,
> regardless of the amount of fairness, supports the child. How WELL the
child
> is supported is then left to the mom (CP, sorry).
>
> Cameron
>
>
....we leave mom(CP ,sorry) to her(it's ,sorry);) own devices, unchecked,
unbalanced. GREAT IDEA!

You know...just because a legislative body makes a law, any law, does not
make it right!
People from the left in this country have been telling us for years that
morality cannot be legislated upon. Well, friend, that is exactly what CS
legislation is! Laws governing what I or someone else think is right. With
that said, I don't have a problem supporting my children. What I have a
problem with is some government equation telling me how much it costs to
rise MY children. YOU CANNOT tell me how to raise my children or how much I
SHOULD spend on them. IOW's NO ONE SHOULD HAVE MORAL AUTHORITY OVER ME
BESIDES MY CREATOR!!! Not you, not a court, and especially not some elected
"official" that is sucking up PAC money like a cheap whore on the docks on
payday.
However, I would be interested in a system that allowed a NCP to pay a CP
without the blood-stained hands of the court involved. A contract, if you
will, between two consenting adults(novel concept, huh?). And in this day of
technology this would be very easy. Hell, I can pay my phone bill while I'm
driving down the road @ 70mph, why cant I pay my ex electronically and cut
out the middle man(govco)?

[Chris]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:00:33 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Untrue. You can provide food, clothing, etc. and not spend one thin dime.
> >However, that does NOT address the question. I understand the question to
be
> >inquiring about the mandatory number of dollars intact families must
spend.
> >So, the answer is?
> >
>
> How exactly can you do all that and not spend one dime? Stealing?
> Please let me know because I sure would like to get in on that deal.

Ever hear of bartering? So again, the answer is?

[Chris]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:00:33 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Untrue. You can provide food, clothing, etc. and not spend one thin dime.
> >However, that does NOT address the question. I understand the question to
be
> >inquiring about the mandatory number of dollars intact families must
spend.
> >So, the answer is?
> >
>
> How exactly can you do all that and not spend one dime? Stealing?
> Please let me know because I sure would like to get in on that deal.

Ever hear of bartering? So again, the answer is?

[Chris]

"TeacherMama" > wrote in message
om...
> Fighting For Kids > wrote in message
>...
> > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:02:34 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>
>
> > >
> > >And WHO'S the judge as to whether or not they need a judge?
"Reasonable" is
> > >a matter of opinion subject to the individual.
> > >
> >
> > Usually one of the people in the parties. Our state has madatory
> > mediation requirements in all divorces (im not sure about the custody
> > and child support arrangements in which the parents were not married)
> > I think thats a good step because it forces people to sit down and try
> > and make a resonable agreement. Some mediations dont work out and
> > the court is the next step.
>
> What state do you live in, FFK? I think mandatory mediation is a
> great idea!

Mandatory mediation is simply a shrink acting as a judge. If either party
disagrees with the decision, they can appeal it.

> Does it seem to work well? Any stats on that?

[Chris]

"TeacherMama" > wrote in message
om...
> Fighting For Kids > wrote in message
>...
> > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:02:34 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>
>
> > >
> > >And WHO'S the judge as to whether or not they need a judge?
"Reasonable" is
> > >a matter of opinion subject to the individual.
> > >
> >
> > Usually one of the people in the parties. Our state has madatory
> > mediation requirements in all divorces (im not sure about the custody
> > and child support arrangements in which the parents were not married)
> > I think thats a good step because it forces people to sit down and try
> > and make a resonable agreement. Some mediations dont work out and
> > the court is the next step.
>
> What state do you live in, FFK? I think mandatory mediation is a
> great idea!

Mandatory mediation is simply a shrink acting as a judge. If either party
disagrees with the decision, they can appeal it.

> Does it seem to work well? Any stats on that?

[Chris]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:07:53 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:54:44 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >I COULD be wrong, but I believe that you are legally entitled to a
> >receipt.
> >> >
> >>
> >> lol, you may be legally entitled but that doesnt mean you are going to
> >> get one.
> >
> >You are legally entitled to wake up tomorrow morning, but that doesn't
mean
> >someone won't put a bullet in your head tonight. What's your point?
> >
> What's yours?

I see that you offer NO point.

[Chris]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:07:53 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:54:44 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >I COULD be wrong, but I believe that you are legally entitled to a
> >receipt.
> >> >
> >>
> >> lol, you may be legally entitled but that doesnt mean you are going to
> >> get one.
> >
> >You are legally entitled to wake up tomorrow morning, but that doesn't
mean
> >someone won't put a bullet in your head tonight. What's your point?
> >
> What's yours?

I see that you offer NO point.

[Chris]

"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
> Chris wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jon" > wrote in message
> >news:AjCsb.187030$e01.681443@attbi_s02...
> >> What I am saying is this: The actual physical child support dollars
that
> >> come in the form of a check from the Family Support Registry do not
have
> >to
> >> be spent on the children if the custodial parent has already had to
take
> >> the NCP's share out of their own income to pay direct and indirect
child
> >> expenses for any given month. This is not rocket science.
> >
> >If they've already paid for such expenses out of their own pocket, then
they
> >don't need the "child support" money, do they?
>
> Clarify please. Are you trying to say if the CP earns enough to totally
support
> their child that the NCP shouldn't have to pay any CS?

No. The NCP should not have to pay regardless of the CPs financial
situation. Married parents don't, and neither should NON-married parents!
This is precisely why the divorce rate is so high; the government people pay
women money (extorted from the husband) to file divorce.

>
> My niece is employed. She remarried and her new husband earns a
considerable
> amount. Should her ex no longer pay CS because the two of them can do it
on
> their own? You know the really sad thing is that her new DH would gladly
do so,
> he loves his SD. If given the chance to not pay her ex would take the
offer in
> a heart beat, speaks volumes about him doesn't it.
>
> Mrs Indyguy
>
>
> >
> >> "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > > Jon wrote:
> >> > > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or
take a
> >> > > drink?
> >> > >
> >> > > FYI. Child support "dollars" can be spent on anything the
CP
> >> > > wants, as long as they have already had to beg, borrow or steal
from
> >> > > others to make up the the deadbeat's share before he decided to
pay.
> >> >
> >> > So, you admit that CS is really general income for the CP (read:
> >> > mother), and should be taxed accordingly?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Chris]

"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
> Chris wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jon" > wrote in message
> >news:AjCsb.187030$e01.681443@attbi_s02...
> >> What I am saying is this: The actual physical child support dollars
that
> >> come in the form of a check from the Family Support Registry do not
have
> >to
> >> be spent on the children if the custodial parent has already had to
take
> >> the NCP's share out of their own income to pay direct and indirect
child
> >> expenses for any given month. This is not rocket science.
> >
> >If they've already paid for such expenses out of their own pocket, then
they
> >don't need the "child support" money, do they?
>
> Clarify please. Are you trying to say if the CP earns enough to totally
support
> their child that the NCP shouldn't have to pay any CS?

No. The NCP should not have to pay regardless of the CPs financial
situation. Married parents don't, and neither should NON-married parents!
This is precisely why the divorce rate is so high; the government people pay
women money (extorted from the husband) to file divorce.

>
> My niece is employed. She remarried and her new husband earns a
considerable
> amount. Should her ex no longer pay CS because the two of them can do it
on
> their own? You know the really sad thing is that her new DH would gladly
do so,
> he loves his SD. If given the chance to not pay her ex would take the
offer in
> a heart beat, speaks volumes about him doesn't it.
>
> Mrs Indyguy
>
>
> >
> >> "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > > Jon wrote:
> >> > > So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or
take a
> >> > > drink?
> >> > >
> >> > > FYI. Child support "dollars" can be spent on anything the
CP
> >> > > wants, as long as they have already had to beg, borrow or steal
from
> >> > > others to make up the the deadbeat's share before he decided to
pay.
> >> >
> >> > So, you admit that CS is really general income for the CP (read:
> >> > mother), and should be taxed accordingly?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Fighting For Kids]

On 13 Nov 2003 14:05:59 -0800, (TeacherMama)
wrote:

>>
>What state do you live in, FFK? I think mandatory mediation is a
>great idea! Does it seem to work well? Any stats on that?

I dont know if it works well or not, I honestly havent seen any actual
stats. Ill look and see if I can find some.

[Fighting For Kids]

On 13 Nov 2003 14:05:59 -0800, (TeacherMama)
wrote:

>>
>What state do you live in, FFK? I think mandatory mediation is a
>great idea! Does it seem to work well? Any stats on that?

I dont know if it works well or not, I honestly havent seen any actual
stats. Ill look and see if I can find some.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Chris" > wrote in message
news:nOYsb.917$6G3.396@fed1read06...
>
> "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Fighting For Kids > wrote in message
> >...
> > > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:02:34 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >And WHO'S the judge as to whether or not they need a judge?
> "Reasonable" is
> > > >a matter of opinion subject to the individual.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Usually one of the people in the parties. Our state has madatory
> > > mediation requirements in all divorces (im not sure about the custody
> > > and child support arrangements in which the parents were not married)
> > > I think thats a good step because it forces people to sit down and try
> > > and make a resonable agreement. Some mediations dont work out and
> > > the court is the next step.
> >
> > What state do you live in, FFK? I think mandatory mediation is a
> > great idea!
>
> Mandatory mediation is simply a shrink acting as a judge. If either party
> disagrees with the decision, they can appeal it.

Mandatory mediation is an agreement reached before a hearing before a judge.
An agreement reached before a hearing can be repudiated by either party at
the time of the hearing before a judge to approve the mediated agreement.
Why waste the time and money on something that has no legal value or merit?
Mediation is a joke.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Chris" > wrote in message
news:nOYsb.917$6G3.396@fed1read06...
>
> "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Fighting For Kids > wrote in message
> >...
> > > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:02:34 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >And WHO'S the judge as to whether or not they need a judge?
> "Reasonable" is
> > > >a matter of opinion subject to the individual.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Usually one of the people in the parties. Our state has madatory
> > > mediation requirements in all divorces (im not sure about the custody
> > > and child support arrangements in which the parents were not married)
> > > I think thats a good step because it forces people to sit down and try
> > > and make a resonable agreement. Some mediations dont work out and
> > > the court is the next step.
> >
> > What state do you live in, FFK? I think mandatory mediation is a
> > great idea!
>
> Mandatory mediation is simply a shrink acting as a judge. If either party
> disagrees with the decision, they can appeal it.

Mandatory mediation is an agreement reached before a hearing before a judge.
An agreement reached before a hearing can be repudiated by either party at
the time of the hearing before a judge to approve the mediated agreement.
Why waste the time and money on something that has no legal value or merit?
Mediation is a joke.

[Fighting For Kids]

I couldnt find the source of this reported statistic so I cant say if
I believe it or not.

On average, a litigated divorce costs around $15,000 and takes more
than a year to conclude. Mediation generally takes less time and
considerably less money than a litigated divorce.

• In one study, more than two-thirds of mediating couples stated they
were "highly satisfied" with the process, and 93 percent said they
would recommend mediation to others. On the other hand, only 20
percent of couples who litigated their divorce described the outcome
as "fair."

• Nearly 90 percent of mediated divorce cases settle successfully.




On 13 Nov 2003 14:32:26 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:

>In article >, TeacherMama
>says...
>>
>>Fighting For Kids > wrote in message
>...
>>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:02:34 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> >
>>> >And WHO'S the judge as to whether or not they need a judge? "Reasonable" is
>>> >a matter of opinion subject to the individual.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Usually one of the people in the parties. Our state has madatory
>>> mediation requirements in all divorces (im not sure about the custody
>>> and child support arrangements in which the parents were not married)
>>> I think thats a good step because it forces people to sit down and try
>>> and make a resonable agreement. Some mediations dont work out and
>>> the court is the next step.
>>
>>What state do you live in, FFK? I think mandatory mediation is a
>>great idea! Does it seem to work well? Any stats on that?
>===
>Florida has it. I'm sure it has limited worth, however.
>===
>===

[Fighting For Kids]

I couldnt find the source of this reported statistic so I cant say if
I believe it or not.

On average, a litigated divorce costs around $15,000 and takes more
than a year to conclude. Mediation generally takes less time and
considerably less money than a litigated divorce.

• In one study, more than two-thirds of mediating couples stated they
were "highly satisfied" with the process, and 93 percent said they
would recommend mediation to others. On the other hand, only 20
percent of couples who litigated their divorce described the outcome
as "fair."

• Nearly 90 percent of mediated divorce cases settle successfully.




On 13 Nov 2003 14:32:26 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:

>In article >, TeacherMama
>says...
>>
>>Fighting For Kids > wrote in message
>...
>>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:02:34 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> >
>>> >And WHO'S the judge as to whether or not they need a judge? "Reasonable" is
>>> >a matter of opinion subject to the individual.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Usually one of the people in the parties. Our state has madatory
>>> mediation requirements in all divorces (im not sure about the custody
>>> and child support arrangements in which the parents were not married)
>>> I think thats a good step because it forces people to sit down and try
>>> and make a resonable agreement. Some mediations dont work out and
>>> the court is the next step.
>>
>>What state do you live in, FFK? I think mandatory mediation is a
>>great idea! Does it seem to work well? Any stats on that?
>===
>Florida has it. I'm sure it has limited worth, however.
>===
>===

[Chris]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:02:34 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:56:39 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >That ought to be left up to the parent to decide; dontcha think?
> >> >
> >>
> >> If a utopia exsisted, yes. It doesn't. Some parents are able to come
> >> to reasonable agreements that work for them. Some parents are not
> >> able to reach a reasonable agreement and must have a third party
> >> intervene. Whether it be a mediator or judge.
> >
> >And WHO'S the judge as to whether or not they need a judge? "Reasonable"
is
> >a matter of opinion subject to the individual.
> >
>
> Usually one of the people in the parties.

WHICH one?

> Our state has madatory
> mediation requirements in all divorces (im not sure about the custody
> and child support arrangements in which the parents were not married)
> I think thats a good step because it forces people to sit down and try
> and make a resonable agreement. Some mediations dont work out and
> the court is the next step.
>
> Who decides in any lawsuit if a judge is needed?

[Chris]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:02:34 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:56:39 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >That ought to be left up to the parent to decide; dontcha think?
> >> >
> >>
> >> If a utopia exsisted, yes. It doesn't. Some parents are able to come
> >> to reasonable agreements that work for them. Some parents are not
> >> able to reach a reasonable agreement and must have a third party
> >> intervene. Whether it be a mediator or judge.
> >
> >And WHO'S the judge as to whether or not they need a judge? "Reasonable"
is
> >a matter of opinion subject to the individual.
> >
>
> Usually one of the people in the parties.

WHICH one?

> Our state has madatory
> mediation requirements in all divorces (im not sure about the custody
> and child support arrangements in which the parents were not married)
> I think thats a good step because it forces people to sit down and try
> and make a resonable agreement. Some mediations dont work out and
> the court is the next step.
>
> Who decides in any lawsuit if a judge is needed?

[Indyguy1]

Gini52 wrote:

>In article >, Indyguy1 says...
>>
>>Gini52 wtote:
>>
>>>In article >, Fighting For Kids
>>>says...
>>>>
>>>>On 12 Nov 2003 18:45:30 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>====
>>>>>Yep. It comes from your percent share. (My proposal is, however, that
>only
>>>the
>>>>>amount over reasonable actual expenses should be subject to accounting.)
>>>>>====
>>>>>====
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>But what is a reasonable amount? Not one person here has agreed to any
>>>>amount proposed.
>>>====
>>>I have repeatedly suggested that a reasonable amount is commensurate with
>the
>>>amount states pay for foster children. This includes regional COL
>variances.
>>
>>How can one set amount for all children in the same geopgraphical area be
>>reasonable? Should Trump pay CS at the same rate as Joe Average who earns
>40K?
>====
>Your view is different than mine on this. We've been here before. You believe
>support should be ordered commensurate with SOL (theoretical--as it is never
>enforced elsewhere).

Well Gini as much as you don't agree with the SOL awards, I do feel they are
necessary. One of the biggest reasons for them is to insure that children will
not be set aside once the NCP leaves the home. Like it or not that can and does
happen.

Until the state comes to *your* home (I know yours is
>intact as mine is :-) and requires you to spend a defined percentage of your
>income on your children, it has no right do it to divorced/never married
>dads/NCPs.
>====

Don't you think there is a logical reason why intact familes are not required
by law to spend X amount? I believe the reason is: The assumption (right or
wrong) is that intact families do spend close to the average that is accessed
for NCPs. I always thought the % that is used is not arbitrary but rather based
on average of what is spent on a child.

>>
>>In the same county you can have poverty level and millionares paying CS. Is
>it
>>really reasonable for a millionare to pay the same CS as the poverty level
>>person?
>====
>Yes. Children in "broken" families should have no more rights to SOL than
>kids
>in intact homes.

Well they don't as far as I am concerned. Two people have a child and provide a
certain SOL for their child. They split up. They both go on to have new spouses
and additional children. Their additional children's SOL will be based on what
they have, without the CS as the CS is already earmarked for the exisiting
child.

The government should not be in the business of mandating
>lifestyle.

They don't mandate from the get go, they mandate that it continues and based on
many NCPs attitudes it's a good thing they do.

Period. If it is--it *must* mandate *all* parents to fund the
>lifestyle and be willing to enforce it. To mandate lifestyle *only* on NCPs
>(not
>CPs and not intact families) is simply a violation of equal protection. To
>presume a SOL on kids from broken homes but not kids from intact homes is a
>violation of equal protection as well.

How can it be when they are NOT on equal footing. If my DH had other children I
wouldn't have any problem with paying CS based on that is the norm. In my state
that would be 20% of his income. If he had those children when we married, and
let's face it that is the way this usually plays out, then we'd have to look at
what he have for the SOL for any children we had together. Could it mean a
lower SOL than the other child? Sure it could, but that would be out of my
control as I am not the other parent of that child.

>===
>>
>>Should children that have been raised all of their lives stop getting the
>>creature comforts they have been getting because their parents divorce?
>===
>Again, it is a violation of equal protection to mandate a lifestyle be funded
>by
>an NCP, but not a CP and not for kids in intact homes.

How can there be equal protection when there are distinct unequal
circumstances?

As in intact families,
>financial decisions should be made by the parents without government
>intrusion.

In a perfect world all parents would step up to the plate. We don't live in a
perfect world.
>===
>>
>>Of course the obligatory *the NCP can then contribute anything they want
>above
>>the base support* is expected. However the problem lies in that without
>being
>>forced to provide above foster care level of support some will choose to
>spend
>>on themselves, their new SO, or just about anything other than their child.
>===
>As in intact families, lifestyle is not a matter to be enforced by the state.
>The state's interest is to make certain kids have basic needs met.

My opinion is once a parent moves out there are too many distractions that can
cause them to loose sight of what they have done and should continue to do. No
to mention basic needs is very subjective. To one child basic needs means 4 new
pairs of socks from KMart twice a year. To others it mean 40 pairs twice a year
from Gap. What makes you think the feds have any right to tell Trump his kids
should shop at KMart?


>==
>>
>>I happen to know someone that DOES save receipts and sends copies of every
>>receipt to her ex, as he kept bellyaching about how he paid too much. All it
>>has done is create more animosity between the two of them. He calls her and
>>questions why his kids can't eat plain hamburgers rather than chicken
>nuggets.
>>From what I have seen it just leads to nitpicking.
>===
>Nitpicking is an individual matter. It is better than the consequences of
>state
>mandated lifestyle CS for which it refuses to account.

I don't know about that.

>===
>>
>>I do feel CPs should be responsible for showing how the CS is spent, that
>way
>>any nogoodnicks will have to straighten up. Overall I bet if all were
>required
>>to show where the CS money is going there would be a lot less of *I pay too
>>much* but a lot more critical comments that will virtually make no
>differance
>>at all in the end.
>===
>I'm sure there would be greater compliance if the state were as interested in
>whether the child is benefiting from the money as it is from extracting it
>from
>NCPs.

I won't disagree. What I would really like to see happen is all CPs accounting
for every dime of CS. If that accounting proves that what the NCP pays doesn't
cover their portion, and that is many cases is above 50% of total costs, their
CS is increased to meet the real costs of raising the child. I guess that might
be the downside of mandated accounting. Think about it. If the accounting
proves it takes more than what the NCP is paying to raise a child, the NCP
might find that CS going up.

No matter that we don't agree on this Gini, I still respect you. :)

Mrs Indyguy
>===
>===
>>
>>Mrs Indyguy
>>>====
>>>====
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Indyguy1]

Gini52 wrote:

>In article >, Indyguy1 says...
>>
>>Gini52 wtote:
>>
>>>In article >, Fighting For Kids
>>>says...
>>>>
>>>>On 12 Nov 2003 18:45:30 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>====
>>>>>Yep. It comes from your percent share. (My proposal is, however, that
>only
>>>the
>>>>>amount over reasonable actual expenses should be subject to accounting.)
>>>>>====
>>>>>====
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>But what is a reasonable amount? Not one person here has agreed to any
>>>>amount proposed.
>>>====
>>>I have repeatedly suggested that a reasonable amount is commensurate with
>the
>>>amount states pay for foster children. This includes regional COL
>variances.
>>
>>How can one set amount for all children in the same geopgraphical area be
>>reasonable? Should Trump pay CS at the same rate as Joe Average who earns
>40K?
>====
>Your view is different than mine on this. We've been here before. You believe
>support should be ordered commensurate with SOL (theoretical--as it is never
>enforced elsewhere).

Well Gini as much as you don't agree with the SOL awards, I do feel they are
necessary. One of the biggest reasons for them is to insure that children will
not be set aside once the NCP leaves the home. Like it or not that can and does
happen.

Until the state comes to *your* home (I know yours is
>intact as mine is :-) and requires you to spend a defined percentage of your
>income on your children, it has no right do it to divorced/never married
>dads/NCPs.
>====

Don't you think there is a logical reason why intact familes are not required
by law to spend X amount? I believe the reason is: The assumption (right or
wrong) is that intact families do spend close to the average that is accessed
for NCPs. I always thought the % that is used is not arbitrary but rather based
on average of what is spent on a child.

>>
>>In the same county you can have poverty level and millionares paying CS. Is
>it
>>really reasonable for a millionare to pay the same CS as the poverty level
>>person?
>====
>Yes. Children in "broken" families should have no more rights to SOL than
>kids
>in intact homes.

Well they don't as far as I am concerned. Two people have a child and provide a
certain SOL for their child. They split up. They both go on to have new spouses
and additional children. Their additional children's SOL will be based on what
they have, without the CS as the CS is already earmarked for the exisiting
child.

The government should not be in the business of mandating
>lifestyle.

They don't mandate from the get go, they mandate that it continues and based on
many NCPs attitudes it's a good thing they do.

Period. If it is--it *must* mandate *all* parents to fund the
>lifestyle and be willing to enforce it. To mandate lifestyle *only* on NCPs
>(not
>CPs and not intact families) is simply a violation of equal protection. To
>presume a SOL on kids from broken homes but not kids from intact homes is a
>violation of equal protection as well.

How can it be when they are NOT on equal footing. If my DH had other children I
wouldn't have any problem with paying CS based on that is the norm. In my state
that would be 20% of his income. If he had those children when we married, and
let's face it that is the way this usually plays out, then we'd have to look at
what he have for the SOL for any children we had together. Could it mean a
lower SOL than the other child? Sure it could, but that would be out of my
control as I am not the other parent of that child.

>===
>>
>>Should children that have been raised all of their lives stop getting the
>>creature comforts they have been getting because their parents divorce?
>===
>Again, it is a violation of equal protection to mandate a lifestyle be funded
>by
>an NCP, but not a CP and not for kids in intact homes.

How can there be equal protection when there are distinct unequal
circumstances?

As in intact families,
>financial decisions should be made by the parents without government
>intrusion.

In a perfect world all parents would step up to the plate. We don't live in a
perfect world.
>===
>>
>>Of course the obligatory *the NCP can then contribute anything they want
>above
>>the base support* is expected. However the problem lies in that without
>being
>>forced to provide above foster care level of support some will choose to
>spend
>>on themselves, their new SO, or just about anything other than their child.
>===
>As in intact families, lifestyle is not a matter to be enforced by the state.
>The state's interest is to make certain kids have basic needs met.

My opinion is once a parent moves out there are too many distractions that can
cause them to loose sight of what they have done and should continue to do. No
to mention basic needs is very subjective. To one child basic needs means 4 new
pairs of socks from KMart twice a year. To others it mean 40 pairs twice a year
from Gap. What makes you think the feds have any right to tell Trump his kids
should shop at KMart?


>==
>>
>>I happen to know someone that DOES save receipts and sends copies of every
>>receipt to her ex, as he kept bellyaching about how he paid too much. All it
>>has done is create more animosity between the two of them. He calls her and
>>questions why his kids can't eat plain hamburgers rather than chicken
>nuggets.
>>From what I have seen it just leads to nitpicking.
>===
>Nitpicking is an individual matter. It is better than the consequences of
>state
>mandated lifestyle CS for which it refuses to account.

I don't know about that.

>===
>>
>>I do feel CPs should be responsible for showing how the CS is spent, that
>way
>>any nogoodnicks will have to straighten up. Overall I bet if all were
>required
>>to show where the CS money is going there would be a lot less of *I pay too
>>much* but a lot more critical comments that will virtually make no
>differance
>>at all in the end.
>===
>I'm sure there would be greater compliance if the state were as interested in
>whether the child is benefiting from the money as it is from extracting it
>from
>NCPs.

I won't disagree. What I would really like to see happen is all CPs accounting
for every dime of CS. If that accounting proves that what the NCP pays doesn't
cover their portion, and that is many cases is above 50% of total costs, their
CS is increased to meet the real costs of raising the child. I guess that might
be the downside of mandated accounting. Think about it. If the accounting
proves it takes more than what the NCP is paying to raise a child, the NCP
might find that CS going up.

No matter that we don't agree on this Gini, I still respect you. :)

Mrs Indyguy
>===
>===
>>
>>Mrs Indyguy
>>>====
>>>====
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Melvin Gamble]

Of course there's a logical reason - the lawmakers who tried to force
them to would be run out of office...

Indyguy1 wrote:
>
> Gini52 wrote:
>
> >In article >, Indyguy1 says...
> >>
> >>Gini52 wtote:
> >>
> >>>In article >, Fighting For Kids
> >>>says...
> >>>>
> >>>>On 12 Nov 2003 18:45:30 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>====
> >>>>>Yep. It comes from your percent share. (My proposal is, however, that
> >only
> >>>the
> >>>>>amount over reasonable actual expenses should be subject to accounting.)
> >>>>>====
> >>>>>====
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>But what is a reasonable amount? Not one person here has agreed to any
> >>>>amount proposed.
> >>>====
> >>>I have repeatedly suggested that a reasonable amount is commensurate with
> >the
> >>>amount states pay for foster children. This includes regional COL
> >variances.
> >>
> >>How can one set amount for all children in the same geopgraphical area be
> >>reasonable? Should Trump pay CS at the same rate as Joe Average who earns
> >40K?
> >====
> >Your view is different than mine on this. We've been here before. You believe
> >support should be ordered commensurate with SOL (theoretical--as it is never
> >enforced elsewhere).
>
> Well Gini as much as you don't agree with the SOL awards, I do feel they are
> necessary. One of the biggest reasons for them is to insure that children will
> not be set aside once the NCP leaves the home. Like it or not that can and does
> happen.
>
> Until the state comes to *your* home (I know yours is
> >intact as mine is :-) and requires you to spend a defined percentage of your
> >income on your children, it has no right do it to divorced/never married
> >dads/NCPs.
> >====
>
> Don't you think there is a logical reason why intact familes are not required
> by law to spend X amount?

....as they would if that requirement were placed on the custodial
parent, who also lives under NO SUCH REQUIREMENT...

> I believe the reason is: The assumption (right or
> wrong) is that intact families do spend close to the average that is accessed
> for NCPs. I always thought the % that is used is not arbitrary but rather based
> on average of what is spent on a child.

a. *I*F* "they" really wanted this mythical average spent on kids who
are not in intact families, the requirement would be on the person
actually doing the spending to prove that they actually DID the spending
and that they did it to the benefit of the kids. It isn't because they
could give a rat's ass whether the kids actually benefit.

b. Do you have a clue what "average" means??? If ALL intact families
spent the mythical "average" on their kids, it would no longer BE an
"average" - it would be "the standard amount". "Average" means some
spend more, some spend less. Fact is, some spend WAY more and some
spend WAY less. Intact families are allowed to decide whether to spend
WAY more or WAY less on their kids. Custodial parents are allowed to
decide whether to spend WAY more or WAY less on their kids. ONLY NCP's
are forbidden to make this decision. ONLY custodial fathers are forced
to pay the mythical "average", and ONLY in cold hard cash and ONLY to
the CP and ONLY with the hope that some of it will go to the kids. ONLY
the NCP's are forced to do this and they must do it BEFORE any personal
spending that they can be sure actually benefits the kids.

c. People such as yourself who try to convince others that ANY of this
is done for the benefit of the kids truly have your heads so far up your
asses that you won't hear the end of the world approaching the day the
government decides to treat fathers and kids as if they counted for more
than mommy's used tampax.

Mel Gamble

> >>In the same county you can have poverty level and millionares paying CS. Is
> >it
> >>really reasonable for a millionare to pay the same CS as the poverty level
> >>person?
> >====
> >Yes. Children in "broken" families should have no more rights to SOL than
> >kids
> >in intact homes.
>
> Well they don't as far as I am concerned. Two people have a child and provide a
> certain SOL for their child. They split up. They both go on to have new spouses
> and additional children. Their additional children's SOL will be based on what
> they have, without the CS as the CS is already earmarked for the exisiting
> child.
>
> The government should not be in the business of mandating
> >lifestyle.
>
> They don't mandate from the get go, they mandate that it continues and based on
> many NCPs attitudes it's a good thing they do.
>
> Period. If it is--it *must* mandate *all* parents to fund the
> >lifestyle and be willing to enforce it. To mandate lifestyle *only* on NCPs
> >(not
> >CPs and not intact families) is simply a violation of equal protection. To
> >presume a SOL on kids from broken homes but not kids from intact homes is a
> >violation of equal protection as well.
>
> How can it be when they are NOT on equal footing. If my DH had other children I
> wouldn't have any problem with paying CS based on that is the norm. In my state
> that would be 20% of his income. If he had those children when we married, and
> let's face it that is the way this usually plays out, then we'd have to look at
> what he have for the SOL for any children we had together. Could it mean a
> lower SOL than the other child? Sure it could, but that would be out of my
> control as I am not the other parent of that child.
>
> >===
> >>
> >>Should children that have been raised all of their lives stop getting the
> >>creature comforts they have been getting because their parents divorce?
> >===
> >Again, it is a violation of equal protection to mandate a lifestyle be funded
> >by
> >an NCP, but not a CP and not for kids in intact homes.
>
> How can there be equal protection when there are distinct unequal
> circumstances?
>
> As in intact families,
> >financial decisions should be made by the parents without government
> >intrusion.
>
> In a perfect world all parents would step up to the plate. We don't live in a
> perfect world.
> >===
> >>
> >>Of course the obligatory *the NCP can then contribute anything they want
> >above
> >>the base support* is expected. However the problem lies in that without
> >being
> >>forced to provide above foster care level of support some will choose to
> >spend
> >>on themselves, their new SO, or just about anything other than their child.
> >===
> >As in intact families, lifestyle is not a matter to be enforced by the state.
> >The state's interest is to make certain kids have basic needs met.
>
> My opinion is once a parent moves out there are too many distractions that can
> cause them to loose sight of what they have done and should continue to do. No
> to mention basic needs is very subjective. To one child basic needs means 4 new
> pairs of socks from KMart twice a year. To others it mean 40 pairs twice a year
> from Gap. What makes you think the feds have any right to tell Trump his kids
> should shop at KMart?
>
>
> >==
> >>
> >>I happen to know someone that DOES save receipts and sends copies of every
> >>receipt to her ex, as he kept bellyaching about how he paid too much. All it
> >>has done is create more animosity between the two of them. He calls her and
> >>questions why his kids can't eat plain hamburgers rather than chicken
> >nuggets.
> >>From what I have seen it just leads to nitpicking.
> >===
> >Nitpicking is an individual matter. It is better than the consequences of
> >state
> >mandated lifestyle CS for which it refuses to account.
>
> I don't know about that.
>
> >===
> >>
> >>I do feel CPs should be responsible for showing how the CS is spent, that
> >way
> >>any nogoodnicks will have to straighten up. Overall I bet if all were
> >required
> >>to show where the CS money is going there would be a lot less of *I pay too
> >>much* but a lot more critical comments that will virtually make no
> >differance
> >>at all in the end.
> >===
> >I'm sure there would be greater compliance if the state were as interested in
> >whether the child is benefiting from the money as it is from extracting it
> >from
> >NCPs.
>
> I won't disagree. What I would really like to see happen is all CPs accounting
> for every dime of CS. If that accounting proves that what the NCP pays doesn't
> cover their portion, and that is many cases is above 50% of total costs, their
> CS is increased to meet the real costs of raising the child. I guess that might
> be the downside of mandated accounting. Think about it. If the accounting
> proves it takes more than what the NCP is paying to raise a child, the NCP
> might find that CS going up.
>
> No matter that we don't agree on this Gini, I still respect you. :)
>
> Mrs Indyguy
> >===
> >===
> >>
> >>Mrs Indyguy
> >>>====
> >>>====
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

[Melvin Gamble]

Of course there's a logical reason - the lawmakers who tried to force
them to would be run out of office...

Indyguy1 wrote:
>
> Gini52 wrote:
>
> >In article >, Indyguy1 says...
> >>
> >>Gini52 wtote:
> >>
> >>>In article >, Fighting For Kids
> >>>says...
> >>>>
> >>>>On 12 Nov 2003 18:45:30 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>====
> >>>>>Yep. It comes from your percent share. (My proposal is, however, that
> >only
> >>>the
> >>>>>amount over reasonable actual expenses should be subject to accounting.)
> >>>>>====
> >>>>>====
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>But what is a reasonable amount? Not one person here has agreed to any
> >>>>amount proposed.
> >>>====
> >>>I have repeatedly suggested that a reasonable amount is commensurate with
> >the
> >>>amount states pay for foster children. This includes regional COL
> >variances.
> >>
> >>How can one set amount for all children in the same geopgraphical area be
> >>reasonable? Should Trump pay CS at the same rate as Joe Average who earns
> >40K?
> >====
> >Your view is different than mine on this. We've been here before. You believe
> >support should be ordered commensurate with SOL (theoretical--as it is never
> >enforced elsewhere).
>
> Well Gini as much as you don't agree with the SOL awards, I do feel they are
> necessary. One of the biggest reasons for them is to insure that children will
> not be set aside once the NCP leaves the home. Like it or not that can and does
> happen.
>
> Until the state comes to *your* home (I know yours is
> >intact as mine is :-) and requires you to spend a defined percentage of your
> >income on your children, it has no right do it to divorced/never married
> >dads/NCPs.
> >====
>
> Don't you think there is a logical reason why intact familes are not required
> by law to spend X amount?

....as they would if that requirement were placed on the custodial
parent, who also lives under NO SUCH REQUIREMENT...

> I believe the reason is: The assumption (right or
> wrong) is that intact families do spend close to the average that is accessed
> for NCPs. I always thought the % that is used is not arbitrary but rather based
> on average of what is spent on a child.

a. *I*F* "they" really wanted this mythical average spent on kids who
are not in intact families, the requirement would be on the person
actually doing the spending to prove that they actually DID the spending
and that they did it to the benefit of the kids. It isn't because they
could give a rat's ass whether the kids actually benefit.

b. Do you have a clue what "average" means??? If ALL intact families
spent the mythical "average" on their kids, it would no longer BE an
"average" - it would be "the standard amount". "Average" means some
spend more, some spend less. Fact is, some spend WAY more and some
spend WAY less. Intact families are allowed to decide whether to spend
WAY more or WAY less on their kids. Custodial parents are allowed to
decide whether to spend WAY more or WAY less on their kids. ONLY NCP's
are forbidden to make this decision. ONLY custodial fathers are forced
to pay the mythical "average", and ONLY in cold hard cash and ONLY to
the CP and ONLY with the hope that some of it will go to the kids. ONLY
the NCP's are forced to do this and they must do it BEFORE any personal
spending that they can be sure actually benefits the kids.

c. People such as yourself who try to convince others that ANY of this
is done for the benefit of the kids truly have your heads so far up your
asses that you won't hear the end of the world approaching the day the
government decides to treat fathers and kids as if they counted for more
than mommy's used tampax.

Mel Gamble

> >>In the same county you can have poverty level and millionares paying CS. Is
> >it
> >>really reasonable for a millionare to pay the same CS as the poverty level
> >>person?
> >====
> >Yes. Children in "broken" families should have no more rights to SOL than
> >kids
> >in intact homes.
>
> Well they don't as far as I am concerned. Two people have a child and provide a
> certain SOL for their child. They split up. They both go on to have new spouses
> and additional children. Their additional children's SOL will be based on what
> they have, without the CS as the CS is already earmarked for the exisiting
> child.
>
> The government should not be in the business of mandating
> >lifestyle.
>
> They don't mandate from the get go, they mandate that it continues and based on
> many NCPs attitudes it's a good thing they do.
>
> Period. If it is--it *must* mandate *all* parents to fund the
> >lifestyle and be willing to enforce it. To mandate lifestyle *only* on NCPs
> >(not
> >CPs and not intact families) is simply a violation of equal protection. To
> >presume a SOL on kids from broken homes but not kids from intact homes is a
> >violation of equal protection as well.
>
> How can it be when they are NOT on equal footing. If my DH had other children I
> wouldn't have any problem with paying CS based on that is the norm. In my state
> that would be 20% of his income. If he had those children when we married, and
> let's face it that is the way this usually plays out, then we'd have to look at
> what he have for the SOL for any children we had together. Could it mean a
> lower SOL than the other child? Sure it could, but that would be out of my
> control as I am not the other parent of that child.
>
> >===
> >>
> >>Should children that have been raised all of their lives stop getting the
> >>creature comforts they have been getting because their parents divorce?
> >===
> >Again, it is a violation of equal protection to mandate a lifestyle be funded
> >by
> >an NCP, but not a CP and not for kids in intact homes.
>
> How can there be equal protection when there are distinct unequal
> circumstances?
>
> As in intact families,
> >financial decisions should be made by the parents without government
> >intrusion.
>
> In a perfect world all parents would step up to the plate. We don't live in a
> perfect world.
> >===
> >>
> >>Of course the obligatory *the NCP can then contribute anything they want
> >above
> >>the base support* is expected. However the problem lies in that without
> >being
> >>forced to provide above foster care level of support some will choose to
> >spend
> >>on themselves, their new SO, or just about anything other than their child.
> >===
> >As in intact families, lifestyle is not a matter to be enforced by the state.
> >The state's interest is to make certain kids have basic needs met.
>
> My opinion is once a parent moves out there are too many distractions that can
> cause them to loose sight of what they have done and should continue to do. No
> to mention basic needs is very subjective. To one child basic needs means 4 new
> pairs of socks from KMart twice a year. To others it mean 40 pairs twice a year
> from Gap. What makes you think the feds have any right to tell Trump his kids
> should shop at KMart?
>
>
> >==
> >>
> >>I happen to know someone that DOES save receipts and sends copies of every
> >>receipt to her ex, as he kept bellyaching about how he paid too much. All it
> >>has done is create more animosity between the two of them. He calls her and
> >>questions why his kids can't eat plain hamburgers rather than chicken
> >nuggets.
> >>From what I have seen it just leads to nitpicking.
> >===
> >Nitpicking is an individual matter. It is better than the consequences of
> >state
> >mandated lifestyle CS for which it refuses to account.
>
> I don't know about that.
>
> >===
> >>
> >>I do feel CPs should be responsible for showing how the CS is spent, that
> >way
> >>any nogoodnicks will have to straighten up. Overall I bet if all were
> >required
> >>to show where the CS money is going there would be a lot less of *I pay too
> >>much* but a lot more critical comments that will virtually make no
> >differance
> >>at all in the end.
> >===
> >I'm sure there would be greater compliance if the state were as interested in
> >whether the child is benefiting from the money as it is from extracting it
> >from
> >NCPs.
>
> I won't disagree. What I would really like to see happen is all CPs accounting
> for every dime of CS. If that accounting proves that what the NCP pays doesn't
> cover their portion, and that is many cases is above 50% of total costs, their
> CS is increased to meet the real costs of raising the child. I guess that might
> be the downside of mandated accounting. Think about it. If the accounting
> proves it takes more than what the NCP is paying to raise a child, the NCP
> might find that CS going up.
>
> No matter that we don't agree on this Gini, I still respect you. :)
>
> Mrs Indyguy
> >===
> >===
> >>
> >>Mrs Indyguy
> >>>====
> >>>====
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

[Melvin Gamble]

Don't forget, Paul...

Paul Fritz wrote:
>
> "Gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, Moon Shyne
> says...
> > >
> > >
> > >"Gini52" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> In article >, Fighting For
> Kids
> > >> says...
> > >> >
> > >> >On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:45:28 -0500, "Tiffany"
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >>> > =====
> > >> >>> > The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some
> other
> > >> >>place
> > >> >>> where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream from the ice
> cream
> > >> >>truck
> > >> >>> because they don't issue receipts?
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> > =====
> > >> >>> > =====
> > >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >>You think those things are necessities that your x should be paying
> for?
> > >> >>
> > >> >>T
> > >> >>
> > >> >It could be.. if the street fair is selling school supplies cheaper
> > >> >than walmart and you buy them there isnt that still spending money on
> > >> >the child's basic needs?
> > >> >
> > >> >I can think of all kinds of necessity items one could by at a street
> > >> >fair vs a store. All brand new items often less expensive than at
> > >> >the stores themselves.
> > >> =====
> > >> Logic dictates that incidental spending be attributable to the CP's
> percent
> > >> share. The NCP is not responsible for the entire financial output for
> the
> > >> child(ren). Y'all didn't forget about that part, did you?
> > >
> > >Considering that the CS I receive is less than half the actual expenses
> for the
> > >children, nope, I sure didn't forget that part.
> > =====
> > But, apparantly you didn't get the part where I stated that accountability
> > should not be applied to lower income NCPs where the ordered support
> amount
> > doesn't cover actual expenses. Only *lifestyle* support should be subject
> to
> > accountability and *then* only the amount which exceeds the states' basic
> needs
> > amount. My proposal doesn't apply to you at all so go for the ice cream
> and have
> > a great time :-)
>
> .....moonie is once again playing games.......since she is the one that is
> determining what the childrens expenses are. Lifestyle support should NOT be
> part of the CS equaltion. It is simply a gross violation of a person's basic
> constitutional rights. The state has determined the amount required to

************************************************** *********************
> supply a child with their basic needs (foster care payments)
************************************************** *********************

....that the state has to build enough "profit" into those payments to
get people to provide foster care in the first place. If the payments
were ONLY what it cost to raise the kids, the state would have a much
harder time finding people willing to act as foster parents.

Mel Gamble

> Each parent
> sould be responsible for half, and anything else should be up to the
> individual parent's choosing......NOT at the whim of the CP like moonie.
>
> > =====
> > =====
> >
> > >
> >

[Melvin Gamble]

Don't forget, Paul...

Paul Fritz wrote:
>
> "Gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, Moon Shyne
> says...
> > >
> > >
> > >"Gini52" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> In article >, Fighting For
> Kids
> > >> says...
> > >> >
> > >> >On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:45:28 -0500, "Tiffany"
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >>> > =====
> > >> >>> > The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some
> other
> > >> >>place
> > >> >>> where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream from the ice
> cream
> > >> >>truck
> > >> >>> because they don't issue receipts?
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> > =====
> > >> >>> > =====
> > >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >>You think those things are necessities that your x should be paying
> for?
> > >> >>
> > >> >>T
> > >> >>
> > >> >It could be.. if the street fair is selling school supplies cheaper
> > >> >than walmart and you buy them there isnt that still spending money on
> > >> >the child's basic needs?
> > >> >
> > >> >I can think of all kinds of necessity items one could by at a street
> > >> >fair vs a store. All brand new items often less expensive than at
> > >> >the stores themselves.
> > >> =====
> > >> Logic dictates that incidental spending be attributable to the CP's
> percent
> > >> share. The NCP is not responsible for the entire financial output for
> the
> > >> child(ren). Y'all didn't forget about that part, did you?
> > >
> > >Considering that the CS I receive is less than half the actual expenses
> for the
> > >children, nope, I sure didn't forget that part.
> > =====
> > But, apparantly you didn't get the part where I stated that accountability
> > should not be applied to lower income NCPs where the ordered support
> amount
> > doesn't cover actual expenses. Only *lifestyle* support should be subject
> to
> > accountability and *then* only the amount which exceeds the states' basic
> needs
> > amount. My proposal doesn't apply to you at all so go for the ice cream
> and have
> > a great time :-)
>
> .....moonie is once again playing games.......since she is the one that is
> determining what the childrens expenses are. Lifestyle support should NOT be
> part of the CS equaltion. It is simply a gross violation of a person's basic
> constitutional rights. The state has determined the amount required to

************************************************** *********************
> supply a child with their basic needs (foster care payments)
************************************************** *********************

....that the state has to build enough "profit" into those payments to
get people to provide foster care in the first place. If the payments
were ONLY what it cost to raise the kids, the state would have a much
harder time finding people willing to act as foster parents.

Mel Gamble

> Each parent
> sould be responsible for half, and anything else should be up to the
> individual parent's choosing......NOT at the whim of the CP like moonie.
>
> > =====
> > =====
> >
> > >
> >

[Melvin Gamble]

The amount "required" ...

Indyguy1 wrote:
>
> Gini52 wtote:
>
> >In article >, Fighting For Kids
> >says...
> >>
> >>On 12 Nov 2003 18:45:30 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>====
> >>>Yep. It comes from your percent share. (My proposal is, however, that only
> >the
> >>>amount over reasonable actual expenses should be subject to accounting.)
> >>>====
> >>>====
> >>
> >>
> >>But what is a reasonable amount? Not one person here has agreed to any
> >>amount proposed.
> >====
> >I have repeatedly suggested that a reasonable amount is commensurate with the
> >amount states pay for foster children. This includes regional COL variances.
>
> How can one set amount for all children in the same geopgraphical area be
> reasonable? Should Trump pay CS at the same rate as Joe Average who earns 40K?

for intact families and CP's to spend on their kids is the same across
an entire state - the amount necessary to keep the state from filing
"neglect" charges against you. It's a very small amount. For some
unfathomable reason, each state considers this amount sufficient -
EXCEPT when it comes to the only parent who has no control over what the
kids get....

> In the same county you can have poverty level and millionares paying CS. Is it
> really reasonable for a millionare to pay the same CS as the poverty level
> person?

Is it acceptable to allow a couple with a million-dollar income to
support their kids as they see fit, regardless of how little they wish
to spend on their kids? Is it acceptable to allow a couple with a
single, minimum-wage income to support their kids as they see fit,
regardless of how much they wish to spend on their kids? Are these same
questions acceptable when it comes to custodial parents, regardless of
how much or how little they wish to spend on their kids? Is it
reasonable for someone such as yourself to suggest that a different
standard be applied to the only parent who has no control over what gets
spent on the kids???

> Should children that have been raised all of their lives stop getting the
> creature comforts they have been getting because their parents divorce?

or die, or fall ill, or lose their jobs, or, or, or...? Why is the
answer "yes" when we're talking about whether that lifestyle should
continue being supported by a married couple or a custodial parent? Why
do YOU think the answer should be "no" when we're talking about the only
parent who has no control over what is spent on the kids????

> Of course the obligatory *the NCP can then contribute anything they want above
> the base support* is expected.

As is the obligatory "the CP can then spend as little of the base
support on the child as they want, so long as the legal definition of
neglect is avoided"...

> However the problem lies in that without being
> forced to provide above foster care level of support some will choose to spend
> on themselves, their new SO, or just about anything other than their child.

As is the case with married couples such as yourself AND with custodial
parents; however, such a choice is not allowed the NCP, who may be
forced to provide at foster care levels and STILL see his child live at
near-neglect levels...

> I happen to know someone that DOES save receipts and sends copies of every
> receipt to her ex, as he kept bellyaching about how he paid too much. All it
> has done is create more animosity between the two of them. He calls her and
> questions why his kids can't eat plain hamburgers rather than chicken nuggets.
> From what I have seen it just leads to nitpicking.

Must run in your family...

> I do feel CPs should be responsible for showing how the CS is spent, that way
> any nogoodnicks will have to straighten up. Overall I bet if all were required
> to show where the CS money is going there would be a lot less of *I pay too
> much* but a lot more critical comments that will virtually make no differance
> at all in the end.

Such is the view from the world of the elitist feminists....

Mel Gamble

> Mrs Indyguy
> >====
> >====
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

[Melvin Gamble]

The amount "required" ...

Indyguy1 wrote:
>
> Gini52 wtote:
>
> >In article >, Fighting For Kids
> >says...
> >>
> >>On 12 Nov 2003 18:45:30 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>====
> >>>Yep. It comes from your percent share. (My proposal is, however, that only
> >the
> >>>amount over reasonable actual expenses should be subject to accounting.)
> >>>====
> >>>====
> >>
> >>
> >>But what is a reasonable amount? Not one person here has agreed to any
> >>amount proposed.
> >====
> >I have repeatedly suggested that a reasonable amount is commensurate with the
> >amount states pay for foster children. This includes regional COL variances.
>
> How can one set amount for all children in the same geopgraphical area be
> reasonable? Should Trump pay CS at the same rate as Joe Average who earns 40K?

for intact families and CP's to spend on their kids is the same across
an entire state - the amount necessary to keep the state from filing
"neglect" charges against you. It's a very small amount. For some
unfathomable reason, each state considers this amount sufficient -
EXCEPT when it comes to the only parent who has no control over what the
kids get....

> In the same county you can have poverty level and millionares paying CS. Is it
> really reasonable for a millionare to pay the same CS as the poverty level
> person?

Is it acceptable to allow a couple with a million-dollar income to
support their kids as they see fit, regardless of how little they wish
to spend on their kids? Is it acceptable to allow a couple with a
single, minimum-wage income to support their kids as they see fit,
regardless of how much they wish to spend on their kids? Are these same
questions acceptable when it comes to custodial parents, regardless of
how much or how little they wish to spend on their kids? Is it
reasonable for someone such as yourself to suggest that a different
standard be applied to the only parent who has no control over what gets
spent on the kids???

> Should children that have been raised all of their lives stop getting the
> creature comforts they have been getting because their parents divorce?

or die, or fall ill, or lose their jobs, or, or, or...? Why is the
answer "yes" when we're talking about whether that lifestyle should
continue being supported by a married couple or a custodial parent? Why
do YOU think the answer should be "no" when we're talking about the only
parent who has no control over what is spent on the kids????

> Of course the obligatory *the NCP can then contribute anything they want above
> the base support* is expected.

As is the obligatory "the CP can then spend as little of the base
support on the child as they want, so long as the legal definition of
neglect is avoided"...

> However the problem lies in that without being
> forced to provide above foster care level of support some will choose to spend
> on themselves, their new SO, or just about anything other than their child.

As is the case with married couples such as yourself AND with custodial
parents; however, such a choice is not allowed the NCP, who may be
forced to provide at foster care levels and STILL see his child live at
near-neglect levels...

> I happen to know someone that DOES save receipts and sends copies of every
> receipt to her ex, as he kept bellyaching about how he paid too much. All it
> has done is create more animosity between the two of them. He calls her and
> questions why his kids can't eat plain hamburgers rather than chicken nuggets.
> From what I have seen it just leads to nitpicking.

Must run in your family...

> I do feel CPs should be responsible for showing how the CS is spent, that way
> any nogoodnicks will have to straighten up. Overall I bet if all were required
> to show where the CS money is going there would be a lot less of *I pay too
> much* but a lot more critical comments that will virtually make no differance
> at all in the end.

Such is the view from the world of the elitist feminists....

Mel Gamble

> Mrs Indyguy
> >====
> >====
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

[Melvin Gamble]

The "minimum order" in most states - that levied on NCP's with no income
at all - is more than enough to keep CPS away. A mother can house her
kids in a minivan, and feed them from dumpsters and will not lose
custody...

Mel Gamble

Fighting For Kids wrote:
>
> If your child isnt being taken care of properly you probably would
> have CPS on your steps, knocking at your door. To take your children
> away.
>
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 14:47:31 -0500 (EST), wrote:
>
> >Chris ...
> >In most states, there is no accountability on how CS is spent. If your
> >child is not being taken care of properly, then you jump in with both
> >feet and make sure the money goes where it's supposed to.
> >
> >
> >nm

[Melvin Gamble]

The "minimum order" in most states - that levied on NCP's with no income
at all - is more than enough to keep CPS away. A mother can house her
kids in a minivan, and feed them from dumpsters and will not lose
custody...

Mel Gamble

Fighting For Kids wrote:
>
> If your child isnt being taken care of properly you probably would
> have CPS on your steps, knocking at your door. To take your children
> away.
>
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 14:47:31 -0500 (EST), wrote:
>
> >Chris ...
> >In most states, there is no accountability on how CS is spent. If your
> >child is not being taken care of properly, then you jump in with both
> >feet and make sure the money goes where it's supposed to.
> >
> >
> >nm

[Melvin Gamble]

The farce in all of this, Gini, is that it isn't the "lifestyle" that's
mandated - it's "making it possible that the custodial parent might
provide the lifestyle but won't be required to" that's mandated. In
other words, as far as the kids are concerned....nothing is mandated, so
the whole "maintain the standard of living...blah, blah, blah" argument
the state pretends to use falls apart totally in the bright light of
day.

Mel Gamble

Gini52 wrote:
>
> In article >, Indyguy1 says...
> >
> >Gini52 wtote:
> >
> >>In article >, Fighting For Kids
> >>says...
> >>>
> >>>On 12 Nov 2003 18:45:30 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>====
> >>>>Yep. It comes from your percent share. (My proposal is, however, that only
> >>the
> >>>>amount over reasonable actual expenses should be subject to accounting.)
> >>>>====
> >>>>====
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>But what is a reasonable amount? Not one person here has agreed to any
> >>>amount proposed.
> >>====
> >>I have repeatedly suggested that a reasonable amount is commensurate with the
> >>amount states pay for foster children. This includes regional COL variances.
> >
> >How can one set amount for all children in the same geopgraphical area be
> >reasonable? Should Trump pay CS at the same rate as Joe Average who earns 40K?
> ====
> Your view is different than mine on this. We've been here before. You believe
> support should be ordered commensurate with SOL (theoretical--as it is never
> enforced elsewhere). Until the state comes to *your* home (I know yours is
> intact as mine is :-) and requires you to spend a defined percentage of your
> income on your children, it has no right do it to divorced/never married
> dads/NCPs.
> ====
> >
> >In the same county you can have poverty level and millionares paying CS. Is it
> >really reasonable for a millionare to pay the same CS as the poverty level
> >person?
> ====
> Yes. Children in "broken" families should have no more rights to SOL than kids
> in intact homes. The government should not be in the business of mandating
> lifestyle. Period. If it is--it *must* mandate *all* parents to fund the
> lifestyle and be willing to enforce it. To mandate lifestyle *only* on NCPs (not
> CPs and not intact families) is simply a violation of equal protection. To
> presume a SOL on kids from broken homes but not kids from intact homes is a
> violation of equal protection as well.
> ===
> >
> >Should children that have been raised all of their lives stop getting the
> >creature comforts they have been getting because their parents divorce?
> ===
> Again, it is a violation of equal protection to mandate a lifestyle be funded by
> an NCP, but not a CP and not for kids in intact homes. As in intact families,
> financial decisions should be made by the parents without government intrusion.
> ===
> >
> >Of course the obligatory *the NCP can then contribute anything they want above
> >the base support* is expected. However the problem lies in that without being
> >forced to provide above foster care level of support some will choose to spend
> >on themselves, their new SO, or just about anything other than their child.
> ===
> As in intact families, lifestyle is not a matter to be enforced by the state.
> The state's interest is to make certain kids have basic needs met.
> ==
> >
> >I happen to know someone that DOES save receipts and sends copies of every
> >receipt to her ex, as he kept bellyaching about how he paid too much. All it
> >has done is create more animosity between the two of them. He calls her and
> >questions why his kids can't eat plain hamburgers rather than chicken nuggets.
> >From what I have seen it just leads to nitpicking.
> ===
> Nitpicking is an individual matter. It is better than the consequences of state
> mandated lifestyle CS for which it refuses to account.
> ===
> >
> >I do feel CPs should be responsible for showing how the CS is spent, that way
> >any nogoodnicks will have to straighten up. Overall I bet if all were required
> >to show where the CS money is going there would be a lot less of *I pay too
> >much* but a lot more critical comments that will virtually make no differance
> >at all in the end.
> ===
> I'm sure there would be greater compliance if the state were as interested in
> whether the child is benefiting from the money as it is from extracting it from
> NCPs.
> ===
> ===
> >
> >Mrs Indyguy
> >>====
> >>====
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >

[Melvin Gamble]

The farce in all of this, Gini, is that it isn't the "lifestyle" that's
mandated - it's "making it possible that the custodial parent might
provide the lifestyle but won't be required to" that's mandated. In
other words, as far as the kids are concerned....nothing is mandated, so
the whole "maintain the standard of living...blah, blah, blah" argument
the state pretends to use falls apart totally in the bright light of
day.

Mel Gamble

Gini52 wrote:
>
> In article >, Indyguy1 says...
> >
> >Gini52 wtote:
> >
> >>In article >, Fighting For Kids
> >>says...
> >>>
> >>>On 12 Nov 2003 18:45:30 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>====
> >>>>Yep. It comes from your percent share. (My proposal is, however, that only
> >>the
> >>>>amount over reasonable actual expenses should be subject to accounting.)
> >>>>====
> >>>>====
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>But what is a reasonable amount? Not one person here has agreed to any
> >>>amount proposed.
> >>====
> >>I have repeatedly suggested that a reasonable amount is commensurate with the
> >>amount states pay for foster children. This includes regional COL variances.
> >
> >How can one set amount for all children in the same geopgraphical area be
> >reasonable? Should Trump pay CS at the same rate as Joe Average who earns 40K?
> ====
> Your view is different than mine on this. We've been here before. You believe
> support should be ordered commensurate with SOL (theoretical--as it is never
> enforced elsewhere). Until the state comes to *your* home (I know yours is
> intact as mine is :-) and requires you to spend a defined percentage of your
> income on your children, it has no right do it to divorced/never married
> dads/NCPs.
> ====
> >
> >In the same county you can have poverty level and millionares paying CS. Is it
> >really reasonable for a millionare to pay the same CS as the poverty level
> >person?
> ====
> Yes. Children in "broken" families should have no more rights to SOL than kids
> in intact homes. The government should not be in the business of mandating
> lifestyle. Period. If it is--it *must* mandate *all* parents to fund the
> lifestyle and be willing to enforce it. To mandate lifestyle *only* on NCPs (not
> CPs and not intact families) is simply a violation of equal protection. To
> presume a SOL on kids from broken homes but not kids from intact homes is a
> violation of equal protection as well.
> ===
> >
> >Should children that have been raised all of their lives stop getting the
> >creature comforts they have been getting because their parents divorce?
> ===
> Again, it is a violation of equal protection to mandate a lifestyle be funded by
> an NCP, but not a CP and not for kids in intact homes. As in intact families,
> financial decisions should be made by the parents without government intrusion.
> ===
> >
> >Of course the obligatory *the NCP can then contribute anything they want above
> >the base support* is expected. However the problem lies in that without being
> >forced to provide above foster care level of support some will choose to spend
> >on themselves, their new SO, or just about anything other than their child.
> ===
> As in intact families, lifestyle is not a matter to be enforced by the state.
> The state's interest is to make certain kids have basic needs met.
> ==
> >
> >I happen to know someone that DOES save receipts and sends copies of every
> >receipt to her ex, as he kept bellyaching about how he paid too much. All it
> >has done is create more animosity between the two of them. He calls her and
> >questions why his kids can't eat plain hamburgers rather than chicken nuggets.
> >From what I have seen it just leads to nitpicking.
> ===
> Nitpicking is an individual matter. It is better than the consequences of state
> mandated lifestyle CS for which it refuses to account.
> ===
> >
> >I do feel CPs should be responsible for showing how the CS is spent, that way
> >any nogoodnicks will have to straighten up. Overall I bet if all were required
> >to show where the CS money is going there would be a lot less of *I pay too
> >much* but a lot more critical comments that will virtually make no differance
> >at all in the end.
> ===
> I'm sure there would be greater compliance if the state were as interested in
> whether the child is benefiting from the money as it is from extracting it from
> NCPs.
> ===
> ===
> >
> >Mrs Indyguy
> >>====
> >>====
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >

[Moon Shyne]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:32:16 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >The $4,755 is the amount CP's claim has been ordered and this number is from
> >1999 orders that could have been modified upward twice since the Census data
> >was collected.
>
> Or modified downward.
>
>
> For perspective it needs to be stated this average CS amount
> >includes teenage mothers aged 15 and up who have had children with very low
> >income teenage boys, as well as adult children over the age of majority for
> >CS but under age 21.
>
> WHo probably make up a small portion of the reported numbers. If I
> remember the majority of support was given to those 21 and up.
>
>
> The $4,755 does not include healthcare insurance and
> >reimbursements, life insurance, daycare, etc. that are add-ons to the basic
> >CS order.
>
> It very well may. My state includes daycare expenses in the support
> order already added in. Life insurance? Reimbursements? Those are
> judgements that are seperate from the CS order anyway. I dont know
> one person who got life insurance ordered.

We had a court order that each of us maintain our pre-divorce life insurance
policies - I still have mine in force, he let his default.

[Moon Shyne]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:32:16 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >The $4,755 is the amount CP's claim has been ordered and this number is from
> >1999 orders that could have been modified upward twice since the Census data
> >was collected.
>
> Or modified downward.
>
>
> For perspective it needs to be stated this average CS amount
> >includes teenage mothers aged 15 and up who have had children with very low
> >income teenage boys, as well as adult children over the age of majority for
> >CS but under age 21.
>
> WHo probably make up a small portion of the reported numbers. If I
> remember the majority of support was given to those 21 and up.
>
>
> The $4,755 does not include healthcare insurance and
> >reimbursements, life insurance, daycare, etc. that are add-ons to the basic
> >CS order.
>
> It very well may. My state includes daycare expenses in the support
> order already added in. Life insurance? Reimbursements? Those are
> judgements that are seperate from the CS order anyway. I dont know
> one person who got life insurance ordered.

We had a court order that each of us maintain our pre-divorce life insurance
policies - I still have mine in force, he let his default.

[Moon Shyne]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> > Moon Shyne wrote:
> > > > > The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
> > > >
> > > > So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some
> > > > other place where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream
> > > > from the ice cream truck because they don't issue receipts?
> > >
> > > Apparently not. If you are so selfish with your own money that you
> > > can't spring for an ice cream, this will be a problem, won't it?
> >
> > Considering that the CS I currently receive is less than half the
> > actual expenses for the children, you would be way off base in your
> > remark.
>
> That's not what you said. You're avoiding the point. Your statement
> gave no indication that you were talking only about you, specifically.

Oh? "I" has some other meaning?


> Can you address the response to your own point, or not?

The response to my point not only missed my point (the idea that child support
money can be used for nothing unless a receipt is issued), you chose, instead,
to launch an attack on some fictitious selfishness. You know nothing about me,
about my children, nor about how much I do for my children in contrast to how
much I do (or don't, as is generally the case) do for myself, and your remark
was way off base.

[Moon Shyne]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> > Moon Shyne wrote:
> > > > > The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
> > > >
> > > > So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some
> > > > other place where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream
> > > > from the ice cream truck because they don't issue receipts?
> > >
> > > Apparently not. If you are so selfish with your own money that you
> > > can't spring for an ice cream, this will be a problem, won't it?
> >
> > Considering that the CS I currently receive is less than half the
> > actual expenses for the children, you would be way off base in your
> > remark.
>
> That's not what you said. You're avoiding the point. Your statement
> gave no indication that you were talking only about you, specifically.

Oh? "I" has some other meaning?


> Can you address the response to your own point, or not?

The response to my point not only missed my point (the idea that child support
money can be used for nothing unless a receipt is issued), you chose, instead,
to launch an attack on some fictitious selfishness. You know nothing about me,
about my children, nor about how much I do for my children in contrast to how
much I do (or don't, as is generally the case) do for myself, and your remark
was way off base.

[Cameron Stevens]

"The Beast" > wrote in message
.com...
....
> You know...just because a legislative body makes a law, any law, does not
> make it right!
> People from the left in this country have been telling us for years that
> morality cannot be legislated upon. Well, friend, that is exactly what CS
> legislation is! Laws governing what I or someone else think is right. With
> that said, I don't have a problem supporting my children. What I have a
> problem with is some government equation telling me how much it costs to
> rise MY children. YOU CANNOT tell me how to raise my children or how much
I
> SHOULD spend on them. IOW's NO ONE SHOULD HAVE MORAL AUTHORITY OVER ME
> BESIDES MY CREATOR!!! Not you, not a court, and especially not some
elected
> "official" that is sucking up PAC money like a cheap whore on the docks on
> payday.
> However, I would be interested in a system that allowed a NCP to pay a CP
> without the blood-stained hands of the court involved. A contract, if you
> will, between two consenting adults(novel concept, huh?). And in this day
of
> technology this would be very easy. Hell, I can pay my phone bill while
I'm
> driving down the road @ 70mph, why cant I pay my ex electronically and cut
> out the middle man(govco)?

At one time I *WAS* able to pay my CS directly. I can still pay it
electronically, in fact the payments are scheduled right through to December
2004. The Legislative Body should be able to legislate that CS is required.
The CS Agency should have a place to pursue arrears. The problem *I* see
with the system is that while the amount pursued is based on income, the
amount does not float with the income but rather is a cold harsh number,
enforced without concern for the circumstances of the people involved.

This is not about telling you how to raise your children, and if the CP and
NCP come to an agreement it should be respected by the courts/system. It is
not the NCPs that have the necessary level of responsibility that the system
should be involved with. The problem is that a system that begins to care
about the circumstances of the people involved becomes expensive to operate.
Without the system's help there is a significant number (this could be 1%
and still be significant) of children who are not voluntarily supported but
the NCP. The system, when automated - as technology might allow the control
required - becomes threatening and a discomfort to the user of the system
but how does one implement a system that is changable, for every case, which
are ALL DIFFERENT without the costs becoming astronomical.

The system, as it stands, does not serve the needs of the child. It exists
under this premise because it was designed to serve the responsible mother
whose husband had taken off and left her destitute. Helpless, she needed
money to remain at home and exist and welfare was not prepared to pick up
the tab. The system was designed to equalize the incomes so that the CPs
lessened ability to find work of equal value would not present to the child
an grass-is-greener perspective on the now occational world of the NCP.
After all the NCP (father) makes all the big money. This is the logic of the
system. This is the foundation of it's original purpose. Very respectible
from a 1960's point-of-view.

There's a huge difference from that "design" to today's reality. We need the
system to drop the prejudice of the woman being unable to find work of equal
value (or boyfriend/new husband to subsidize) and protect the child's real
best interest, the relationship with BOTH parents (not money as presumed byt
the system). The amounts involved need to appreciate that there are hills
and valleys to life and that professional momentum and success can be
affected by speedbumps and semi-trailers on the highway of life. The CP must
take responsibility for budgetting their money and understand that, just as
they would need to do if married to the NCP, planning for a worst-case is
essential. The father may lose his job, may go on disability and may need to
work someplace else and while she may not appreciate his position he may
just burn out and need to take a seriously less stressful and lower-paying
job to simply survive..

There is a very clear but mislead impression that men walk away from a
marriage unscathed or smelling like roses. While some wealthy people have
teh power to bend the system to thier will, the bulk of the fathers/NCPs do
not and those fathers are negatively impacted by the process of divorce
itself. Bankrupcy is pursued by many fathers (NCPs) as a necessity, not as a
shirking of responsibility and the over all impression of the father being a
"Deadbeat Dad" is unfair if not a persecution in itself. A fine upstanding
employee may, if the employer is biased or mislead, become recognised as a
burden on the company, a criminal of sorts, when the garanshee notice
arrives. It's shameful to the father, whether his payment is reasonable or
not.

I will always advise that falling behind in CS is to be avoided at all
costs. It's difficult to stay ahead of it sometimes but it should be the
focus. If you need to contact the CS agency, take the tiem the hour off to
negotiate a repayment schedule will save your skin later on. Even so, the
system remains a fickle beast that is more prone to nip once and devour it's
prey in the next blink of an eye, just as the prey was ready to fead the
beast forever without the need for a fight.

Cameron

[Cameron Stevens]

"The Beast" > wrote in message
.com...
....
> You know...just because a legislative body makes a law, any law, does not
> make it right!
> People from the left in this country have been telling us for years that
> morality cannot be legislated upon. Well, friend, that is exactly what CS
> legislation is! Laws governing what I or someone else think is right. With
> that said, I don't have a problem supporting my children. What I have a
> problem with is some government equation telling me how much it costs to
> rise MY children. YOU CANNOT tell me how to raise my children or how much
I
> SHOULD spend on them. IOW's NO ONE SHOULD HAVE MORAL AUTHORITY OVER ME
> BESIDES MY CREATOR!!! Not you, not a court, and especially not some
elected
> "official" that is sucking up PAC money like a cheap whore on the docks on
> payday.
> However, I would be interested in a system that allowed a NCP to pay a CP
> without the blood-stained hands of the court involved. A contract, if you
> will, between two consenting adults(novel concept, huh?). And in this day
of
> technology this would be very easy. Hell, I can pay my phone bill while
I'm
> driving down the road @ 70mph, why cant I pay my ex electronically and cut
> out the middle man(govco)?

At one time I *WAS* able to pay my CS directly. I can still pay it
electronically, in fact the payments are scheduled right through to December
2004. The Legislative Body should be able to legislate that CS is required.
The CS Agency should have a place to pursue arrears. The problem *I* see
with the system is that while the amount pursued is based on income, the
amount does not float with the income but rather is a cold harsh number,
enforced without concern for the circumstances of the people involved.

This is not about telling you how to raise your children, and if the CP and
NCP come to an agreement it should be respected by the courts/system. It is
not the NCPs that have the necessary level of responsibility that the system
should be involved with. The problem is that a system that begins to care
about the circumstances of the people involved becomes expensive to operate.
Without the system's help there is a significant number (this could be 1%
and still be significant) of children who are not voluntarily supported but
the NCP. The system, when automated - as technology might allow the control
required - becomes threatening and a discomfort to the user of the system
but how does one implement a system that is changable, for every case, which
are ALL DIFFERENT without the costs becoming astronomical.

The system, as it stands, does not serve the needs of the child. It exists
under this premise because it was designed to serve the responsible mother
whose husband had taken off and left her destitute. Helpless, she needed
money to remain at home and exist and welfare was not prepared to pick up
the tab. The system was designed to equalize the incomes so that the CPs
lessened ability to find work of equal value would not present to the child
an grass-is-greener perspective on the now occational world of the NCP.
After all the NCP (father) makes all the big money. This is the logic of the
system. This is the foundation of it's original purpose. Very respectible
from a 1960's point-of-view.

There's a huge difference from that "design" to today's reality. We need the
system to drop the prejudice of the woman being unable to find work of equal
value (or boyfriend/new husband to subsidize) and protect the child's real
best interest, the relationship with BOTH parents (not money as presumed byt
the system). The amounts involved need to appreciate that there are hills
and valleys to life and that professional momentum and success can be
affected by speedbumps and semi-trailers on the highway of life. The CP must
take responsibility for budgetting their money and understand that, just as
they would need to do if married to the NCP, planning for a worst-case is
essential. The father may lose his job, may go on disability and may need to
work someplace else and while she may not appreciate his position he may
just burn out and need to take a seriously less stressful and lower-paying
job to simply survive..

There is a very clear but mislead impression that men walk away from a
marriage unscathed or smelling like roses. While some wealthy people have
teh power to bend the system to thier will, the bulk of the fathers/NCPs do
not and those fathers are negatively impacted by the process of divorce
itself. Bankrupcy is pursued by many fathers (NCPs) as a necessity, not as a
shirking of responsibility and the over all impression of the father being a
"Deadbeat Dad" is unfair if not a persecution in itself. A fine upstanding
employee may, if the employer is biased or mislead, become recognised as a
burden on the company, a criminal of sorts, when the garanshee notice
arrives. It's shameful to the father, whether his payment is reasonable or
not.

I will always advise that falling behind in CS is to be avoided at all
costs. It's difficult to stay ahead of it sometimes but it should be the
focus. If you need to contact the CS agency, take the tiem the hour off to
negotiate a repayment schedule will save your skin later on. Even so, the
system remains a fickle beast that is more prone to nip once and devour it's
prey in the next blink of an eye, just as the prey was ready to fead the
beast forever without the need for a fight.

Cameron

[Moon Shyne]

"Cameron Stevens" > wrote in message
...

<snip>

>
> At one time I *WAS* able to pay my CS directly. I can still pay it
> electronically, in fact the payments are scheduled right through to December
> 2004. The Legislative Body should be able to legislate that CS is required.
> The CS Agency should have a place to pursue arrears. The problem *I* see
> with the system is that while the amount pursued is based on income, the
> amount does not float with the income but rather is a cold harsh number,
> enforced without concern for the circumstances of the people involved.
>
> This is not about telling you how to raise your children, and if the CP and
> NCP come to an agreement it should be respected by the courts/system. It is
> not the NCPs that have the necessary level of responsibility that the system
> should be involved with. The problem is that a system that begins to care
> about the circumstances of the people involved becomes expensive to operate.
> Without the system's help there is a significant number (this could be 1%
> and still be significant) of children who are not voluntarily supported but
> the NCP. The system, when automated - as technology might allow the control
> required - becomes threatening and a discomfort to the user of the system
> but how does one implement a system that is changable, for every case, which
> are ALL DIFFERENT without the costs becoming astronomical.
>
> The system, as it stands, does not serve the needs of the child. It exists
> under this premise because it was designed to serve the responsible mother
> whose husband had taken off and left her destitute. Helpless, she needed
> money to remain at home and exist and welfare was not prepared to pick up
> the tab. The system was designed to equalize the incomes so that the CPs
> lessened ability to find work of equal value would not present to the child
> an grass-is-greener perspective on the now occational world of the NCP.
> After all the NCP (father) makes all the big money. This is the logic of the
> system. This is the foundation of it's original purpose. Very respectible
> from a 1960's point-of-view.
>
> There's a huge difference from that "design" to today's reality. We need the
> system to drop the prejudice of the woman being unable to find work of equal
> value (or boyfriend/new husband to subsidize)

Why would you transfer the responsibility for the children to some new
boyfriend/husband? Why not transfer it to some new girlfriend/wife of the NCP?

and protect the child's real
> best interest, the relationship with BOTH parents (not money as presumed byt
> the system). The amounts involved need to appreciate that there are hills
> and valleys to life and that professional momentum and success can be
> affected by speedbumps and semi-trailers on the highway of life. The CP must
> take responsibility for budgetting their money and understand that, just as
> they would need to do if married to the NCP, planning for a worst-case is
> essential.

Doesn't the NCP have to do the same budgeting and planning?

The father may lose his job, may go on disability and may need to
> work someplace else and while she may not appreciate his position he may
> just burn out and need to take a seriously less stressful and lower-paying
> job to simply survive..

And all of the same may well be true for the CP, who, in addition to working to
supply her share of support for the children, has the additional workload of the
hands on care for the children for the majority of the time.

>
> There is a very clear but mislead impression that men walk away from a
> marriage unscathed or smelling like roses. While some wealthy people have
> teh power to bend the system to thier will, the bulk of the fathers/NCPs do
> not and those fathers are negatively impacted by the process of divorce
> itself. Bankrupcy is pursued by many fathers (NCPs) as a necessity,

Just as it is pursued by many mothers as a necessity.

not as a
> shirking of responsibility and the over all impression of the father being a
> "Deadbeat Dad" is unfair if not a persecution in itself. A fine upstanding
> employee may, if the employer is biased or mislead, become recognised as a
> burden on the company, a criminal of sorts, when the garanshee notice
> arrives.

In this day and age where nearly all child support orders are via wage
assignment? Somehow, I doubt that the company won't recognize it for exactly
what it is - SOP.

It's shameful to the father, whether his payment is reasonable or
> not.
>
> I will always advise that falling behind in CS is to be avoided at all
> costs. It's difficult to stay ahead of it sometimes but it should be the
> focus. If you need to contact the CS agency, take the tiem the hour off to
> negotiate a repayment schedule will save your skin later on. Even so, the
> system remains a fickle beast that is more prone to nip once and devour it's
> prey in the next blink of an eye, just as the prey was ready to fead the
> beast forever without the need for a fight.
>
> Cameron
>
>

[Moon Shyne]

"Cameron Stevens" > wrote in message
...

<snip>

>
> At one time I *WAS* able to pay my CS directly. I can still pay it
> electronically, in fact the payments are scheduled right through to December
> 2004. The Legislative Body should be able to legislate that CS is required.
> The CS Agency should have a place to pursue arrears. The problem *I* see
> with the system is that while the amount pursued is based on income, the
> amount does not float with the income but rather is a cold harsh number,
> enforced without concern for the circumstances of the people involved.
>
> This is not about telling you how to raise your children, and if the CP and
> NCP come to an agreement it should be respected by the courts/system. It is
> not the NCPs that have the necessary level of responsibility that the system
> should be involved with. The problem is that a system that begins to care
> about the circumstances of the people involved becomes expensive to operate.
> Without the system's help there is a significant number (this could be 1%
> and still be significant) of children who are not voluntarily supported but
> the NCP. The system, when automated - as technology might allow the control
> required - becomes threatening and a discomfort to the user of the system
> but how does one implement a system that is changable, for every case, which
> are ALL DIFFERENT without the costs becoming astronomical.
>
> The system, as it stands, does not serve the needs of the child. It exists
> under this premise because it was designed to serve the responsible mother
> whose husband had taken off and left her destitute. Helpless, she needed
> money to remain at home and exist and welfare was not prepared to pick up
> the tab. The system was designed to equalize the incomes so that the CPs
> lessened ability to find work of equal value would not present to the child
> an grass-is-greener perspective on the now occational world of the NCP.
> After all the NCP (father) makes all the big money. This is the logic of the
> system. This is the foundation of it's original purpose. Very respectible
> from a 1960's point-of-view.
>
> There's a huge difference from that "design" to today's reality. We need the
> system to drop the prejudice of the woman being unable to find work of equal
> value (or boyfriend/new husband to subsidize)

Why would you transfer the responsibility for the children to some new
boyfriend/husband? Why not transfer it to some new girlfriend/wife of the NCP?

and protect the child's real
> best interest, the relationship with BOTH parents (not money as presumed byt
> the system). The amounts involved need to appreciate that there are hills
> and valleys to life and that professional momentum and success can be
> affected by speedbumps and semi-trailers on the highway of life. The CP must
> take responsibility for budgetting their money and understand that, just as
> they would need to do if married to the NCP, planning for a worst-case is
> essential.

Doesn't the NCP have to do the same budgeting and planning?

The father may lose his job, may go on disability and may need to
> work someplace else and while she may not appreciate his position he may
> just burn out and need to take a seriously less stressful and lower-paying
> job to simply survive..

And all of the same may well be true for the CP, who, in addition to working to
supply her share of support for the children, has the additional workload of the
hands on care for the children for the majority of the time.

>
> There is a very clear but mislead impression that men walk away from a
> marriage unscathed or smelling like roses. While some wealthy people have
> teh power to bend the system to thier will, the bulk of the fathers/NCPs do
> not and those fathers are negatively impacted by the process of divorce
> itself. Bankrupcy is pursued by many fathers (NCPs) as a necessity,

Just as it is pursued by many mothers as a necessity.

not as a
> shirking of responsibility and the over all impression of the father being a
> "Deadbeat Dad" is unfair if not a persecution in itself. A fine upstanding
> employee may, if the employer is biased or mislead, become recognised as a
> burden on the company, a criminal of sorts, when the garanshee notice
> arrives.

In this day and age where nearly all child support orders are via wage
assignment? Somehow, I doubt that the company won't recognize it for exactly
what it is - SOP.

It's shameful to the father, whether his payment is reasonable or
> not.
>
> I will always advise that falling behind in CS is to be avoided at all
> costs. It's difficult to stay ahead of it sometimes but it should be the
> focus. If you need to contact the CS agency, take the tiem the hour off to
> negotiate a repayment schedule will save your skin later on. Even so, the
> system remains a fickle beast that is more prone to nip once and devour it's
> prey in the next blink of an eye, just as the prey was ready to fead the
> beast forever without the need for a fight.
>
> Cameron
>
>

[Gini52]

In article >, Indyguy1 says...
>
>Gini52 wrote:
>
>>In article >, Indyguy1 says...
>>>
>>>Gini52 wtote:
>>>
>>>>In article >, Fighting For Kids
>>>>says...
>>>>>
>>>>>On 12 Nov 2003 18:45:30 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>====
>>>>>>Yep. It comes from your percent share. (My proposal is, however, that
>>only
>>>>the
>>>>>>amount over reasonable actual expenses should be subject to accounting.)
>>>>>>====
>>>>>>====
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>But what is a reasonable amount? Not one person here has agreed to any
>>>>>amount proposed.
>>>>====
>>>>I have repeatedly suggested that a reasonable amount is commensurate with
>>the
>>>>amount states pay for foster children. This includes regional COL
>>variances.
>>>
>>>How can one set amount for all children in the same geopgraphical area be
>>>reasonable? Should Trump pay CS at the same rate as Joe Average who earns
>>40K?
>>====
>>Your view is different than mine on this. We've been here before. You believe
>>support should be ordered commensurate with SOL (theoretical--as it is never
>>enforced elsewhere).
>
>Well Gini as much as you don't agree with the SOL awards, I do feel they are
>necessary. One of the biggest reasons for them is to insure that children will
>not be set aside once the NCP leaves the home. Like it or not that can and does
>happen.
>
>Until the state comes to *your* home (I know yours is
>>intact as mine is :-) and requires you to spend a defined percentage of your
>>income on your children, it has no right do it to divorced/never married
>>dads/NCPs.
>>====
>
>Don't you think there is a logical reason why intact familes are not required
>by law to spend X amount? I believe the reason is: The assumption (right or
>wrong) is that intact families do spend close to the average that is accessed
>for NCPs. I always thought the % that is used is not arbitrary but rather based
>on average of what is spent on a child.
>
>>>
>>>In the same county you can have poverty level and millionares paying CS. Is
>>it
>>>really reasonable for a millionare to pay the same CS as the poverty level
>>>person?
>>====
>>Yes. Children in "broken" families should have no more rights to SOL than
>>kids
>>in intact homes.
>
>Well they don't as far as I am concerned. Two people have a child and provide a
>certain SOL for their child. They split up. They both go on to have new spouses
>and additional children. Their additional children's SOL will be based on what
>they have, without the CS as the CS is already earmarked for the exisiting
>child.
>
> The government should not be in the business of mandating
>>lifestyle.
>
>They don't mandate from the get go, they mandate that it continues and based on
>many NCPs attitudes it's a good thing they do.
>
> Period. If it is--it *must* mandate *all* parents to fund the
>>lifestyle and be willing to enforce it. To mandate lifestyle *only* on NCPs
>>(not
>>CPs and not intact families) is simply a violation of equal protection. To
>>presume a SOL on kids from broken homes but not kids from intact homes is a
>>violation of equal protection as well.
>
>How can it be when they are NOT on equal footing. If my DH had other children I
>wouldn't have any problem with paying CS based on that is the norm. In my state
>that would be 20% of his income. If he had those children when we married, and
>let's face it that is the way this usually plays out, then we'd have to look at
>what he have for the SOL for any children we had together. Could it mean a
>lower SOL than the other child? Sure it could, but that would be out of my
>control as I am not the other parent of that child.
>
>>===
>>>
>>>Should children that have been raised all of their lives stop getting the
>>>creature comforts they have been getting because their parents divorce?
>>===
>>Again, it is a violation of equal protection to mandate a lifestyle be funded
>>by
>>an NCP, but not a CP and not for kids in intact homes.
>
>How can there be equal protection when there are distinct unequal
>circumstances?
>
> As in intact families,
>>financial decisions should be made by the parents without government
>>intrusion.
>
>In a perfect world all parents would step up to the plate. We don't live in a
>perfect world.
>>===
>>>
>>>Of course the obligatory *the NCP can then contribute anything they want
>>above
>>>the base support* is expected. However the problem lies in that without
>>being
>>>forced to provide above foster care level of support some will choose to
>>spend
>>>on themselves, their new SO, or just about anything other than their child.
>>===
>>As in intact families, lifestyle is not a matter to be enforced by the state.
>>The state's interest is to make certain kids have basic needs met.
>
>My opinion is once a parent moves out there are too many distractions that can
>cause them to loose sight of what they have done and should continue to do. No
>to mention basic needs is very subjective. To one child basic needs means 4 new
>pairs of socks from KMart twice a year. To others it mean 40 pairs twice a year
>from Gap. What makes you think the feds have any right to tell Trump his kids
>should shop at KMart?
>
>
>>==
>>>
>>>I happen to know someone that DOES save receipts and sends copies of every
>>>receipt to her ex, as he kept bellyaching about how he paid too much. All it
>>>has done is create more animosity between the two of them. He calls her and
>>>questions why his kids can't eat plain hamburgers rather than chicken
>>nuggets.
>>>From what I have seen it just leads to nitpicking.
>>===
>>Nitpicking is an individual matter. It is better than the consequences of
>>state
>>mandated lifestyle CS for which it refuses to account.
>
>I don't know about that.
>
>>===
>>>
>>>I do feel CPs should be responsible for showing how the CS is spent, that
>>way
>>>any nogoodnicks will have to straighten up. Overall I bet if all were
>>required
>>>to show where the CS money is going there would be a lot less of *I pay too
>>>much* but a lot more critical comments that will virtually make no
>>differance
>>>at all in the end.
>>===
>>I'm sure there would be greater compliance if the state were as interested in
>>whether the child is benefiting from the money as it is from extracting it
>>from
>>NCPs.
>
>I won't disagree. What I would really like to see happen is all CPs accounting
>for every dime of CS. If that accounting proves that what the NCP pays doesn't
>cover their portion, and that is many cases is above 50% of total costs, their
>CS is increased to meet the real costs of raising the child. I guess that might
>be the downside of mandated accounting. Think about it. If the accounting
>proves it takes more than what the NCP is paying to raise a child, the NCP
>might find that CS going up.
>
>No matter that we don't agree on this Gini, I still respect you. :)
>
>Mrs Indyguy
====
Same here. And I know from previous experience that neither of us is going to
budge on this issue. What it boils down to, more than CS monies and allocation,
is our respective opinions on the role of government. I have a more "hands-off"
perspective than you. I might agree with you in theory, but disagree on whether
the government should have the right to decide the issue. That's why
neither of us will budge.
====

[Gini52]

In article >, Indyguy1 says...
>
>Gini52 wrote:
>
>>In article >, Indyguy1 says...
>>>
>>>Gini52 wtote:
>>>
>>>>In article >, Fighting For Kids
>>>>says...
>>>>>
>>>>>On 12 Nov 2003 18:45:30 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>====
>>>>>>Yep. It comes from your percent share. (My proposal is, however, that
>>only
>>>>the
>>>>>>amount over reasonable actual expenses should be subject to accounting.)
>>>>>>====
>>>>>>====
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>But what is a reasonable amount? Not one person here has agreed to any
>>>>>amount proposed.
>>>>====
>>>>I have repeatedly suggested that a reasonable amount is commensurate with
>>the
>>>>amount states pay for foster children. This includes regional COL
>>variances.
>>>
>>>How can one set amount for all children in the same geopgraphical area be
>>>reasonable? Should Trump pay CS at the same rate as Joe Average who earns
>>40K?
>>====
>>Your view is different than mine on this. We've been here before. You believe
>>support should be ordered commensurate with SOL (theoretical--as it is never
>>enforced elsewhere).
>
>Well Gini as much as you don't agree with the SOL awards, I do feel they are
>necessary. One of the biggest reasons for them is to insure that children will
>not be set aside once the NCP leaves the home. Like it or not that can and does
>happen.
>
>Until the state comes to *your* home (I know yours is
>>intact as mine is :-) and requires you to spend a defined percentage of your
>>income on your children, it has no right do it to divorced/never married
>>dads/NCPs.
>>====
>
>Don't you think there is a logical reason why intact familes are not required
>by law to spend X amount? I believe the reason is: The assumption (right or
>wrong) is that intact families do spend close to the average that is accessed
>for NCPs. I always thought the % that is used is not arbitrary but rather based
>on average of what is spent on a child.
>
>>>
>>>In the same county you can have poverty level and millionares paying CS. Is
>>it
>>>really reasonable for a millionare to pay the same CS as the poverty level
>>>person?
>>====
>>Yes. Children in "broken" families should have no more rights to SOL than
>>kids
>>in intact homes.
>
>Well they don't as far as I am concerned. Two people have a child and provide a
>certain SOL for their child. They split up. They both go on to have new spouses
>and additional children. Their additional children's SOL will be based on what
>they have, without the CS as the CS is already earmarked for the exisiting
>child.
>
> The government should not be in the business of mandating
>>lifestyle.
>
>They don't mandate from the get go, they mandate that it continues and based on
>many NCPs attitudes it's a good thing they do.
>
> Period. If it is--it *must* mandate *all* parents to fund the
>>lifestyle and be willing to enforce it. To mandate lifestyle *only* on NCPs
>>(not
>>CPs and not intact families) is simply a violation of equal protection. To
>>presume a SOL on kids from broken homes but not kids from intact homes is a
>>violation of equal protection as well.
>
>How can it be when they are NOT on equal footing. If my DH had other children I
>wouldn't have any problem with paying CS based on that is the norm. In my state
>that would be 20% of his income. If he had those children when we married, and
>let's face it that is the way this usually plays out, then we'd have to look at
>what he have for the SOL for any children we had together. Could it mean a
>lower SOL than the other child? Sure it could, but that would be out of my
>control as I am not the other parent of that child.
>
>>===
>>>
>>>Should children that have been raised all of their lives stop getting the
>>>creature comforts they have been getting because their parents divorce?
>>===
>>Again, it is a violation of equal protection to mandate a lifestyle be funded
>>by
>>an NCP, but not a CP and not for kids in intact homes.
>
>How can there be equal protection when there are distinct unequal
>circumstances?
>
> As in intact families,
>>financial decisions should be made by the parents without government
>>intrusion.
>
>In a perfect world all parents would step up to the plate. We don't live in a
>perfect world.
>>===
>>>
>>>Of course the obligatory *the NCP can then contribute anything they want
>>above
>>>the base support* is expected. However the problem lies in that without
>>being
>>>forced to provide above foster care level of support some will choose to
>>spend
>>>on themselves, their new SO, or just about anything other than their child.
>>===
>>As in intact families, lifestyle is not a matter to be enforced by the state.
>>The state's interest is to make certain kids have basic needs met.
>
>My opinion is once a parent moves out there are too many distractions that can
>cause them to loose sight of what they have done and should continue to do. No
>to mention basic needs is very subjective. To one child basic needs means 4 new
>pairs of socks from KMart twice a year. To others it mean 40 pairs twice a year
>from Gap. What makes you think the feds have any right to tell Trump his kids
>should shop at KMart?
>
>
>>==
>>>
>>>I happen to know someone that DOES save receipts and sends copies of every
>>>receipt to her ex, as he kept bellyaching about how he paid too much. All it
>>>has done is create more animosity between the two of them. He calls her and
>>>questions why his kids can't eat plain hamburgers rather than chicken
>>nuggets.
>>>From what I have seen it just leads to nitpicking.
>>===
>>Nitpicking is an individual matter. It is better than the consequences of
>>state
>>mandated lifestyle CS for which it refuses to account.
>
>I don't know about that.
>
>>===
>>>
>>>I do feel CPs should be responsible for showing how the CS is spent, that
>>way
>>>any nogoodnicks will have to straighten up. Overall I bet if all were
>>required
>>>to show where the CS money is going there would be a lot less of *I pay too
>>>much* but a lot more critical comments that will virtually make no
>>differance
>>>at all in the end.
>>===
>>I'm sure there would be greater compliance if the state were as interested in
>>whether the child is benefiting from the money as it is from extracting it
>>from
>>NCPs.
>
>I won't disagree. What I would really like to see happen is all CPs accounting
>for every dime of CS. If that accounting proves that what the NCP pays doesn't
>cover their portion, and that is many cases is above 50% of total costs, their
>CS is increased to meet the real costs of raising the child. I guess that might
>be the downside of mandated accounting. Think about it. If the accounting
>proves it takes more than what the NCP is paying to raise a child, the NCP
>might find that CS going up.
>
>No matter that we don't agree on this Gini, I still respect you. :)
>
>Mrs Indyguy
====
Same here. And I know from previous experience that neither of us is going to
budge on this issue. What it boils down to, more than CS monies and allocation,
is our respective opinions on the role of government. I have a more "hands-off"
perspective than you. I might agree with you in theory, but disagree on whether
the government should have the right to decide the issue. That's why
neither of us will budge.
====

[Chris]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Chris" > wrote in message
> news:nOYsb.917$6G3.396@fed1read06...
> >
> > "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Fighting For Kids > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:02:34 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >And WHO'S the judge as to whether or not they need a judge?
> > "Reasonable" is
> > > > >a matter of opinion subject to the individual.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Usually one of the people in the parties. Our state has madatory
> > > > mediation requirements in all divorces (im not sure about the
custody
> > > > and child support arrangements in which the parents were not
married)
> > > > I think thats a good step because it forces people to sit down and
try
> > > > and make a resonable agreement. Some mediations dont work out and
> > > > the court is the next step.
> > >
> > > What state do you live in, FFK? I think mandatory mediation is a
> > > great idea!
> >
> > Mandatory mediation is simply a shrink acting as a judge. If either
party
> > disagrees with the decision, they can appeal it.
>
> Mandatory mediation is an agreement reached before a hearing before a
judge.
> An agreement reached before a hearing can be repudiated by either party at
> the time of the hearing before a judge to approve the mediated agreement.
> Why waste the time and money on something that has no legal value or
merit?
> Mediation is a joke.

Actually, it's ALL a joke! It was explained to me that the "recommendation"
of the mediator is almost ALWAYS followed by the judge. I liken it to a
vehicle smog "pre-test". You pay a small amount to find out just where your
vehicle emissions stand before taking the final test. Thus, if emissions are
good, then you simply take the final test with no further incident. However,
if it fails then you can repair it so that it WILL (or at least should) pass
the final test. This is insurance of sorts. Mediation is quite the same. If
the "recommendation" favors you (in the sense that it is less damaging to
you than you expected), then let HER appeal it. But if it doesn't favor you,
then at least you are pretty certain how the final judgement will pan out,
and you can save what little is left of your finances/time by NOT appealing
it.

If mediated decisions are over-ruled by the judge more than half the time
(or even slightly less than half the time), then I would say they have no
merit. But IS this the case?


>
>

[Chris]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Chris" > wrote in message
> news:nOYsb.917$6G3.396@fed1read06...
> >
> > "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Fighting For Kids > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:02:34 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >And WHO'S the judge as to whether or not they need a judge?
> > "Reasonable" is
> > > > >a matter of opinion subject to the individual.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Usually one of the people in the parties. Our state has madatory
> > > > mediation requirements in all divorces (im not sure about the
custody
> > > > and child support arrangements in which the parents were not
married)
> > > > I think thats a good step because it forces people to sit down and
try
> > > > and make a resonable agreement. Some mediations dont work out and
> > > > the court is the next step.
> > >
> > > What state do you live in, FFK? I think mandatory mediation is a
> > > great idea!
> >
> > Mandatory mediation is simply a shrink acting as a judge. If either
party
> > disagrees with the decision, they can appeal it.
>
> Mandatory mediation is an agreement reached before a hearing before a
judge.
> An agreement reached before a hearing can be repudiated by either party at
> the time of the hearing before a judge to approve the mediated agreement.
> Why waste the time and money on something that has no legal value or
merit?
> Mediation is a joke.

Actually, it's ALL a joke! It was explained to me that the "recommendation"
of the mediator is almost ALWAYS followed by the judge. I liken it to a
vehicle smog "pre-test". You pay a small amount to find out just where your
vehicle emissions stand before taking the final test. Thus, if emissions are
good, then you simply take the final test with no further incident. However,
if it fails then you can repair it so that it WILL (or at least should) pass
the final test. This is insurance of sorts. Mediation is quite the same. If
the "recommendation" favors you (in the sense that it is less damaging to
you than you expected), then let HER appeal it. But if it doesn't favor you,
then at least you are pretty certain how the final judgement will pan out,
and you can save what little is left of your finances/time by NOT appealing
it.

If mediated decisions are over-ruled by the judge more than half the time
(or even slightly less than half the time), then I would say they have no
merit. But IS this the case?


>
>

[Chris]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> I couldnt find the source of this reported statistic so I cant say if
> I believe it or not.
>
> On average, a litigated divorce costs around $15,000 and takes more
> than a year to conclude. Mediation generally takes less time and
> considerably less money than a litigated divorce.
>
> . In one study, more than two-thirds of mediating couples stated they
> were "highly satisfied" with the process, and 93 percent said they
> would recommend mediation to others.

I DON'T believe that. WHO did such study?

> On the other hand, only 20
> percent of couples who litigated their divorce described the outcome
> as "fair."
>
> . Nearly 90 percent of mediated divorce cases settle successfully.
>
>
>
>
> On 13 Nov 2003 14:32:26 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:
>
> >In article >, TeacherMama
> >says...
> >>
> >>Fighting For Kids > wrote in message
> >...
> >>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:02:34 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> >
> >>> >And WHO'S the judge as to whether or not they need a judge?
"Reasonable" is
> >>> >a matter of opinion subject to the individual.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> Usually one of the people in the parties. Our state has madatory
> >>> mediation requirements in all divorces (im not sure about the custody
> >>> and child support arrangements in which the parents were not married)
> >>> I think thats a good step because it forces people to sit down and try
> >>> and make a resonable agreement. Some mediations dont work out and
> >>> the court is the next step.
> >>
> >>What state do you live in, FFK? I think mandatory mediation is a
> >>great idea! Does it seem to work well? Any stats on that?
> >===
> >Florida has it. I'm sure it has limited worth, however.
> >===
> >===
>

[Chris]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> I couldnt find the source of this reported statistic so I cant say if
> I believe it or not.
>
> On average, a litigated divorce costs around $15,000 and takes more
> than a year to conclude. Mediation generally takes less time and
> considerably less money than a litigated divorce.
>
> . In one study, more than two-thirds of mediating couples stated they
> were "highly satisfied" with the process, and 93 percent said they
> would recommend mediation to others.

I DON'T believe that. WHO did such study?

> On the other hand, only 20
> percent of couples who litigated their divorce described the outcome
> as "fair."
>
> . Nearly 90 percent of mediated divorce cases settle successfully.
>
>
>
>
> On 13 Nov 2003 14:32:26 -0800, Gini52 > wrote:
>
> >In article >, TeacherMama
> >says...
> >>
> >>Fighting For Kids > wrote in message
> >...
> >>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:02:34 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> >
> >>> >And WHO'S the judge as to whether or not they need a judge?
"Reasonable" is
> >>> >a matter of opinion subject to the individual.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> Usually one of the people in the parties. Our state has madatory
> >>> mediation requirements in all divorces (im not sure about the custody
> >>> and child support arrangements in which the parents were not married)
> >>> I think thats a good step because it forces people to sit down and try
> >>> and make a resonable agreement. Some mediations dont work out and
> >>> the court is the next step.
> >>
> >>What state do you live in, FFK? I think mandatory mediation is a
> >>great idea! Does it seem to work well? Any stats on that?
> >===
> >Florida has it. I'm sure it has limited worth, however.
> >===
> >===
>

[The Dave©]

> Moon Shyne wrote:

>
> "The Dave)" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Moon Shyne wrote:
> > > > > > The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
> > > > >
> > > > > So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or
> > > > > some other place where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy
> > > > > ice cream from the ice cream truck because they don't issue
> > > > > receipts?
> > > >
> > > > Apparently not. If you are so selfish with your own money that
> > > > you can't spring for an ice cream, this will be a problem,
> > > > won't it?
> > >
> > > Considering that the CS I currently receive is less than half the
> > > actual expenses for the children, you would be way off base in
> > > your remark.
> >
> > That's not what you said. You're avoiding the point. Your
> > statement gave no indication that you were talking only about you,
> > specifically.
>
> Oh? "I" has some other meaning?
>
> > Can you address the response to your own point, or not?
>
> The response to my point not only missed my point (the idea that
> child support money can be used for nothing unless a receipt is
> issued), you chose, instead, to launch an attack on some fictitious
> selfishness. You know nothing about me, about my children, nor about
> how much I do for my children in contrast to how much I do (or don't,
> as is generally the case) do for myself, and your remark was way off
> base.

Classic avoidance when backed into a corner. Responding to you is
**ALWAYS** a waste of my time and effort.

[The Dave©]

> Moon Shyne wrote:

>
> "The Dave)" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Moon Shyne wrote:
> > > > > > The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
> > > > >
> > > > > So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or
> > > > > some other place where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy
> > > > > ice cream from the ice cream truck because they don't issue
> > > > > receipts?
> > > >
> > > > Apparently not. If you are so selfish with your own money that
> > > > you can't spring for an ice cream, this will be a problem,
> > > > won't it?
> > >
> > > Considering that the CS I currently receive is less than half the
> > > actual expenses for the children, you would be way off base in
> > > your remark.
> >
> > That's not what you said. You're avoiding the point. Your
> > statement gave no indication that you were talking only about you,
> > specifically.
>
> Oh? "I" has some other meaning?
>
> > Can you address the response to your own point, or not?
>
> The response to my point not only missed my point (the idea that
> child support money can be used for nothing unless a receipt is
> issued), you chose, instead, to launch an attack on some fictitious
> selfishness. You know nothing about me, about my children, nor about
> how much I do for my children in contrast to how much I do (or don't,
> as is generally the case) do for myself, and your remark was way off
> base.

Classic avoidance when backed into a corner. Responding to you is
**ALWAYS** a waste of my time and effort.

[Paul Fritz]

"Melvin Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> Don't forget, Paul...
>
> Paul Fritz wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > .....moonie is once again playing games.......since she is the one that
is
> > determining what the childrens expenses are. Lifestyle support should
NOT be
> > part of the CS equaltion. It is simply a gross violation of a person's
basic
> > constitutional rights. The state has determined the amount required to
>
> ************************************************** *********************
> > supply a child with their basic needs (foster care payments)
> ************************************************** *********************
>
> ...that the state has to build enough "profit" into those payments to
> get people to provide foster care in the first place. If the payments
> were ONLY what it cost to raise the kids, the state would have a much
> harder time finding people willing to act as foster parents.
>
> Mel Gamble
>

I agree.....but most CS paying NCP's probably would gladly settle for the
that amouint :-)

> > Each parent
> > sould be responsible for half, and anything else should be up to the
> > individual parent's choosing......NOT at the whim of the CP like moonie.
> >
> > > =====
> > > =====
> > >
> > > >
> > >

[Paul Fritz]

"Melvin Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> Don't forget, Paul...
>
> Paul Fritz wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > .....moonie is once again playing games.......since she is the one that
is
> > determining what the childrens expenses are. Lifestyle support should
NOT be
> > part of the CS equaltion. It is simply a gross violation of a person's
basic
> > constitutional rights. The state has determined the amount required to
>
> ************************************************** *********************
> > supply a child with their basic needs (foster care payments)
> ************************************************** *********************
>
> ...that the state has to build enough "profit" into those payments to
> get people to provide foster care in the first place. If the payments
> were ONLY what it cost to raise the kids, the state would have a much
> harder time finding people willing to act as foster parents.
>
> Mel Gamble
>

I agree.....but most CS paying NCP's probably would gladly settle for the
that amouint :-)

> > Each parent
> > sould be responsible for half, and anything else should be up to the
> > individual parent's choosing......NOT at the whim of the CP like moonie.
> >
> > > =====
> > > =====
> > >
> > > >
> > >

[Tiffany]

Your Agonizer Please > wrote in message
...
"The Dave©" > wrote:
>> Gini52 wrote:
>> >Supporting the mother is supporting the child. I know what you mean
>> but >there's no sane or reasonable way to enforce this.
>> =====
>> Of course there is. Our government requires us to maintain receipts
>> for all tax deductions for, what--7 years? We call it insane and
>> unreasonable but the government has no problem requiring us to do it.
>> There is no reason a CP should not be subject to audit if there is
>> reason to believe CS is being misused. All she needs to do is keep a
>> shoebox for receipts should there be a question. This would not apply
>> however, if the amount ordered is in line with the actual reasonable
>> costs of a child. In that case, there is little room for
>> "discretionary spending." ==
>> ==
>
>Trying to be reasonable here, but if we did do this (and I think we
>should), I would not expect 100% of CS to be literally directly applied
>to the child. Something along the lines of 75% to 80% would be fine
>with me. Factor in (real) costs in housing, etc., also.

disagree on the housing. even if the paying parent is noncustodial they
still have to maintain housing for that child too, even if its only used 4
days a month.

As a ncp, is it really necessary to pay the extra money for an added bedroom
if your kid only comes over 4 days a month? Something wrong with the kid
bunking on a blow up mattress in the living room? Is it a legal issue that a
ncp must have an extra bedroom?

T

[Tiffany]

Your Agonizer Please > wrote in message
...
"The Dave©" > wrote:
>> Gini52 wrote:
>> >Supporting the mother is supporting the child. I know what you mean
>> but >there's no sane or reasonable way to enforce this.
>> =====
>> Of course there is. Our government requires us to maintain receipts
>> for all tax deductions for, what--7 years? We call it insane and
>> unreasonable but the government has no problem requiring us to do it.
>> There is no reason a CP should not be subject to audit if there is
>> reason to believe CS is being misused. All she needs to do is keep a
>> shoebox for receipts should there be a question. This would not apply
>> however, if the amount ordered is in line with the actual reasonable
>> costs of a child. In that case, there is little room for
>> "discretionary spending." ==
>> ==
>
>Trying to be reasonable here, but if we did do this (and I think we
>should), I would not expect 100% of CS to be literally directly applied
>to the child. Something along the lines of 75% to 80% would be fine
>with me. Factor in (real) costs in housing, etc., also.

disagree on the housing. even if the paying parent is noncustodial they
still have to maintain housing for that child too, even if its only used 4
days a month.

As a ncp, is it really necessary to pay the extra money for an added bedroom
if your kid only comes over 4 days a month? Something wrong with the kid
bunking on a blow up mattress in the living room? Is it a legal issue that a
ncp must have an extra bedroom?

T

[TeacherMama]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message t>...
> "Chris" > wrote in message
> news:nOYsb.917$6G3.396@fed1read06...
> >
> > "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Fighting For Kids > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:02:34 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >And WHO'S the judge as to whether or not they need a judge?
> "Reasonable" is
> > > > >a matter of opinion subject to the individual.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Usually one of the people in the parties. Our state has madatory
> > > > mediation requirements in all divorces (im not sure about the custody
> > > > and child support arrangements in which the parents were not married)
> > > > I think thats a good step because it forces people to sit down and try
> > > > and make a resonable agreement. Some mediations dont work out and
> > > > the court is the next step.
> > >
> > > What state do you live in, FFK? I think mandatory mediation is a
> > > great idea!
> >
> > Mandatory mediation is simply a shrink acting as a judge. If either party
> > disagrees with the decision, they can appeal it.
>
> Mandatory mediation is an agreement reached before a hearing before a judge.
> An agreement reached before a hearing can be repudiated by either party at
> the time of the hearing before a judge to approve the mediated agreement.
> Why waste the time and money on something that has no legal value or merit?
> Mediation is a joke.

Mediation that is not binding would, indeed, be a joke. However, if
mediation were required, and PEOPLE WERE ALLOWED TO BE ADULTS AND MAKE
THEIR OWN DECISIONS, with no judge able to say "no, I don't like what
you decided," then it would be a valuable tool. I would far rather be
able to sit down and discuss an issue, than to have someone make a
decision based on their opinion of what might have happened!

[TeacherMama]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message t>...
> "Chris" > wrote in message
> news:nOYsb.917$6G3.396@fed1read06...
> >
> > "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Fighting For Kids > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:02:34 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >And WHO'S the judge as to whether or not they need a judge?
> "Reasonable" is
> > > > >a matter of opinion subject to the individual.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Usually one of the people in the parties. Our state has madatory
> > > > mediation requirements in all divorces (im not sure about the custody
> > > > and child support arrangements in which the parents were not married)
> > > > I think thats a good step because it forces people to sit down and try
> > > > and make a resonable agreement. Some mediations dont work out and
> > > > the court is the next step.
> > >
> > > What state do you live in, FFK? I think mandatory mediation is a
> > > great idea!
> >
> > Mandatory mediation is simply a shrink acting as a judge. If either party
> > disagrees with the decision, they can appeal it.
>
> Mandatory mediation is an agreement reached before a hearing before a judge.
> An agreement reached before a hearing can be repudiated by either party at
> the time of the hearing before a judge to approve the mediated agreement.
> Why waste the time and money on something that has no legal value or merit?
> Mediation is a joke.

Mediation that is not binding would, indeed, be a joke. However, if
mediation were required, and PEOPLE WERE ALLOWED TO BE ADULTS AND MAKE
THEIR OWN DECISIONS, with no judge able to say "no, I don't like what
you decided," then it would be a valuable tool. I would far rather be
able to sit down and discuss an issue, than to have someone make a
decision based on their opinion of what might have happened!

[Bob Whiteside]

"TeacherMama" > wrote in message
m...
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
t>...
> > "Chris" > wrote in message
> > news:nOYsb.917$6G3.396@fed1read06...
> > >
> > > "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > Fighting For Kids > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:02:34 -0800, "Chris" >
wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >And WHO'S the judge as to whether or not they need a judge?
> > "Reasonable" is
> > > > > >a matter of opinion subject to the individual.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Usually one of the people in the parties. Our state has madatory
> > > > > mediation requirements in all divorces (im not sure about the
custody
> > > > > and child support arrangements in which the parents were not
married)
> > > > > I think thats a good step because it forces people to sit down and
try
> > > > > and make a resonable agreement. Some mediations dont work out
and
> > > > > the court is the next step.
> > > >
> > > > What state do you live in, FFK? I think mandatory mediation is a
> > > > great idea!
> > >
> > > Mandatory mediation is simply a shrink acting as a judge. If either
party
> > > disagrees with the decision, they can appeal it.
> >
> > Mandatory mediation is an agreement reached before a hearing before a
judge.
> > An agreement reached before a hearing can be repudiated by either party
at
> > the time of the hearing before a judge to approve the mediated
agreement.
> > Why waste the time and money on something that has no legal value or
merit?
> > Mediation is a joke.
>
> Mediation that is not binding would, indeed, be a joke. However, if
> mediation were required, and PEOPLE WERE ALLOWED TO BE ADULTS AND MAKE
> THEIR OWN DECISIONS, with no judge able to say "no, I don't like what
> you decided," then it would be a valuable tool. I would far rather be
> able to sit down and discuss an issue, than to have someone make a
> decision based on their opinion of what might have happened!

I lived through this nightmare. The county required parents to attend
mediation to resolve issues related to custody, visitation, and care of the
children post-divorce. We went to an orientation program where they
explained the mediation process and showed us a movie about the positive
aspects of mediations.

We went to multiple sessions where a county court mediator helped us through
the issues we raised and discussed. The mediator filed a written mediation
agreement with the court that we all signed. My ex's attorney told her
behind the scenes she shouldn't have agreed to some of the things we agreed
to with the mediator. Her attorney led my attorney to believe the mediated
agreement was a done deal.

When we got into court her attorney questioned me about everything I had
agreed to. I attempted to testify the things I had agreed to were in the
context of what she had agreed to in exchange for my agreements. Then he
blindsided me and my attorney by stating she no longer agreed to those
things. My attorney objected, and a bunch of legal arguments were made. My
attorney argued her attorney asked the questions and my response about the
mediated agreement was in response to his questions, and her attorney was
objecting to answers to his own line of questioning. The bottom line was
the judge ruled that stipulated agreements reached before a court hearing
are not valid if the case goes to a judge, but my testimony before the court
was binding. My attorney was furious and the judge reprimanded him for
protesting so vehemently.

In effect, her attorney got me to testify on the record about what I agreed
to in the mediation, and then shut it down. I had to give up everything I
agreed to and she gave up nothing in return. And of course, my ex was
allowed to renege on her written agreements and the judge protected her
right to do that.

[Bob Whiteside]

"TeacherMama" > wrote in message
m...
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
t>...
> > "Chris" > wrote in message
> > news:nOYsb.917$6G3.396@fed1read06...
> > >
> > > "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > Fighting For Kids > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:02:34 -0800, "Chris" >
wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >And WHO'S the judge as to whether or not they need a judge?
> > "Reasonable" is
> > > > > >a matter of opinion subject to the individual.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Usually one of the people in the parties. Our state has madatory
> > > > > mediation requirements in all divorces (im not sure about the
custody
> > > > > and child support arrangements in which the parents were not
married)
> > > > > I think thats a good step because it forces people to sit down and
try
> > > > > and make a resonable agreement. Some mediations dont work out
and
> > > > > the court is the next step.
> > > >
> > > > What state do you live in, FFK? I think mandatory mediation is a
> > > > great idea!
> > >
> > > Mandatory mediation is simply a shrink acting as a judge. If either
party
> > > disagrees with the decision, they can appeal it.
> >
> > Mandatory mediation is an agreement reached before a hearing before a
judge.
> > An agreement reached before a hearing can be repudiated by either party
at
> > the time of the hearing before a judge to approve the mediated
agreement.
> > Why waste the time and money on something that has no legal value or
merit?
> > Mediation is a joke.
>
> Mediation that is not binding would, indeed, be a joke. However, if
> mediation were required, and PEOPLE WERE ALLOWED TO BE ADULTS AND MAKE
> THEIR OWN DECISIONS, with no judge able to say "no, I don't like what
> you decided," then it would be a valuable tool. I would far rather be
> able to sit down and discuss an issue, than to have someone make a
> decision based on their opinion of what might have happened!

I lived through this nightmare. The county required parents to attend
mediation to resolve issues related to custody, visitation, and care of the
children post-divorce. We went to an orientation program where they
explained the mediation process and showed us a movie about the positive
aspects of mediations.

We went to multiple sessions where a county court mediator helped us through
the issues we raised and discussed. The mediator filed a written mediation
agreement with the court that we all signed. My ex's attorney told her
behind the scenes she shouldn't have agreed to some of the things we agreed
to with the mediator. Her attorney led my attorney to believe the mediated
agreement was a done deal.

When we got into court her attorney questioned me about everything I had
agreed to. I attempted to testify the things I had agreed to were in the
context of what she had agreed to in exchange for my agreements. Then he
blindsided me and my attorney by stating she no longer agreed to those
things. My attorney objected, and a bunch of legal arguments were made. My
attorney argued her attorney asked the questions and my response about the
mediated agreement was in response to his questions, and her attorney was
objecting to answers to his own line of questioning. The bottom line was
the judge ruled that stipulated agreements reached before a court hearing
are not valid if the case goes to a judge, but my testimony before the court
was binding. My attorney was furious and the judge reprimanded him for
protesting so vehemently.

In effect, her attorney got me to testify on the record about what I agreed
to in the mediation, and then shut it down. I had to give up everything I
agreed to and she gave up nothing in return. And of course, my ex was
allowed to renege on her written agreements and the judge protected her
right to do that.

[Fighting For Kids]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 02:43:04 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> wrote:

>
>"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:32:16 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> >The $4,755 is the amount CP's claim has been ordered and this number is
>from
>> >1999 orders that could have been modified upward twice since the Census
>data
>> >was collected.
>>
>> Or modified downward.
>
>Downward modifications are rare. The national CSE site shows they occur in
>only 4% of the modifications.
>
>>
>>
>> For perspective it needs to be stated this average CS amount
>> >includes teenage mothers aged 15 and up who have had children with very
>low
>> >income teenage boys, as well as adult children over the age of majority
>for
>> >CS but under age 21.
>>
>> WHo probably make up a small portion of the reported numbers. If I
>> remember the majority of support was given to those 21 and up.
>
>It's two different categories. The young girls age 15-17 account for a
>small number of support cases and they are considered statistically too
>small of a group to extend out to the total population. The other category
>are adult children aged 18-21 who still live with their former CP mother,
>but because of their age they are no longer included on CS orders in states
>where CS ends at 18 or 19. Also, children living at home, but having CS
>paid directly to them would fit into this category too.
>
I think that they are too small to have an overall impact on the
numbers, I agree.

>>
>>
>> The $4,755 does not include healthcare insurance and
>> >reimbursements, life insurance, daycare, etc. that are add-ons to the
>basic
>> >CS order.
>>
>> It very well may. My state includes daycare expenses in the support
>> order already added in. Life insurance? Reimbursements? Those are
>> judgements that are seperate from the CS order anyway. I dont know
>> one person who got life insurance ordered. I have seen reimbursement
>> for medical expenses or extrordinary expense like braces, private
>> school, etc. However, most children dont go to private school and
>> many dont need braces.
>
>Life insurance is ordered all the time to gurantee the CS is paid if the NCP
>dies before the children reach the age of majority. Some states have case
>law preventing a judge from forcing an NCP to designate the children as
>beneficiaries. In those states they tell the fathers they have a choice -
>either take out the required insurance in the amount the court sets, or the
>court will reserve the right to create a constructive trust over the
>father's assets in the event of his death in the same amount.

I havent met one person who has life insurance included in their
support orders. Thats news to me. You are honeslty the first person
ive heard this from.


>
>>
>> And it does not include education CS paid directly to adult
>> >children attending college.
>>
>> Where did you see this statement?
>
>It isn't in the Census report. However, CS ordered to be paid directly to
>the adult child is not CS ordered to be paid to the CP mother. In some
>cases, the judgment creditor is changed from the mother to the child. This
>can account for a child living in the CP's home without the mother receiving
>any CS for the child.

I think that if a child is going to college and not living at home,
the money should go directly to the school or bills.

>
>>
>> It also does not account for the additional
>> >support value for non-cash support that 60% of CP's report receiving from
>> >NCP's.
>>
>> What is non-cash support?
>
>I've answered this question twice. See page 6 of the report. 60% of CP's
>report receiving at least one form of non-cash support from NCP's. This
>includes gifts, clothes, food and groceries, medical expenses other than
>healthcare insurance, child care, and summer camp reimbursements.

At least one form of non-cash support equaling how much?

>>
>> >
>> >The average CS award has got to be at least $400-500 per month more than
>the
>> >Census shows when you consider all the other factors NCP's are required
>to
>> >pay.
>>
>> Possibly in some cases but not all. In some cases this could be less.
>
>It's just a guess on my part that these items can add $400-500 per month.
>Let me share some of my own experience with this. While I was paying CS for
>my daughter attending college, I also agreed to pay all of her school
>expenses not covered by student and parent loans. I also paid her car
>insurance, all of her medical expenses, and bought her a laptop to use at
>school. That stuff adds up very fast.
>
But earlier you said she lived with you and you got the tax credits
for her. Isnt that what most parents would do if they were intact (if
they had money to do so of course). Pay for educational expenses?


>>
>> >
>> >The government has an agenda to make CS payments and collections sound
>low
>> >to continually increase the guideline amounts and justify the $4 billion
>> >bureaucracy that has been created to chase down NCP's.
>>
>> I doubt that.
>
>So why do you think CSE inflates the amount of CS due by including in their
>statistics the amount they would collect if the 50% of parents without
>formal CS agreements were included in their caseload? Why do you think CSE
>has forced every new or newly modified CS order through their agencies for
>collection? Have you noticed CSE is collecting fewer and fewer welfare
>reimbursement dollars while their non-TANF collections are rising
>dramatically? The answers are simple - they are trying to take credit for a
>big caseload that they do nothing to collect to make it look like they are
>effective to Congress. It's all smoke and mirrors.

I dont think that they inflat the CS amounts, I think what they do is
collect on the cases they know will improve their statistics. They
sure dont collect on mine, thats for sure.

For example, the SSA benefits being included in child support, now
after I thought about it is not right. Those are guaranteed benefits
that will always be available for all children they would inflat their
collection rate when they really havent done anything.

I also noticed that alot of their TANF stuff is worked harder than a
regular non-TANF case. Example, while attending college I knew a lady
who had a son. She was on TANF for about 2 months and got support.
Before this CSE told her that her case was difficult they couldnt
enforce etc. But as soon as she signed those state papers, the
support started to come in.

It would be interesting to see how many payments per case were
actually received by those who reported receiving "some" type of
payment. I would venture to say that there would be a much higher
amount of people who got ONE payment than those who got say 9
payments. Inflating thier collection numbers even more.

This will disgust you (it did me)
I was discussing this issue with my friend who grew up in her mothers
home. This story will for sure meet you example of a mother who
doesnt want to work and expects the father to pay for everything.

Her father was well off and was ordered to pay $5,000.00 a month in
child support and $3500.00 in maintenence payments, plus he was
ordered to make the mortgage payments until the house was paid off (it
was a 1.5 million dollar home at the time, I have no clue how much
that would be in monthly payments).

Now I could understand such an order if say this lady had lived with
her husband for 20 years as a SAHM, had no education or job skills
maintenence payments of some sort, and if children were present child
support payments but gesh thats a TON of money every month.

She however had a college education and simply didnt think she had to
work. If that wasnt enough, she demanded that he pay for anything
else that would come up regarding the kids. If school was going to
start she demanded he pay for their clothing. He paid for school
trips to england when his daughters soccer team played there. She
demanded a raise in child support when he got remarried because she
wanted to drag him around by his balls.

She spent money to feed the kids, drive them to school, and
occasionally let them go to a movie or something. She invested all
that money for herself. Even when her daughter went to college the
father was made to still send the mother support money, even though
the mother didnt pay a dime for any educational expenses (grandma did
it all).

She strikes me as a money hungary witch. When the kids turned 18, the
house was paid for and she sold it for 3.5 million. She didnt pay a
dime for it and got everything from the sale.

So she got 8500 a month total from this man (not including the
mortgage payment), for about 18 years by the time it was all said and
done. So total she got 1,836,000 and invested that all into accounts
for herself. What a deal. She contributed very little to her
children financially. She did stay home with them and didnt hire a
nanny to take care of them like her neighbors did.

Now, this said I doubt that her case is like the majority of cases,
but I know that there are women who will milk a man for everything,
ive said there are bad CP's. There are also good ones who wouldnt do
things like this and really do spend the money on the children.

Now this man didnt live in the dumpsters and was stilll afforded a
good life. Yes she filed for divorce, after he cheated on her 5 times
with 5 different people.
>

[Fighting For Kids]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 02:43:04 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> wrote:

>
>"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:32:16 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> >The $4,755 is the amount CP's claim has been ordered and this number is
>from
>> >1999 orders that could have been modified upward twice since the Census
>data
>> >was collected.
>>
>> Or modified downward.
>
>Downward modifications are rare. The national CSE site shows they occur in
>only 4% of the modifications.
>
>>
>>
>> For perspective it needs to be stated this average CS amount
>> >includes teenage mothers aged 15 and up who have had children with very
>low
>> >income teenage boys, as well as adult children over the age of majority
>for
>> >CS but under age 21.
>>
>> WHo probably make up a small portion of the reported numbers. If I
>> remember the majority of support was given to those 21 and up.
>
>It's two different categories. The young girls age 15-17 account for a
>small number of support cases and they are considered statistically too
>small of a group to extend out to the total population. The other category
>are adult children aged 18-21 who still live with their former CP mother,
>but because of their age they are no longer included on CS orders in states
>where CS ends at 18 or 19. Also, children living at home, but having CS
>paid directly to them would fit into this category too.
>
I think that they are too small to have an overall impact on the
numbers, I agree.

>>
>>
>> The $4,755 does not include healthcare insurance and
>> >reimbursements, life insurance, daycare, etc. that are add-ons to the
>basic
>> >CS order.
>>
>> It very well may. My state includes daycare expenses in the support
>> order already added in. Life insurance? Reimbursements? Those are
>> judgements that are seperate from the CS order anyway. I dont know
>> one person who got life insurance ordered. I have seen reimbursement
>> for medical expenses or extrordinary expense like braces, private
>> school, etc. However, most children dont go to private school and
>> many dont need braces.
>
>Life insurance is ordered all the time to gurantee the CS is paid if the NCP
>dies before the children reach the age of majority. Some states have case
>law preventing a judge from forcing an NCP to designate the children as
>beneficiaries. In those states they tell the fathers they have a choice -
>either take out the required insurance in the amount the court sets, or the
>court will reserve the right to create a constructive trust over the
>father's assets in the event of his death in the same amount.

I havent met one person who has life insurance included in their
support orders. Thats news to me. You are honeslty the first person
ive heard this from.


>
>>
>> And it does not include education CS paid directly to adult
>> >children attending college.
>>
>> Where did you see this statement?
>
>It isn't in the Census report. However, CS ordered to be paid directly to
>the adult child is not CS ordered to be paid to the CP mother. In some
>cases, the judgment creditor is changed from the mother to the child. This
>can account for a child living in the CP's home without the mother receiving
>any CS for the child.

I think that if a child is going to college and not living at home,
the money should go directly to the school or bills.

>
>>
>> It also does not account for the additional
>> >support value for non-cash support that 60% of CP's report receiving from
>> >NCP's.
>>
>> What is non-cash support?
>
>I've answered this question twice. See page 6 of the report. 60% of CP's
>report receiving at least one form of non-cash support from NCP's. This
>includes gifts, clothes, food and groceries, medical expenses other than
>healthcare insurance, child care, and summer camp reimbursements.

At least one form of non-cash support equaling how much?

>>
>> >
>> >The average CS award has got to be at least $400-500 per month more than
>the
>> >Census shows when you consider all the other factors NCP's are required
>to
>> >pay.
>>
>> Possibly in some cases but not all. In some cases this could be less.
>
>It's just a guess on my part that these items can add $400-500 per month.
>Let me share some of my own experience with this. While I was paying CS for
>my daughter attending college, I also agreed to pay all of her school
>expenses not covered by student and parent loans. I also paid her car
>insurance, all of her medical expenses, and bought her a laptop to use at
>school. That stuff adds up very fast.
>
But earlier you said she lived with you and you got the tax credits
for her. Isnt that what most parents would do if they were intact (if
they had money to do so of course). Pay for educational expenses?


>>
>> >
>> >The government has an agenda to make CS payments and collections sound
>low
>> >to continually increase the guideline amounts and justify the $4 billion
>> >bureaucracy that has been created to chase down NCP's.
>>
>> I doubt that.
>
>So why do you think CSE inflates the amount of CS due by including in their
>statistics the amount they would collect if the 50% of parents without
>formal CS agreements were included in their caseload? Why do you think CSE
>has forced every new or newly modified CS order through their agencies for
>collection? Have you noticed CSE is collecting fewer and fewer welfare
>reimbursement dollars while their non-TANF collections are rising
>dramatically? The answers are simple - they are trying to take credit for a
>big caseload that they do nothing to collect to make it look like they are
>effective to Congress. It's all smoke and mirrors.

I dont think that they inflat the CS amounts, I think what they do is
collect on the cases they know will improve their statistics. They
sure dont collect on mine, thats for sure.

For example, the SSA benefits being included in child support, now
after I thought about it is not right. Those are guaranteed benefits
that will always be available for all children they would inflat their
collection rate when they really havent done anything.

I also noticed that alot of their TANF stuff is worked harder than a
regular non-TANF case. Example, while attending college I knew a lady
who had a son. She was on TANF for about 2 months and got support.
Before this CSE told her that her case was difficult they couldnt
enforce etc. But as soon as she signed those state papers, the
support started to come in.

It would be interesting to see how many payments per case were
actually received by those who reported receiving "some" type of
payment. I would venture to say that there would be a much higher
amount of people who got ONE payment than those who got say 9
payments. Inflating thier collection numbers even more.

This will disgust you (it did me)
I was discussing this issue with my friend who grew up in her mothers
home. This story will for sure meet you example of a mother who
doesnt want to work and expects the father to pay for everything.

Her father was well off and was ordered to pay $5,000.00 a month in
child support and $3500.00 in maintenence payments, plus he was
ordered to make the mortgage payments until the house was paid off (it
was a 1.5 million dollar home at the time, I have no clue how much
that would be in monthly payments).

Now I could understand such an order if say this lady had lived with
her husband for 20 years as a SAHM, had no education or job skills
maintenence payments of some sort, and if children were present child
support payments but gesh thats a TON of money every month.

She however had a college education and simply didnt think she had to
work. If that wasnt enough, she demanded that he pay for anything
else that would come up regarding the kids. If school was going to
start she demanded he pay for their clothing. He paid for school
trips to england when his daughters soccer team played there. She
demanded a raise in child support when he got remarried because she
wanted to drag him around by his balls.

She spent money to feed the kids, drive them to school, and
occasionally let them go to a movie or something. She invested all
that money for herself. Even when her daughter went to college the
father was made to still send the mother support money, even though
the mother didnt pay a dime for any educational expenses (grandma did
it all).

She strikes me as a money hungary witch. When the kids turned 18, the
house was paid for and she sold it for 3.5 million. She didnt pay a
dime for it and got everything from the sale.

So she got 8500 a month total from this man (not including the
mortgage payment), for about 18 years by the time it was all said and
done. So total she got 1,836,000 and invested that all into accounts
for herself. What a deal. She contributed very little to her
children financially. She did stay home with them and didnt hire a
nanny to take care of them like her neighbors did.

Now, this said I doubt that her case is like the majority of cases,
but I know that there are women who will milk a man for everything,
ive said there are bad CP's. There are also good ones who wouldnt do
things like this and really do spend the money on the children.

Now this man didnt live in the dumpsters and was stilll afforded a
good life. Yes she filed for divorce, after he cheated on her 5 times
with 5 different people.
>

[Fighting For Kids]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:39:26 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:

>

>
>No. The NCP should not have to pay regardless of the CPs financial
>situation. Married parents don't, and neither should NON-married parents!
>This is precisely why the divorce rate is so high; the government people pay
>women money (extorted from the husband) to file divorce.
>
I would say otherwise. If a man makes 150,000 a year and he marries
say a college girl who hasnt even started a carrer who do you think
pays the difference?

[Fighting For Kids]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:39:26 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:

>

>
>No. The NCP should not have to pay regardless of the CPs financial
>situation. Married parents don't, and neither should NON-married parents!
>This is precisely why the divorce rate is so high; the government people pay
>women money (extorted from the husband) to file divorce.
>
I would say otherwise. If a man makes 150,000 a year and he marries
say a college girl who hasnt even started a carrer who do you think
pays the difference?

[Fighting For Kids]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 07:13:16 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:

>
>"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
>> I couldnt find the source of this reported statistic so I cant say if
>> I believe it or not.
>>
>> On average, a litigated divorce costs around $15,000 and takes more
>> than a year to conclude. Mediation generally takes less time and
>> considerably less money than a litigated divorce.
>>
>> . In one study, more than two-thirds of mediating couples stated they
>> were "highly satisfied" with the process, and 93 percent said they
>> would recommend mediation to others.
>
>I DON'T believe that. WHO did such study?
>
Di d you even read what I typed before this statement, apparently not.

[Fighting For Kids]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 07:13:16 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:

>
>"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
>> I couldnt find the source of this reported statistic so I cant say if
>> I believe it or not.
>>
>> On average, a litigated divorce costs around $15,000 and takes more
>> than a year to conclude. Mediation generally takes less time and
>> considerably less money than a litigated divorce.
>>
>> . In one study, more than two-thirds of mediating couples stated they
>> were "highly satisfied" with the process, and 93 percent said they
>> would recommend mediation to others.
>
>I DON'T believe that. WHO did such study?
>
Di d you even read what I typed before this statement, apparently not.

[Fighting For Kids]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:29:35 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:

>
>"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:07:53 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:54:44 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >I COULD be wrong, but I believe that you are legally entitled to a
>> >receipt.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> lol, you may be legally entitled but that doesnt mean you are going to
>> >> get one.
>> >
>> >You are legally entitled to wake up tomorrow morning, but that doesn't
>mean
>> >someone won't put a bullet in your head tonight. What's your point?
>> >
>> What's yours?
>
>I see that you offer NO point.
>
Neither do you.

[Fighting For Kids]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:29:35 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:

>
>"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:07:53 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:54:44 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >I COULD be wrong, but I believe that you are legally entitled to a
>> >receipt.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> lol, you may be legally entitled but that doesnt mean you are going to
>> >> get one.
>> >
>> >You are legally entitled to wake up tomorrow morning, but that doesn't
>mean
>> >someone won't put a bullet in your head tonight. What's your point?
>> >
>> What's yours?
>
>I see that you offer NO point.
>
Neither do you.

[Cameron Stevens]

"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...

> As a ncp, is it really necessary to pay the extra money for an added
bedroom
> if your kid only comes over 4 days a month? Something wrong with the kid
> bunking on a blow up mattress in the living room? Is it a legal issue that
a
> ncp must have an extra bedroom?

It's not necessary to have a bedroom for each kid. I rented a single bedroom
and the bedroom was the kids room, the living room was my room (fold-out
bed) and all went well. For the time being.

It's difficult. The system seems to reverse rather than equalize.

Cameron

[Cameron Stevens]

"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...

> As a ncp, is it really necessary to pay the extra money for an added
bedroom
> if your kid only comes over 4 days a month? Something wrong with the kid
> bunking on a blow up mattress in the living room? Is it a legal issue that
a
> ncp must have an extra bedroom?

It's not necessary to have a bedroom for each kid. I rented a single bedroom
and the bedroom was the kids room, the living room was my room (fold-out
bed) and all went well. For the time being.

It's difficult. The system seems to reverse rather than equalize.

Cameron

[Gini52]

In article >, Fighting For Kids
says...
>braces.
.............................................
>>
>>Life insurance is ordered all the time to gurantee the CS is paid if the NCP
>>dies before the children reach the age of majority. Some states have case
>>law preventing a judge from forcing an NCP to designate the children as
>>beneficiaries. In those states they tell the fathers they have a choice -
>>either take out the required insurance in the amount the court sets, or the
>>court will reserve the right to create a constructive trust over the
>>father's assets in the event of his death in the same amount.
>
>I havent met one person who has life insurance included in their
>support orders.
.............................
===
My husband did. According to FL statutes the judge has the discretion to
"secure" the support with a life insurance policy. Absent such policy, the CP
has the right to charge the estate with the balance of CS due in the event of
the obligor's death. If my husband had died when my steps were minors, I would
have had to pay the balance of the support to their mother.
=====
=====

[Gini52]

In article >, Fighting For Kids
says...
>braces.
.............................................
>>
>>Life insurance is ordered all the time to gurantee the CS is paid if the NCP
>>dies before the children reach the age of majority. Some states have case
>>law preventing a judge from forcing an NCP to designate the children as
>>beneficiaries. In those states they tell the fathers they have a choice -
>>either take out the required insurance in the amount the court sets, or the
>>court will reserve the right to create a constructive trust over the
>>father's assets in the event of his death in the same amount.
>
>I havent met one person who has life insurance included in their
>support orders.
.............................
===
My husband did. According to FL statutes the judge has the discretion to
"secure" the support with a life insurance policy. Absent such policy, the CP
has the right to charge the estate with the balance of CS due in the event of
the obligor's death. If my husband had died when my steps were minors, I would
have had to pay the balance of the support to their mother.
=====
=====

[Cameron Stevens]

"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > There's a huge difference from that "design" to today's reality. We need
the
> > system to drop the prejudice of the woman being unable to find work of
equal
> > value (or boyfriend/new husband to subsidize)
>
> Why would you transfer the responsibility for the children to some new
> boyfriend/husband? Why not transfer it to some new girlfriend/wife of the
NCP?

I did not suggest that a transfer of responsibility should or would occur.
The fact is that a new boyfriend/husband is often a source of income, or
more accurately a means by which to reduce the cost-of-living. It's the
reality for many CPs. I don't suggest it's a legal of sanctioned
transferance of responsibility.

> and protect the child's real
> > best interest, the relationship with BOTH parents (not money as presumed
byt
> > the system). The amounts involved need to appreciate that there are
hills
> > and valleys to life and that professional momentum and success can be
> > affected by speedbumps and semi-trailers on the highway of life. The CP
must
> > take responsibility for budgetting their money and understand that, just
as
> > they would need to do if married to the NCP, planning for a worst-case
is
> > essential.
>
> Doesn't the NCP have to do the same budgeting and planning?

Yes, no argument. The limited funds often leave an NCP financially crippled,
leaving very little budgetting to do.

> The father may lose his job, may go on disability and may need to
> > work someplace else and while she may not appreciate his position he may
> > just burn out and need to take a seriously less stressful and
lower-paying
> > job to simply survive..
>
> And all of the same may well be true for the CP, who, in addition to
working to
> supply her share of support for the children, has the additional workload
of the
> hands on care for the children for the majority of the time.

Yes, absolutely. The CP could lose her job, the CP could also ask or allow
the NCP to become a CP reducing her costs.

> > There is a very clear but mislead impression that men walk away from a
> > marriage unscathed or smelling like roses. While some wealthy people
have
> > teh power to bend the system to thier will, the bulk of the fathers/NCPs
do
> > not and those fathers are negatively impacted by the process of divorce
> > itself. Bankrupcy is pursued by many fathers (NCPs) as a necessity,
>
> Just as it is pursued by many mothers as a necessity.

Yup.

> not as a
> > shirking of responsibility and the over all impression of the father
being a
> > "Deadbeat Dad" is unfair if not a persecution in itself. A fine
upstanding
> > employee may, if the employer is biased or mislead, become recognised as
a
> > burden on the company, a criminal of sorts, when the garanshee notice
> > arrives.
>
> In this day and age where nearly all child support orders are via wage
> assignment? Somehow, I doubt that the company won't recognize it for
exactly
> what it is - SOP.

That'd be ideal wouldn't it.

What was the real point of your response? The NCPs and CPs bothe have
responsibilities. The system seems to have a bias and misdirection regarding
the realities of life and needs to be changed.

Cameron

[Cameron Stevens]

"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > There's a huge difference from that "design" to today's reality. We need
the
> > system to drop the prejudice of the woman being unable to find work of
equal
> > value (or boyfriend/new husband to subsidize)
>
> Why would you transfer the responsibility for the children to some new
> boyfriend/husband? Why not transfer it to some new girlfriend/wife of the
NCP?

I did not suggest that a transfer of responsibility should or would occur.
The fact is that a new boyfriend/husband is often a source of income, or
more accurately a means by which to reduce the cost-of-living. It's the
reality for many CPs. I don't suggest it's a legal of sanctioned
transferance of responsibility.

> and protect the child's real
> > best interest, the relationship with BOTH parents (not money as presumed
byt
> > the system). The amounts involved need to appreciate that there are
hills
> > and valleys to life and that professional momentum and success can be
> > affected by speedbumps and semi-trailers on the highway of life. The CP
must
> > take responsibility for budgetting their money and understand that, just
as
> > they would need to do if married to the NCP, planning for a worst-case
is
> > essential.
>
> Doesn't the NCP have to do the same budgeting and planning?

Yes, no argument. The limited funds often leave an NCP financially crippled,
leaving very little budgetting to do.

> The father may lose his job, may go on disability and may need to
> > work someplace else and while she may not appreciate his position he may
> > just burn out and need to take a seriously less stressful and
lower-paying
> > job to simply survive..
>
> And all of the same may well be true for the CP, who, in addition to
working to
> supply her share of support for the children, has the additional workload
of the
> hands on care for the children for the majority of the time.

Yes, absolutely. The CP could lose her job, the CP could also ask or allow
the NCP to become a CP reducing her costs.

> > There is a very clear but mislead impression that men walk away from a
> > marriage unscathed or smelling like roses. While some wealthy people
have
> > teh power to bend the system to thier will, the bulk of the fathers/NCPs
do
> > not and those fathers are negatively impacted by the process of divorce
> > itself. Bankrupcy is pursued by many fathers (NCPs) as a necessity,
>
> Just as it is pursued by many mothers as a necessity.

Yup.

> not as a
> > shirking of responsibility and the over all impression of the father
being a
> > "Deadbeat Dad" is unfair if not a persecution in itself. A fine
upstanding
> > employee may, if the employer is biased or mislead, become recognised as
a
> > burden on the company, a criminal of sorts, when the garanshee notice
> > arrives.
>
> In this day and age where nearly all child support orders are via wage
> assignment? Somehow, I doubt that the company won't recognize it for
exactly
> what it is - SOP.

That'd be ideal wouldn't it.

What was the real point of your response? The NCPs and CPs bothe have
responsibilities. The system seems to have a bias and misdirection regarding
the realities of life and needs to be changed.

Cameron

[Bob Whiteside]

"Gini52" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Fighting For Kids
> says...
> >braces.
> ............................................
> >>
> >>Life insurance is ordered all the time to gurantee the CS is paid if the
NCP
> >>dies before the children reach the age of majority. Some states have
case
> >>law preventing a judge from forcing an NCP to designate the children as
> >>beneficiaries. In those states they tell the fathers they have a
choice -
> >>either take out the required insurance in the amount the court sets, or
the
> >>court will reserve the right to create a constructive trust over the
> >>father's assets in the event of his death in the same amount.
> >
> >I havent met one person who has life insurance included in their
> >support orders.
> ............................
> ===
> My husband did. According to FL statutes the judge has the discretion to
> "secure" the support with a life insurance policy. Absent such policy, the
CP
> has the right to charge the estate with the balance of CS due in the event
of
> the obligor's death. If my husband had died when my steps were minors, I
would
> have had to pay the balance of the support to their mother.
> =====
> =====

This is one of the many CS related issues where the system contradicts
itself. On one hand they say CS is a month to month debt accruing on the
first of each month and due by the end of the month. Then they turn around
and order fathers to take out life insurance in an amount equal to the
amount of the total extension of the debt to the age of majority. The thing
that really irritated me was, if I had died before the last CS monthly
amount was paid, the CS from the original divorce would have been paid a
second time by the life insurance payout.

And to prove how biased the family law system is - when my son came to live
with me, I asked the court to order his mother to provide the same level of
life insurance as the court had ordered me to provide. Instead, the court
decided to drop the life insurance amount I was required to pay. The judges
are idiots who think a person can turn life insurance on and off based on
their whims.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Gini52" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Fighting For Kids
> says...
> >braces.
> ............................................
> >>
> >>Life insurance is ordered all the time to gurantee the CS is paid if the
NCP
> >>dies before the children reach the age of majority. Some states have
case
> >>law preventing a judge from forcing an NCP to designate the children as
> >>beneficiaries. In those states they tell the fathers they have a
choice -
> >>either take out the required insurance in the amount the court sets, or
the
> >>court will reserve the right to create a constructive trust over the
> >>father's assets in the event of his death in the same amount.
> >
> >I havent met one person who has life insurance included in their
> >support orders.
> ............................
> ===
> My husband did. According to FL statutes the judge has the discretion to
> "secure" the support with a life insurance policy. Absent such policy, the
CP
> has the right to charge the estate with the balance of CS due in the event
of
> the obligor's death. If my husband had died when my steps were minors, I
would
> have had to pay the balance of the support to their mother.
> =====
> =====

This is one of the many CS related issues where the system contradicts
itself. On one hand they say CS is a month to month debt accruing on the
first of each month and due by the end of the month. Then they turn around
and order fathers to take out life insurance in an amount equal to the
amount of the total extension of the debt to the age of majority. The thing
that really irritated me was, if I had died before the last CS monthly
amount was paid, the CS from the original divorce would have been paid a
second time by the life insurance payout.

And to prove how biased the family law system is - when my son came to live
with me, I asked the court to order his mother to provide the same level of
life insurance as the court had ordered me to provide. Instead, the court
decided to drop the life insurance amount I was required to pay. The judges
are idiots who think a person can turn life insurance on and off based on
their whims.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 02:43:04 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:32:16 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >The $4,755 is the amount CP's claim has been ordered and this number
is
> >from
> >> >1999 orders that could have been modified upward twice since the
Census
> >data
> >> >was collected.
> >>
> >> Or modified downward.
> >
> >Downward modifications are rare. The national CSE site shows they occur
in
> >only 4% of the modifications.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> For perspective it needs to be stated this average CS amount
> >> >includes teenage mothers aged 15 and up who have had children with
very
> >low
> >> >income teenage boys, as well as adult children over the age of
majority
> >for
> >> >CS but under age 21.
> >>
> >> WHo probably make up a small portion of the reported numbers. If I
> >> remember the majority of support was given to those 21 and up.
> >
> >It's two different categories. The young girls age 15-17 account for a
> >small number of support cases and they are considered statistically too
> >small of a group to extend out to the total population. The other
category
> >are adult children aged 18-21 who still live with their former CP mother,
> >but because of their age they are no longer included on CS orders in
states
> >where CS ends at 18 or 19. Also, children living at home, but having CS
> >paid directly to them would fit into this category too.
> >
> I think that they are too small to have an overall impact on the
> numbers, I agree.
>
> >>
> >>
> >> The $4,755 does not include healthcare insurance and
> >> >reimbursements, life insurance, daycare, etc. that are add-ons to the
> >basic
> >> >CS order.
> >>
> >> It very well may. My state includes daycare expenses in the support
> >> order already added in. Life insurance? Reimbursements? Those are
> >> judgements that are seperate from the CS order anyway. I dont know
> >> one person who got life insurance ordered. I have seen reimbursement
> >> for medical expenses or extrordinary expense like braces, private
> >> school, etc. However, most children dont go to private school and
> >> many dont need braces.
> >
> >Life insurance is ordered all the time to gurantee the CS is paid if the
NCP
> >dies before the children reach the age of majority. Some states have
case
> >law preventing a judge from forcing an NCP to designate the children as
> >beneficiaries. In those states they tell the fathers they have a
choice -
> >either take out the required insurance in the amount the court sets, or
the
> >court will reserve the right to create a constructive trust over the
> >father's assets in the event of his death in the same amount.
>
> I havent met one person who has life insurance included in their
> support orders. Thats news to me. You are honeslty the first person
> ive heard this from.

Life insurance is ordered all the time. The court ordered me to "continue
my exisiting employment related life insurance", not allow it to drop below
a certain level, and to never take any loans against its value that would
cause the benefit to drop below the required amount. That life insurance
was an employment benefit. When I showed the judge how much it would cost
to maintain that same level of insurance out-of-pocket after I left that
employer, the judge said "Shop around."

> >
> >>
> >> And it does not include education CS paid directly to adult
> >> >children attending college.
> >>
> >> Where did you see this statement?
> >
> >It isn't in the Census report. However, CS ordered to be paid directly
to
> >the adult child is not CS ordered to be paid to the CP mother. In some
> >cases, the judgment creditor is changed from the mother to the child.
This
> >can account for a child living in the CP's home without the mother
receiving
> >any CS for the child.
>
> I think that if a child is going to college and not living at home,
> the money should go directly to the school or bills.

No state orders CS to a third party.

>
> >
> >>
> >> It also does not account for the additional
> >> >support value for non-cash support that 60% of CP's report receiving
from
> >> >NCP's.
> >>
> >> What is non-cash support?
> >
> >I've answered this question twice. See page 6 of the report. 60% of
CP's
> >report receiving at least one form of non-cash support from NCP's. This
> >includes gifts, clothes, food and groceries, medical expenses other than
> >healthcare insurance, child care, and summer camp reimbursements.
>
> At least one form of non-cash support equaling how much?

I've answered this before too. The Census does not quantify the amount of
these non-cash payments. They only acknowledge this type of support occurs
and it is in addition to the court ordered CS.

>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >The average CS award has got to be at least $400-500 per month more
than
> >the
> >> >Census shows when you consider all the other factors NCP's are
required
> >to
> >> >pay.
> >>
> >> Possibly in some cases but not all. In some cases this could be less.
> >
> >It's just a guess on my part that these items can add $400-500 per month.
> >Let me share some of my own experience with this. While I was paying CS
for
> >my daughter attending college, I also agreed to pay all of her school
> >expenses not covered by student and parent loans. I also paid her car
> >insurance, all of her medical expenses, and bought her a laptop to use at
> >school. That stuff adds up very fast.
> >
> But earlier you said she lived with you and you got the tax credits
> for her. Isnt that what most parents would do if they were intact (if
> they had money to do so of course). Pay for educational expenses?

I was ordered to pay CS for an adult child attending school under state law.
I took the federal child exemption and head of household status based on the
fact I qualified for those IRS tax benefits. Ironically, in my state, case
law says only a non-custodial parent can be ordered to pay post-secondary
education CS and CP's don't have to pay support their children, but the
federal tax law doesn't recognize the concepts of custodial/non-custodial
parents after age 18.

>
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >The government has an agenda to make CS payments and collections sound
> >low
> >> >to continually increase the guideline amounts and justify the $4
billion
> >> >bureaucracy that has been created to chase down NCP's.
> >>
> >> I doubt that.
> >
> >So why do you think CSE inflates the amount of CS due by including in
their
> >statistics the amount they would collect if the 50% of parents without
> >formal CS agreements were included in their caseload? Why do you think
CSE
> >has forced every new or newly modified CS order through their agencies
for
> >collection? Have you noticed CSE is collecting fewer and fewer welfare
> >reimbursement dollars while their non-TANF collections are rising
> >dramatically? The answers are simple - they are trying to take credit
for a
> >big caseload that they do nothing to collect to make it look like they
are
> >effective to Congress. It's all smoke and mirrors.
>
> I dont think that they inflat the CS amounts, I think what they do is
> collect on the cases they know will improve their statistics. They
> sure dont collect on mine, thats for sure.

Oh really? So why does the federal government project out what their
caseload would be if they had 100% of all CS cases coming through their
system instead of only 50%? They are over-inflating the importance of their
mission and what it "could" accomplish. It's BS political garbage!

[Bob Whiteside]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 02:43:04 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:32:16 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >The $4,755 is the amount CP's claim has been ordered and this number
is
> >from
> >> >1999 orders that could have been modified upward twice since the
Census
> >data
> >> >was collected.
> >>
> >> Or modified downward.
> >
> >Downward modifications are rare. The national CSE site shows they occur
in
> >only 4% of the modifications.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> For perspective it needs to be stated this average CS amount
> >> >includes teenage mothers aged 15 and up who have had children with
very
> >low
> >> >income teenage boys, as well as adult children over the age of
majority
> >for
> >> >CS but under age 21.
> >>
> >> WHo probably make up a small portion of the reported numbers. If I
> >> remember the majority of support was given to those 21 and up.
> >
> >It's two different categories. The young girls age 15-17 account for a
> >small number of support cases and they are considered statistically too
> >small of a group to extend out to the total population. The other
category
> >are adult children aged 18-21 who still live with their former CP mother,
> >but because of their age they are no longer included on CS orders in
states
> >where CS ends at 18 or 19. Also, children living at home, but having CS
> >paid directly to them would fit into this category too.
> >
> I think that they are too small to have an overall impact on the
> numbers, I agree.
>
> >>
> >>
> >> The $4,755 does not include healthcare insurance and
> >> >reimbursements, life insurance, daycare, etc. that are add-ons to the
> >basic
> >> >CS order.
> >>
> >> It very well may. My state includes daycare expenses in the support
> >> order already added in. Life insurance? Reimbursements? Those are
> >> judgements that are seperate from the CS order anyway. I dont know
> >> one person who got life insurance ordered. I have seen reimbursement
> >> for medical expenses or extrordinary expense like braces, private
> >> school, etc. However, most children dont go to private school and
> >> many dont need braces.
> >
> >Life insurance is ordered all the time to gurantee the CS is paid if the
NCP
> >dies before the children reach the age of majority. Some states have
case
> >law preventing a judge from forcing an NCP to designate the children as
> >beneficiaries. In those states they tell the fathers they have a
choice -
> >either take out the required insurance in the amount the court sets, or
the
> >court will reserve the right to create a constructive trust over the
> >father's assets in the event of his death in the same amount.
>
> I havent met one person who has life insurance included in their
> support orders. Thats news to me. You are honeslty the first person
> ive heard this from.

Life insurance is ordered all the time. The court ordered me to "continue
my exisiting employment related life insurance", not allow it to drop below
a certain level, and to never take any loans against its value that would
cause the benefit to drop below the required amount. That life insurance
was an employment benefit. When I showed the judge how much it would cost
to maintain that same level of insurance out-of-pocket after I left that
employer, the judge said "Shop around."

> >
> >>
> >> And it does not include education CS paid directly to adult
> >> >children attending college.
> >>
> >> Where did you see this statement?
> >
> >It isn't in the Census report. However, CS ordered to be paid directly
to
> >the adult child is not CS ordered to be paid to the CP mother. In some
> >cases, the judgment creditor is changed from the mother to the child.
This
> >can account for a child living in the CP's home without the mother
receiving
> >any CS for the child.
>
> I think that if a child is going to college and not living at home,
> the money should go directly to the school or bills.

No state orders CS to a third party.

>
> >
> >>
> >> It also does not account for the additional
> >> >support value for non-cash support that 60% of CP's report receiving
from
> >> >NCP's.
> >>
> >> What is non-cash support?
> >
> >I've answered this question twice. See page 6 of the report. 60% of
CP's
> >report receiving at least one form of non-cash support from NCP's. This
> >includes gifts, clothes, food and groceries, medical expenses other than
> >healthcare insurance, child care, and summer camp reimbursements.
>
> At least one form of non-cash support equaling how much?

I've answered this before too. The Census does not quantify the amount of
these non-cash payments. They only acknowledge this type of support occurs
and it is in addition to the court ordered CS.

>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >The average CS award has got to be at least $400-500 per month more
than
> >the
> >> >Census shows when you consider all the other factors NCP's are
required
> >to
> >> >pay.
> >>
> >> Possibly in some cases but not all. In some cases this could be less.
> >
> >It's just a guess on my part that these items can add $400-500 per month.
> >Let me share some of my own experience with this. While I was paying CS
for
> >my daughter attending college, I also agreed to pay all of her school
> >expenses not covered by student and parent loans. I also paid her car
> >insurance, all of her medical expenses, and bought her a laptop to use at
> >school. That stuff adds up very fast.
> >
> But earlier you said she lived with you and you got the tax credits
> for her. Isnt that what most parents would do if they were intact (if
> they had money to do so of course). Pay for educational expenses?

I was ordered to pay CS for an adult child attending school under state law.
I took the federal child exemption and head of household status based on the
fact I qualified for those IRS tax benefits. Ironically, in my state, case
law says only a non-custodial parent can be ordered to pay post-secondary
education CS and CP's don't have to pay support their children, but the
federal tax law doesn't recognize the concepts of custodial/non-custodial
parents after age 18.

>
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >The government has an agenda to make CS payments and collections sound
> >low
> >> >to continually increase the guideline amounts and justify the $4
billion
> >> >bureaucracy that has been created to chase down NCP's.
> >>
> >> I doubt that.
> >
> >So why do you think CSE inflates the amount of CS due by including in
their
> >statistics the amount they would collect if the 50% of parents without
> >formal CS agreements were included in their caseload? Why do you think
CSE
> >has forced every new or newly modified CS order through their agencies
for
> >collection? Have you noticed CSE is collecting fewer and fewer welfare
> >reimbursement dollars while their non-TANF collections are rising
> >dramatically? The answers are simple - they are trying to take credit
for a
> >big caseload that they do nothing to collect to make it look like they
are
> >effective to Congress. It's all smoke and mirrors.
>
> I dont think that they inflat the CS amounts, I think what they do is
> collect on the cases they know will improve their statistics. They
> sure dont collect on mine, thats for sure.

Oh really? So why does the federal government project out what their
caseload would be if they had 100% of all CS cases coming through their
system instead of only 50%? They are over-inflating the importance of their
mission and what it "could" accomplish. It's BS political garbage!

[Chris]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 07:13:16 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> I couldnt find the source of this reported statistic so I cant say if
> >> I believe it or not.
> >>
> >> On average, a litigated divorce costs around $15,000 and takes more
> >> than a year to conclude. Mediation generally takes less time and
> >> considerably less money than a litigated divorce.
> >>
> >> . In one study, more than two-thirds of mediating couples stated they
> >> were "highly satisfied" with the process, and 93 percent said they
> >> would recommend mediation to others.
> >
> >I DON'T believe that. WHO did such study?
> >
> Di d you even read what I typed before this statement,

Yes I did, and I STILL don't believe it.

> apparently not.

[Chris]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 07:13:16 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> I couldnt find the source of this reported statistic so I cant say if
> >> I believe it or not.
> >>
> >> On average, a litigated divorce costs around $15,000 and takes more
> >> than a year to conclude. Mediation generally takes less time and
> >> considerably less money than a litigated divorce.
> >>
> >> . In one study, more than two-thirds of mediating couples stated they
> >> were "highly satisfied" with the process, and 93 percent said they
> >> would recommend mediation to others.
> >
> >I DON'T believe that. WHO did such study?
> >
> Di d you even read what I typed before this statement,

Yes I did, and I STILL don't believe it.

> apparently not.

[Chris]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:39:26 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
> >No. The NCP should not have to pay regardless of the CPs financial
> >situation. Married parents don't, and neither should NON-married parents!
> >This is precisely why the divorce rate is so high; the government people
pay
> >women money (extorted from the husband) to file divorce.
> >
> I would say otherwise. If a man makes 150,000 a year and he marries
> say a college girl who hasnt even started a carrer who do you think
> pays the difference?

The answer to that question, whatever it may be, does NOT address the issue
at hand.

>

[Chris]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:39:26 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
> >No. The NCP should not have to pay regardless of the CPs financial
> >situation. Married parents don't, and neither should NON-married parents!
> >This is precisely why the divorce rate is so high; the government people
pay
> >women money (extorted from the husband) to file divorce.
> >
> I would say otherwise. If a man makes 150,000 a year and he marries
> say a college girl who hasnt even started a carrer who do you think
> pays the difference?

The answer to that question, whatever it may be, does NOT address the issue
at hand.

>

[Chris]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:29:35 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:07:53 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:54:44 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >I COULD be wrong, but I believe that you are legally entitled to a
> >> >receipt.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> lol, you may be legally entitled but that doesnt mean you are going
to
> >> >> get one.
> >> >
> >> >You are legally entitled to wake up tomorrow morning, but that doesn't
> >mean
> >> >someone won't put a bullet in your head tonight. What's your point?
> >> >
> >> What's yours?
> >
> >I see that you offer NO point.
> >
> Neither do you.

Assuming that's true, tu quoque.

>

[Chris]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:29:35 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:07:53 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:54:44 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >I COULD be wrong, but I believe that you are legally entitled to a
> >> >receipt.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> lol, you may be legally entitled but that doesnt mean you are going
to
> >> >> get one.
> >> >
> >> >You are legally entitled to wake up tomorrow morning, but that doesn't
> >mean
> >> >someone won't put a bullet in your head tonight. What's your point?
> >> >
> >> What's yours?
> >
> >I see that you offer NO point.
> >
> Neither do you.

Assuming that's true, tu quoque.

>

[Fighting For Kids]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 03:50:26 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> wrote:


>
>Life insurance is ordered all the time. The court ordered me to "continue
>my exisiting employment related life insurance", not allow it to drop below
>a certain level, and to never take any loans against its value that would
>cause the benefit to drop below the required amount. That life insurance
>was an employment benefit. When I showed the judge how much it would cost
>to maintain that same level of insurance out-of-pocket after I left that
>employer, the judge said "Shop around."
>
Is this something that is state specific, because honestly ive never
even heard of this. Ive never seen it in any laws here.

[Fighting For Kids]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 03:50:26 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> wrote:


>
>Life insurance is ordered all the time. The court ordered me to "continue
>my exisiting employment related life insurance", not allow it to drop below
>a certain level, and to never take any loans against its value that would
>cause the benefit to drop below the required amount. That life insurance
>was an employment benefit. When I showed the judge how much it would cost
>to maintain that same level of insurance out-of-pocket after I left that
>employer, the judge said "Shop around."
>
Is this something that is state specific, because honestly ive never
even heard of this. Ive never seen it in any laws here.

[Fighting For Kids]

IM asking you the question. I see you new avoidance trick is to say
over and over, that doesnt address the issue at hand.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 20:05:11 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:

>
>"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:39:26 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>> >No. The NCP should not have to pay regardless of the CPs financial
>> >situation. Married parents don't, and neither should NON-married parents!
>> >This is precisely why the divorce rate is so high; the government people
>pay
>> >women money (extorted from the husband) to file divorce.
>> >
>> I would say otherwise. If a man makes 150,000 a year and he marries
>> say a college girl who hasnt even started a carrer who do you think
>> pays the difference?
>
>The answer to that question, whatever it may be, does NOT address the issue
>at hand.
>
>>
>

[Fighting For Kids]

IM asking you the question. I see you new avoidance trick is to say
over and over, that doesnt address the issue at hand.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 20:05:11 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:

>
>"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:39:26 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>> >No. The NCP should not have to pay regardless of the CPs financial
>> >situation. Married parents don't, and neither should NON-married parents!
>> >This is precisely why the divorce rate is so high; the government people
>pay
>> >women money (extorted from the husband) to file divorce.
>> >
>> I would say otherwise. If a man makes 150,000 a year and he marries
>> say a college girl who hasnt even started a carrer who do you think
>> pays the difference?
>
>The answer to that question, whatever it may be, does NOT address the issue
>at hand.
>
>>
>

[Fighting For Kids]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 19:52:57 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:

>
>"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 07:13:16 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> I couldnt find the source of this reported statistic so I cant say if
>> >> I believe it or not.
>> >>
>> >> On average, a litigated divorce costs around $15,000 and takes more
>> >> than a year to conclude. Mediation generally takes less time and
>> >> considerably less money than a litigated divorce.
>> >>
>> >> . In one study, more than two-thirds of mediating couples stated they
>> >> were "highly satisfied" with the process, and 93 percent said they
>> >> would recommend mediation to others.
>> >
>> >I DON'T believe that. WHO did such study?
>> >
>> Di d you even read what I typed before this statement,
>
>Yes I did, and I STILL don't believe it.
>
>> apparently not.
>
I specifically stated "I couldnt find the reported statistic so I cant
say if I beleive it or not.

Read

[Fighting For Kids]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 19:52:57 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:

>
>"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 07:13:16 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> I couldnt find the source of this reported statistic so I cant say if
>> >> I believe it or not.
>> >>
>> >> On average, a litigated divorce costs around $15,000 and takes more
>> >> than a year to conclude. Mediation generally takes less time and
>> >> considerably less money than a litigated divorce.
>> >>
>> >> . In one study, more than two-thirds of mediating couples stated they
>> >> were "highly satisfied" with the process, and 93 percent said they
>> >> would recommend mediation to others.
>> >
>> >I DON'T believe that. WHO did such study?
>> >
>> Di d you even read what I typed before this statement,
>
>Yes I did, and I STILL don't believe it.
>
>> apparently not.
>
I specifically stated "I couldnt find the reported statistic so I cant
say if I beleive it or not.

Read

[Fighting For Kids]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 01:19:15 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> wrote:


>I lived through this nightmare. The county required parents to attend
>mediation to resolve issues related to custody, visitation, and care of the
>children post-divorce. We went to an orientation program where they
>explained the mediation process and showed us a movie about the positive
>aspects of mediations.
>
>We went to multiple sessions where a county court mediator helped us through
>the issues we raised and discussed. The mediator filed a written mediation
>agreement with the court that we all signed. My ex's attorney told her
>behind the scenes she shouldn't have agreed to some of the things we agreed
>to with the mediator. Her attorney led my attorney to believe the mediated
>agreement was a done deal.
>
>When we got into court her attorney questioned me about everything I had
>agreed to. I attempted to testify the things I had agreed to were in the
>context of what she had agreed to in exchange for my agreements. Then he
>blindsided me and my attorney by stating she no longer agreed to those
>things. My attorney objected, and a bunch of legal arguments were made. My
>attorney argued her attorney asked the questions and my response about the
>mediated agreement was in response to his questions, and her attorney was
>objecting to answers to his own line of questioning. The bottom line was
>the judge ruled that stipulated agreements reached before a court hearing
>are not valid if the case goes to a judge, but my testimony before the court
>was binding. My attorney was furious and the judge reprimanded him for
>protesting so vehemently.
>
>In effect, her attorney got me to testify on the record about what I agreed
>to in the mediation, and then shut it down. I had to give up everything I
>agreed to and she gave up nothing in return. And of course, my ex was
>allowed to renege on her written agreements and the judge protected her
>right to do that.
>


If I may offer my own opinon. Here lies the problem with divorce,
there are too many "lawyers" involved that are protecting the best
interests of the people who pay them.

[Fighting For Kids]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 01:19:15 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> wrote:


>I lived through this nightmare. The county required parents to attend
>mediation to resolve issues related to custody, visitation, and care of the
>children post-divorce. We went to an orientation program where they
>explained the mediation process and showed us a movie about the positive
>aspects of mediations.
>
>We went to multiple sessions where a county court mediator helped us through
>the issues we raised and discussed. The mediator filed a written mediation
>agreement with the court that we all signed. My ex's attorney told her
>behind the scenes she shouldn't have agreed to some of the things we agreed
>to with the mediator. Her attorney led my attorney to believe the mediated
>agreement was a done deal.
>
>When we got into court her attorney questioned me about everything I had
>agreed to. I attempted to testify the things I had agreed to were in the
>context of what she had agreed to in exchange for my agreements. Then he
>blindsided me and my attorney by stating she no longer agreed to those
>things. My attorney objected, and a bunch of legal arguments were made. My
>attorney argued her attorney asked the questions and my response about the
>mediated agreement was in response to his questions, and her attorney was
>objecting to answers to his own line of questioning. The bottom line was
>the judge ruled that stipulated agreements reached before a court hearing
>are not valid if the case goes to a judge, but my testimony before the court
>was binding. My attorney was furious and the judge reprimanded him for
>protesting so vehemently.
>
>In effect, her attorney got me to testify on the record about what I agreed
>to in the mediation, and then shut it down. I had to give up everything I
>agreed to and she gave up nothing in return. And of course, my ex was
>allowed to renege on her written agreements and the judge protected her
>right to do that.
>


If I may offer my own opinon. Here lies the problem with divorce,
there are too many "lawyers" involved that are protecting the best
interests of the people who pay them.

[Fighting For Kids]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 21:30:02 -0500, "Cameron Stevens"
> wrote:


>
>Yes, no argument. The limited funds often leave an NCP financially crippled,
>leaving very little budgetting to do.

On the other hand the expenses of the child can often leave a CP
financially crippled or forced to take out additional loans or credit
cards to finance the additional items their children need. Often
leaving them in financial ruins that they will never really repay.

>
>> The father may lose his job, may go on disability and may need to
>> > work someplace else and while she may not appreciate his position he may
>> > just burn out and need to take a seriously less stressful and
>lower-paying
>> > job to simply survive..
>>
>> And all of the same may well be true for the CP, who, in addition to
>working to
>> supply her share of support for the children, has the additional workload
>of the
>> hands on care for the children for the majority of the time.
>
>Yes, absolutely. The CP could lose her job, the CP could also ask or allow
>the NCP to become a CP reducing her costs.

Why didnt the NCP take on some of the responsbility in the first
place that would have allowed the CP to keep working. For example:
When a child is sick shouldnt both parents take on the sacrifice of
missing work? Why does the CP take that burden alone?

The CP could ask the NCP to becoem the CP? but wouldnt that just put
the new NCP in a financially crippling postion, the same position you
just came out of?

[Fighting For Kids]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 21:30:02 -0500, "Cameron Stevens"
> wrote:


>
>Yes, no argument. The limited funds often leave an NCP financially crippled,
>leaving very little budgetting to do.

On the other hand the expenses of the child can often leave a CP
financially crippled or forced to take out additional loans or credit
cards to finance the additional items their children need. Often
leaving them in financial ruins that they will never really repay.

>
>> The father may lose his job, may go on disability and may need to
>> > work someplace else and while she may not appreciate his position he may
>> > just burn out and need to take a seriously less stressful and
>lower-paying
>> > job to simply survive..
>>
>> And all of the same may well be true for the CP, who, in addition to
>working to
>> supply her share of support for the children, has the additional workload
>of the
>> hands on care for the children for the majority of the time.
>
>Yes, absolutely. The CP could lose her job, the CP could also ask or allow
>the NCP to become a CP reducing her costs.

Why didnt the NCP take on some of the responsbility in the first
place that would have allowed the CP to keep working. For example:
When a child is sick shouldnt both parents take on the sacrifice of
missing work? Why does the CP take that burden alone?

The CP could ask the NCP to becoem the CP? but wouldnt that just put
the new NCP in a financially crippling postion, the same position you
just came out of?

[Bob Whiteside]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 03:50:26 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Life insurance is ordered all the time. The court ordered me to
"continue
> >my exisiting employment related life insurance", not allow it to drop
below
> >a certain level, and to never take any loans against its value that would
> >cause the benefit to drop below the required amount. That life insurance
> >was an employment benefit. When I showed the judge how much it would
cost
> >to maintain that same level of insurance out-of-pocket after I left that
> >employer, the judge said "Shop around."
> >
> Is this something that is state specific, because honestly ive never
> even heard of this. Ive never seen it in any laws here.

It's ordered enough that I'll bet your state has case law about how it
should be handled by trial courts.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 03:50:26 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Life insurance is ordered all the time. The court ordered me to
"continue
> >my exisiting employment related life insurance", not allow it to drop
below
> >a certain level, and to never take any loans against its value that would
> >cause the benefit to drop below the required amount. That life insurance
> >was an employment benefit. When I showed the judge how much it would
cost
> >to maintain that same level of insurance out-of-pocket after I left that
> >employer, the judge said "Shop around."
> >
> Is this something that is state specific, because honestly ive never
> even heard of this. Ive never seen it in any laws here.

It's ordered enough that I'll bet your state has case law about how it
should be handled by trial courts.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 01:19:15 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >I lived through this nightmare. The county required parents to attend
> >mediation to resolve issues related to custody, visitation, and care of
the
> >children post-divorce. We went to an orientation program where they
> >explained the mediation process and showed us a movie about the positive
> >aspects of mediations.
> >
> >We went to multiple sessions where a county court mediator helped us
through
> >the issues we raised and discussed. The mediator filed a written
mediation
> >agreement with the court that we all signed. My ex's attorney told her
> >behind the scenes she shouldn't have agreed to some of the things we
agreed
> >to with the mediator. Her attorney led my attorney to believe the
mediated
> >agreement was a done deal.
> >
> >When we got into court her attorney questioned me about everything I had
> >agreed to. I attempted to testify the things I had agreed to were in the
> >context of what she had agreed to in exchange for my agreements. Then he
> >blindsided me and my attorney by stating she no longer agreed to those
> >things. My attorney objected, and a bunch of legal arguments were made.
My
> >attorney argued her attorney asked the questions and my response about
the
> >mediated agreement was in response to his questions, and her attorney was
> >objecting to answers to his own line of questioning. The bottom line was
> >the judge ruled that stipulated agreements reached before a court hearing
> >are not valid if the case goes to a judge, but my testimony before the
court
> >was binding. My attorney was furious and the judge reprimanded him for
> >protesting so vehemently.
> >
> >In effect, her attorney got me to testify on the record about what I
agreed
> >to in the mediation, and then shut it down. I had to give up everything
I
> >agreed to and she gave up nothing in return. And of course, my ex was
> >allowed to renege on her written agreements and the judge protected her
> >right to do that.
> >
>
>
> If I may offer my own opinon. Here lies the problem with divorce,
> there are too many "lawyers" involved that are protecting the best
> interests of the people who pay them.

You are missing another major issue that impacts fathers. Fathers are
required to pay their own attorney fees and the attorney fees run up by
their ex-wives. I had to pay my ex's attorney fees. They totaled over
$21,000. Her attorney fees were double what I paid to present my side of
the issues. Her former attorney is now the presiding judge in the county
and sucking from the teat of the public trough as a baboon in a black robe.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 01:19:15 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >I lived through this nightmare. The county required parents to attend
> >mediation to resolve issues related to custody, visitation, and care of
the
> >children post-divorce. We went to an orientation program where they
> >explained the mediation process and showed us a movie about the positive
> >aspects of mediations.
> >
> >We went to multiple sessions where a county court mediator helped us
through
> >the issues we raised and discussed. The mediator filed a written
mediation
> >agreement with the court that we all signed. My ex's attorney told her
> >behind the scenes she shouldn't have agreed to some of the things we
agreed
> >to with the mediator. Her attorney led my attorney to believe the
mediated
> >agreement was a done deal.
> >
> >When we got into court her attorney questioned me about everything I had
> >agreed to. I attempted to testify the things I had agreed to were in the
> >context of what she had agreed to in exchange for my agreements. Then he
> >blindsided me and my attorney by stating she no longer agreed to those
> >things. My attorney objected, and a bunch of legal arguments were made.
My
> >attorney argued her attorney asked the questions and my response about
the
> >mediated agreement was in response to his questions, and her attorney was
> >objecting to answers to his own line of questioning. The bottom line was
> >the judge ruled that stipulated agreements reached before a court hearing
> >are not valid if the case goes to a judge, but my testimony before the
court
> >was binding. My attorney was furious and the judge reprimanded him for
> >protesting so vehemently.
> >
> >In effect, her attorney got me to testify on the record about what I
agreed
> >to in the mediation, and then shut it down. I had to give up everything
I
> >agreed to and she gave up nothing in return. And of course, my ex was
> >allowed to renege on her written agreements and the judge protected her
> >right to do that.
> >
>
>
> If I may offer my own opinon. Here lies the problem with divorce,
> there are too many "lawyers" involved that are protecting the best
> interests of the people who pay them.

You are missing another major issue that impacts fathers. Fathers are
required to pay their own attorney fees and the attorney fees run up by
their ex-wives. I had to pay my ex's attorney fees. They totaled over
$21,000. Her attorney fees were double what I paid to present my side of
the issues. Her former attorney is now the presiding judge in the county
and sucking from the teat of the public trough as a baboon in a black robe.

[Fighting For Kids]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 05:02:47 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> wrote:


>It's ordered enough that I'll bet your state has case law about how it
>should be handled by trial courts.
>
That is ridiculous. How many americans DONT carry life insurance?
Probably a HUGE majority.

[Fighting For Kids]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 05:02:47 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> wrote:


>It's ordered enough that I'll bet your state has case law about how it
>should be handled by trial courts.
>
That is ridiculous. How many americans DONT carry life insurance?
Probably a HUGE majority.

[Fighting For Kids]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 05:17:14 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> wrote:


>You are missing another major issue that impacts fathers. Fathers are
>required to pay their own attorney fees and the attorney fees run up by
>their ex-wives. I had to pay my ex's attorney fees. They totaled over
>$21,000. Her attorney fees were double what I paid to present my side of
>the issues. Her former attorney is now the presiding judge in the county
>and sucking from the teat of the public trough as a baboon in a black robe.
>
Really? That's funny I had to pay my own attorney fees. Required?
Or sometimes ordered?

[Fighting For Kids]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 05:17:14 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> wrote:


>You are missing another major issue that impacts fathers. Fathers are
>required to pay their own attorney fees and the attorney fees run up by
>their ex-wives. I had to pay my ex's attorney fees. They totaled over
>$21,000. Her attorney fees were double what I paid to present my side of
>the issues. Her former attorney is now the presiding judge in the county
>and sucking from the teat of the public trough as a baboon in a black robe.
>
Really? That's funny I had to pay my own attorney fees. Required?
Or sometimes ordered?

[The Dave©]

> Tiffany wrote:
> As a ncp, is it really necessary to pay the extra money for an added
> bedroom if your kid only comes over 4 days a month? Something wrong
> with the kid bunking on a blow up mattress in the living room? Is it
> a legal issue that a ncp must have an extra bedroom?

Necessary? Not absolutely. But, desireable. I could also envision a
scenario where the NCP is chastised by a judge for not having a
separate room. Might hurt the kid's self-esteem, ya know. (that last
bit was sarcasm for those who didn't get it)

[The Dave©]

> Tiffany wrote:
> As a ncp, is it really necessary to pay the extra money for an added
> bedroom if your kid only comes over 4 days a month? Something wrong
> with the kid bunking on a blow up mattress in the living room? Is it
> a legal issue that a ncp must have an extra bedroom?

Necessary? Not absolutely. But, desireable. I could also envision a
scenario where the NCP is chastised by a judge for not having a
separate room. Might hurt the kid's self-esteem, ya know. (that last
bit was sarcasm for those who didn't get it)

[Tiffany]

The Dave© > wrote in message
...
> > Tiffany wrote:
> > As a ncp, is it really necessary to pay the extra money for an added
> > bedroom if your kid only comes over 4 days a month? Something wrong
> > with the kid bunking on a blow up mattress in the living room? Is it
> > a legal issue that a ncp must have an extra bedroom?
>
> Necessary? Not absolutely. But, desireable. I could also envision a
> scenario where the NCP is chastised by a judge for not having a
> separate room. Might hurt the kid's self-esteem, ya know. (that last
> bit was sarcasm for those who didn't get it)

If the child visited weekends and through the week, I would think the kid
would like a separate bedroom. But then the visitation would be more equal
and the cs payments shouldn't be so devastating. Hmm.... sure, that's how it
works?!?!? lol

T

[Tiffany]

The Dave© > wrote in message
...
> > Tiffany wrote:
> > As a ncp, is it really necessary to pay the extra money for an added
> > bedroom if your kid only comes over 4 days a month? Something wrong
> > with the kid bunking on a blow up mattress in the living room? Is it
> > a legal issue that a ncp must have an extra bedroom?
>
> Necessary? Not absolutely. But, desireable. I could also envision a
> scenario where the NCP is chastised by a judge for not having a
> separate room. Might hurt the kid's self-esteem, ya know. (that last
> bit was sarcasm for those who didn't get it)

If the child visited weekends and through the week, I would think the kid
would like a separate bedroom. But then the visitation would be more equal
and the cs payments shouldn't be so devastating. Hmm.... sure, that's how it
works?!?!? lol

T

[Moon Shyne]

"Cameron Stevens" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > > There's a huge difference from that "design" to today's reality. We need
> the
> > > system to drop the prejudice of the woman being unable to find work of
> equal
> > > value (or boyfriend/new husband to subsidize)
> >
> > Why would you transfer the responsibility for the children to some new
> > boyfriend/husband? Why not transfer it to some new girlfriend/wife of the
> NCP?
>
> I did not suggest that a transfer of responsibility should or would occur.
> The fact is that a new boyfriend/husband is often a source of income,

But the new girlfriend/wife isn't?

or
> more accurately a means by which to reduce the cost-of-living. It's the
> reality for many CPs. I don't suggest it's a legal of sanctioned
> transferance of responsibility.
>
> > and protect the child's real
> > > best interest, the relationship with BOTH parents (not money as presumed
> byt
> > > the system). The amounts involved need to appreciate that there are
> hills
> > > and valleys to life and that professional momentum and success can be
> > > affected by speedbumps and semi-trailers on the highway of life. The CP
> must
> > > take responsibility for budgetting their money and understand that, just
> as
> > > they would need to do if married to the NCP, planning for a worst-case
> is
> > > essential.
> >
> > Doesn't the NCP have to do the same budgeting and planning?
>
> Yes, no argument. The limited funds often leave an NCP financially crippled,
> leaving very little budgetting to do.

Yet you don't seem to think the same is/might be true for the CP - where did you
get the idea that we have money trees in our backyards?

>
> > The father may lose his job, may go on disability and may need to
> > > work someplace else and while she may not appreciate his position he may
> > > just burn out and need to take a seriously less stressful and
> lower-paying
> > > job to simply survive..
> >
> > And all of the same may well be true for the CP, who, in addition to
> working to
> > supply her share of support for the children, has the additional workload
> of the
> > hands on care for the children for the majority of the time.
>
> Yes, absolutely. The CP could lose her job, the CP could also ask or allow
> the NCP to become a CP reducing her costs.

Children aren't packages, to be shipped back and forth at whim.

>
> > > There is a very clear but mislead impression that men walk away from a
> > > marriage unscathed or smelling like roses. While some wealthy people
> have
> > > teh power to bend the system to thier will, the bulk of the fathers/NCPs
> do
> > > not and those fathers are negatively impacted by the process of divorce
> > > itself. Bankrupcy is pursued by many fathers (NCPs) as a necessity,
> >
> > Just as it is pursued by many mothers as a necessity.
>
> Yup.
>
> > not as a
> > > shirking of responsibility and the over all impression of the father
> being a
> > > "Deadbeat Dad" is unfair if not a persecution in itself. A fine
> upstanding
> > > employee may, if the employer is biased or mislead, become recognised as
> a
> > > burden on the company, a criminal of sorts, when the garanshee notice
> > > arrives.
> >
> > In this day and age where nearly all child support orders are via wage
> > assignment? Somehow, I doubt that the company won't recognize it for
> exactly
> > what it is - SOP.
>
> That'd be ideal wouldn't it.

It's reality. It's SOP.

>
> What was the real point of your response? The NCPs and CPs bothe have
> responsibilities.

The point of my response was for you to acknowledge precisely that - your
original post seemed to state that all of these hazards and pitfalls were only
hazaeds for the NCP, and nowhere did you show any acknowledgement that the exact
same pitfalls existed for the CP.

The system seems to have a bias and misdirection regarding
> the realities of life and needs to be changed.
>
> Cameron
>
>

[Moon Shyne]

"Cameron Stevens" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > > There's a huge difference from that "design" to today's reality. We need
> the
> > > system to drop the prejudice of the woman being unable to find work of
> equal
> > > value (or boyfriend/new husband to subsidize)
> >
> > Why would you transfer the responsibility for the children to some new
> > boyfriend/husband? Why not transfer it to some new girlfriend/wife of the
> NCP?
>
> I did not suggest that a transfer of responsibility should or would occur.
> The fact is that a new boyfriend/husband is often a source of income,

But the new girlfriend/wife isn't?

or
> more accurately a means by which to reduce the cost-of-living. It's the
> reality for many CPs. I don't suggest it's a legal of sanctioned
> transferance of responsibility.
>
> > and protect the child's real
> > > best interest, the relationship with BOTH parents (not money as presumed
> byt
> > > the system). The amounts involved need to appreciate that there are
> hills
> > > and valleys to life and that professional momentum and success can be
> > > affected by speedbumps and semi-trailers on the highway of life. The CP
> must
> > > take responsibility for budgetting their money and understand that, just
> as
> > > they would need to do if married to the NCP, planning for a worst-case
> is
> > > essential.
> >
> > Doesn't the NCP have to do the same budgeting and planning?
>
> Yes, no argument. The limited funds often leave an NCP financially crippled,
> leaving very little budgetting to do.

Yet you don't seem to think the same is/might be true for the CP - where did you
get the idea that we have money trees in our backyards?

>
> > The father may lose his job, may go on disability and may need to
> > > work someplace else and while she may not appreciate his position he may
> > > just burn out and need to take a seriously less stressful and
> lower-paying
> > > job to simply survive..
> >
> > And all of the same may well be true for the CP, who, in addition to
> working to
> > supply her share of support for the children, has the additional workload
> of the
> > hands on care for the children for the majority of the time.
>
> Yes, absolutely. The CP could lose her job, the CP could also ask or allow
> the NCP to become a CP reducing her costs.

Children aren't packages, to be shipped back and forth at whim.

>
> > > There is a very clear but mislead impression that men walk away from a
> > > marriage unscathed or smelling like roses. While some wealthy people
> have
> > > teh power to bend the system to thier will, the bulk of the fathers/NCPs
> do
> > > not and those fathers are negatively impacted by the process of divorce
> > > itself. Bankrupcy is pursued by many fathers (NCPs) as a necessity,
> >
> > Just as it is pursued by many mothers as a necessity.
>
> Yup.
>
> > not as a
> > > shirking of responsibility and the over all impression of the father
> being a
> > > "Deadbeat Dad" is unfair if not a persecution in itself. A fine
> upstanding
> > > employee may, if the employer is biased or mislead, become recognised as
> a
> > > burden on the company, a criminal of sorts, when the garanshee notice
> > > arrives.
> >
> > In this day and age where nearly all child support orders are via wage
> > assignment? Somehow, I doubt that the company won't recognize it for
> exactly
> > what it is - SOP.
>
> That'd be ideal wouldn't it.

It's reality. It's SOP.

>
> What was the real point of your response? The NCPs and CPs bothe have
> responsibilities.

The point of my response was for you to acknowledge precisely that - your
original post seemed to state that all of these hazards and pitfalls were only
hazaeds for the NCP, and nowhere did you show any acknowledgement that the exact
same pitfalls existed for the CP.

The system seems to have a bias and misdirection regarding
> the realities of life and needs to be changed.
>
> Cameron
>
>

[Moon Shyne]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> > Moon Shyne wrote:
>
> >
> > "The Dave)" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > Moon Shyne wrote:
> > > > > > > The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or
> > > > > > some other place where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy
> > > > > > ice cream from the ice cream truck because they don't issue
> > > > > > receipts?
> > > > >
> > > > > Apparently not. If you are so selfish with your own money that
> > > > > you can't spring for an ice cream, this will be a problem,
> > > > > won't it?
> > > >
> > > > Considering that the CS I currently receive is less than half the
> > > > actual expenses for the children, you would be way off base in
> > > > your remark.
> > >
> > > That's not what you said. You're avoiding the point. Your
> > > statement gave no indication that you were talking only about you,
> > > specifically.
> >
> > Oh? "I" has some other meaning?
> >
> > > Can you address the response to your own point, or not?
> >
> > The response to my point not only missed my point (the idea that
> > child support money can be used for nothing unless a receipt is
> > issued), you chose, instead, to launch an attack on some fictitious
> > selfishness. You know nothing about me, about my children, nor about
> > how much I do for my children in contrast to how much I do (or don't,
> > as is generally the case) do for myself, and your remark was way off
> > base.
>
> Classic avoidance when backed into a corner. Responding to you is
> **ALWAYS** a waste of my time and effort.

I avoided nothing - you asked a question, I answered it. I'll state it again,
in case you missed it. My point was questioning the idea that child support
cannot be used for anything for which you don't receive a receipt. I disagreed
with that notion from the outset, as I disagree with it now.

Now - was there any other question you had/have that you feel I've avoided?

[Moon Shyne]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> > Moon Shyne wrote:
>
> >
> > "The Dave)" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > Moon Shyne wrote:
> > > > > > > The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or
> > > > > > some other place where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy
> > > > > > ice cream from the ice cream truck because they don't issue
> > > > > > receipts?
> > > > >
> > > > > Apparently not. If you are so selfish with your own money that
> > > > > you can't spring for an ice cream, this will be a problem,
> > > > > won't it?
> > > >
> > > > Considering that the CS I currently receive is less than half the
> > > > actual expenses for the children, you would be way off base in
> > > > your remark.
> > >
> > > That's not what you said. You're avoiding the point. Your
> > > statement gave no indication that you were talking only about you,
> > > specifically.
> >
> > Oh? "I" has some other meaning?
> >
> > > Can you address the response to your own point, or not?
> >
> > The response to my point not only missed my point (the idea that
> > child support money can be used for nothing unless a receipt is
> > issued), you chose, instead, to launch an attack on some fictitious
> > selfishness. You know nothing about me, about my children, nor about
> > how much I do for my children in contrast to how much I do (or don't,
> > as is generally the case) do for myself, and your remark was way off
> > base.
>
> Classic avoidance when backed into a corner. Responding to you is
> **ALWAYS** a waste of my time and effort.

I avoided nothing - you asked a question, I answered it. I'll state it again,
in case you missed it. My point was questioning the idea that child support
cannot be used for anything for which you don't receive a receipt. I disagreed
with that notion from the outset, as I disagree with it now.

Now - was there any other question you had/have that you feel I've avoided?

[Chris]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> IM asking you the question. I see you new avoidance trick is to say
> over and over, that doesnt address the issue at hand.

Tell me how it DOES address the issue.

>
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 20:05:11 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:39:26 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >No. The NCP should not have to pay regardless of the CPs financial
> >> >situation. Married parents don't, and neither should NON-married
parents!
> >> >This is precisely why the divorce rate is so high; the government
people
> >pay
> >> >women money (extorted from the husband) to file divorce.
> >> >
> >> I would say otherwise. If a man makes 150,000 a year and he marries
> >> say a college girl who hasnt even started a carrer who do you think
> >> pays the difference?
> >
> >The answer to that question, whatever it may be, does NOT address the
issue
> >at hand.
> >
> >>
> >
>

[Chris]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> IM asking you the question. I see you new avoidance trick is to say
> over and over, that doesnt address the issue at hand.

Tell me how it DOES address the issue.

>
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 20:05:11 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:39:26 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >No. The NCP should not have to pay regardless of the CPs financial
> >> >situation. Married parents don't, and neither should NON-married
parents!
> >> >This is precisely why the divorce rate is so high; the government
people
> >pay
> >> >women money (extorted from the husband) to file divorce.
> >> >
> >> I would say otherwise. If a man makes 150,000 a year and he marries
> >> say a college girl who hasnt even started a carrer who do you think
> >> pays the difference?
> >
> >The answer to that question, whatever it may be, does NOT address the
issue
> >at hand.
> >
> >>
> >
>

[Chris]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 19:52:57 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 07:13:16 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> I couldnt find the source of this reported statistic so I cant say
if
> >> >> I believe it or not.
> >> >>
> >> >> On average, a litigated divorce costs around $15,000 and takes more
> >> >> than a year to conclude. Mediation generally takes less time and
> >> >> considerably less money than a litigated divorce.
> >> >>
> >> >> . In one study, more than two-thirds of mediating couples stated
they
> >> >> were "highly satisfied" with the process, and 93 percent said they
> >> >> would recommend mediation to others.
> >> >
> >> >I DON'T believe that. WHO did such study?
> >> >
> >> Di d you even read what I typed before this statement,
> >
> >Yes I did, and I STILL don't believe it.
> >
> >> apparently not.
> >
> I specifically stated "I couldnt find the reported statistic so I cant
> say if I beleive it or not.

No you didn't. You said "I couldnt find the source of this reported
statistic so I cant say if I believe it or not.". And I understood that
statement to be referring only to the following paragraph. Just curious; if
you can't find the source of this reported statistic, then how do you know
that it was reported?

>
> Read

[Chris]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 19:52:57 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 07:13:16 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> I couldnt find the source of this reported statistic so I cant say
if
> >> >> I believe it or not.
> >> >>
> >> >> On average, a litigated divorce costs around $15,000 and takes more
> >> >> than a year to conclude. Mediation generally takes less time and
> >> >> considerably less money than a litigated divorce.
> >> >>
> >> >> . In one study, more than two-thirds of mediating couples stated
they
> >> >> were "highly satisfied" with the process, and 93 percent said they
> >> >> would recommend mediation to others.
> >> >
> >> >I DON'T believe that. WHO did such study?
> >> >
> >> Di d you even read what I typed before this statement,
> >
> >Yes I did, and I STILL don't believe it.
> >
> >> apparently not.
> >
> I specifically stated "I couldnt find the reported statistic so I cant
> say if I beleive it or not.

No you didn't. You said "I couldnt find the source of this reported
statistic so I cant say if I believe it or not.". And I understood that
statement to be referring only to the following paragraph. Just curious; if
you can't find the source of this reported statistic, then how do you know
that it was reported?

>
> Read

[TeacherMama]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message >...
> "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> t>...
> > > "Chris" > wrote in message
> > > news:nOYsb.917$6G3.396@fed1read06...
> > > >
> > > > "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > > Fighting For Kids > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:02:34 -0800, "Chris" >
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >And WHO'S the judge as to whether or not they need a judge?
> "Reasonable" is
> > > > > > >a matter of opinion subject to the individual.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Usually one of the people in the parties. Our state has madatory
> > > > > > mediation requirements in all divorces (im not sure about the
> custody
> > > > > > and child support arrangements in which the parents were not
> married)
> > > > > > I think thats a good step because it forces people to sit down and
> try
> > > > > > and make a resonable agreement. Some mediations dont work out
> and
> > > > > > the court is the next step.
> > > > >
> > > > > What state do you live in, FFK? I think mandatory mediation is a
> > > > > great idea!
> > > >
> > > > Mandatory mediation is simply a shrink acting as a judge. If either
> party
> > > > disagrees with the decision, they can appeal it.
> > >
> > > Mandatory mediation is an agreement reached before a hearing before a
> judge.
> > > An agreement reached before a hearing can be repudiated by either party
> at
> > > the time of the hearing before a judge to approve the mediated
> agreement.
> > > Why waste the time and money on something that has no legal value or
> merit?
> > > Mediation is a joke.
> >
> > Mediation that is not binding would, indeed, be a joke. However, if
> > mediation were required, and PEOPLE WERE ALLOWED TO BE ADULTS AND MAKE
> > THEIR OWN DECISIONS, with no judge able to say "no, I don't like what
> > you decided," then it would be a valuable tool. I would far rather be
> > able to sit down and discuss an issue, than to have someone make a
> > decision based on their opinion of what might have happened!
>
> I lived through this nightmare. The county required parents to attend
> mediation to resolve issues related to custody, visitation, and care of the
> children post-divorce. We went to an orientation program where they
> explained the mediation process and showed us a movie about the positive
> aspects of mediations.
>
> We went to multiple sessions where a county court mediator helped us through
> the issues we raised and discussed. The mediator filed a written mediation
> agreement with the court that we all signed. My ex's attorney told her
> behind the scenes she shouldn't have agreed to some of the things we agreed
> to with the mediator. Her attorney led my attorney to believe the mediated
> agreement was a done deal.
>
> When we got into court her attorney questioned me about everything I had
> agreed to. I attempted to testify the things I had agreed to were in the
> context of what she had agreed to in exchange for my agreements. Then he
> blindsided me and my attorney by stating she no longer agreed to those
> things. My attorney objected, and a bunch of legal arguments were made. My
> attorney argued her attorney asked the questions and my response about the
> mediated agreement was in response to his questions, and her attorney was
> objecting to answers to his own line of questioning. The bottom line was
> the judge ruled that stipulated agreements reached before a court hearing
> are not valid if the case goes to a judge, but my testimony before the court
> was binding. My attorney was furious and the judge reprimanded him for
> protesting so vehemently.
>
> In effect, her attorney got me to testify on the record about what I agreed
> to in the mediation, and then shut it down. I had to give up everything I
> agreed to and she gave up nothing in return. And of course, my ex was
> allowed to renege on her written agreements and the judge protected her
> right to do that.

If mediation is to work at all, then, once the agreement is signed,
it's permanent. What happened to you is outrageous! It was all part
of the same old game that is helping the system to fail so badly right
now. But, once you get lawyers involved, it's all about winning and
fairness is out the window.

[TeacherMama]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message >...
> "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> t>...
> > > "Chris" > wrote in message
> > > news:nOYsb.917$6G3.396@fed1read06...
> > > >
> > > > "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > > Fighting For Kids > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:02:34 -0800, "Chris" >
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >And WHO'S the judge as to whether or not they need a judge?
> "Reasonable" is
> > > > > > >a matter of opinion subject to the individual.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Usually one of the people in the parties. Our state has madatory
> > > > > > mediation requirements in all divorces (im not sure about the
> custody
> > > > > > and child support arrangements in which the parents were not
> married)
> > > > > > I think thats a good step because it forces people to sit down and
> try
> > > > > > and make a resonable agreement. Some mediations dont work out
> and
> > > > > > the court is the next step.
> > > > >
> > > > > What state do you live in, FFK? I think mandatory mediation is a
> > > > > great idea!
> > > >
> > > > Mandatory mediation is simply a shrink acting as a judge. If either
> party
> > > > disagrees with the decision, they can appeal it.
> > >
> > > Mandatory mediation is an agreement reached before a hearing before a
> judge.
> > > An agreement reached before a hearing can be repudiated by either party
> at
> > > the time of the hearing before a judge to approve the mediated
> agreement.
> > > Why waste the time and money on something that has no legal value or
> merit?
> > > Mediation is a joke.
> >
> > Mediation that is not binding would, indeed, be a joke. However, if
> > mediation were required, and PEOPLE WERE ALLOWED TO BE ADULTS AND MAKE
> > THEIR OWN DECISIONS, with no judge able to say "no, I don't like what
> > you decided," then it would be a valuable tool. I would far rather be
> > able to sit down and discuss an issue, than to have someone make a
> > decision based on their opinion of what might have happened!
>
> I lived through this nightmare. The county required parents to attend
> mediation to resolve issues related to custody, visitation, and care of the
> children post-divorce. We went to an orientation program where they
> explained the mediation process and showed us a movie about the positive
> aspects of mediations.
>
> We went to multiple sessions where a county court mediator helped us through
> the issues we raised and discussed. The mediator filed a written mediation
> agreement with the court that we all signed. My ex's attorney told her
> behind the scenes she shouldn't have agreed to some of the things we agreed
> to with the mediator. Her attorney led my attorney to believe the mediated
> agreement was a done deal.
>
> When we got into court her attorney questioned me about everything I had
> agreed to. I attempted to testify the things I had agreed to were in the
> context of what she had agreed to in exchange for my agreements. Then he
> blindsided me and my attorney by stating she no longer agreed to those
> things. My attorney objected, and a bunch of legal arguments were made. My
> attorney argued her attorney asked the questions and my response about the
> mediated agreement was in response to his questions, and her attorney was
> objecting to answers to his own line of questioning. The bottom line was
> the judge ruled that stipulated agreements reached before a court hearing
> are not valid if the case goes to a judge, but my testimony before the court
> was binding. My attorney was furious and the judge reprimanded him for
> protesting so vehemently.
>
> In effect, her attorney got me to testify on the record about what I agreed
> to in the mediation, and then shut it down. I had to give up everything I
> agreed to and she gave up nothing in return. And of course, my ex was
> allowed to renege on her written agreements and the judge protected her
> right to do that.

If mediation is to work at all, then, once the agreement is signed,
it's permanent. What happened to you is outrageous! It was all part
of the same old game that is helping the system to fail so badly right
now. But, once you get lawyers involved, it's all about winning and
fairness is out the window.

[TeacherMama]

Fighting For Kids > wrote in message >...
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 21:30:02 -0500, "Cameron Stevens"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Yes, no argument. The limited funds often leave an NCP financially crippled,
> >leaving very little budgetting to do.
>
> On the other hand the expenses of the child can often leave a CP
> financially crippled or forced to take out additional loans or credit
> cards to finance the additional items their children need. Often
> leaving them in financial ruins that they will never really repay.
>
> >
> >> The father may lose his job, may go on disability and may need to
> >> > work someplace else and while she may not appreciate his position he may
> >> > just burn out and need to take a seriously less stressful and
> lower-paying
> >> > job to simply survive..
> >>
> >> And all of the same may well be true for the CP, who, in addition to
> working to
> >> supply her share of support for the children, has the additional workload
> of the
> >> hands on care for the children for the majority of the time.
> >
> >Yes, absolutely. The CP could lose her job, the CP could also ask or allow
> >the NCP to become a CP reducing her costs.
>
> Why didnt the NCP take on some of the responsbility in the first
> place that would have allowed the CP to keep working. For example:
> When a child is sick shouldnt both parents take on the sacrifice of
> missing work? Why does the CP take that burden alone?
>
> The CP could ask the NCP to becoem the CP? but wouldnt that just put
> the new NCP in a financially crippling postion, the same position you
> just came out of?

What if the CP agrees to let the NCP be a parent 50% of the time, thus
lessening the amountthe NCP has to pay in support, and lessening the
amount the CP has to pay out of pocket? Wouldn't that help everyone?

[TeacherMama]

Fighting For Kids > wrote in message >...
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 21:30:02 -0500, "Cameron Stevens"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Yes, no argument. The limited funds often leave an NCP financially crippled,
> >leaving very little budgetting to do.
>
> On the other hand the expenses of the child can often leave a CP
> financially crippled or forced to take out additional loans or credit
> cards to finance the additional items their children need. Often
> leaving them in financial ruins that they will never really repay.
>
> >
> >> The father may lose his job, may go on disability and may need to
> >> > work someplace else and while she may not appreciate his position he may
> >> > just burn out and need to take a seriously less stressful and
> lower-paying
> >> > job to simply survive..
> >>
> >> And all of the same may well be true for the CP, who, in addition to
> working to
> >> supply her share of support for the children, has the additional workload
> of the
> >> hands on care for the children for the majority of the time.
> >
> >Yes, absolutely. The CP could lose her job, the CP could also ask or allow
> >the NCP to become a CP reducing her costs.
>
> Why didnt the NCP take on some of the responsbility in the first
> place that would have allowed the CP to keep working. For example:
> When a child is sick shouldnt both parents take on the sacrifice of
> missing work? Why does the CP take that burden alone?
>
> The CP could ask the NCP to becoem the CP? but wouldnt that just put
> the new NCP in a financially crippling postion, the same position you
> just came out of?

What if the CP agrees to let the NCP be a parent 50% of the time, thus
lessening the amountthe NCP has to pay in support, and lessening the
amount the CP has to pay out of pocket? Wouldn't that help everyone?

[Gini52]

In article >, TeacherMama
says...
>
>"Bob Whiteside" > wrote

..........................................
>> In effect, her attorney got me to testify on the record about what I agreed
>> to in the mediation, and then shut it down. I had to give up everything I
>> agreed to and she gave up nothing in return. And of course, my ex was
>> allowed to renege on her written agreements and the judge protected her
>> right to do that.
>
>If mediation is to work at all, then, once the agreement is signed,
>it's permanent. What happened to you is outrageous! It was all part
>of the same old game that is helping the system to fail so badly right
>now. But, once you get lawyers involved, it's all about winning and
>fairness is out the window.
====
Not with our "lawyer." She was simply too lazy to fight for anything. All she
wanted was to expend the least amount of time/energy possible to get the case
off her desk. The only lawyer I have seen actually *work* on a case was when my
son had a "legal aid" attorney to help him with his disability claims process.
He was extremely hardworking, committed and personable (and drove an '87 Toyota
station wagon :-).
====

[Gini52]

In article >, TeacherMama
says...
>
>"Bob Whiteside" > wrote

..........................................
>> In effect, her attorney got me to testify on the record about what I agreed
>> to in the mediation, and then shut it down. I had to give up everything I
>> agreed to and she gave up nothing in return. And of course, my ex was
>> allowed to renege on her written agreements and the judge protected her
>> right to do that.
>
>If mediation is to work at all, then, once the agreement is signed,
>it's permanent. What happened to you is outrageous! It was all part
>of the same old game that is helping the system to fail so badly right
>now. But, once you get lawyers involved, it's all about winning and
>fairness is out the window.
====
Not with our "lawyer." She was simply too lazy to fight for anything. All she
wanted was to expend the least amount of time/energy possible to get the case
off her desk. The only lawyer I have seen actually *work* on a case was when my
son had a "legal aid" attorney to help him with his disability claims process.
He was extremely hardworking, committed and personable (and drove an '87 Toyota
station wagon :-).
====

[Bob Whiteside]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 05:02:47 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >It's ordered enough that I'll bet your state has case law about how it
> >should be handled by trial courts.
> >
> That is ridiculous. How many americans DONT carry life insurance?
> Probably a HUGE majority.

Here is the Oregon law:

LIFE INSURANCE ON OBLIGOR

107.810 Policy. It is the policy of the State of Oregon to encourage persons
obligated to support other persons as the result of a dissolution or
annulment of marriage or as the result of a legal separation to obtain or to
cooperate in the obtaining of life insurance adequate to provide for the
continued support of those persons in the event of the obligor's death.
[1981 c.775 §9]

Note: 107.810 was enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but was not
added to or made a part of ORS chapter 107 or any series therein by
legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further
explanation.

107.820 Support order as insurable interest; order to obtain, renew or
continue insurance; right of beneficiary to purchase insurance or pay
premiums. A court order for the payment of spousal or child support whether
issued prior to, on or following November 1, 1981, constitutes an insurable
interest in the party awarded the right to receive the support. In any case
of marital annulment, dissolution or separation, the issue of life insurance
shall be determined as follows:

snipped all the details because they are very long. If you want to read
them go to:

http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/107.html

and scroll down.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Fighting For Kids" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 05:02:47 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >It's ordered enough that I'll bet your state has case law about how it
> >should be handled by trial courts.
> >
> That is ridiculous. How many americans DONT carry life insurance?
> Probably a HUGE majority.

Here is the Oregon law:

LIFE INSURANCE ON OBLIGOR

107.810 Policy. It is the policy of the State of Oregon to encourage persons
obligated to support other persons as the result of a dissolution or
annulment of marriage or as the result of a legal separation to obtain or to
cooperate in the obtaining of life insurance adequate to provide for the
continued support of those persons in the event of the obligor's death.
[1981 c.775 §9]

Note: 107.810 was enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but was not
added to or made a part of ORS chapter 107 or any series therein by
legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further
explanation.

107.820 Support order as insurable interest; order to obtain, renew or
continue insurance; right of beneficiary to purchase insurance or pay
premiums. A court order for the payment of spousal or child support whether
issued prior to, on or following November 1, 1981, constitutes an insurable
interest in the party awarded the right to receive the support. In any case
of marital annulment, dissolution or separation, the issue of life insurance
shall be determined as follows:

snipped all the details because they are very long. If you want to read
them go to:

http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/107.html

and scroll down.

[Cameron Stevens]

"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cameron Stevens" > wrote in message
> ...

> > Yes, no argument. The limited funds often leave an NCP financially
crippled,
> > leaving very little budgetting to do.
>
> Yet you don't seem to think the same is/might be true for the CP - where
did you
> get the idea that we have money trees in our backyards?

I didn't say the same isn't true. I never presumed it's easy for the CP when
they're on thier own. When there's another income it certainly make sit
easier though, for either party. Regardless of this the system remains
favourable to the female CP.

> > > And all of the same may well be true for the CP, who, in addition to
> > working to
> > > supply her share of support for the children, has the additional
workload
> > of the
> > > hands on care for the children for the majority of the time.
> >
> > Yes, absolutely. The CP could lose her job, the CP could also ask or
allow
> > the NCP to become a CP reducing her costs.
>
> Children aren't packages, to be shipped back and forth at whim.

Funny, some CPs seem to feel they're assets! It is not a matter of shipping
them back and forth on a whim. It's planned and it should be carried out in
a manner that re-stitches the bonds if they've been broken or strained.
Giving the children back both parents. As it should be.

Cameron

[Cameron Stevens]

"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cameron Stevens" > wrote in message
> ...

> > Yes, no argument. The limited funds often leave an NCP financially
crippled,
> > leaving very little budgetting to do.
>
> Yet you don't seem to think the same is/might be true for the CP - where
did you
> get the idea that we have money trees in our backyards?

I didn't say the same isn't true. I never presumed it's easy for the CP when
they're on thier own. When there's another income it certainly make sit
easier though, for either party. Regardless of this the system remains
favourable to the female CP.

> > > And all of the same may well be true for the CP, who, in addition to
> > working to
> > > supply her share of support for the children, has the additional
workload
> > of the
> > > hands on care for the children for the majority of the time.
> >
> > Yes, absolutely. The CP could lose her job, the CP could also ask or
allow
> > the NCP to become a CP reducing her costs.
>
> Children aren't packages, to be shipped back and forth at whim.

Funny, some CPs seem to feel they're assets! It is not a matter of shipping
them back and forth on a whim. It's planned and it should be carried out in
a manner that re-stitches the bonds if they've been broken or strained.
Giving the children back both parents. As it should be.

Cameron

[TeacherMama]

Gini52 > wrote in message >...
> In article >, TeacherMama
> says...
> >
> >"Bob Whiteside" > wrote
>
> .........................................
> >> In effect, her attorney got me to testify on the record about what I agreed
> >> to in the mediation, and then shut it down. I had to give up everything I
> >> agreed to and she gave up nothing in return. And of course, my ex was
> >> allowed to renege on her written agreements and the judge protected her
> >> right to do that.
> >
> >If mediation is to work at all, then, once the agreement is signed,
> >it's permanent. What happened to you is outrageous! It was all part
> >of the same old game that is helping the system to fail so badly right
> >now. But, once you get lawyers involved, it's all about winning and
> >fairness is out the window.
> ====
> Not with our "lawyer." She was simply too lazy to fight for anything. All she
> wanted was to expend the least amount of time/energy possible to get the case
> off her desk. The only lawyer I have seen actually *work* on a case was when my
> son had a "legal aid" attorney to help him with his disability claims process.
> He was extremely hardworking, committed and personable (and drove an '87 Toyota
> station wagon :-).
> ====

Actually, what I meant is that IF mediation is to be effective, the
agreements made in mediation have to be binding on both parties. The
mediator should be knowledgeable about the laws, so the agreements
made there cannot be nullified because they, in some way, break the
law. I know that isn't how it is now. An adult in a black robe can
treat other adults like children and decide what is best for them, and
leave them no way to make decisions in their own lives. If we could
keep the rapacious lawyers and the arrogant judges out of things, the
system might actually transform into something that might really work!

[TeacherMama]

Gini52 > wrote in message >...
> In article >, TeacherMama
> says...
> >
> >"Bob Whiteside" > wrote
>
> .........................................
> >> In effect, her attorney got me to testify on the record about what I agreed
> >> to in the mediation, and then shut it down. I had to give up everything I
> >> agreed to and she gave up nothing in return. And of course, my ex was
> >> allowed to renege on her written agreements and the judge protected her
> >> right to do that.
> >
> >If mediation is to work at all, then, once the agreement is signed,
> >it's permanent. What happened to you is outrageous! It was all part
> >of the same old game that is helping the system to fail so badly right
> >now. But, once you get lawyers involved, it's all about winning and
> >fairness is out the window.
> ====
> Not with our "lawyer." She was simply too lazy to fight for anything. All she
> wanted was to expend the least amount of time/energy possible to get the case
> off her desk. The only lawyer I have seen actually *work* on a case was when my
> son had a "legal aid" attorney to help him with his disability claims process.
> He was extremely hardworking, committed and personable (and drove an '87 Toyota
> station wagon :-).
> ====

Actually, what I meant is that IF mediation is to be effective, the
agreements made in mediation have to be binding on both parties. The
mediator should be knowledgeable about the laws, so the agreements
made there cannot be nullified because they, in some way, break the
law. I know that isn't how it is now. An adult in a black robe can
treat other adults like children and decide what is best for them, and
leave them no way to make decisions in their own lives. If we could
keep the rapacious lawyers and the arrogant judges out of things, the
system might actually transform into something that might really work!

[Moon Shyne]

"Cameron Stevens" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Cameron Stevens" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > > Yes, no argument. The limited funds often leave an NCP financially
> crippled,
> > > leaving very little budgetting to do.
> >
> > Yet you don't seem to think the same is/might be true for the CP - where
> did you
> > get the idea that we have money trees in our backyards?
>
> I didn't say the same isn't true. I never presumed it's easy for the CP when
> they're on thier own. When there's another income it certainly make sit
> easier though, for either party. Regardless of this the system remains
> favourable to the female CP.
>
> > > > And all of the same may well be true for the CP, who, in addition to
> > > working to
> > > > supply her share of support for the children, has the additional
> workload
> > > of the
> > > > hands on care for the children for the majority of the time.
> > >
> > > Yes, absolutely. The CP could lose her job, the CP could also ask or
> allow
> > > the NCP to become a CP reducing her costs.
> >
> > Children aren't packages, to be shipped back and forth at whim.
>
> Funny, some CPs seem to feel they're assets! It is not a matter of shipping
> them back and forth on a whim. It's planned and it should be carried out in
> a manner that re-stitches the bonds if they've been broken or strained.
> Giving the children back both parents. As it should be.

Agreed, as long as both parents *want* to be involved - some children have
situations where the NCP simply doesn't want to be involved - that's where my
children are.

>
> Cameron
>
>

[Moon Shyne]

"Cameron Stevens" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Cameron Stevens" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > > Yes, no argument. The limited funds often leave an NCP financially
> crippled,
> > > leaving very little budgetting to do.
> >
> > Yet you don't seem to think the same is/might be true for the CP - where
> did you
> > get the idea that we have money trees in our backyards?
>
> I didn't say the same isn't true. I never presumed it's easy for the CP when
> they're on thier own. When there's another income it certainly make sit
> easier though, for either party. Regardless of this the system remains
> favourable to the female CP.
>
> > > > And all of the same may well be true for the CP, who, in addition to
> > > working to
> > > > supply her share of support for the children, has the additional
> workload
> > > of the
> > > > hands on care for the children for the majority of the time.
> > >
> > > Yes, absolutely. The CP could lose her job, the CP could also ask or
> allow
> > > the NCP to become a CP reducing her costs.
> >
> > Children aren't packages, to be shipped back and forth at whim.
>
> Funny, some CPs seem to feel they're assets! It is not a matter of shipping
> them back and forth on a whim. It's planned and it should be carried out in
> a manner that re-stitches the bonds if they've been broken or strained.
> Giving the children back both parents. As it should be.

Agreed, as long as both parents *want* to be involved - some children have
situations where the NCP simply doesn't want to be involved - that's where my
children are.

>
> Cameron
>
>

[Moon Shyne]

"Your Agonizer Please" > wrote in message
...
"Moon Shyne" > wrote:
>"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
>> > Moon Shyne wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "The Dave)" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > > > Moon Shyne wrote:
>> > > > > > > The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or
>> > > > > > some other place where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy
>> > > > > > ice cream from the ice cream truck because they don't issue
>> > > > > > receipts?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Apparently not. If you are so selfish with your own money that
>> > > > > you can't spring for an ice cream, this will be a problem,
>> > > > > won't it?
>> > > >
>> > > > Considering that the CS I currently receive is less than half the
>> > > > actual expenses for the children, you would be way off base in
>> > > > your remark.
>> > >
>> > > That's not what you said. You're avoiding the point. Your
>> > > statement gave no indication that you were talking only about you,
>> > > specifically.
>> >
>> > Oh? "I" has some other meaning?
>> >
>> > > Can you address the response to your own point, or not?
>> >
>> > The response to my point not only missed my point (the idea that
>> > child support money can be used for nothing unless a receipt is
>> > issued), you chose, instead, to launch an attack on some fictitious
>> > selfishness. You know nothing about me, about my children, nor about
>> > how much I do for my children in contrast to how much I do (or don't,
>> > as is generally the case) do for myself, and your remark was way off
>> > base.
>>
>> Classic avoidance when backed into a corner. Responding to you is
>> **ALWAYS** a waste of my time and effort.
>
>I avoided nothing - you asked a question, I answered it. I'll state it again,
>in case you missed it. My point was questioning the idea that child support
>cannot be used for anything for which you don't receive a receipt. I disagreed
>with that notion from the outset, as I disagree with it now.
>


show me a custodial parent whos unwilling to provide a receipt for where
the child support monies are spent, and i'll show you a custodial parent
whos abusing the funds and has something to hide.

The conversation wasn't about a parent who is unwilling to provide receipts. It
was about the notion that child support monies can *only* be spent on things for
which a receipt is given.

[Moon Shyne]

"Your Agonizer Please" > wrote in message
...
"Moon Shyne" > wrote:
>"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
>> > Moon Shyne wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "The Dave)" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > > > Moon Shyne wrote:
>> > > > > > > The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or
>> > > > > > some other place where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy
>> > > > > > ice cream from the ice cream truck because they don't issue
>> > > > > > receipts?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Apparently not. If you are so selfish with your own money that
>> > > > > you can't spring for an ice cream, this will be a problem,
>> > > > > won't it?
>> > > >
>> > > > Considering that the CS I currently receive is less than half the
>> > > > actual expenses for the children, you would be way off base in
>> > > > your remark.
>> > >
>> > > That's not what you said. You're avoiding the point. Your
>> > > statement gave no indication that you were talking only about you,
>> > > specifically.
>> >
>> > Oh? "I" has some other meaning?
>> >
>> > > Can you address the response to your own point, or not?
>> >
>> > The response to my point not only missed my point (the idea that
>> > child support money can be used for nothing unless a receipt is
>> > issued), you chose, instead, to launch an attack on some fictitious
>> > selfishness. You know nothing about me, about my children, nor about
>> > how much I do for my children in contrast to how much I do (or don't,
>> > as is generally the case) do for myself, and your remark was way off
>> > base.
>>
>> Classic avoidance when backed into a corner. Responding to you is
>> **ALWAYS** a waste of my time and effort.
>
>I avoided nothing - you asked a question, I answered it. I'll state it again,
>in case you missed it. My point was questioning the idea that child support
>cannot be used for anything for which you don't receive a receipt. I disagreed
>with that notion from the outset, as I disagree with it now.
>


show me a custodial parent whos unwilling to provide a receipt for where
the child support monies are spent, and i'll show you a custodial parent
whos abusing the funds and has something to hide.

The conversation wasn't about a parent who is unwilling to provide receipts. It
was about the notion that child support monies can *only* be spent on things for
which a receipt is given.

[Fighting For Kids]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:56:09 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> wrote:


>Here is the Oregon law:
>
>LIFE INSURANCE ON OBLIGOR
>
>107.810 Policy. It is the policy of the State of Oregon to encourage persons
>obligated to support other persons as the result of a dissolution or
>annulment of marriage or as the result of a legal separation to obtain or to
>cooperate in the obtaining of life insurance adequate to provide for the
>continued support of those persons in the event of the obligor's death.
>[1981 c.775 §9]
>
>Note: 107.810 was enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but was not
>added to or made a part of ORS chapter 107 or any series therein by
>legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further
>explanation.
>
>107.820 Support order as insurable interest; order to obtain, renew or
>continue insurance; right of beneficiary to purchase insurance or pay
>premiums. A court order for the payment of spousal or child support whether
>issued prior to, on or following November 1, 1981, constitutes an insurable
>interest in the party awarded the right to receive the support. In any case
>of marital annulment, dissolution or separation, the issue of life insurance
>shall be determined as follows:
>
>snipped all the details because they are very long. If you want to read
>them go to:
>
>http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/107.html
>
>and scroll down.
>

SO it "encourages" the judge to make the NCP get it, but doesnt
require it. If im reading it right.

[Fighting For Kids]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:56:09 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
> wrote:


>Here is the Oregon law:
>
>LIFE INSURANCE ON OBLIGOR
>
>107.810 Policy. It is the policy of the State of Oregon to encourage persons
>obligated to support other persons as the result of a dissolution or
>annulment of marriage or as the result of a legal separation to obtain or to
>cooperate in the obtaining of life insurance adequate to provide for the
>continued support of those persons in the event of the obligor's death.
>[1981 c.775 §9]
>
>Note: 107.810 was enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but was not
>added to or made a part of ORS chapter 107 or any series therein by
>legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further
>explanation.
>
>107.820 Support order as insurable interest; order to obtain, renew or
>continue insurance; right of beneficiary to purchase insurance or pay
>premiums. A court order for the payment of spousal or child support whether
>issued prior to, on or following November 1, 1981, constitutes an insurable
>interest in the party awarded the right to receive the support. In any case
>of marital annulment, dissolution or separation, the issue of life insurance
>shall be determined as follows:
>
>snipped all the details because they are very long. If you want to read
>them go to:
>
>http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/107.html
>
>and scroll down.
>

SO it "encourages" the judge to make the NCP get it, but doesnt
require it. If im reading it right.

[Fighting For Kids]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 10:23:23 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:

>
>No you didn't. You said "I couldnt find the source of this reported
>statistic so I cant say if I believe it or not.". And I understood that
>statement to be referring only to the following paragraph. Just curious; if
>you can't find the source of this reported statistic, then how do you know
>that it was reported?
>

Sometimes I think you will try and say anything against me regardless
of what I say just to argue.

Its old.

[Fighting For Kids]

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 10:23:23 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:

>
>No you didn't. You said "I couldnt find the source of this reported
>statistic so I cant say if I believe it or not.". And I understood that
>statement to be referring only to the following paragraph. Just curious; if
>you can't find the source of this reported statistic, then how do you know
>that it was reported?
>

Sometimes I think you will try and say anything against me regardless
of what I say just to argue.

Its old.