Illinois post-secondary education

[Giz Mo]

Does anyone here know of one single case in ILL Noise concerning
post-secondary education expenses on an adult child over age 18? If
possible a case where there is no agreement nor is it in the divorce
decree. Any help would be appreciated! Thank you in advance!
I live out of state and have not been able to find much on the subject
other than what factors the courts will supposedly consider in whether
or not I have to pay this even though I told my ex-wife I could not
afford it. She decided what college and obtained loans she wants me
to pay back plus wants me to pay all other living expenses. (food,
clothing, transportation, etc...). They live way above their means
(nothing less than designer clothing). We wear Walmart clothing and
glad to have it.
Thanks Gizmo

[Don]

I don't know Illinois law...only Massachusetts.

However, I did find these two links for a start:

http://www.divorcenet.com/divorcenet_2/states/illinois/illinois_child_support_faq

This link doesn't format properly, but if you search for college
there, it seems that Illinois believes divorced children are entitled
to college support.

Their general content is similar to Massachusetts. One thing to be
aware of if that both parents are supposed to provide for college.
Your x may not understand that. In Massachusetts, normally they take
so much for child support that there isn't any left over for addition
increase which I guess is positive (in a very negative way!). lol

At my level of child support I will pay $60K for my son for 4 years of
college. It will be interesting to see if my x tries to extort more.

The other link is: http://secondwivescafe.com/article.php?id=25

This link wasn't still active, so I've posted the cached content
below:


McHENRY COUNTY, Ill., JANUARY 24, 2004 â€" Michael Franke paid nearly
$4000 yesterday for his grown daughter's college tuition in order to
avoid being sent to jail on a six-month work release.

Franke told reporters at the McHenry County Courthouse yesterdaythat
he'd funded the payment with a credit card advance, loans from his
family and friends, and his entire paycheck for the next two weeks,
rather than be jailed. "I had no real choice," he said. "My wife and
infant son rely on me to provide their basic needs."

Franke's case will be heard by an an Illinois appeals court next
month. Franke will argue that Judge Joseph P. Condon's August 2003
ruling should be overturned, as it does not adequately consider his
ability to pay college tuition bills.

Judge Condon had ordered Franke to pay his former wife for the tuition
expenses of their 18-year-old daughter. In addition, Franke’s
paychecks would have been seized 100% by the state of Illinois until
the full initial court-ordered amount of $3,870.18 was paid in full.
Franke could continue to be held responsible for his daughter’s
college expenses should she continue in school.

Franke and his former wife, who divorced in 1999, agreed at the time
that "the amount and extent of contribution on the part of each party
for vocational, college and/or university expenses of said minor
children will be dependent upon the financial ability of that party at
the time" [Franke v. Franke]. Franke’s former wife earns a
comparable salary and holds savings in excess of the amount Franke has
been ordered to pay.

In addition to paying more than $20,000 per year in child support
payments to his former wife for the care of his children, and having
never been in arrears, Franke has a young son with his second wife who
suffers from RRP. The ailment is a recurrent benign tumor involving
the larynx and vocal cords. Monthly surgery is necessary for the child
to maintain an unobstructed airway and normal voice development. The
surgeries and routine care of this disease costs Franke approximately
$500 per month.

McHenry County Circuit Court Associate Judge Joseph P. Condon told
Franke earlier this month that the special needs of his young son were
of no concern to him, and that Franke’s current wife would have to
deal with the ramifications of losing 100% of her husband’s income.
Condon added that the children of Franke’s first marriage were a
priority over Franke’s ill one-year-old son. Franke’s children
also include a 16-year-old daughter and 11-year-old son.

Even though Franke has made regular attempts at exercising his
visitation with his children, none of Franke’s three children from
his first marriage currently have any contact with their father.
Franke has had no contact with his 18-year-old daughter in more than
three years.

According to Franke’s wife, Nicole, the couple made an offer to pay
a “more reasonable� amount of the 18-year-old’s college tuition
needs, citing the medical condition of the one-year-old, but the offer
was refused. Condon has also ordered Franke to pay all of his former
wife’s attorney’s fees.

Courts in Pennsylvania have ruled that forcing divorced parents to pay
for their children’s college expenses is unconstitutional, citing
the fact that parents from intact families cannot be legally compelled
to provide the same assistance, while New Hampshire's state
legislature is currently in the process of passing a law which would
prevent divorced parents from being held liable for post-high school
education expenses.

[Indyguy1]

Gizmo

You won't find Illinois case law on the net, it just isn't there.

In Cook, Will and DuPage (and probably all the others, as well) counties
support for college is usually ordered regardless if it was addressed in the
intitial cussody and support agreement or not.

In Illinois judges have little or no tollerance for NCPs that don't want to or
can't pay support for college.

Heck I know of a dad that when he said he could no longer afford to pay for his
child's private HS education, because he moved to where his wife wanted to
raise their two little ones, the judge told him he should have let his new
wife move and he should have stayed in the other state alone until he had a job
that paid well enough to continue to support his other child the way he has in
the past. When the guy said what if he never could find a well paying job in
the new state, the judge told him he should have thought of all of this before
he had more children.

So in Illinois, be prepared to support your children four years after HS
graduation, if they want to go to college.

Mrs Indyguy

[The Dave©]

> Indyguy1 wrote:
> In Illinois judges have little or no tollerance for NCPs that don't
> want to or can't pay support for college.

Do they have the same kind of contempt for still-married couple who
can't or won't pay for their kids to go to college? I didn't think so.
Can they show where college is a right or entitlement to every citizen,
regardless of personal or parental marital status? I didn't think so.

> Heck I know of a dad that when he said he could no longer afford to
> pay for his child's private HS education, because he moved to where
> his wife wanted to raise their two little ones, the judge told him
> he should have let his new wife move and he should have stayed in the
> other state alone until he had a job that paid well enough to
> continue to support his other child the way he has in the past. When
> the guy said what if he never could find a well paying job in the new
> state, the judge told him he should have thought of all of this
> before he had more children.

I'm sure the irony would be lost on the judge when a divorced mom pops
out two more kids with another guy. She should have thought of that
before she had them. Yeah, right. Equal treatment under the law, my
ass.

--
I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to
go chase it.
~Rogers Hornsby

[teachrmama]

I have a question for you, Indy. Does the child have the right to choose
the most expensive college/university available? Or can the NCP request
that the child attend a community college for the first 2 years, then
transfer to, say, a less expensive public university, rather than the
cream-of-the-crop, expensive school?

"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
> Gizmo
>
> You won't find Illinois case law on the net, it just isn't there.
>
> In Cook, Will and DuPage (and probably all the others, as well) counties
> support for college is usually ordered regardless if it was addressed in
> the
> intitial cussody and support agreement or not.
>
> In Illinois judges have little or no tollerance for NCPs that don't want
> to or
> can't pay support for college.
>
> Heck I know of a dad that when he said he could no longer afford to pay
> for his
> child's private HS education, because he moved to where his wife wanted to
> raise their two little ones, the judge told him he should have let his
> new
> wife move and he should have stayed in the other state alone until he had
> a job
> that paid well enough to continue to support his other child the way he
> has in
> the past. When the guy said what if he never could find a well paying job
> in
> the new state, the judge told him he should have thought of all of this
> before
> he had more children.
>
> So in Illinois, be prepared to support your children four years after HS
> graduation, if they want to go to college.
>
> Mrs Indyguy

[Bob Whiteside]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
> I have a question for you, Indy. Does the child have the right to choose
> the most expensive college/university available? Or can the NCP request
> that the child attend a community college for the first 2 years, then
> transfer to, say, a less expensive public university, rather than the
> cream-of-the-crop, expensive school?

It doesn't matter whether the issue is college tuition, healthcare, or
daycare. As long as the NCP is forced to pay a percentage of the bill the
CP can select the highest cost option and force the NCP to pay a huge share
of the bill. Most NCP's are required to pay 65-80% of these add-on charges.

Why pick a low cost college when the NCP can be forced to pay a high
percentage of tuition at a private university?

Why go to a regular doctor when an NCP can be forced to pay a high
percentage of an emergency room visit?

Why pick a reasonably price daycare facility when an NCP can be forced to
pay a high percentage of a premium daycare service?

The CS laws leave way too much discretion in how to spend the NCP's money up
to vindictive CP's! And to add insult to injury, the Federal tax code
allows CP's tax deductions for college, healthcare, and daycare expenses to
reduce their net out-of-pocket costs to further reduce their percentage of
the total expense actually paid.

[Tracy]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
> I have a question for you, Indy. Does the child have the right to choose
> the most expensive college/university available? Or can the NCP request
> that the child attend a community college for the first 2 years, then
> transfer to, say, a less expensive public university, rather than the
> cream-of-the-crop, expensive school?

I can't speak for Illinois, but a while back I posted concerning a co-worker
of mine. His case was in Indiana, but he took it to court. He was able to
have a say, and the judge listened and agreed. My co-worker listened and
acted reasonably. Although he didn't agree with being forced to pay part of
the college education he did get the judge to agree to stipulations.

1) his daughter started at a less expensive school
2) his daughter was to provide her father with her grades
3) if she was not passing her classes support would stop
4) support was paid directly to the university, not her mother or the
daughter
5) the mother had to pay her fair share directly to the university, not the
daughter

The daughter attended one term at a less expensive university, not a
college. The university she attended was much less than the private
university she originally wanted to attend. She did not pass all classes.
Therefore, support ended.

So I believe judges will listen, but it is a case-by-case situation. If the
parents, NCP and/or CP, is reasonable, the judge may end up being reasonable
too.

Tracy
~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/

>
> "Indyguy1" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Gizmo
> >
> > You won't find Illinois case law on the net, it just isn't there.
> >
> > In Cook, Will and DuPage (and probably all the others, as well) counties
> > support for college is usually ordered regardless if it was addressed in
> > the
> > intitial cussody and support agreement or not.
> >
> > In Illinois judges have little or no tollerance for NCPs that don't want
> > to or
> > can't pay support for college.
> >
> > Heck I know of a dad that when he said he could no longer afford to pay
> > for his
> > child's private HS education, because he moved to where his wife wanted
to
> > raise their two little ones, the judge told him he should have let his
> > new
> > wife move and he should have stayed in the other state alone until he
had
> > a job
> > that paid well enough to continue to support his other child the way he
> > has in
> > the past. When the guy said what if he never could find a well paying
job
> > in
> > the new state, the judge told him he should have thought of all of this
> > before
> > he had more children.
> >
> > So in Illinois, be prepared to support your children four years after HS
> > graduation, if they want to go to college.
> >
> > Mrs Indyguy
>
>

[Indyguy1]

Teach wrote:

>I have a question for you, Indy. Does the child have the right to choose
>the most expensive college/university available?

Generally, no. They can ask for it but the norm is for the expenses to be in
line with state schools. Now if the child gets scholarships (or has other
sources that will help) that will pick up a lot of the differance then perhaps
a private school would be approved.

Or can the NCP request
>that the child attend a community college for the first 2 years, then
>transfer to, say, a less expensive public university, rather than the
>cream-of-the-crop, expensive school?

They can request it, but probably won't get the ability to choose for the
child. If the child has done well enough to get into a university, most judges
don't like to see them pass up the opportunity.

Mrs Indyguy
>

[The Dave©]

> Tracy wrote:
> > I have a question for you, Indy. Does the child have the right to
> > choose the most expensive college/university available? Or can the
> > NCP request that the child attend a community college for the first
> > 2 years, then transfer to, say, a less expensive public university,
> > rather than the cream-of-the-crop, expensive school?
>
> I can't speak for Illinois, but a while back I posted concerning a
> co-worker of mine. His case was in Indiana, but he took it to court.
> He was able to have a say, and the judge listened and agreed. My
> co-worker listened and acted reasonably. Although he didn't agree
> with being forced to pay part of the college education he did get the
> judge to agree to stipulations.
>
> 1) his daughter started at a less expensive school
> 2) his daughter was to provide her father with her grades
> 3) if she was not passing her classes support would stop
> 4) support was paid directly to the university, not her mother or the
> daughter
> 5) the mother had to pay her fair share directly to the university,
> not the daughter
>
> The daughter attended one term at a less expensive university, not a
> college. The university she attended was much less than the private
> university she originally wanted to attend. She did not pass all
> classes. Therefore, support ended.
>
> So I believe judges will listen, but it is a case-by-case situation.
> If the parents, NCP and/or CP, is reasonable, the judge may end up
> being reasonable too.

To my mind, these are entirely reasonable expectations for an NCP. For
*ANY* parent, actually.

--
Q. Why do Hell's Angels wear leather?
A. Because chiffon wrinkles too easily.
~ Paul Lynde, on Hollywood Squares

[Gypsy0005]

>
>>I have a question for you, Indy. Does the child have the right to choose
>>the most expensive college/university available?

NJ also offers automatic post secondary education expenses and/or child
support. However there is case law supporting termination of these if there is
no relationship between father and child and if dad was not included in the
decision making process. My husband and I are in the midst of such a case now
in an attempt to emancipate his 19 yr old daughter we haven't seen in over 10
yrs. The case in question is Moss V Nedas. Another thought is to fight it
through the courts on the basis it is unconstitutional. Pennsylvania recently
agreed with this aspect and they are now "18 and out". Very few states left
that require anything more than 18 and high school education.

[teachrmama]

"Gypsy0005" > wrote in message
...
> >
>>>I have a question for you, Indy. Does the child have the right to choose
>>>the most expensive college/university available?
>
> NJ also offers automatic post secondary education expenses and/or child
> support. However there is case law supporting termination of these if
> there is
> no relationship between father and child and if dad was not included in
> the
> decision making process. My husband and I are in the midst of such a case
> now
> in an attempt to emancipate his 19 yr old daughter we haven't seen in over
> 10
> yrs. The case in question is Moss V Nedas. Another thought is to fight it
> through the courts on the basis it is unconstitutional. Pennsylvania
> recently
> agreed with this aspect and they are now "18 and out". Very few states
> left
> that require anything more than 18 and high school education.

Good luck on your case, Gypsy!

[Gini]

In article >, Gypsy0005 says...
>
>>
>>>I have a question for you, Indy. Does the child have the right to choose
>>>the most expensive college/university available?
>
>NJ also offers automatic post secondary education expenses and/or child
>support. However there is case law supporting termination of these if there is
>no relationship between father and child and if dad was not included in the
>decision making process. My husband and I are in the midst of such a case now
>in an attempt to emancipate his 19 yr old daughter we haven't seen in over 10
>yrs. The case in question is Moss V Nedas. Another thought is to fight it
>through the courts on the basis it is unconstitutional. Pennsylvania recently
>agreed with this aspect and they are now "18 and out". Very few states left
>that require anything more than 18 and high school education.
====
I don't know how many there are but a lot of NCPs come through here who are
dealing with post minority/college support. It seems there must still be a lot
of states doing it. I have also read where courts have upheld constitutional
challenges in spite of the PA Supreme Court ruling.
====

[Indyguy1]

gypsy wrote:

<snip to>

>Very few states left
>that require anything more than 18 and high school education.

Three states don't require any college support but order support till the age
of 21.
Two order CS till 19, regardless if they are in school or not.

Eighteen states still can and do order support for most majority children that
are furthering their education.

I hardly consider 23 states *very few*.


Mrs Indyguy

[Gypsy0005]

>I hardly consider 23 states *very few*.
>

An attorney I spoke to last week who is very well known in this arena said he
believed it was 9 states left that order post secondary education support.
Regardless of the number that is left, even 1 is far too many. It is an issue
that flies in the face of justice. When you take only one segment of the
population and force them to do something no one else does then you are
violating their rights. In NJ only divorced non custodial parents (mostly
fathers) are FORCED to pay towards college AND contribute child support for an
ADULT child.
If you want to argue that all children are entitled to a college education AND
living expenses while they are in college then so be it, but until this is a
right afforded all children it is just plain wrong!

[Indyguy1]

gypsy wrote:

>An attorney I spoke to last week who is very well known in this arena said he
>believed it was 9 states left that order post secondary education support.

Then I guess he isn't all that well versed afterall.


>Regardless of the number that is left, even 1 is far too many. It is an
>issue
>that flies in the face of justice.

Dont remember the exact stats on this but it's something like over 80 % of
parents in intact families help with their childrens college expenses and less
that 20% of NCPs help with the same. And lets not even go to the *they can't
afford it* excuse. Most states stop CS at that point and the money formely used
as CS can be applied to the college help. Divorced parents refusing to help
with their childrens college expenses flies in the face of family, IMHO.

When you take only one segment of the
>population and force them to do something no one else does then you are
>violating their rights.

Just like parents in intact families have their rights violated every day that
the feds only base federal aid for children of divorce on one of their parents
homes income. AND the child can generally pick whatever household they want to
declare. While children in intact families have to declare BOTH parents
incomes.

In NJ only divorced non custodial parents (mostly
>fathers) are FORCED to pay towards college AND contribute child support for
>an
>ADULT child.

Then they are one of a very few. Perhaps that is what your top notch lawyer was
refering to. States that order college support AND CS.

>If you want to argue that all children are entitled to a college education
>AND
>living expenses while they are in college then so be it, but until this is a
>right afforded all children it is just plain wrong!

I see it as a shame that any parent has to be forced to help thier children
attain an education.

I pitty the parents that don't help, when they have the means to help. I bet it
will be awfully lonely in that nursing home in their golden years.

Mrs Indyguy
>
>
>
>
>
>

[GudGye11]

It's lonely for a lot of parents in nursing homes even today, and I'll betcha
some of those parents stuck in those homes are ones who DID pay for their kids'
college educations...


In article >,
(Indyguy1) writes:

>I pitty the parents that don't help, when they have the means to help. I bet
>it
>will be awfully lonely in that nursing home in their golden years.
>
>Mrs Indyguy

[GudGye11]

You are wrong, MrsIndy...

No state orders parent-paid college education for ALL children.

And that is the problem.

Until the day comes when the state orders ALL children to go to college and ALL
parents to pay for post-secondary education, I don't believe ANY parent should
be compelled to pay for post-secondary education, divorced or otherwise.

Gud


In article >,
(Indyguy1) writes:

>Three states don't require any college support but order support till the age
>of 21.
>Two order CS till 19, regardless if they are in school or not.
>
>Eighteen states still can and do order support for most majority children
>that
>are furthering their education.
>
>I hardly consider 23 states *very few*.
>
>
>Mrs Indyguy

[GudGye11]

In article >,
(Gypsy0005) writes:

<snip>

>Another thought is to fight it
>through the courts on the basis it is unconstitutional. Pennsylvania recently
>agreed with this aspect and they are now "18 and out". Very few states left
>that require anything more than 18 and high school education.

Exactly! This is why the forced support of post-high school educations for
divorced kids only is a denial of the right of equal protection under the law.
As with many things I can live with either scenario: (1) make college
education manadtory for ALL children and tell ALL parents that they have to
provide post-high school educational support, or (2) continue to make college
education discretionary for children and tell NO parents that they have to
provide post-high school educational support.

I can live with either situation.


Gud

[GudGye11]

I think that is one of the most fair settlements I've seen of any case like
this.

Kudos to your co-worker, Tracy...looks like a win/win situation for the
child...

In fact, I think I'm going to write the facts and circumstances down, and use
them for my own benefit, if and when such an event arises.

Gud


In article <Upccd.191878$wV.160439@attbi_s54>, "Tracy"
> writes:

>I can't speak for Illinois, but a while back I posted concerning a co-worker
>of mine. His case was in Indiana, but he took it to court. He was able to
>have a say, and the judge listened and agreed. My co-worker listened and
>acted reasonably. Although he didn't agree with being forced to pay part of
>the college education he did get the judge to agree to stipulations.
>
>1) his daughter started at a less expensive school
>2) his daughter was to provide her father with her grades
>3) if she was not passing her classes support would stop
>4) support was paid directly to the university, not her mother or the
>daughter
>5) the mother had to pay her fair share directly to the university, not the
>daughter
>
>The daughter attended one term at a less expensive university, not a
>college. The university she attended was much less than the private
>university she originally wanted to attend. She did not pass all classes.
>Therefore, support ended.
>
>So I believe judges will listen, but it is a case-by-case situation. If the
>parents, NCP and/or CP, is reasonable, the judge may end up being reasonable
>too.
>
>Tracy

[P.Fritz]

"GudGye11" > wrote in message
...
> It's lonely for a lot of parents in nursing homes even today, and I'll
> betcha
> some of those parents stuck in those homes are ones who DID pay for their
> kids'
> college educations...
>

How arrogant to think that concern about one's parents is tied to whether
they paid for college tuition.........spoken like a true liebral.


>
> In article >,
>
> (Indyguy1) writes:
>
>>I pitty the parents that don't help, when they have the means to help. I
>>bet
>>it
>>will be awfully lonely in that nursing home in their golden years.
>>
>>Mrs Indyguy
>
>

[Bob Whiteside]

"Gypsy0005" > wrote in message
...
> >I hardly consider 23 states *very few*.
> >
>
> An attorney I spoke to last week who is very well known in this arena said
he
> believed it was 9 states left that order post secondary education support.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/educate.htm provides the state by state
details. Note the number of states that show no authority to order college
support in the absence of an agreement. If an agreement was reach prior to
the law being changed, the parents are being held to the prior agreement.

> Regardless of the number that is left, even 1 is far too many. It is an
issue
> that flies in the face of justice. When you take only one segment of the
> population and force them to do something no one else does then you are
> violating their rights.

The State Supreme Court in my state rejected this argument. They "reasoned"
divorced fathers are not a special class so equal protection guarantees do
not apply, the state's interest in an educated populace is a priority, and
the state legislature has the ability to create laws using their recognition
of a rational basis as the need for the laws. It's BS based on the trend in
other states, but that's essentially what the supreme's in my state said.

In NJ only divorced non custodial parents (mostly
> fathers) are FORCED to pay towards college AND contribute child support
for an
> ADULT child.

In Oregon, only NCP parents can be ordered to provide CS for adult children
attending school. We have case law stating the only way the CP can be
required to provide college support is for the child to hire an attorney,
successfully "join" the case, and get a separate CS order against the CP.
That's BS too because by operation of law the child is already a party to
the case.

> If you want to argue that all children are entitled to a college education
AND
> living expenses while they are in college then so be it, but until this is
a
> right afforded all children it is just plain wrong!

The Attorney General in my state tried the argument that married parents
could be required to pay college expenses for adult children. The Supreme's
told him he was full of it!

[Tracy]

"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>
> I see it as a shame that any parent has to be forced to help thier
children
> attain an education.

So do I, especially when they can't really afford it.


> I pitty the parents that don't help, when they have the means to help. I
bet it
> will be awfully lonely in that nursing home in their golden years.

With all due respect, but a person shouldn't hold a grudge against their
parents like that. It would be a real sad world to live in when adult
children act like that. Some "adult" children expect their parents to be
walking wallets. It is not only NCPs or CPs. This type of attitude happens
in intact families too. A parent having choices, and options, is not
unreasonable.

Tracy
~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/

[Indyguy1]

gudgye wrote:

>You are wrong, MrsIndy...

Where did I say ALL?

>
>No state orders parent-paid college education for ALL children.
>
>And that is the problem.
>
>Until the day comes when the state orders ALL children to go to college and
>ALL
>parents to pay for post-secondary education, I don't believe ANY parent
>should
>be compelled to pay for post-secondary education, divorced or otherwise.
>

The stats tell us the vast majority of parents in intact families do help with
college expenses, without the need of a court order. The stats also tell us
less than 20% of NCPs help with college support. Perhaps if divorced parents
did so on their own, more often, the need for a CO wouldn't be necessary. And
let's not bother with the *but divorced parents can't afford it like together
parents can*. All most have to do is continue paying the support they paid all
along, only now to the school or directlt to the child.

Mrs Indyguy
>Gud
>
>
>In article >,
>(Indyguy1) writes:
>
>>Three states don't require any college support but order support till the
>age
>>of 21.
>>Two order CS till 19, regardless if they are in school or not.
>>
>>Eighteen states still can and do order support for most majority children
>>that
>>are furthering their education.
>>
>>I hardly consider 23 states *very few*.
>>
>>
>>Mrs Indyguy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[The Dave©]

> Indyguy1 wrote:
> The stats tell us the vast majority of parents in intact families do
> help with college expenses, without the need of a court order.

That's great, but nobody is telling them that they must. That's the
difference.

> The
> stats also tell us less than 20% of NCPs help with college support.
> Perhaps if divorced parents did so on their own, more often, the need
> for a CO wouldn't be necessary.

If it's really and truly a "need", then all parents would be told to do
so, and college would be compulsary.

> And let's not bother with the *but
> divorced parents can't afford it like together parents can*. All most
> have to do is continue paying the support they paid all along, only
> now to the school or directlt to the child.

--
Q. Why do Hell's Angels wear leather?
A. Because chiffon wrinkles too easily.
~ Paul Lynde, on Hollywood Squares

[Phil #3]

I'm curious, perhaps I'm the only one who hasn't read them but *what* stats
tell us that the "vast majority" of intact parents help with their
children's college expenses and only 20% of NCPs help?
It seems to me that if there are, as you claim, 23 states that order NCPs to
continue C$ beyond high school, that alone would be WAYYYY over 20% not
counting those in the other states who help regardless there being no order.
Something smells fishy.
Phil #3

"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
> gudgye wrote:
>
>>You are wrong, MrsIndy...
>
> Where did I say ALL?
>
>>
>>No state orders parent-paid college education for ALL children.
>>
>>And that is the problem.
>>
>>Until the day comes when the state orders ALL children to go to college
>>and
>>ALL
>>parents to pay for post-secondary education, I don't believe ANY parent
>>should
>>be compelled to pay for post-secondary education, divorced or otherwise.
>>
>
> The stats tell us the vast majority of parents in intact families do help
> with
> college expenses, without the need of a court order. The stats also tell
> us
> less than 20% of NCPs help with college support. Perhaps if divorced
> parents
> did so on their own, more often, the need for a CO wouldn't be necessary.
> And
> let's not bother with the *but divorced parents can't afford it like
> together
> parents can*. All most have to do is continue paying the support they paid
> all
> along, only now to the school or directlt to the child.
>
> Mrs Indyguy
>>Gud
>>
>>
>>In article >,

>>(Indyguy1) writes:
>>
>>>Three states don't require any college support but order support till the
>>age
>>>of 21.
>>>Two order CS till 19, regardless if they are in school or not.
>>>
>>>Eighteen states still can and do order support for most majority children
>>>that
>>>are furthering their education.
>>>
>>>I hardly consider 23 states *very few*.
>>>
>>>
>>>Mrs Indyguy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Indyguy1]

Phil wrote:

>I'm curious, perhaps I'm the only one who hasn't read them but *what* stats
>tell us that the "vast majority" of intact parents help with their
>children's college expenses and only 20% of NCPs help?

They were posted on this very ng awhile back.

>It seems to me that if there are, as you claim, 23 states that order NCPs to
>continue C$ beyond high school,

18 actually have the abilty to order post majority support. The other 5 either
have CS till 19 or 21. I beleive I broke it down for gypsy.

that alone would be WAYYYY over 20% not
>counting those in the other states who help regardless there being no order.

I'd bet many people never pursue the post majority support. I would have to
assume that some CPs just don't care, some don't know about it, some can afford
the college help on their own or with a new spouse, others may feel since the
money doesn't go to them they won't bother.

>Something smells fishy.

Hey, *I* didn't post the stats someone else did!

Mrs Indyguy

>Phil #3
>
>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>> gudgye wrote:
>>
>>>You are wrong, MrsIndy...
>>
>> Where did I say ALL?
>>
>>>
>>>No state orders parent-paid college education for ALL children.
>>>

[Indyguy1]

Gudgye wrote:

>It's lonely for a lot of parents in nursing homes even today, and I'll betcha
>some of those parents stuck in those homes are ones who DID pay for their
>kids'
>college educations...

I don't doubt that. I just know that people in general are more willing to be
there for people who were there for them.

Mrs Indyguy
>
>
>In article >,
>(Indyguy1) writes:
>
>>I pitty the parents that don't help, when they have the means to help. I bet
>>it
>>will be awfully lonely in that nursing home in their golden years.
>>
>>Mrs Indyguy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Indyguy1]

Paul wrote:

>"GudGye11" > wrote in message
...
>> It's lonely for a lot of parents in nursing homes even today, and I'll
>> betcha
>> some of those parents stuck in those homes are ones who DID pay for their
>> kids'
>> college educations...
>>
>
>How arrogant

Arrogance? No. Reailty? Yes.

to think that concern about one's parents is tied to whether
>they paid for college tuition.........spoken like a true liebral.

Depends on the individual circumstance. For some NCPs refusing to help with
college expenses, when it is afordable, can be the final nail in the coffin for
the parent child relationship.

Mrs Indyguy
>
>
>>
>> In article >,
>>
>> (Indyguy1) writes:
>>
>>>I pitty the parents that don't help, when they have the means to help. I
>>>bet
>>>it
>>>will be awfully lonely in that nursing home in their golden years.
>>>
>>>Mrs Indyguy
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Indyguy1]

Tha Dave wrote:

>> Indyguy1 wrote:
>> The stats tell us the vast majority of parents in intact families do
>> help with college expenses, without the need of a court order.
>
>That's great, but nobody is telling them that they must. That's the
>difference.

I would think one's common sense would tell them, in this day and age, some
form of post secondary education is pretty much necessary for any kind of
advancement in a career.

>
>> The
>> stats also tell us less than 20% of NCPs help with college support.
>> Perhaps if divorced parents did so on their own, more often, the need
>> for a CO wouldn't be necessary.
>
>If it's really and truly a "need", then all parents would be told to do
>so, and college would be compulsary.

I don't know about you, but I certainly want my children to have more in life
than just their needs met.

Mrs Indyguy

>> And let's not bother with the *but
>> divorced parents can't afford it like together parents can*. All most
>> have to do is continue paying the support they paid all along, only
>> now to the school or directlt to the child.
>
>--
>Q. Why do Hell's Angels wear leather?
>A. Because chiffon wrinkles too easily.
> ~ Paul Lynde, on Hollywood Squares
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Indyguy1]

Tracy wrote:


>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I see it as a shame that any parent has to be forced to help thier
>children
>> attain an education.
>
>So do I, especially when they can't really afford it.

If someone earns very little their EFC will be low or non existent. For those
that earn middle of the road there are PLUS loans.

>
>
>> I pitty the parents that don't help, when they have the means to help. I
>bet it
>> will be awfully lonely in that nursing home in their golden years.
>
>With all due respect, but a person shouldn't hold a grudge against their
>parents like that. It would be a real sad world to live in when adult
>children act like that.

Depends on the circumstances. If your parent left, remarried, paid for all his
*new* children to go to college, but told you no way, just how would you feel
when they were old and ill and since their 2nd wife and her kids had no time
for him so he called you? This happened to a friend of mine. She wished her
father well and suggeted he calls his 2nd wife's children since he was there
for them and not her.

I don't think she was bitter. I think she was there for her father as much as
he was there for her.

Some "adult" children expect their parents to be
>walking wallets. It is not only NCPs or CPs. This type of attitude happens
>in intact families too.

This type exists, but they aren't who we are talking about.

A parent having choices, and options, is not
>unreasonable.

Gee silly me. I always thought most parents, when given the choice or option,
would like to see their children succeed in life

Mrs Indyguy.
>
>Tracy
>~~~~
>http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Phil #3]

"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
> Phil wrote:
>
>>I'm curious, perhaps I'm the only one who hasn't read them but *what*
>>stats
>>tell us that the "vast majority" of intact parents help with their
>>children's college expenses and only 20% of NCPs help?
>
> They were posted on this very ng awhile back.

Ok, let's just say I missed them (I did). Can you provide them?

>
>>It seems to me that if there are, as you claim, 23 states that order NCPs
>>to
>>continue C$ beyond high school,
>
> 18 actually have the abilty to order post majority support. The other 5
> either
> have CS till 19 or 21. I beleive I broke it down for gypsy.
>
> that alone would be WAYYYY over 20% not
>>counting those in the other states who help regardless there being no
>>order.
>
> I'd bet many people never pursue the post majority support. I would have
> to
> assume that some CPs just don't care, some don't know about it, some can
> afford
> the college help on their own or with a new spouse, others may feel since
> the
> money doesn't go to them they won't bother.

I may have misunderstood but I was under the impression that when C$ was
ordered post-high school, it meant that the C$ continued to flow into the
CPs pocket and only rarely ordered to the "child". Even then, does the CP
have to cough up *their* formerly 'presumed' portion for real, for a change?
Phil #3
>
>>Something smells fishy.
>
> Hey, *I* didn't post the stats someone else did!
>
> Mrs Indyguy
>
>>Phil #3
>>
>>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>>> gudgye wrote:
>>>
>>>>You are wrong, MrsIndy...
>>>
>>> Where did I say ALL?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>No state orders parent-paid college education for ALL children.
>>>>
>
>

[The Dave©]

> Indyguy1 wrote:
> >> The stats tell us the vast majority of parents in intact families
> do >> help with college expenses, without the need of a court order.
> >
> > That's great, but nobody is telling them that they must. That's the
> > difference.
>
> I would think one's common sense would tell them, in this day and
> age, some form of post secondary education is pretty much necessary
> for any kind of advancement in a career.
>
> >> The
> >> stats also tell us less than 20% of NCPs help with college support.
> >> Perhaps if divorced parents did so on their own, more often, the
> need >> for a CO wouldn't be necessary.
> >
> > If it's really and truly a "need", then all parents would be told
> > to do so, and college would be compulsary.
>
> I don't know about you, but I certainly want my children to have more
> in life than just their needs met.

You're assuming that all kids are made for college. Many are not.
Common sense also says that society still needs welders and plumbers
and auto mechanics and so on, and those are very respectable careers.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a plumber. (No, I am not
one) For many, college would be a total waste.

--
There are always too many Democratic congressmen, too many Republican
congressmen, and never enough U.S. congressmen.
~Author Unknown

[The Dave©]

> Indyguy1 wrote:
> >> Indyguy1 wrote:
> >> The stats tell us the vast majority of parents in intact families
> do >> help with college expenses, without the need of a court order.
> >
> > That's great, but nobody is telling them that they must. That's the
> > difference.
>
> I would think one's common sense would tell them, in this day and
> age, some form of post secondary education is pretty much necessary
> for any kind of advancement in a career.
>
> >> The
> >> stats also tell us less than 20% of NCPs help with college support.
> >> Perhaps if divorced parents did so on their own, more often, the
> need >> for a CO wouldn't be necessary.
> >
> > If it's really and truly a "need", then all parents would be told
> > to do so, and college would be compulsary.
>
> I don't know about you, but I certainly want my children to have more
> in life than just their needs met.

All good parents want the best for their kids, that's natural. You're
bypassing the aspect of forcing one segment of society to pay for it
while the rest of society is not required to do so. If it is so good
and so necessary, why don't we just make it a requirement for all and
be done with it?

--
There are always too many Democratic congressmen, too many Republican
congressmen, and never enough U.S. congressmen.
~Author Unknown

[Indyguy1]

Phil wrote:

>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>> Phil wrote:
>>
>>>I'm curious, perhaps I'm the only one who hasn't read them but *what*
>>>stats
>>>tell us that the "vast majority" of intact parents help with their
>>>children's college expenses and only 20% of NCPs help?
>>
>> They were posted on this very ng awhile back.
>
>Ok, let's just say I missed them (I did). Can you provide them?

I wish I could, but I wouldn't have the foggiest idea how to find them.

>
>>
>>>It seems to me that if there are, as you claim, 23 states that order NCPs
>>>to
>>>continue C$ beyond high school,
>>
>> 18 actually have the abilty to order post majority support. The other 5
>> either
>> have CS till 19 or 21. I beleive I broke it down for gypsy.
>>
>> that alone would be WAYYYY over 20% not
>>>counting those in the other states who help regardless there being no
>>>order.
>>
>> I'd bet many people never pursue the post majority support. I would have
>> to
>> assume that some CPs just don't care, some don't know about it, some can
>> afford
>> the college help on their own or with a new spouse, others may feel since
>> the
>> money doesn't go to them they won't bother.
>
>I may have misunderstood but I was under the impression that when C$ was
>ordered post-high school, it meant that the C$ continued to flow into the
>CPs pocket and only rarely ordered to the "child".

I know several NCPs that pay and several CP whose exs pay. The money either
goes to the child or to the school. I know of none where the money goes to the
ex.

Even then, does the CP
>have to cough up *their* formerly 'presumed' portion for real, for a change?

In every case I know of the CP pays a portion. If they didn't the children
would not be in college.

Mrs Indyguy

>Phil #3
>>
>>>Something smells fishy.
>>
>> Hey, *I* didn't post the stats someone else did!
>>
>> Mrs Indyguy
>>
>>>Phil #3
>>>
>>>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>>>> gudgye wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>You are wrong, MrsIndy...
>>>>
>>>> Where did I say ALL?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No state orders pa

[Indyguy1]

The Dave wrote:

>> Indyguy1 wrote:
>> >> The stats tell us the vast majority of parents in intact families
>> do >> help with college expenses, without the need of a court order.
>> >
>> > That's great, but nobody is telling them that they must. That's the
>> > difference.
>>
>> I would think one's common sense would tell them, in this day and
>> age, some form of post secondary education is pretty much necessary
>> for any kind of advancement in a career.
>>
>> >> The
>> >> stats also tell us less than 20% of NCPs help with college support.
>> >> Perhaps if divorced parents did so on their own, more often, the
>> need >> for a CO wouldn't be necessary.
>> >
>> > If it's really and truly a "need", then all parents would be told
>> > to do so, and college would be compulsary.
>>
>> I don't know about you, but I certainly want my children to have more
>> in life than just their needs met.
>
>You're assuming that all kids are made for college. Many are not.
>Common sense also says that society still needs welders and plumbers
>and auto mechanics and so on, and those are very respectable careers.

Of course they are, I never said they weren't.

>There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a plumber. (No, I am not
>one) For many, college would be a total waste.

I agree. And those kids don't go or if they do go they usually don't stay very
long.

But for the ones for whom it would be the best thing, yeah they SHOULD go,
don't you think?

Mrs Indyguy
>
>--
>There are always too many Democratic congressmen, too many Republican
>congressmen, and never enough U.S. congressmen.
> ~Author Unknown
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Indyguy1]

The Dave wrote:

>> Indyguy1 wrote:
>> >> Indyguy1 wrote:
>> >> The stats tell us the vast majority of parents in intact families
>> do >> help with college expenses, without the need of a court order.
>> >
>> > That's great, but nobody is telling them that they must. That's the
>> > difference.
>>
>> I would think one's common sense would tell them, in this day and
>> age, some form of post secondary education is pretty much necessary
>> for any kind of advancement in a career.
>>
>> >> The
>> >> stats also tell us less than 20% of NCPs help with college support.
>> >> Perhaps if divorced parents did so on their own, more often, the
>> need >> for a CO wouldn't be necessary.
>> >
>> > If it's really and truly a "need", then all parents would be told
>> > to do so, and college would be compulsary.
>>
>> I don't know about you, but I certainly want my children to have more
>> in life than just their needs met.
>
>All good parents want the best for their kids, that's natural. You're
>bypassing the aspect of forcing one segment of society to pay for it
>while the rest of society is not required to do so. If it is so good
>and so necessary, why don't we just make it a requirement for all and
>be done with it?

I'd have no problem with making supporting every child through college, trade
school, etc. mandatory for ALL parents. I do it now and don't have a CO saying
I have to.

Mrs Indyguy
>
>--
>There are always too many Democratic congressmen, too many Republican
>congressmen, and never enough U.S. congressmen.
> ~Author Unknown
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Gypsy0005]

>
>Dont remember the exact stats on this but it's something like over 80 % of
>parents in intact families help with their childrens college expenses and
>less
>that 20% of NCPs help with the same.

I'd have to see those statistics and their origin. We all know how stats can
be made to add up just the way you want at the moment.
Just last week I realized that under the studies that the state and feceral
governments put out that my ex husband would be classified as a "deadbeat".
Not because he didn't pay support, but because he didn't pay it thru the
probation department, but directly to me. So the county had him down as a
divorced dad, but not as a divorced dad paying support. I imagine he isn't the
only one like that. Think what that does to the numbers when they cry about
all the deadbeats!

[Gypsy0005]

>
>Depends on the individual circumstance. For some NCPs refusing to help with
>college expenses, when it is afordable, can be the final nail in the coffin
>for
>the parent child relationship.

And what about when the shoe is on the other foot? What about the adult child
that refuses to speak to the parent and wants nothing from that parent except
$$?

[Gypsy0005]

>
>The stats tell us the vast majority of parents in intact families do help
>with
>college expenses, without the need of a court order.

If that is really a valid statistic then why are there so many young people
graduating from college with thousands of dollars in LOAN payments? Perhaps
because their MARRIED parents forced them to be adults, take responsibility for
themselves and shoulder some of the financial burden for college. Something
that every parent has a right to do.

[Gypsy0005]

> All most
>> have to do is continue paying the support they paid all along, only
>> now to the school or directlt to the child.

Wrong. In alot of cases the support continues to the CP and money can be
ordered towards college tuition also. Wouldnt be half bad if your statement
was true.

[Gypsy0005]

>may have misunderstood but I was under the impression that when C$ was
>ordered post-high school, it meant that the C$ continued to flow into the
>CPs pocket and only rarely ordered to the "child".

Correct. The "child" support in our case will continue to the ex wife and her
hubby supposedly for a child that is away at school for 9 months out of the
year. Sound like thats helping the child?

[The Dave©]

> Indyguy1 wrote:
> > All good parents want the best for their kids, that's natural.
> > You're bypassing the aspect of forcing one segment of society to
> > pay for it while the rest of society is not required to do so. If
> > it is so good and so necessary, why don't we just make it a
> > requirement for all and be done with it?
>
> I'd have no problem with making supporting every child through
> college, trade school, etc. mandatory for ALL parents. I do it now
> and don't have a CO saying I have to.

Let's work to change the laws, then. Let's make post-high school
education compulsary and mandatory for all. The problem lies in only
making it mandatory for some to pay for it while it's not mandatory for
others. Part of the whole idea behind the United States of America is
the idea that everybody is treated equally and no one has a burden
placed on them, involuntarily, that others don't.

While I would not support making it mandatory (I'd rather high schools
get serious again, rather than add more time to get what the kids
should be getting already), I would have less problem with a system
like that than I would with the present inequitable system.

--
There are always too many Democratic congressmen, too many Republican
congressmen, and never enough U.S. congressmen.
~Author Unknown

[Bob Whiteside]

"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
> Tracy wrote:
>
>
> >"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> I see it as a shame that any parent has to be forced to help thier
> >children
> >> attain an education.
> >
> >So do I, especially when they can't really afford it.
>
> If someone earns very little their EFC will be low or non existent. For
those
> that earn middle of the road there are PLUS loans.

Here's the irony in this discussion. The NCP pays monthly and when the CS
statutory end comes that obligation is over. The CP helps the child by
taking out the parent loan. If the CS money goes directly to the child it
can be used to prepay the child's student loans. If the CS money goes to
the CP, and the CP uses the CS for care and maintenance of the home instead
of for the child's education expenses, the CP ends up deferring paying their
share of the child's education by running up larger long term parent loan
debt. And if the CP refuses to take out the parent loans the child must
make up the difference.

In my case, I have no further CS obligation and my child has graduated from
college. However, my ex has large parent loans that she projects will take
here until age 65 to payoff. She used the CS to pay current household
expenses and ended up with significant long term debt because the child's
education CS was diverted to cover other expenses.

My ex tried to get me to help pay for continuing education expenses after
the CS order was terminated at age 21. I pointed out I had already paid
$$$$ for our daughters college expenses, plus bought her a laptop, and my ex
needed to come up the difference because I wasn't paying twice. We made a
deal she would continue to take out parent loans to cover the EFC and I
would pay for any college expenses not covered by the student and parent
loans. That meant, after CS ended, I continued to pay for books, extra
expenses like the health center costs, miscellaneous expenses like
entertainment, and transportation. I also paid for a Summer school classes
not covered by either of their loans.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Gypsy0005" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >The stats tell us the vast majority of parents in intact families do help
> >with
> >college expenses, without the need of a court order.
>
> If that is really a valid statistic then why are there so many young
people
> graduating from college with thousands of dollars in LOAN payments?
Perhaps
> because their MARRIED parents forced them to be adults, take
responsibility for
> themselves and shoulder some of the financial burden for college.
Something
> that every parent has a right to do.

My daughter's college room mate got zero support from her married parents
and she was forced to run up huge student loans that included the parent
loan amount that was not taken out by her parents. My daughter got
financial help from both of her divorced parents in the form of parent loans
and CS, and she ran up more modest student loans.

I have never seen the statistics referred to earlier that children of
married parents get more financial help with college. My anecdote above is
the opposite situation from the statistics. In fact, when you consider the
primary parent has a lower income and the NCP is ordered to pay education
support, the children of divorced parents are better off. They get lower
EFC's, and their eligibility for grants, loans, and other financial aid
provides them with additional college expenses sources not available to
children in intact marriages.

[Gini]

In article >, Indyguy1 says...
>
>Tracy wrote:
>
>
>>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> I see it as a shame that any parent has to be forced to help thier
>>children
>>> attain an education.
>>
>>So do I, especially when they can't really afford it.
>
>If someone earns very little their EFC will be low or non existent. For those
>that earn middle of the road there are PLUS loans.
>
>>
>>
>>> I pitty the parents that don't help, when they have the means to help. I
>>bet it
>>> will be awfully lonely in that nursing home in their golden years.
>>
>>With all due respect, but a person shouldn't hold a grudge against their
>>parents like that. It would be a real sad world to live in when adult
>>children act like that.
>
>Depends on the circumstances. If your parent left, remarried, paid for all his
>*new* children to go to college, but told you no way, just how would you feel
>when they were old and ill and since their 2nd wife and her kids had no time
>for him so he called you? This happened to a friend of mine. She wished her
>father well and suggeted he calls his 2nd wife's children since he was there
>for them and not her.
>
>I don't think she was bitter. I think she was there for her father as much as
>he was there for her.
>
> Some "adult" children expect their parents to be
>>walking wallets. It is not only NCPs or CPs. This type of attitude happens
>>in intact families too.
>
>This type exists, but they aren't who we are talking about.
>
> A parent having choices, and options, is not
>>unreasonable.
>
>Gee silly me. I always thought most parents, when given the choice or option,
>would like to see their children succeed in life
====
Ah c'mon, Indy! You know success is not defined by whether a parent helped with
college expenses. It requires first, ability, drive, motivation, self-discipline
and being at the right place at the right time.
====

[Indyguy1]

gypsy wrote:

>>Dont remember the exact stats on this but it's something like over 80 % of
>>parents in intact families help with their childrens college expenses and
>>less
>>that 20% of NCPs help with the same.
>
>I'd have to see those statistics and their origin. We all know how stats can
>be made to add up just the way you want at the moment.
>Just last week I realized that under the studies that the state and feceral
>governments put out that my ex husband would be classified as a "deadbeat".
>Not because he didn't pay support, but because he didn't pay it thru the
>probation department, but directly to me. So the county had him down as a
>divorced dad, but not as a divorced dad paying support. I imagine he isn't
>the
>only one like that. Think what that does to the numbers when they cry about
>all the deadbeats!

I don't disagree with you about stats. But they seem to be held in Very high
regard on this ng, esp when they are dissing CPs.

I wish I could find them for you, but I honestly don't know where to look for
them.

Mrs Indyguy
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Indyguy1]

Bob wrote:

>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>> Tracy wrote:
>>
>>
>> >"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >> I see it as a shame that any parent has to be forced to help thier
>> >children
>> >> attain an education.
>> >
>> >So do I, especially when they can't really afford it.
>>
>> If someone earns very little their EFC will be low or non existent. For
>those
>> that earn middle of the road there are PLUS loans.
>
>Here's the irony in this discussion. The NCP pays monthly and when the CS
>statutory end comes that obligation is over. The CP helps the child by
>taking out the parent loan. If the CS money goes directly to the child it
>can be used to prepay the child's student loans. If the CS money goes to
>the CP, and the CP uses the CS for care and maintenance of the home instead
>of for the child's education expenses, the CP ends up deferring paying their
>share of the child's education by running up larger long term parent loan
>debt. And if the CP refuses to take out the parent loans the child must
>make up the difference.
>
>In my case, I have no further CS obligation and my child has graduated from
>college. However, my ex has large parent loans that she projects will take
>here until age 65 to payoff. She used the CS to pay current household
>expenses and ended up with significant long term debt because the child's
>education CS was diverted to cover other expenses.
>
>My ex tried to get me to help pay for continuing education expenses after
>the CS order was terminated at age 21. I pointed out I had already paid
>$$$$ for our daughters college expenses, plus bought her a laptop, and my ex
>needed to come up the difference because I wasn't paying twice. We made a
>deal she would continue to take out parent loans to cover the EFC and I
>would pay for any college expenses not covered by the student and parent
>loans. That meant, after CS ended, I continued to pay for books, extra
>expenses like the health center costs, miscellaneous expenses like
>entertainment, and transportation. I also paid for a Summer school classes
>not covered by either of their loans.

Just one more reason why Bob is a great father and fine human being. :)

Mrs Indyguy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Indyguy1]

Gini wrote:

>In article >, Indyguy1 says...
>>
>>Tracy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>> I see it as a shame that any parent has to be forced to help thier
>>>children
>>>> attain an education.
>>>
>>>So do I, especially when they can't really afford it.
>>
>>If someone earns very little their EFC will be low or non existent. For
>those
>>that earn middle of the road there are PLUS loans.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I pitty the parents that don't help, when they have the means to help. I
>>>bet it
>>>> will be awfully lonely in that nursing home in their golden years.
>>>
>>>With all due respect, but a person shouldn't hold a grudge against their
>>>parents like that. It would be a real sad world to live in when adult
>>>children act like that.
>>
>>Depends on the circumstances. If your parent left, remarried, paid for all
>his
>>*new* children to go to college, but told you no way, just how would you
>feel
>>when they were old and ill and since their 2nd wife and her kids had no time
>>for him so he called you? This happened to a friend of mine. She wished her
>>father well and suggeted he calls his 2nd wife's children since he was there
>>for them and not her.
>>
>>I don't think she was bitter. I think she was there for her father as much
>as
>>he was there for her.
>>
>> Some "adult" children expect their parents to be
>>>walking wallets. It is not only NCPs or CPs. This type of attitude
>happens
>>>in intact families too.
>>
>>This type exists, but they aren't who we are talking about.
>>
>> A parent having choices, and options, is not
>>>unreasonable.
>>
>>Gee silly me. I always thought most parents, when given the choice or
>option,
>>would like to see their children succeed in life
>====
>Ah c'mon, Indy! You know success is not defined by whether a parent helped
>with
>college expenses. It requires first, ability, drive, motivation,
>self-discipline
>and being at the right place at the right time.

Of course all the things you list are a part of success. Those are the things
the young person should possess. But without the ability to attend college many
many fields where the child could be successful would be unatainable.

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

[Indyguy1]

gypsy wrote:

>>The stats tell us the vast majority of parents in intact families do help
>>with
>>college expenses, without the need of a court order.
>
>If that is really a valid statistic then why are there so many young people
>graduating from college with thousands of dollars in LOAN payments?

Did you think I meant the parents paid for ALL the expenses? If you did you are
wrong. Of course kids leave college with student loans, even children of the
wealthy do, when the parents want the child to be atleast partially responsible
for the financing of their education.

Perhaps
>because their MARRIED parents forced them to be adults, take responsibility
>for
>themselves and shoulder some of the financial burden for college.

There is a HUGE differance between having a child take on a couple of thousand
dollars a year in loans and coming up with over 10k a year.

Something
>that every parent has a right to do.

I guess you're in the *toss em out at 18* group. Do you have children of your
own? Is that what you will or did do with your own bio kids?

Mrs Indyguy




>
>
>
>
>
>

[Indyguy1]

Bob wrote:

<snip to>

> In fact, when you consider the
>primary parent has a lower income and the NCP is ordered to pay education
>support, the children of divorced parents are better off. They get lower
>EFC's, and their eligibility for grants, loans, and other financial aid
>provides them with additional college expenses sources not available to
>children in intact marriages.

I don't hear any divorced parents complaining about that UNEQUAL treatment.

Mrs Indyguy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Indyguy1]

gypsy wrote:

>> All most
>>> have to do is continue paying the support they paid all along, only
>>> now to the school or directlt to the child.
>
>Wrong. In alot of cases the support continues to the CP and money can be
>ordered towards college tuition also. Wouldnt be half bad if your statement
>was true.

Did you notice the word *most*. I am not wrong. MOST states don't order college
help AND CS to continue.

Nice to see you think helping adult children with college, if the CS is
stopped, isn't half bad.

Mrs Indyguy
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Indyguy1]

gypsy wrote:

>>Depends on the individual circumstance. For some NCPs refusing to help with
>>college expenses, when it is afordable, can be the final nail in the coffin
>>for
>>the parent child relationship.
>
>And what about when the shoe is on the other foot? What about the adult
>child
>that refuses to speak to the parent and wants nothing from that parent except
>$$?

My question would be why do children do this? I would assume the reasons run
the gambit from that is all the NCP ever did for the child all along to PAS.

Mrs Indyguy
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Indyguy1]

gypsy wrote:

>>may have misunderstood but I was under the impression that when C$ was
>>ordered post-high school, it meant that the C$ continued to flow into the
>>CPs pocket and only rarely ordered to the "child".
>
>Correct. The "child" support in our case will continue to the ex wife and
>her
>hubby supposedly for a child that is away at school for 9 months out of the
>year. Sound like thats helping the child?

Not that I think this is right, but the child's NCP must be pretty well healed
for the courts to order this.

Mrs Indyguy
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Indyguy1]

Dave wrote:

>> Indyguy1 wrote:
>> > All good parents want the best for their kids, that's natural.
>> > You're bypassing the aspect of forcing one segment of society to
>> > pay for it while the rest of society is not required to do so. If
>> > it is so good and so necessary, why don't we just make it a
>> > requirement for all and be done with it?
>>
>> I'd have no problem with making supporting every child through
>> college, trade school, etc. mandatory for ALL parents. I do it now
>> and don't have a CO saying I have to.
>
>Let's work to change the laws, then. Let's make post-high school
>education compulsary and mandatory for all. The problem lies in only
>making it mandatory for some to pay for it while it's not mandatory for
>others. Part of the whole idea behind the United States of America is
>the idea that everybody is treated equally and no one has a burden
>placed on them, involuntarily, that others don't.
>
>While I would not support making it mandatory (I'd rather high schools
>get serious again, rather than add more time to get what the kids
>should be getting already), I would have less problem with a system
>like that than I would with the present inequitable system.

You know what I think would be an even better idea? Let's fight to get ride of
federal aid for students. That way fewer will be able to actually go to college
and a degree will no longer be the equivilent of the HS dipolma.

Lets get back to the way it was 30 years ago. You want to be a Dr. then you
need to go to college. Study hard, save and be at the top of your class and get
scholarships.You want to manage a retail store then work your way up through
the ranks.I think it's insane that you need a degree to manage a McDonalds. But
that is what it has come to.

Some people work REALLY hard all of their lives to send their kids to school.
Others just slide by knowing the feds will foot the bill for their kids post
secondary educations. Frankly I'm sick of supporting the lifestyles of people I
have never met in my life and probably never will.

Mrs Indyguy


>
>--
>There are always too many Democratic congressmen, too many Republican
>congressmen, and never enough U.S. congressmen.
> ~Author Unknown
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[The Dave©]

> Indyguy1 wrote:
> Nice to see you think helping adult children with college, if the CS
> is stopped, isn't half bad.

Can you point to any post, by anybody, that says it would be bad, or
even half-bad, if a person did continue to help with college?

I haven't read all of them myself, so maybe I missed one.

--
There are always too many Democratic congressmen, too many Republican
congressmen, and never enough U.S. congressmen.
~Author Unknown

[The Dave©]

> Indyguy1 wrote:
> I guess you're in the *toss em out at 18* group. Do you have children
> of your own? Is that what you will or did do with your own bio kids?

You keep going for the emotional argument and sidestepping the question
about unequal treatment for different parents. *Mandated* treatment,
not voluntary.

--
There are always too many Democratic congressmen, too many Republican
congressmen, and never enough U.S. congressmen.
~Author Unknown

[The Dave©]

> Indyguy1 wrote:
> >> > All good parents want the best for their kids, that's natural.
> >> > You're bypassing the aspect of forcing one segment of society to
> >> > pay for it while the rest of society is not required to do so.
> If >> > it is so good and so necessary, why don't we just make it a
> >> > requirement for all and be done with it?
> >>
> >> I'd have no problem with making supporting every child through
> >> college, trade school, etc. mandatory for ALL parents. I do it now
> >> and don't have a CO saying I have to.
> >
> > Let's work to change the laws, then. Let's make post-high school
> > education compulsary and mandatory for all. The problem lies in
> > only making it mandatory for some to pay for it while it's not
> > mandatory for others. Part of the whole idea behind the United
> > States of America is the idea that everybody is treated equally and
> > no one has a burden placed on them, involuntarily, that others
> > don't.
> >
> > While I would not support making it mandatory (I'd rather high
> > schools get serious again, rather than add more time to get what
> > the kids should be getting already), I would have less problem with
> > a system like that than I would with the present inequitable system.
>
> You know what I think would be an even better idea? Let's fight to
> get ride of federal aid for students. That way fewer will be able to
> actually go to college and a degree will no longer be the equivilent
> of the HS dipolma.
>
> Lets get back to the way it was 30 years ago. You want to be a Dr.
> then you need to go to college. Study hard, save and be at the top of
> your class and get scholarships.You want to manage a retail store
> then work your way up through the ranks.I think it's insane that you
> need a degree to manage a McDonalds. But that is what it has come to.

You and I are 100% together on this point. Not everything requires a
degree. All I could really do is repeat was you said, so I won't, but
we do agree on this one.

> Some people work REALLY hard all of their lives to send their kids to
> school. Others just slide by knowing the feds will foot the bill for
> their kids post secondary educations. Frankly I'm sick of supporting
> the lifestyles of people I have never met in my life and probably
> never will.

What ever happened to a kid having a job and working their way through
college? Maybe a few loans to help supplement would be fine, but the
system as it is now is just insane.

--
There are always too many Democratic congressmen, too many Republican
congressmen, and never enough U.S. congressmen.
~Author Unknown

[Indyguy1]

The Dave wrote:



>> Indyguy1 wrote:
>> I guess you're in the *toss em out at 18* group. Do you have children
>> of your own? Is that what you will or did do with your own bio kids?
>
>You keep going for the emotional argument and sidestepping the question
>about unequal treatment for different parents. *Mandated* treatment,
>not voluntary.

And CS is mandated too. I suppose that is unfair to you, as well. Let's just
let parents, that are no longer in their children's daily lives, pay what they
want and when they want, eh? Let them decide what is necessary and what is not.
Let them set their own prioities, so if dinner out with the new honey is more
important than the kids money for their gym uniforms, then so be it.

Dave you and many others on this ng are probably upstanding people that do the
right thing, problem is not everyone is like that.

It's the sins of the fathers (and the siblings) that dictate the need for such
laws.

Mrs Indyguy
(who hasn't seen one divorced paren,t yet, complain how federal aid is unfair
to married parents)


>
>--
>There are always too many Democratic congressmen, too many Republican
>congressmen, and never enough U.S. congressmen.
> ~Author Unknown
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Indyguy1]

The Dave wrote:

>> Indyguy1 wrote:
>> >> > All good parents want the best for their kids, that's natural.
>> >> > You're bypassing the aspect of forcing one segment of society to
>> >> > pay for it while the rest of society is not required to do so.
>> If >> > it is so good and so necessary, why don't we just make it a
>> >> > requirement for all and be done with it?
>> >>
>> >> I'd have no problem with making supporting every child through
>> >> college, trade school, etc. mandatory for ALL parents. I do it now
>> >> and don't have a CO saying I have to.
>> >
>> > Let's work to change the laws, then. Let's make post-high school
>> > education compulsary and mandatory for all. The problem lies in
>> > only making it mandatory for some to pay for it while it's not
>> > mandatory for others. Part of the whole idea behind the United
>> > States of America is the idea that everybody is treated equally and
>> > no one has a burden placed on them, involuntarily, that others
>> > don't.
>> >
>> > While I would not support making it mandatory (I'd rather high
>> > schools get serious again, rather than add more time to get what
>> > the kids should be getting already), I would have less problem with
>> > a system like that than I would with the present inequitable system.
>>
>> You know what I think would be an even better idea? Let's fight to
>> get ride of federal aid for students. That way fewer will be able to
>> actually go to college and a degree will no longer be the equivilent
>> of the HS dipolma.
>>
>> Lets get back to the way it was 30 years ago. You want to be a Dr.
>> then you need to go to college. Study hard, save and be at the top of
>> your class and get scholarships.You want to manage a retail store
>> then work your way up through the ranks.I think it's insane that you
>> need a degree to manage a McDonalds. But that is what it has come to.
>
>You and I are 100% together on this point. Not everything requires a
>degree. All I could really do is repeat was you said, so I won't, but
>we do agree on this one.

Nice to see I'm not alone in this line of thinking. :)

>
>> Some people work REALLY hard all of their lives to send their kids to
>> school. Others just slide by knowing the feds will foot the bill for
>> their kids post secondary educations. Frankly I'm sick of supporting
>> the lifestyles of people I have never met in my life and probably
>> never will.
>
>What ever happened to a kid having a job and working their way through
>college? Maybe a few loans to help supplement would be fine, but the
>system as it is now is just insane.

College and the cost of living are just too expensive now to be able to get a
degree in a reasonable amount of time and still fully support oneself. I don't
know of any job that will pay enough to do both at the same time and still give
the student enough time to work and attend classes.

My DH has a niece that can't find a decent job. She moved back here from a
southern state and has been underemployed for a year. We live in one of the
richest job markets in the country. She is 38 with only a HS diploma (but lots
of experience) and her compitition is young 20 somethings with degrees, for
postions such as sugery scheduler and medical office receptionist. I agree it
is insane.

Mrs Indyguy
>
>--
>There are always too many Democratic congressmen, too many Republican
>congressmen, and never enough U.S. congressmen.
> ~Author Unknown
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Indyguy1]

The Dave wrote:

>> Indyguy1 wrote:
>> Nice to see you think helping adult children with college, if the CS
>> is stopped, isn't half bad.
>
>Can you point to any post, by anybody, that says it would be bad, or
>even half-bad, if a person did continue to help with college?

If that is case, then I don't get all the fuss on this issue. Is it just a
control issue? NCPs would help but they just don't like the court order?

Gypsy and her DH are trying to fight it in court. Wouldn't that qualify as a
poster that doesn't want to help out the adult child?


>
>I haven't read all of them myself, so maybe I missed one.

Although few will come out and say it, if you read between the lines it's
there, alright.

Mrs Indyguy
>
>--
>There are always too many Democratic congressmen, too many Republican
>congressmen, and never enough U.S. congressmen.
> ~Author Unknown
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Gini]

In article >, Indyguy1 says...
>
>Gini wrote:
>
>>In article >, Indyguy1 says...
>>>
>>>Tracy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>> I see it as a shame that any parent has to be forced to help thier
>>>>children
>>>>> attain an education.
>>>>
>>>>So do I, especially when they can't really afford it.
>>>
>>>If someone earns very little their EFC will be low or non existent. For
>>those
>>>that earn middle of the road there are PLUS loans.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I pitty the parents that don't help, when they have the means to help. I
>>>>bet it
>>>>> will be awfully lonely in that nursing home in their golden years.
>>>>
>>>>With all due respect, but a person shouldn't hold a grudge against their
>>>>parents like that. It would be a real sad world to live in when adult
>>>>children act like that.
>>>
>>>Depends on the circumstances. If your parent left, remarried, paid for all
>>his
>>>*new* children to go to college, but told you no way, just how would you
>>feel
>>>when they were old and ill and since their 2nd wife and her kids had no time
>>>for him so he called you? This happened to a friend of mine. She wished her
>>>father well and suggeted he calls his 2nd wife's children since he was there
>>>for them and not her.
>>>
>>>I don't think she was bitter. I think she was there for her father as much
>>as
>>>he was there for her.
>>>
>>> Some "adult" children expect their parents to be
>>>>walking wallets. It is not only NCPs or CPs. This type of attitude
>>happens
>>>>in intact families too.
>>>
>>>This type exists, but they aren't who we are talking about.
>>>
>>> A parent having choices, and options, is not
>>>>unreasonable.
>>>
>>>Gee silly me. I always thought most parents, when given the choice or
>>option,
>>>would like to see their children succeed in life
>>====
>>Ah c'mon, Indy! You know success is not defined by whether a parent helped
>>with
>>college expenses. It requires first, ability, drive, motivation,
>>self-discipline
>>and being at the right place at the right time.
>
>Of course all the things you list are a part of success. Those are the things
>the young person should possess. But without the ability to attend college many
>many fields where the child could be successful would be unatainable.
===
The ability to attend college does *not* hinge on whether the parents help. I
had no parental help. My husband had no parental help. We did help our kids but
they didn't need much after grants and academic scholarships. Neither step had
to pay tuition. We provided room and board for my stepson, help with car
expenses and medical insurance and incidentals for my stepdaughter. Both kids
had part-time jobs in college.
===
===

[Bob Whiteside]

"Gini" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Indyguy1
says...
> >
> >Tracy wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>> I see it as a shame that any parent has to be forced to help thier
> >>children
> >>> attain an education.
> >>
> >>So do I, especially when they can't really afford it.
> >
> >If someone earns very little their EFC will be low or non existent. For
those
> >that earn middle of the road there are PLUS loans.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> I pitty the parents that don't help, when they have the means to help.
I
> >>bet it
> >>> will be awfully lonely in that nursing home in their golden years.
> >>
> >>With all due respect, but a person shouldn't hold a grudge against their
> >>parents like that. It would be a real sad world to live in when adult
> >>children act like that.
> >
> >Depends on the circumstances. If your parent left, remarried, paid for
all his
> >*new* children to go to college, but told you no way, just how would you
feel
> >when they were old and ill and since their 2nd wife and her kids had no
time
> >for him so he called you? This happened to a friend of mine. She wished
her
> >father well and suggeted he calls his 2nd wife's children since he was
there
> >for them and not her.
> >
> >I don't think she was bitter. I think she was there for her father as
much as
> >he was there for her.
> >
> > Some "adult" children expect their parents to be
> >>walking wallets. It is not only NCPs or CPs. This type of attitude
happens
> >>in intact families too.
> >
> >This type exists, but they aren't who we are talking about.
> >
> > A parent having choices, and options, is not
> >>unreasonable.
> >
> >Gee silly me. I always thought most parents, when given the choice or
option,
> >would like to see their children succeed in life
> ====
> Ah c'mon, Indy! You know success is not defined by whether a parent helped
with
> college expenses. It requires first, ability, drive, motivation,
self-discipline
> and being at the right place at the right time.
> ====

Those are the child's characteristics that predict their success.

More important are the parental actions and attitudes that foster the
child's development of the success characteristics. Some of the factors I
have in mind are: being actively involved in the child's education process,
encouraging the child to excel throughout all of their schooling leading up
to college, providing information about the importance of getting a good
education, showing interest in the child's academic progress, explaining the
economic factors of having a college degree vs. not having one, providing
the child with encouragement to attend college, assisting the child in
understanding the financial aspects of college funding and financial aid,
helping the child complete the Free Application for Federal Student Aid,
etc.

[The Dave©]

> Indyguy1 wrote:
> >> Nice to see you think helping adult children with college, if the
> CS >> is stopped, isn't half bad.
> >
> > Can you point to any post, by anybody, that says it would be bad, or
> > even half-bad, if a person did continue to help with college?
>
> If that is case, then I don't get all the fuss on this issue. Is it
> just a control issue? NCPs would help but they just don't like the
> court order?
>
> Gypsy and her DH are trying to fight it in court. Wouldn't that
> qualify as a poster that doesn't want to help out the adult child?

Maybe it's just me, but I see a major difference between wanting to
help and being told that you have to help and have no choice. Now, as
I haven't read everything here, I cannot comment on her case
specifically, but I can see where someone would want to fight the
principle of the thing while still choosing to help. I see it as a
very basic unfairness... being told that you must do something that
your next door neighbor is not being told they must do... and the only
reason for the disparity is whether or not the parents stayed together
or not. What kind of a standard is that to base anything on? My moral
filter tells me that's just plain wrong. Morally and ethically wrong.

--
Q. Why do Hell's Angels wear leather?
A. Because chiffon wrinkles too easily.
~ Paul Lynde, on Hollywood Squares

[The Dave©]

> Indyguy1 wrote:
> >> I guess you're in the *toss em out at 18* group. Do you have
> children >> of your own? Is that what you will or did do with your
> own bio kids?
> >
> > You keep going for the emotional argument and sidestepping the
> > question about unequal treatment for different parents. Mandated
> > treatment, not voluntary.
>
> And CS is mandated too. I suppose that is unfair to you, as well.
> Let's just let parents, that are no longer in their children's daily
> lives, pay what they want and when they want, eh? Let them decide
> what is necessary and what is not. Let them set their own prioities,
> so if dinner out with the new honey is more important than the kids
> money for their gym uniforms, then so be it.
>
> Dave you and many others on this ng are probably upstanding people
> that do the right thing, problem is not everyone is like that.
>
> It's the sins of the fathers (and the siblings) that dictate the need
> for such laws.
>
> Mrs Indyguy
> (who hasn't seen one divorced paren,t yet, complain how federal aid
> is unfair to married parents)

You're putting words in my mouth that I did not say or imply. CS is
mandated, and for kids under 18, that's fine. There is no law anywhere
(that I'm aware of) that says a still-married parent *must* continue to
support a kid after they turn 18. That's the difference. Under 18,
over 18. Unmarried, still-married. The standards should be equal.

--
Q. Why do Hell's Angels wear leather?
A. Because chiffon wrinkles too easily.
~ Paul Lynde, on Hollywood Squares

[P.Fritz]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
>> Indyguy1 wrote:
>> >> I guess you're in the *toss em out at 18* group. Do you have
>> children >> of your own? Is that what you will or did do with your
>> own bio kids?
>> >
>> > You keep going for the emotional argument and sidestepping the
>> > question about unequal treatment for different parents. Mandated
>> > treatment, not voluntary.
>>
>> And CS is mandated too. I suppose that is unfair to you, as well.
>> Let's just let parents, that are no longer in their children's daily
>> lives, pay what they want and when they want, eh? Let them decide
>> what is necessary and what is not. Let them set their own prioities,
>> so if dinner out with the new honey is more important than the kids
>> money for their gym uniforms, then so be it.
>>
>> Dave you and many others on this ng are probably upstanding people
>> that do the right thing, problem is not everyone is like that.
>>
>> It's the sins of the fathers (and the siblings) that dictate the need
>> for such laws.
>>
>> Mrs Indyguy
>> (who hasn't seen one divorced paren,t yet, complain how federal aid
>> is unfair to married parents)
>
> You're putting words in my mouth that I did not say or imply. CS is
> mandated, and for kids under 18, that's fine. There is no law anywhere
> (that I'm aware of) that says a still-married parent *must* continue to
> support a kid after they turn 18. That's the difference. Under 18,
> over 18. Unmarried, still-married. The standards should be equal.

She doesn't get it.....college tuition would not be where it is today had
the fed. guvmint kept their nose out of it in the first place.


>
> --
> Q. Why do Hell's Angels wear leather?
> A. Because chiffon wrinkles too easily.
> ~ Paul Lynde, on Hollywood Squares

[Bob Whiteside]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> > Indyguy1 wrote:
> > I guess you're in the *toss em out at 18* group. Do you have children
> > of your own? Is that what you will or did do with your own bio kids?
>
> You keep going for the emotional argument and sidestepping the question
> about unequal treatment for different parents. *Mandated* treatment,
> not voluntary.

Here is what the Oregon Supreme Court said about both of those issues in a
recent challenge to the child attending school support law.

Regarding unequal treatment - "The equal privileges and immunities clause
(the 14th Amendment) scrutinizes benefits in the form of privileges and
immunities given to a particular class, rather than discrimination against a
particular class." The problem, as I see it, is divorced fathers are the
challengers to the post-secondary education CS laws and they receive no
special privileges. To follow the Supremes legal logic a married couple
would have to challenge the adult child CS law claiming the children of
unmarried parents are getting more financial support from the state. That,
of course, will never happen.

Regarding the different treatment of parents - "The legislature has the
authority to enact legislation regarding marriage, divorce, and paternity,
as well as parental support of and education duties towards children." What
follows is the legal conclusion the legislature has a rational basis for
requiring divorced parents to provide post-secondary support and the legal
authority to require it.

I don't like it anymore than anyone else. But those are the legal
distinctions driving these laws.

[Bob Whiteside]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> > Indyguy1 wrote:
> > >> I guess you're in the *toss em out at 18* group. Do you have
> > children >> of your own? Is that what you will or did do with your
> > own bio kids?
> > >
> > > You keep going for the emotional argument and sidestepping the
> > > question about unequal treatment for different parents. Mandated
> > > treatment, not voluntary.
> >
> > And CS is mandated too. I suppose that is unfair to you, as well.
> > Let's just let parents, that are no longer in their children's daily
> > lives, pay what they want and when they want, eh? Let them decide
> > what is necessary and what is not. Let them set their own prioities,
> > so if dinner out with the new honey is more important than the kids
> > money for their gym uniforms, then so be it.
> >
> > Dave you and many others on this ng are probably upstanding people
> > that do the right thing, problem is not everyone is like that.
> >
> > It's the sins of the fathers (and the siblings) that dictate the need
> > for such laws.
> >
> > Mrs Indyguy
> > (who hasn't seen one divorced paren,t yet, complain how federal aid
> > is unfair to married parents)
>
> You're putting words in my mouth that I did not say or imply. CS is
> mandated, and for kids under 18, that's fine. There is no law anywhere
> (that I'm aware of) that says a still-married parent *must* continue to
> support a kid after they turn 18. That's the difference. Under 18,
> over 18. Unmarried, still-married. The standards should be equal.

There are laws requiring married parents to support their over 18 children.
One example would be a married couple not living together either by choice
or by legal separation. They can use the CS guidelines to determine a
support obligation while they are still married.

These laws are used by the state AG to argue married parents can also be
compelled to provide post-secondary education support for their children, so
therefore, unmarried parents are not a special class.

[The Dave©]

> Bob Whiteside wrote:
> There are laws requiring married parents to support their over 18
> children. One example would be a married couple not living together
> either by choice or by legal separation. They can use the CS
> guidelines to determine a support obligation while they are still
> married.
>
> These laws are used by the state AG to argue married parents can also
> be compelled to provide post-secondary education support for their
> children, so therefore, unmarried parents are not a special class.

Ok, I don't know every nuance, but the basic point still stands.

--
Q. Why do Hell's Angels wear leather?
A. Because chiffon wrinkles too easily.
~ Paul Lynde, on Hollywood Squares

[The Dave©]

> Bob Whiteside wrote:

>
> "The Dave)" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Indyguy1 wrote:
> > > I guess you're in the *toss em out at 18* group. Do you have
> > > children of your own? Is that what you will or did do with your
> > > own bio kids?
> >
> > You keep going for the emotional argument and sidestepping the
> > question about unequal treatment for different parents. Mandated
> > treatment, not voluntary.
>
> Here is what the Oregon Supreme Court said about both of those issues
> in a recent challenge to the child attending school support law.
>
> Regarding unequal treatment - "The equal privileges and immunities
> clause (the 14th Amendment) scrutinizes benefits in the form of
> privileges and immunities given to a particular class, rather than
> discrimination against a particular class." The problem, as I see
> it, is divorced fathers are the challengers to the post-secondary
> education CS laws and they receive no special privileges. To follow
> the Supremes legal logic a married couple would have to challenge the
> adult child CS law claiming the children of unmarried parents are
> getting more financial support from the state. That, of course, will
> never happen.

We really are weenies, aren't we? As a group, I mean. The concept can
be clearly wrong, but as long as we're not the one taking it up the
tailpipe, or worse, if we are soemhow benefitting from it, we won't say
a word.

> Regarding the different treatment of parents - "The legislature has
> the authority to enact legislation regarding marriage, divorce, and
> paternity, as well as parental support of and education duties
> towards children." What follows is the legal conclusion the
> legislature has a rational basis for requiring divorced parents to
> provide post-secondary support and the legal authority to require it.
>
> I don't like it anymore than anyone else. But those are the legal
> distinctions driving these laws.

It's been set-up to allow them to get away with it, but it's still
morally and ethically wrong. In my own humble opinion, of course.

--
Q. Why do Hell's Angels wear leather?
A. Because chiffon wrinkles too easily.
~ Paul Lynde, on Hollywood Squares

[GudGye11]

Don't you mean...you're sick of your HUSBAND supporting lifestyles of people
you've never met?

I thought you were a SAH Mom...

:-)

In article >,
(Indyguy1) writes:

<snip>

>Frankly I'm sick of supporting the lifestyles of people I
>have never met in my life and probably never will.
>
>Mrs Indyguy

[GudGye11]

That's because the consideration is given to someone because of low economic
status, NOT because of simply their marital status. Big difference in my book.
In other words, had both divorced parents been better off financially, the
same rules and thus the same benefits would apply as to married persons with
the same incomes.

Gud


In article >,
(Indyguy1) writes:

>Bob wrote:
>
><snip to>
>
>> In fact, when you consider the
>>primary parent has a lower income and the NCP is ordered to pay education
>>support, the children of divorced parents are better off. They get lower
>>EFC's, and their eligibility for grants, loans, and other financial aid
>>provides them with additional college expenses sources not available to
>>children in intact marriages.
>
>I don't hear any divorced parents complaining about that UNEQUAL treatment.
>
>Mrs Indyguy

[GudGye11]

Sure...why not?

Married people basically are allowed that right, to pay for what and when they
want with no adverse treatment from the government. Married people get to
decide what's necessary and what is not. Married people can set their own
priorities, even to the point of having a "new honey" on the side, but until
there's a divorce there's not a whit of interference by the government.

You see...here's the real deal...

It's amazing how during my nearly nine-year marriage, not one single person,
from the goverment to anyone on down, ever once questioned whether I was
supporting my children...financially, emotionally, spiritually or whatever.
Then all of a sudden...along comes a divorce and right away the governement
deems it necessary to completely oversee the amount of money I pay for child
support. What happened to make this so? It's not the fact that the government
questioned my ability to provide for my children. As I said, they never did
that during my entire marriage. It was simply a means by which the government
could legally garnish my wages for purposes of providing an income stream to my
ex-wife, tax-free, over a period of about 12 years. Yet to go even further,
it's not even about being divorced, because the government has NEVER questioned
my ex, NEVER requested her to account for what SHE spends on our
children...EVER. It's as if the government is automatically assuming, in the
wake of our divorce, that I'm automatically irresponsible and my ex isn't, when
in fact it might just be the other way around!

Let's not play these silly games and look at child support as anything but a
means by which one parent can suck a tax-free monthly income from the other.
It's just that simple.


In article >,
(Indyguy1) writes:

>And CS is mandated too. I suppose that is unfair to you, as well. Let's just
>let parents, that are no longer in their children's daily lives, pay what
>they
>want and when they want, eh? Let them decide what is necessary and what is
>not.
>Let them set their own prioities, so if dinner out with the new honey is more
>important than the kids money for their gym uniforms, then so be it.

<snip>

[Bob Whiteside]

"GudGye11" > wrote in message
...
> That's because the consideration is given to someone because of low
economic
> status, NOT because of simply their marital status. Big difference in my
book.
> In other words, had both divorced parents been better off financially,
the
> same rules and thus the same benefits would apply as to married persons
with
> the same incomes.

That's not how the Congress set up college financial aid. When parents are
divorced the student only declares their own income and their CP's income.
CS received is an add-on to the CP's income. The NCP's income is excluded.
That means the income comparison between married and unmarried parents
favors the child of unmarried parents because the income declaration is much
lower.

[Gypsy0005]

>
>There is a HUGE differance between having a child take on a couple of
>thousand
>dollars a year in loans and coming up with over 10k a year.

There is also a HUGE difference between having the right to sit down with the
kids and discuss their options along with your financial ability to help and
being told by the courts after the fact that you will pay X dollars AND
continue to send support to the ex in the name of child support.

>I guess you're in the *toss em out at 18* group. Do you have children of your
>own? Is that what you will or did do with your own bio kids?
>

I am in the "18 and you are an adult group. I believe that CHILD support
should cease at age 18 and that college tuition and expenses should be left
between the parents and the child and the courts should keep their noses out of
it.
I have 5 children ages 10 to 31. All were given the same options at age 18.
Stay in school and you can live at home. If you chose to go away to school you
will need to work and take student loans to help defray the costs. Quit school
and you have the option to get up every morning and go to work full time
contributing to the household expenses or you can live anywhere else that you
choose. One son is a computer network engineer ( a school he put himself
through with a little financial help from us) 1 daughter is a business owner
(dog grooming) no college for her, 1 son in sales thinking of taking some
college courses to find new profession and the 21 yr old is home, working full
time and paying her bills. The 10 yr old we allow to live here rent free
because she is still in 4th grade full time!

[Gypsy0005]

>You keep going for the emotional argument and sidestepping the question
>>about unequal treatment for different parents. *Mandated* treatment,
>>not voluntary.

Thats because there is no valid reason for this. The courts are wrong. The
only way to answer this arguement is to get off topic and muddy the waters
hoping to confuse the issue.

>And CS is mandated too. I suppose that is unfair to you

Child support for CHILDREN under the age of 18 is a necessary evil.
Unfortunately there are NCP's that would not contribute to their children
unless mandated by the courts. I do feel that all too often the amounts are
way out of whack, but thats another topic. Even in an intact marriage parents
are forced by law to provide for their children until they reach the age of
18...no unequal treatment there. Age 18 is the age of majority. You can sign
contracts, join the service, vote, etc. Mandatory support for an ADULT ordered
by the courts for only one segment of the population is WRONG and immoral.

[Gypsy0005]

>
>Gypsy and her DH are trying to fight it in court. Wouldn't that qualify as a
>poster that doesn't want to help out the adult child?

Yes we are fighting it in court. We are fighting it on the basis that it is
unfair and a financial burden to us. You see my husband has paid a pretty
steep amount every week for the last 12 yrs to an ex wife and her new hubby.
the ex wife refuses to work (guess its beneath her) and in the courts eyes her
new hubby's income doesnt count. So in a shared income state such as NJ my
husband has been held to almost 100% of the amount the courts feel is required
to support these children. The youngest are now 19 and 17 and we can no longer
afford to juggle finances and borrow yet more money to stay afloat. If these
kids lived with us they would be facing the same harsh reality, DAD IS NOT MADE
OF MONEY!. Unlike an intact family where both parents contribute to the college
fund or any other things the kids need we have sent money for all these yrs so
the ex can drive a new car, move to a new house and buy herself new
clothes(this one we heard from the current hubby). We can no longer afford to
throw money down this black hole when little of it goes to the kids.

[Gypsy0005]

>Maybe it's just me, but I see a major difference between wanting to
>help and being told that you have to help and have no choice

The other main issue we have with our case and the one that will help us the
most is that this 19 yr old young lady has not spoken to her father in 10 years
and wants absolutely nothing to do with him. Her mother poisioned the children
from day one and have totally alienated the youngest 2 from their father. In
NJ the courts actually recognize this as a valid reason to cease support for
college. The courts have actually said that these children can no longer treat
these fathers as "walking wallets". So I guess we must be really, really
correct on this one when the courts even agree.

[Gypsy0005]

>
>Not that I think this is right, but the child's NCP must be pretty well
>healed
>for the courts to order this.

My husband and I are both working stiffs. No great big income and no fancy
house or cars. There is no magic $$ figure the courts use to decide if you
have to support kids after 18. The support was always sent to the CP under the
pretense that they had to "maintain a household" for the child while they were
in college. Recent case law on that issue has changed that a bit. There is
case law supporting reducing the support to reflect the 3 months of the year
that the student is actually living with the CP. Slowly the courts are opening
their eyes to the inequity that exists. A few more steps in this direction and
a few more Appellate wins and we might actually be on a level playing field.

[Tracy]

"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
> Tracy wrote:
>
> >"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> I see it as a shame that any parent has to be forced to help thier
> >children
> >> attain an education.
> >
> >So do I, especially when they can't really afford it.
>
> If someone earns very little their EFC will be low or non existent. For
those
> that earn middle of the road there are PLUS loans.

When my son went to college I was not required to apply for any PLUS loans.
He lived with me, and therefore "my" contribution was satisfied. The only
difference was that I had a choice in the matter because he didn't force me
to pay for his education directly. He was willing to take loans & work to
pay for it himself. He was also willing to work with me instead of throwing
a fit and forcing me to do something he really knew I could't afford -
regardless of what the government believes.

> >> I pitty the parents that don't help, when they have the means to help.
I
> >bet it
> >> will be awfully lonely in that nursing home in their golden years.
> >
> >With all due respect, but a person shouldn't hold a grudge against their
> >parents like that. It would be a real sad world to live in when adult
> >children act like that.
>
> Depends on the circumstances. If your parent left, remarried, paid for all
his
> *new* children to go to college, but told you no way, just how would you
feel
> when they were old and ill and since their 2nd wife and her kids had no
time
> for him so he called you? This happened to a friend of mine. She wished
her
> father well and suggeted he calls his 2nd wife's children since he was
there
> for them and not her.

Been there and I don't hold any grudges. I am still paying on my student
loans. Personally I would have felt really weird to have my father, or any
person in my family, pay for my education since it was my choice to attend.
But then that was how I was raised - to be responsible for myself. Anything
anyone has provided me along my journey has been appriciated, but never
expected. Just like my wedding recently - I never expected anything. I
even mentioned to my guests in the invitations to not give gifts. Instead
they were asked to bring a dish of food to share, like a pot-luck. Just
being there was more important to my husband & I then receiving gifts. Even
the party afterwards was primarily paid by us. Any guests that followed
were treated to an open bar tab. Some guests refused to allow us to pay for
their drinks. Some guests gave gifts too. But it was our wishes to be
surrounded by family and friends rather than receiving something for our
choice.

A recent answered letter in Money magazine even mentioned that more couples
are paying for weddings themselves instead of expecting the bride's family
to pay for it. I know weddings are different than college education, but
the article was an answer to a mother's letter concerning her daughter and
how her father & step-mother were not contributing like they did for the
step-mother's daughters. I found the answer interesting and related it to
this group. The biological mother was contributing what she could. The
biological father was matching the mother, but not letting his current wife
(the step-mother) know of the arrangement. The daughter & her fiance was
financing the rest on their own. Only the biological mother had a real
issue with the arrangement.


> I don't think she was bitter. I think she was there for her father as much
as
> he was there for her.
>
> Some "adult" children expect their parents to be
> >walking wallets. It is not only NCPs or CPs. This type of attitude
happens
> >in intact families too.
>
> This type exists, but they aren't who we are talking about.

The only way to garentee that this is not the case is by allowing choices.
This way both parents can work with their child and use reason.

> A parent having choices, and options, is not
> >unreasonable.
>
> Gee silly me. I always thought most parents, when given the choice or
option,
> would like to see their children succeed in life

A higher education does not always garentee success in life. I know plenty
of people who were successful without a degree, and likewise - I know plenty
of people who were not successful with a degree. It depends on how one
applies themselves. The degree only helps by improving the odds. It does
not garentee anything.


Tracy
~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/

[Bob Whiteside]

"Gypsy0005" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >Not that I think this is right, but the child's NCP must be pretty well
> >healed
> >for the courts to order this.
>
> My husband and I are both working stiffs. No great big income and no
fancy
> house or cars. There is no magic $$ figure the courts use to decide if
you
> have to support kids after 18. The support was always sent to the CP
under the
> pretense that they had to "maintain a household" for the child while they
were
> in college. Recent case law on that issue has changed that a bit. There
is
> case law supporting reducing the support to reflect the 3 months of the
year
> that the student is actually living with the CP. Slowly the courts are
opening
> their eyes to the inequity that exists. A few more steps in this
direction and
> a few more Appellate wins and we might actually be on a level playing
field.

Here are a couple of things for you to check out to see if they apply in
your case.

First, check the language in the court order. If it says the CP is awarded
custody of the minor children, and there is no court order language
detailing how post-18 tax consequences will be handled, you can file your
taxes claiming the child as a tax exemption if you meet the IRS support
test, i.e. pay for over 50% of the child's expenses. When a child is living
at school and the CS goes to pay room and board expenses 9 months per year,
it is easy to claim the exemption.

Second, check to see how your state defines CS and post-18 CS. In my state
up to 18 CS is defined as being for the "care and maintenance" of the child.
Then the post-18 CS is defined as being for "advancing the state's interest
in an educated populace." Just in case you are not able to reduce or stop
the CS you will be in a position to argue the CS money needs to go directly
to the child to insure the state's interest (or whatever your state laws
says) is achieved.

[Gini]

In article >, Gypsy0005 says...
>
>>You keep going for the emotional argument and sidestepping the question
>>>about unequal treatment for different parents. *Mandated* treatment,
>>>not voluntary.
>
>Thats because there is no valid reason for this. The courts are wrong. The
>only way to answer this arguement is to get off topic and muddy the waters
>hoping to confuse the issue.
>
>>And CS is mandated too. I suppose that is unfair to you
>
>Child support for CHILDREN under the age of 18 is a necessary evil.
>Unfortunately there are NCP's that would not contribute to their children
>unless mandated by the courts. I do feel that all too often the amounts are
>way out of whack, but thats another topic. Even in an intact marriage parents
>are forced by law to provide for their children until they reach the age of
>18...no unequal treatment there.
====
On the contrary--Parents in intact homes are not required by law to spend a
percentage of their income on their children--Nor are custodial parents. The
only parent mandated by law to do so is the NCP.
====
====

[Bob Whiteside]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Gypsy0005" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > >Not that I think this is right, but the child's NCP must be pretty well
> > >healed
> > >for the courts to order this.
> >
> > My husband and I are both working stiffs. No great big income and no
> fancy
> > house or cars. There is no magic $$ figure the courts use to decide if
> you
> > have to support kids after 18. The support was always sent to the CP
> under the
> > pretense that they had to "maintain a household" for the child while
they
> were
> > in college. Recent case law on that issue has changed that a bit. There
> is
> > case law supporting reducing the support to reflect the 3 months of the
> year
> > that the student is actually living with the CP. Slowly the courts are
> opening
> > their eyes to the inequity that exists. A few more steps in this
> direction and
> > a few more Appellate wins and we might actually be on a level playing
> field.
>
> Here are a couple of things for you to check out to see if they apply in
> your case.
>
> First, check the language in the court order. If it says the CP is
awarded
> custody of the minor children, and there is no court order language
> detailing how post-18 tax consequences will be handled, you can file your
> taxes claiming the child as a tax exemption if you meet the IRS support
> test, i.e. pay for over 50% of the child's expenses. When a child is
living
> at school and the CS goes to pay room and board expenses 9 months per
year,
> it is easy to claim the exemption.
>
> Second, check to see how your state defines CS and post-18 CS. In my
state
> up to 18 CS is defined as being for the "care and maintenance" of the
child.
> Then the post-18 CS is defined as being for "advancing the state's
interest
> in an educated populace." Just in case you are not able to reduce or stop
> the CS you will be in a position to argue the CS money needs to go
directly
> to the child to insure the state's interest (or whatever your state laws
> says) is achieved.

I forgot to mention, if you are eligible to take the child as an exemption,
you are automatically entitled to all the education tax credits for the
total expenditures by both parents up to the IRS limits. This includes
expenditures over and above whatever the CS covers. and this precludes the
child's mother from claiming the education tax credits and another other tax
benefits associated with the exemption.

[AZ Astrea]

"GudGye11" > wrote in message
...
> It's lonely for a lot of parents in nursing homes even today, and I'll
betcha
> some of those parents stuck in those homes are ones who DID pay for their
kids'
> college educations...
-----------
The "who will take care of you when you are old" argument is one of the
lamest. Who will? The nurses and nurse assistants hired to do so will. I
worked for a while as an NA and I can tell you that out of the 60+ patients
I took care of I can remember only 2 that had a relative in to see them more
than once a month. And 1 of those it was the husband that came to see his
wife. The other was a little lady who was well cared for by her family.
They did her laundry and she had personal sheets and clothes that were
lovely. That was nice to see.

I would bet over 98% of the time 'the kids' are not the ones taking care of
their parents.

~AZ~

>
>
> In article >,

> (Indyguy1) writes:
>
> >I pitty the parents that don't help, when they have the means to help. I
bet
> >it
> >will be awfully lonely in that nursing home in their golden years.
> >
> >Mrs Indyguy
>
>

[AZ Astrea]

"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
> The Dave wrote:
>
> >> Indyguy1 wrote:
> >> >> > All good parents want the best for their kids, that's natural.
> >> >> > You're bypassing the aspect of forcing one segment of society to
> >> >> > pay for it while the rest of society is not required to do so.
> >> If >> > it is so good and so necessary, why don't we just make it a
> >> >> > requirement for all and be done with it?
> >> >>
> >> >> I'd have no problem with making supporting every child through
> >> >> college, trade school, etc. mandatory for ALL parents. I do it now
> >> >> and don't have a CO saying I have to.
> >> >
> >> > Let's work to change the laws, then. Let's make post-high school
> >> > education compulsary and mandatory for all. The problem lies in
> >> > only making it mandatory for some to pay for it while it's not
> >> > mandatory for others. Part of the whole idea behind the United
> >> > States of America is the idea that everybody is treated equally and
> >> > no one has a burden placed on them, involuntarily, that others
> >> > don't.
> >> >
> >> > While I would not support making it mandatory (I'd rather high
> >> > schools get serious again, rather than add more time to get what
> >> > the kids should be getting already), I would have less problem with
> >> > a system like that than I would with the present inequitable system.
> >>
> >> You know what I think would be an even better idea? Let's fight to
> >> get ride of federal aid for students. That way fewer will be able to
> >> actually go to college and a degree will no longer be the equivilent
> >> of the HS dipolma.
> >>
> >> Lets get back to the way it was 30 years ago. You want to be a Dr.
> >> then you need to go to college. Study hard, save and be at the top of
> >> your class and get scholarships.You want to manage a retail store
> >> then work your way up through the ranks.I think it's insane that you
> >> need a degree to manage a McDonalds. But that is what it has come to.
> >
> >You and I are 100% together on this point. Not everything requires a
> >degree. All I could really do is repeat was you said, so I won't, but
> >we do agree on this one.
>
> Nice to see I'm not alone in this line of thinking. :)
>
> >
> >> Some people work REALLY hard all of their lives to send their kids to
> >> school. Others just slide by knowing the feds will foot the bill for
> >> their kids post secondary educations. Frankly I'm sick of supporting
> >> the lifestyles of people I have never met in my life and probably
> >> never will.
------------
I too agree that I don't want to support other people's kids, (er, make that
any kids since I don't have any), whether it be for their college educations
or like Indy said for welfare. I'm going to have to check but I thought my
friend said that when she finally started working as an atty that the state
required she pay back the welfare she received. I could be totally wrong.
I will ask her and post it to the group.
-------------
> >
> >What ever happened to a kid having a job and working their way through
> >college? Maybe a few loans to help supplement would be fine, but the
> >system as it is now is just insane.
>
> College and the cost of living are just too expensive now to be able to
get a
> degree in a reasonable amount of time and still fully support oneself. I
don't
> know of any job that will pay enough to do both at the same time and still
give
> the student enough time to work and attend classes.
------------
That's not necessarily true. My bestfriend who has 4 kids first went to
school to become a respiratory therapist. That paid so well she only had to
work part time while she continued with her college education. She is on
her last semester of law school! I'm so proud of her. She does owe a
fortune in student loans. But this is normal. My partner has two different
degrees and it took nearly ten years to pay off the loans but it was done.
-------------
>
> My DH has a niece that can't find a decent job. She moved back here from a
> southern state and has been underemployed for a year. We live in one of
the
> richest job markets in the country. She is 38 with only a HS diploma (but
lots
> of experience) and her compitition is young 20 somethings with degrees,
for
> postions such as sugery scheduler and medical office receptionist. I agree
it
> is insane.
------------
I don't think my friend is smarter than most(yeah she is), but she knew what
she wanted to accomplish and had a plan. She knew she could earn good $ as
a RT and only have to work part time so she could finish school. So that
was her plan and she did it. Was it easy? Hell no! But she is finally
reaching her goal and all of her kids are doing great.

~AZ~

>
> Mrs Indyguy
> >
> >--
> >There are always too many Democratic congressmen, too many Republican
> >congressmen, and never enough U.S. congressmen.
> > ~Author Unknown
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[AZ Astrea]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> > Indyguy1 wrote:
> > >> Nice to see you think helping adult children with college, if the
> > CS >> is stopped, isn't half bad.
> > >
> > > Can you point to any post, by anybody, that says it would be bad, or
> > > even half-bad, if a person did continue to help with college?
> >
> > If that is case, then I don't get all the fuss on this issue. Is it
> > just a control issue? NCPs would help but they just don't like the
> > court order?
> >
> > Gypsy and her DH are trying to fight it in court. Wouldn't that
> > qualify as a poster that doesn't want to help out the adult child?
>
> Maybe it's just me, but I see a major difference between wanting to
> help and being told that you have to help and have no choice.
--------------
And under the threat of prison.
---------
Now, as
> I haven't read everything here, I cannot comment on her case
> specifically, but I can see where someone would want to fight the
> principle of the thing while still choosing to help. I see it as a
> very basic unfairness... being told that you must do something that
> your next door neighbor is not being told they must do... and the only
> reason for the disparity is whether or not the parents stayed together
> or not. What kind of a standard is that to base anything on? My moral
> filter tells me that's just plain wrong. Morally and ethically wrong.
-------------
There are many reasons parents may decide to not help their kid with
college. I can think of dozens of kids that were estranged from their
parents when they became college age. Many, many kids who were just plain
bad kids and no person should be forced to send such to college. I'm sure
that if those kids thought they could force their parents into supporting
them through college they would jump on it! Of course they would probably
only last a year or so at the most being the real reason they would be going
is to live on the dole while they partied their brains out.

I doubt that of the families, intact or not, where there was a loving,
supporting relationship between the parents and the child and the child
wanted to attend college, and the parents were able to afford it, that they
wouldn't choose to help. But not all situations are that 'Beaver
Cleaverish', (gah!). And I don't think anyone should be forced to pay
anything for a person who is 18. They are an adult,(yeah I know we have had
this argument here many times).

~AZ~
>
> --
> Q. Why do Hell's Angels wear leather?
> A. Because chiffon wrinkles too easily.
> ~ Paul Lynde, on Hollywood Squares

[AZ Astrea]

"Gypsy0005" > wrote in message
...
> >Maybe it's just me, but I see a major difference between wanting to
> >help and being told that you have to help and have no choice
>
> The other main issue we have with our case and the one that will help us
the
> most is that this 19 yr old young lady has not spoken to her father in 10
years
> and wants absolutely nothing to do with him. Her mother poisioned the
children
> from day one and have totally alienated the youngest 2 from their father.
In
> NJ the courts actually recognize this as a valid reason to cease support
for
> college. The courts have actually said that these children can no longer
treat
> these fathers as "walking wallets". So I guess we must be really, really
> correct on this one when the courts even agree.
------------
Wow! That's very cool! I wonder if Washington state has anything like
that?

~AZ~

[P.Fritz]

"Gypsy0005" > wrote in message
...
> >
>>There is a HUGE differance between having a child take on a couple of
>>thousand
>>dollars a year in loans and coming up with over 10k a year.
>
> There is also a HUGE difference between having the right to sit down with
> the
> kids and discuss their options along with your financial ability to help
> and
> being told by the courts after the fact that you will pay X dollars AND
> continue to send support to the ex in the name of child support.
>
>>I guess you're in the *toss em out at 18* group. Do you have children of
>>your
>>own? Is that what you will or did do with your own bio kids?
>>
>
> I am in the "18 and you are an adult group. I believe that CHILD support
> should cease at age 18 and that college tuition and expenses should be
> left
> between the parents and the child and the courts should keep their noses
> out of
> it.

Not to mention the degree an adult child chooses to pursue. I would not
support mine with a penny if she chose to pursue a degree where the chance
of landing a job in that field was 1 in a 1000. (acting for example)


> I have 5 children ages 10 to 31. All were given the same options at age
> 18.
> Stay in school and you can live at home. If you chose to go away to school
> you
> will need to work and take student loans to help defray the costs. Quit
> school
> and you have the option to get up every morning and go to work full time
> contributing to the household expenses or you can live anywhere else that
> you
> choose. One son is a computer network engineer ( a school he put himself
> through with a little financial help from us) 1 daughter is a business
> owner
> (dog grooming) no college for her, 1 son in sales thinking of taking some
> college courses to find new profession and the 21 yr old is home, working
> full
> time and paying her bills. The 10 yr old we allow to live here rent free
> because she is still in 4th grade full time!
>

[Gypsy0005]

>On the contrary--Parents in intact homes are not required by law to spend a
>percentage of their income on their children--Nor are custodial parents.

They are not required to spend a percentage of their income on the child, but
they are required to provide food, clothing and shelter. What I was refering
to is that intact families can not just decide to put their troublesome 16 yr
old out on the streets without legal ramifications.

[Gini]

In article >, Gypsy0005 says...
>
>>On the contrary--Parents in intact homes are not required by law to spend a
>>percentage of their income on their children--Nor are custodial parents.
>
>They are not required to spend a percentage of their income on the child, but
>they are required to provide food, clothing and shelter. What I was refering
>to is that intact families can not just decide to put their troublesome 16 yr
>old out on the streets without legal ramifications.
===
OK, I thought you said:

>Even in an intact marriage parents
>are forced by law to provide for their children until they reach the age of
>18...no unequal treatment there.

I was responding to "no unequal treatment there." NCPs are required to keep
their children who live with them from starving while the state contends that
children of divorce are entitled to a higher standard of living that magically
trickles down to them by means of cash transfers to the CP--even if those
transfers leave the intact family children in abject poverty. Really. That's the
law.
===

[Gypsy0005]

>>Even in an intact marriage parents
>>are forced by law to provide for their children until they reach the age of
>>18...no unequal treatment there.
>

Perhaps I should clarify....All parents are required by law to support their
children under age 18. Intact families have the privelege of deciding how they
will do that. Only in divorced families do the courts single out the NCP and
tell them (him) how he will support them.

[teachrmama]

"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
> The Dave wrote:
>
>
>
>>> Indyguy1 wrote:
>>> I guess you're in the *toss em out at 18* group. Do you have children
>>> of your own? Is that what you will or did do with your own bio kids?
>>
>>You keep going for the emotional argument and sidestepping the question
>>about unequal treatment for different parents. *Mandated* treatment,
>>not voluntary.
>
> And CS is mandated too. I suppose that is unfair to you, as well. Let's
> just
> let parents, that are no longer in their children's daily lives, pay what
> they
> want and when they want, eh? Let them decide what is necessary and what is
> not.
> Let them set their own prioities, so if dinner out with the new honey is
> more
> important than the kids money for their gym uniforms, then so be it.

That is really unfair, Indy! Many, many dads would *love* to be part of
their children's lives, and talk to them every day about what they would
like to do, and how to plan for it, etc. In our family, we discuss as a
family which things are in the budget and which just won't work out.
Divorced dads are expected to shell out whether they can afford it or not.
Sometimes dad having a meal out *is* more important than a child getting a
new whatever. That is one of the biggest problems with lifestyle
support--dad's lifestyle is considered a self-indulgence no matter how
raggedy it becomes.

>
> Dave you and many others on this ng are probably upstanding people that do
> the
> right thing, problem is not everyone is like that.
>
> It's the sins of the fathers (and the siblings) that dictate the need for
> such
> laws.
>
> Mrs Indyguy
> (who hasn't seen one divorced paren,t yet, complain how federal aid is
> unfair
> to married parents)
>
>
>>
>>--
>>There are always too many Democratic congressmen, too many Republican
>>congressmen, and never enough U.S. congressmen.
>> ~Author Unknown
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[teachrmama]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > Indyguy1 wrote:
>> > >> I guess you're in the *toss em out at 18* group. Do you have
>> > children >> of your own? Is that what you will or did do with your
>> > own bio kids?
>> > >
>> > > You keep going for the emotional argument and sidestepping the
>> > > question about unequal treatment for different parents. Mandated
>> > > treatment, not voluntary.
>> >
>> > And CS is mandated too. I suppose that is unfair to you, as well.
>> > Let's just let parents, that are no longer in their children's daily
>> > lives, pay what they want and when they want, eh? Let them decide
>> > what is necessary and what is not. Let them set their own prioities,
>> > so if dinner out with the new honey is more important than the kids
>> > money for their gym uniforms, then so be it.
>> >
>> > Dave you and many others on this ng are probably upstanding people
>> > that do the right thing, problem is not everyone is like that.
>> >
>> > It's the sins of the fathers (and the siblings) that dictate the need
>> > for such laws.
>> >
>> > Mrs Indyguy
>> > (who hasn't seen one divorced paren,t yet, complain how federal aid
>> > is unfair to married parents)
>>
>> You're putting words in my mouth that I did not say or imply. CS is
>> mandated, and for kids under 18, that's fine. There is no law anywhere
>> (that I'm aware of) that says a still-married parent *must* continue to
>> support a kid after they turn 18. That's the difference. Under 18,
>> over 18. Unmarried, still-married. The standards should be equal.
>
> There are laws requiring married parents to support their over 18
> children.
> One example would be a married couple not living together either by choice
> or by legal separation. They can use the CS guidelines to determine a
> support obligation while they are still married.
>
> These laws are used by the state AG to argue married parents can also be
> compelled to provide post-secondary education support for their children,
> so
> therefore, unmarried parents are not a special class.

I would assume that these laws are not used on married parents, because I
haven't seen a huge, screaming outcry about it in the news.

[Indyguy1]

Gudgye wrote:

>That's because the consideration is given to someone because of low economic
>status, NOT because of simply their marital status. Big difference in my
>book.
> In other words, had both divorced parents been better off financially, the
>same rules and thus the same benefits would apply as to married persons with
>the same incomes.

Well no, that is not correct. If both married parents had the same income BOTH
of their incomes would be used to calculate finacial aid. For divorced parents
only the CP is required to list their income. However at the age of 18 the
adult child can say who they live with even if it isn't the truth, and list
either NCP or CPs household income. They do this all the time and natually pick
the household with the lowest income. So yes, marital status does come into
play.

Mrs Indyguy
>
>Gud
>
>
>In article >,
>(Indyguy1) writes:
>
>>Bob wrote:
>>
>><snip to>
>>
>>> In fact, when you consider the
>>>primary parent has a lower income and the NCP is ordered to pay education
>>>support, the children of divorced parents are better off. They get lower
>>>EFC's, and their eligibility for grants, loans, and other financial aid
>>>provides them with additional college expenses sources not available to
>>>children in intact marriages.
>>
>>I don't hear any divorced parents complaining about that UNEQUAL treatment.
>>
>>Mrs Indyguy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Indyguy1]

Gudgye wrote:

>Don't you mean...you're sick of your HUSBAND supporting lifestyles of people
>you've never met?
>
>I thought you were a SAH Mom...
>
>:-)

I am time wise. We pay considerable taxes on money that *I* earn, it just isn't
earned through a conventional job. Or an illegal one either (threw that in to
keep my *fanclub* from accusing me of nasty things, LOL).

Mrs Indyguy

[Gypsy0005]

>I guess you're in the *toss em out at 18* group

Actually the federal government is in the 18 and out group also. My 21 yr old
daughter started receiving social security after her dad (my ex) had a heart
attack and went on disability. The checks continued until she was 18 and
graduated from high school. When I questioned the social security office since
she was going to continue her education I was told that all DEPENDENT support
ceases at age 18 upon graduation from high shcool since these dependents are no
longer MINORS. So the federal government didn't seem to think it was her right
to go to college yet the family courts and state governments feel that SOME 18
yr olds are entitled to be supported well beyond that age.

[GudGye11]

In article >,
(Gypsy0005) writes:

>So the federal government didn't seem to think it was her right
>to go to college yet the family courts and state governments feel that SOME
>18
>yr olds are entitled to be supported well beyond that age.

Yes, exactly...as my old college history professor used to say, "It just
depends on whose ox is being gored."

[Public and Media Relations Service]

A Gift Shop Just For Non-Custodial Fathers! Please check out this new online
gift shop designed exclusively for non-custodial fathers! Thank You!

http://www.cafepress.com/dadshurt2

[D. Cloninger]

Please bear with me "I'm venting"


My husband started this thread due to his court hearings regarding this
subject. There was no agreement for college support. His ex waited
til she racked up 2 1/2 years of debt for oldest child and then when cs
terminated legally on the younger childs 18th birthday (for both
children) decided she wanted more and petitioned the court. My husband
had no choice in the college attended or anything else regarding
college. Grades and attendance records are not given or considered.

The ex was granted full care custody and control = alienate children
from father. Court records show he was set up for failure to begin
with (over 16 years ago) with excessive amounts set for maintenance and
child support both. He was homeless for quite a while but that does
not matter all ordered support still had to be paid regardless.

Just about the time he and I met he obtained a decent job (they had
been divorced more than 10 years) in a couple years he paid all his
arrears, even overpaid something like $4000. She got to keep that for
bogus "interest" and support more than doubled because her kids needed
name brand clothes, extracurricular activities etc... (the oldest
child was ordered to pay restitution for burglary, over $5000 - cs paid
that off instead of him doing as ordered through employment.

Every year my husbands name is submitted to seize any income tax "when
he owes no arrears". We fight for months to get it back. This really
does a number on our credit ratings. This cycle due to IDPA's
inaccurate record keeping repeats itself every year. Every year she
has always claimed both kids on taxes.

Then child support finally terminates and we think "its over" but no
its not they order it to continue til the youngest graduates high school
in May. The child does not graduate, but drops out in May of senior
year and over the summer obtains a GED. (heard mother did this for her
online) This same child was in trouble in school for cheating, failed
4 subjects, and was absent for over 100 days during the senior year.
Also had license suspended for DUI and is on drugs. None of this
matters to the systems judges and lawyers they make him pay pay pay...
because he made one mistake.... he married a cheating lying barhopping
woman who lives well above her means.

The excessive support paid for the adult children to participate in
every sport and activity they chose, dancing, karate, football,
volleyball, you name it. Our two can't afford these things, not even
one of them each. The older children still wear designer labels we
all wear Walmart. Neither of the older children ages 19 and 22 work.
Why they should not have to for anything, not when daddy can be made to
pay.

Over the years his children have refused visitation or to speak with him
because mommy wanted more support. When younger they told him not to
buy gifts for them at Christmas but give mommy more cs. So anyway for
these two adult children to attend college we are on the verge of
bankruptcy, losing our home and car. And having to tell our young
minor children we don't have the money for things they actually "need"

What can we do? Nothing but repeat the vicious cycle of going back to
court and spend more much needed income on the cost we incur. More
than likely to be told "pay it anyway, your minor children, health,
financial situation none of it matters. Your ex wife can lie in court
its ok but you better not dare hold back any information especially if
she can get financial gain with it. So tell all and give til you
bleed. You owe it to ungrateful adult children reared by a vengeful
greedy drunkin wench all yelling "you owe ME hand it over" ITs a cess
pool and unfortunately the kids involved will repeat it all for "the
money" and will drown in it as well.
D.C.

[teachrmama]

"D. Cloninger" > wrote in message
...
> Please bear with me "I'm venting"
>
>
> My husband started this thread due to his court hearings regarding this
> subject. There was no agreement for college support. His ex waited
> til she racked up 2 1/2 years of debt for oldest child and then when cs
> terminated legally on the younger childs 18th birthday (for both
> children) decided she wanted more and petitioned the court. My husband
> had no choice in the college attended or anything else regarding
> college. Grades and attendance records are not given or considered.
>
> The ex was granted full care custody and control = alienate children
> from father. Court records show he was set up for failure to begin
> with (over 16 years ago) with excessive amounts set for maintenance and
> child support both. He was homeless for quite a while but that does
> not matter all ordered support still had to be paid regardless.
>
> Just about the time he and I met he obtained a decent job (they had
> been divorced more than 10 years) in a couple years he paid all his
> arrears, even overpaid something like $4000. She got to keep that for
> bogus "interest" and support more than doubled because her kids needed
> name brand clothes, extracurricular activities etc... (the oldest
> child was ordered to pay restitution for burglary, over $5000 - cs paid
> that off instead of him doing as ordered through employment.
>
> Every year my husbands name is submitted to seize any income tax "when
> he owes no arrears". We fight for months to get it back. This really
> does a number on our credit ratings. This cycle due to IDPA's
> inaccurate record keeping repeats itself every year. Every year she
> has always claimed both kids on taxes.
>
> Then child support finally terminates and we think "its over" but no
> its not they order it to continue til the youngest graduates high school
> in May. The child does not graduate, but drops out in May of senior
> year and over the summer obtains a GED. (heard mother did this for her
> online) This same child was in trouble in school for cheating, failed
> 4 subjects, and was absent for over 100 days during the senior year.
> Also had license suspended for DUI and is on drugs. None of this
> matters to the systems judges and lawyers they make him pay pay pay...
> because he made one mistake.... he married a cheating lying barhopping
> woman who lives well above her means.
>
> The excessive support paid for the adult children to participate in
> every sport and activity they chose, dancing, karate, football,
> volleyball, you name it. Our two can't afford these things, not even
> one of them each. The older children still wear designer labels we
> all wear Walmart. Neither of the older children ages 19 and 22 work.
> Why they should not have to for anything, not when daddy can be made to
> pay.
>
> Over the years his children have refused visitation or to speak with him
> because mommy wanted more support. When younger they told him not to
> buy gifts for them at Christmas but give mommy more cs. So anyway for
> these two adult children to attend college we are on the verge of
> bankruptcy, losing our home and car. And having to tell our young
> minor children we don't have the money for things they actually "need"
>
> What can we do? Nothing but repeat the vicious cycle of going back to
> court and spend more much needed income on the cost we incur. More
> than likely to be told "pay it anyway, your minor children, health,
> financial situation none of it matters. Your ex wife can lie in court
> its ok but you better not dare hold back any information especially if
> she can get financial gain with it. So tell all and give til you
> bleed. You owe it to ungrateful adult children reared by a vengeful
> greedy drunkin wench all yelling "you owe ME hand it over" ITs a cess
> pool and unfortunately the kids involved will repeat it all for "the
> money" and will drown in it as well.
> D.C.

If the oldest is 22, why is he still getting support? Shouldn't he have
graduated by now? Surely the system cannot permit him to be in college
indefinitely. Is the youngest, who has a "Thank you, Mom GED," going to
attend college, too?

We're caught in the same kind of mess--except that my husband had a 1 night
stand with a professional baby-maker (that's how she makes her
money--bringing babies into the world that the taxpayers support). He
didn't know that a child had been born, he found out he was a father just
before the child turned 13. We'd been married for 10 years by that time,
and had 2 children of our own. The judge flat out told my husband that our
children were irrelevant. The system that was created to make sure that
children are taken care of feels that certain children are irrelevant! What
a crock!!

I certainly wish you well--the nightmare should be over soon. We have 3
years, 5 months left. Hang in there.

[Tracy]

Something doesn't seem right if your husband is paying support on adult
children not in college. Either there are arrears, or there is college
involved. I highly suggest that if college is involved, your husband should
consider requesting to pay the college directly instead of his ex-wife. If
I was your husband and was in court many times over the last few years
fighting CS, then don't go to court. The more you go the worse you make
yourself out to be. Just take it easy, vent all you wish, and hang in
there. I brought up two sons without child support. I understand how
difficult it is to be 100% financially responsible for the welfare of
children, not to mention everything else that goes along with it. I'm very
proud of my adult sons as they have never got involved in drugs, drinking,
or violence. They did good in school, and rarely missed any days (1 for my
oldest, and less than a handful for my middle son).

Tracy
~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/


"D. Cloninger" > wrote in message
...
> Please bear with me "I'm venting"
>
>
> My husband started this thread due to his court hearings regarding this
> subject. There was no agreement for college support. His ex waited
> til she racked up 2 1/2 years of debt for oldest child and then when cs
> terminated legally on the younger childs 18th birthday (for both
> children) decided she wanted more and petitioned the court. My husband
> had no choice in the college attended or anything else regarding
> college. Grades and attendance records are not given or considered.
>
> The ex was granted full care custody and control = alienate children
> from father. Court records show he was set up for failure to begin
> with (over 16 years ago) with excessive amounts set for maintenance and
> child support both. He was homeless for quite a while but that does
> not matter all ordered support still had to be paid regardless.
>
> Just about the time he and I met he obtained a decent job (they had
> been divorced more than 10 years) in a couple years he paid all his
> arrears, even overpaid something like $4000. She got to keep that for
> bogus "interest" and support more than doubled because her kids needed
> name brand clothes, extracurricular activities etc... (the oldest
> child was ordered to pay restitution for burglary, over $5000 - cs paid
> that off instead of him doing as ordered through employment.
>
> Every year my husbands name is submitted to seize any income tax "when
> he owes no arrears". We fight for months to get it back. This really
> does a number on our credit ratings. This cycle due to IDPA's
> inaccurate record keeping repeats itself every year. Every year she
> has always claimed both kids on taxes.
>
> Then child support finally terminates and we think "its over" but no
> its not they order it to continue til the youngest graduates high school
> in May. The child does not graduate, but drops out in May of senior
> year and over the summer obtains a GED. (heard mother did this for her
> online) This same child was in trouble in school for cheating, failed
> 4 subjects, and was absent for over 100 days during the senior year.
> Also had license suspended for DUI and is on drugs. None of this
> matters to the systems judges and lawyers they make him pay pay pay...
> because he made one mistake.... he married a cheating lying barhopping
> woman who lives well above her means.
>
> The excessive support paid for the adult children to participate in
> every sport and activity they chose, dancing, karate, football,
> volleyball, you name it. Our two can't afford these things, not even
> one of them each. The older children still wear designer labels we
> all wear Walmart. Neither of the older children ages 19 and 22 work.
> Why they should not have to for anything, not when daddy can be made to
> pay.
>
> Over the years his children have refused visitation or to speak with him
> because mommy wanted more support. When younger they told him not to
> buy gifts for them at Christmas but give mommy more cs. So anyway for
> these two adult children to attend college we are on the verge of
> bankruptcy, losing our home and car. And having to tell our young
> minor children we don't have the money for things they actually "need"
>
> What can we do? Nothing but repeat the vicious cycle of going back to
> court and spend more much needed income on the cost we incur. More
> than likely to be told "pay it anyway, your minor children, health,
> financial situation none of it matters. Your ex wife can lie in court
> its ok but you better not dare hold back any information especially if
> she can get financial gain with it. So tell all and give til you
> bleed. You owe it to ungrateful adult children reared by a vengeful
> greedy drunkin wench all yelling "you owe ME hand it over" ITs a cess
> pool and unfortunately the kids involved will repeat it all for "the
> money" and will drown in it as well.
> D.C.
>
>
>
>

[Gypsy0005]

>The judge flat out told my husband that our
>children were irrelevant. The system that was created to make sure that
>children are taken care of feels that certain children are irrelevant!

Children from intact families may be irrelevant....but not children from
divorce. That is exactly why my husband and I filed for divorce! Now our
daughter is entitled to the same exact protection under the law as the adult
children from his first marriage. Their support is decreased, my income no
longer counts against him and I now have a powerful, ruthless and unscrupulous
institution on my side...the family court! Go figure.
We tried fighting for 10 years and playing by the rules and got nothing but
grief. We too were on the verge of bankruptcy and tired of telling our
daughter she wasnt entitled to a place to live yet the older kids were entitled
to college. I finally figured out how to level the playing field.

[teachrmama]

"Gypsy0005" > wrote in message
...
> >The judge flat out told my husband that our
>>children were irrelevant. The system that was created to make sure that
>>children are taken care of feels that certain children are irrelevant!
>
> Children from intact families may be irrelevant....but not children from
> divorce. That is exactly why my husband and I filed for divorce! Now our
> daughter is entitled to the same exact protection under the law as the
> adult
> children from his first marriage. Their support is decreased, my income
> no
> longer counts against him and I now have a powerful, ruthless and
> unscrupulous
> institution on my side...the family court! Go figure.
> We tried fighting for 10 years and playing by the rules and got nothing
> but
> grief. We too were on the verge of bankruptcy and tired of telling our
> daughter she wasnt entitled to a place to live yet the older kids were
> entitled
> to college. I finally figured out how to level the playing field.

Wow! Do you still live in the same house--and are just divorced legally for
your daughter's sake? We thought about that for a while, but have not
needed to take that step. And hopefully, we never will have to. It sounds
as if it is working out for you, though. Does his ex not question the
divorce at all?

[Phil #3]

"Gypsy0005" > wrote in message
...
> >The judge flat out told my husband that our
>>children were irrelevant. The system that was created to make sure that
>>children are taken care of feels that certain children are irrelevant!
>
> Children from intact families may be irrelevant....but not children from
> divorce. That is exactly why my husband and I filed for divorce! Now our
> daughter is entitled to the same exact protection under the law as the
> adult
> children from his first marriage. Their support is decreased, my income
> no
> longer counts against him and I now have a powerful, ruthless and
> unscrupulous
> institution on my side...the family court! Go figure.
> We tried fighting for 10 years and playing by the rules and got nothing
> but
> grief. We too were on the verge of bankruptcy and tired of telling our
> daughter she wasnt entitled to a place to live yet the older kids were
> entitled
> to college. I finally figured out how to level the playing field.

That wouldn't work in many states where the income used to figure C$ for
children of a second divorce is reduced by the amount ordered for the first
set of kids. In other words, the total income is used to figure the C$ for
the first set and the total income less the C$ is used to figure the amount
for the second.
All it would do is drive dad further into a hopeless situation where even
more money is guaranteed to be taken from him. The second divorce (or
marriage and children) has no effect on the first order, which must be
maintained whether or not the second family ever happens.
Phil #3

[Gypsy0005]

>working out for you, though. Does his ex not question the
>divorce at all?

Its none of the ex's business. There is no law anywhere that prohibits us from
being divorced.

[teachrmama]

"Gypsy0005" > wrote in message
...
> >working out for you, though. Does his ex not question the
>>divorce at all?
>
> Its none of the ex's business. There is no law anywhere that prohibits us
> from
> being divorced.

Of course not. I just have this tickle at the back of my brain about a
similar situation--where the couple were divorced in name only, and got in
big trouble for it. But it might have had something to do with taxes--I
just can't recall. I do know it was an ex who turned them in. I'm glad
she's not making a stink about it. Is child support almost done for your
husband's child?

[Indyguy1]

gypsy0005 wrote:

>>working out for you, though. Does his ex not question the
>>divorce at all?
>
>Its none of the ex's business. There is no law anywhere that prohibits us
>from
>being divorced.
>

Are you sure there isn't some detail in family law that concerns paying CS
while actually living with the chid you are paying for? You might want to check
into this if you haven't already. You know if his ex does find out and is aware
you two are living togther, she could cause the two of you some trouble.
Especially if she brings the scam infront of the judge that has ordered the
continuation of support for his older children.

I am curious though... You say his support for his older children will be
reduced because he now will have to pay CS for your shared child. How is that?
I thought in every state a 2nd CS order is figured on the NCPs income *after*
his prior support is deducted.

Mrs Indyguy

[Gini]

In article >, Indyguy1 says...
>
>gypsy0005 wrote:
>
>>>working out for you, though. Does his ex not question the
>>>divorce at all?
>>
>>Its none of the ex's business. There is no law anywhere that prohibits us
>>from
>>being divorced.
>>
>
>Are you sure there isn't some detail in family law that concerns paying CS
>while actually living with the chid you are paying for? You might want to check
>into this if you haven't already. You know if his ex does find out and is aware
>you two are living togther, she could cause the two of you some trouble.
>Especially if she brings the scam infront of the judge that has ordered the
>continuation of support for his older children.
>
>I am curious though... You say his support for his older children will be
>reduced because he now will have to pay CS for your shared child. How is that?
>I thought in every state a 2nd CS order is figured on the NCPs income *after*
>his prior support is deducted.
>
>Mrs Indyguy

====
Not "every state"--PA does not discriminate against subsequent children, even
when their home is intact. Makes sense, doesn't it? That's probably why other
states don't do it. FL does, of course, discriminate against subsequent
children. Older children are always favored by the courts with subsequent
children having no standing regardless of their economic peril. In fact, these
children have no safety net of income qualifying state/federal resources when
their parent's are subjected to poverty due to lifestyle child support payments.
One FL appellate judge called these later-born children the "Cinderella
children" -- victims of state mandated child neglect.
====

[Gypsy0005]

>How is that?
>I thought in every state a 2nd CS order is figured on the NCPs income *after*
>his prior support is deducted.

In NJ the courts look at the whole picture. In fact the courts allow for
deducting support for children from 2nd marriage before the support is
calculated even when the family is intact. The place where the divorce really
helps is that my income is no longer counted as part of my husbands "household
income" when figuring support. The courts and the ex can no longer say that I
am working paying part of his mortgage, utilities, car payment, food, etc. So
he is now 100% responsible for his own living expenses and that lowers his
disposable income.

[Indyguy1]

Gini wrote:

>In article >, Indyguy1 says...
>>
>>gypsy0005 wrote:
>>
>>>>working out for you, though. Does his ex not question the
>>>>divorce at all?
>>>
>>>Its none of the ex's business. There is no law anywhere that prohibits us
>>>from
>>>being divorced.
>>>
>>
>>Are you sure there isn't some detail in family law that concerns paying CS
>>while actually living with the chid you are paying for? You might want to
>check
>>into this if you haven't already. You know if his ex does find out and is
>aware
>>you two are living togther, she could cause the two of you some trouble.
>>Especially if she brings the scam infront of the judge that has ordered the
>>continuation of support for his older children.
>>
>>I am curious though... You say his support for his older children will be
>>reduced because he now will have to pay CS for your shared child. How is
>that?
>>I thought in every state a 2nd CS order is figured on the NCPs income
>*after*
>>his prior support is deducted.
>>
>>Mrs Indyguy
>
>====
>Not "every state"--PA does not discriminate against subsequent children, even
>when their home is intact. Makes sense, doesn't it?

See Gini, I don't see it as discrimination. And here's why........

When two people have a child together they as a *couple* decide if that child's
financial life will be altered with additional children. If they divorce then
one or the other can make those choices without consent of the other parent,
unless there are laws to prevent it. Then you have the new partners standards
that can, and usally do, effect the way the one parent sees things.

It took two people to make a child and it should be those two same people that
have to agree on any financial changes their child will suffer from. Hence the
way many states deal with additional children when setting CS orders.

Just the other day our nephew's wife was lamenting *again* about how unfair it
is that her H has to pay the same amount of CS even though they have two under
twos. I asked her how she thought things should be since they now have two
children. She feels, and I swear she really believe this, that they should take
the 30% that is assigned to three children in our state, and split it up 10%
for each child. That would cut the CS her H pays in half. I asked her just how
she thought that would effect her H's D. She told me she really doesn't care.
She cares about her children and how unfairly they are being treated by the
courts that refuse to take their needs and wants into consideration.

Another family member asked her why they she two kids if they couldn't afford
to rasie them the way she wanted to (keep in mind EVERY time we see her she is
complaining about money and how her kids don't get the stuff her H's D does).
She got all ticked off and said no one can tell anyone else they shouldn't or
can't have kids. This other family member told her they weren't saying that.
They also feel you should be able to have as many as you want, but if you do
with the knowledge that the money isn't there, then you need to put a sock in
it.

And get this.... She is planning on getting pregnant AGAIN, right after the
holidays. She wants a daughter and plans on trying to have one no matter how
many sons she has to produce to get a girl. So if she ends up with 9 kids,
she'd want the max, 40%, split 10 ways. That would set support for nephew's
other child at $30 a week.

Bottom line: Responsible people don't have children they can't afford. And
divorced people who pay CS can't count the child support they pay as income for
additional children they choose to produce.

Yes, I feel that this should apply to BOTH the CP and the NCP. No, I don't feel
that people that have never been married should be able to even use any part of
the legal system to set up CS. If people want to *play house* instead of
getting legally married they should have to *play court* on their own too.


That's probably why other
>states don't do it. FL does, of course, discriminate against subsequent
>children. Older children are always favored by the courts with subsequent
>children having no standing regardless of their economic peril.

So you really believe the courts should be supporting irresponsible behavior,
as in having children that can't be afforded because unilateral financial
chioces for a child with two parents isn't allowed?

In fact,
>these
>children have no safety net of income qualifying state/federal resources when
>their parent's are subjected to poverty due to lifestyle child support
>payments.
>One FL appellate judge called these later-born children the "Cinderella
>children" -- victims of state mandated child neglect.

Oh, but it would be just fine and dandy if the pre existing children became the
*Cinderella children* because only one of their parents chooses to have more
children than they can afford? You can't put back the pre existing children,
but you sure can stop the subsequent children from having to suffer the perils.


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

[Gini]

In article >, Indyguy1 says...
>
>Gini wrote:
>
>>In article >, Indyguy1 says...
..........................
>>>I thought in every state a 2nd CS order is figured on the NCPs income
>>*after*
>>>his prior support is deducted.
>>>
>>>Mrs Indyguy
>>
>>====
>>Not "every state"--PA does not discriminate against subsequent children, even
>>when their home is intact. Makes sense, doesn't it?
>
>See Gini, I don't see it as discrimination.
===
I know. It's just been so long since we've argued about it, I thought, what the
heck....
===
.......................
>
>It took two people to make a child and it should be those two same people that
>have to agree on any financial changes their child will suffer from. Hence the
>way many states deal with additional children when setting CS orders.
====
This is far too simplistic and, as the state is wont to do, fails to deal with
the reality that divorce happens and parents go on with their lives. The state
has no more business telling parents how many children they can have any more
than it should be mandating that NCPs hand over a percentage of their income to
their former spouse so that it might (or might not) trickle down to the kids.
====
......................
>Bottom line: Responsible people don't have children they can't afford.
====
An overgeneralization. We *could* afford to have our two little subsequents--The
state said "If you can afford to have more kids, you must not be paying enough
child support. Let's double it and call it even."
====
...............................
>
>That's probably why other
>>states don't do it. FL does, of course, discriminate against subsequent
>>children. Older children are always favored by the courts with subsequent
>>children having no standing regardless of their economic peril.
>
>So you really believe the courts should be supporting irresponsible behavior,
>as in having children that can't be afforded because unilateral financial
>chioces for a child with two parents isn't allowed?
====
I disagree with your characterization so no comment is warranted.
====
........................
>Oh, but it would be just fine and dandy if the pre existing children became the
>*Cinderella children* because only one of their parents chooses to have more
>children than they can afford? You can't put back the pre existing children,
>but you sure can stop the subsequent children from having to suffer the perils.
====
Ah c'mon--You're a much deeper thinker than this! These statements are absurd.
On one hand you say that parents/state shouldn't discriminate against older
children, while on the other hand you claim the state *should* discriminate
against younger children and claim that the states that view *all* the children
as *equally important* (which they are) are slighting the older children. Have
you really thought that through? BTW, where do *you* stand in birth order? (Had
to ask :)
====
====

[D. Cloninger]

The oldest turned 22 recently and is in his fourth year of college. As
far as whether the system will permit any further support. Who knows?
If mommy has her way it will continue. Her words: "he has at least
one more semester after this one" And she will send us the additional
costs to reimburse "her" Luckily my husbands order does "not" state
he have to pay her directly but can (and will) apply for parent loans. =

The youngest is in her freshman year at college at this time. From
things we hear she is still drinking and doing drugs. So if that and
the behavior from last year are any indication she will drop out of
college as well. If she has not already done so.
Unfortunately nothing is stated in the order for my husband to have
access to attendance and grade records that he requested in court. So
we are in the process of petitioning the court on the subject. Also to
correct other mistakes we found on the last order.

I know the feeling of being told my kid are irrelevant! I was
basically told the same thing. The judges exact words were "they did
not exist when the divorce was filed, and as far as the court is
concerned still do not exist." Yet they tried to make me give my
income and work information to them. Being I don't exist I can't and
won't provide that to them.
I also wish the best for you in your situation. Lord willing all this
will be over for us in June. But then again we can never tell, not
with the system in Illinois.



teachermama > wrote:


If the oldest is 22, why is he still getting support? Shouldn't he have
graduated by now? Surely the system cannot permit him to be in college
indefinitely. =A0 Is the youngest, who has a "Thank you, Mom GED," going
to attend college, too?
We're caught in the same kind of mess--except that my husband had a 1
night stand with a professional baby-maker (that's how she makes her
money--bringing babies into the world that the taxpayers support). He
didn't know that a child had been born, he found out he was a father
just before the child turned 13. We'd been married for 10 years by that
time, and had 2 children of our own. The judge flat out told my husband
that our children were irrelevant. The system that was created to make
sure that children are taken care of feels that certain children are
irrelevant! What a crock!!
I certainly wish you well--the nightmare should be over soon. We have 3
years, 5 months left. Hang in there.

[Phil #3]

"D. Cloninger" > wrote in message
...
The oldest turned 22 recently and is in his fourth year of college. As
far as whether the system will permit any further support. Who knows?
If mommy has her way it will continue. Her words: "he has at least
one more semester after this one" And she will send us the additional
costs to reimburse "her" Luckily my husbands order does "not" state
he have to pay her directly but can (and will) apply for parent loans.
The youngest is in her freshman year at college at this time. From
things we hear she is still drinking and doing drugs. So if that and
the behavior from last year are any indication she will drop out of
college as well. If she has not already done so.
Unfortunately nothing is stated in the order for my husband to have
access to attendance and grade records that he requested in court. So
we are in the process of petitioning the court on the subject. Also to
correct other mistakes we found on the last order.

I know the feeling of being told my kid are irrelevant! I was
basically told the same thing. The judges exact words were "they did
not exist when the divorce was filed, and as far as the court is
concerned still do not exist." Yet they tried to make me give my
income and work information to them. Being I don't exist I can't and
won't provide that to them.
I also wish the best for you in your situation. Lord willing all this
will be over for us in June. But then again we can never tell, not
with the system in Illinois.

Don't you just love it? On one hand you don't exist and on the other they
want to know just enough about you to set up a method to make a grab at your
finances... that's your gummit at work.
Phil #3


teachermama > wrote:


If the oldest is 22, why is he still getting support? Shouldn't he have
graduated by now? Surely the system cannot permit him to be in college
indefinitely. Is the youngest, who has a "Thank you, Mom GED," going
to attend college, too?
We're caught in the same kind of mess--except that my husband had a 1
night stand with a professional baby-maker (that's how she makes her
money--bringing babies into the world that the taxpayers support). He
didn't know that a child had been born, he found out he was a father
just before the child turned 13. We'd been married for 10 years by that
time, and had 2 children of our own. The judge flat out told my husband
that our children were irrelevant. The system that was created to make
sure that children are taken care of feels that certain children are
irrelevant! What a crock!!
I certainly wish you well--the nightmare should be over soon. We have 3
years, 5 months left. Hang in there.

[Indyguy1]

Gini wrote:

>In article >, Indyguy1 says...
>>
>>Gini wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, Indyguy1 says...
>.........................
>>>>I thought in every state a 2nd CS order is figured on the NCPs income
>>>*after*
>>>>his prior support is deducted.
>>>>
>>>>Mrs Indyguy
>>>
>>>====
>>>Not "every state"--PA does not discriminate against subsequent children,
>even
>>>when their home is intact. Makes sense, doesn't it?
>>
>>See Gini, I don't see it as discrimination.
>===
>I know. It's just been so long since we've argued about it, I thought, what
>the
>heck....

LOL. I always enjoy *arguing* with you. ;)



>===
>......................
>>
>>It took two people to make a child and it should be those two same people
>that
>>have to agree on any financial changes their child will suffer from. Hence
>the
>>way many states deal with additional children when setting CS orders.
>====
>This is far too simplistic and, as the state is wont to do, fails to deal
>with
>the reality that divorce happens and parents go on with their lives.

No parent should *go on with their life* without putting their existing
children in the same light they did while still married. But ya see that
doesn't tend to happen, esp when the new spouses get on board.

The
>state
>has no more business telling parents how many children they can have any more
>than it should be mandating that NCPs hand over a percentage of their income
>to
>their former spouse so that it might (or might not) trickle down to the kids.

I think it would be so very nice if the state didn't have to get involved at
all. Problem is that it is the actions of *some* NCPs that started that ball
rolling when they didn't provide sufficent support.

And no noone should be able to tell anyone how many kids they can have. But on
the other hand those same people need to suck it up if they have children they
can't afford.

>====
>.....................
>>Bottom line: Responsible people don't have children they can't afford.
>====
>An overgeneralization. We *could* afford to have our two little
>subsequents--The
>state said "If you can afford to have more kids, you must not be paying
>enough
>child support. Let's double it and call it even."
>====

Hmmm...... How did they get around using the set %?

>..............................
>>
>>That's probably why other
>>>states don't do it. FL does, of course, discriminate against subsequent
>>>children. Older children are always favored by the courts with subsequent
>>>children having no standing regardless of their economic peril.
>>
>>So you really believe the courts should be supporting irresponsible
>behavior,
>>as in having children that can't be afforded because unilateral financial
>>chioces for a child with two parents isn't allowed?
>====
>I disagree with your characterization so no comment is warranted.
>====

I figured you would. :)

>.......................
>>Oh, but it would be just fine and dandy if the pre existing children became
>the
>>*Cinderella children* because only one of their parents chooses to have more
>>children than they can afford? You can't put back the pre existing children,
>>but you sure can stop the subsequent children from having to suffer the
>perils.
>====
>Ah c'mon--You're a much deeper thinker than this! These statements are
>absurd.

Just being honest.

>On one hand you say that parents/state shouldn't discriminate against older
>children, while on the other hand you claim the state *should* discriminate
>against younger children and claim that the states that view *all* the
>children
>as *equally important* (which they are) are slighting the older children.

Well you see I don't see the subsequent children as being treated unfairly, in
most cases. Their parents brought them into the world knowing the other
children already existed and just how much money goes to support them. Like I
said before you can't put back the existing children, but you can prevent
additional children.

>Have
>you really thought that through?

Of course, for a long time. However this last convo with Nephew's wife got me
riled up about it. LOL

BTW, where do *you* stand in birth order?
>(Had
>to ask :)

Ah me? The middle child. Older sib got *everything* because well she was the
oldest. Younger sib got *everything+* because he was the baby and the only son.
Me? I worked my ass off and ended up more succesful and happier than both of
them put together. :)

Mrs Indyguy


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

[Gini]

In article >, Indyguy1 says...
>
>Gini wrote:
..........
>>====
>>An overgeneralization. We *could* afford to have our two little
>>subsequents--The
>>state said "If you can afford to have more kids, you must not be paying
>>enough
>>child support. Let's double it and call it even."
>>====
>
>Hmmm...... How did they get around using the set %?
====
They didn't. It was set at the guideline amount (1200.) It was 600.00 before. FL
statute provides that subsequent children can be used as a reason to *not*
increase CS but not as a reason to decrease support. The ex had filed for an
increase--We did not file for a decrease. The judge ignored the statute and
doubled the award. We did not have the money to appeal. Shortly after that I was
disabled from the "accident." *Very* difficult years followed.
====

>
> BTW, where do *you* stand in birth order?
>>(Had
>>to ask :)
>
>Ah me? The middle child. Older sib got *everything* because well she was the
>oldest.
===
Me too, but my older siblings were twin girls (talk about attention grabbers)
and the only son. He protected me from the girls when he was around. When he
wasn't I was a sitting duck.
===

>Younger sib got *everything+* because he was the baby and the only son.
===
My only younger sibling was born when I was 13--pushed me right out of the "baby
of the family" role. No matter--the twins got everything anyway. But, I'm over
it now ;-)
Guess I trumped your traumatic childhood, eh?
===
===
>

[Phil #3]

"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
> Gini wrote:
>
>>In article >, Indyguy1
>>says...
>>>
>>>Gini wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article >, Indyguy1
>>>>says...
>>.........................
>>>>>I thought in every state a 2nd CS order is figured on the NCPs income
>>>>*after*
>>>>>his prior support is deducted.
>>>>>
>>>>>Mrs Indyguy
>>>>
>>>>====
>>>>Not "every state"--PA does not discriminate against subsequent children,
>>even
>>>>when their home is intact. Makes sense, doesn't it?
>>>
>>>See Gini, I don't see it as discrimination.
>>===
>>I know. It's just been so long since we've argued about it, I thought,
>>what
>>the
>>heck....
>
> LOL. I always enjoy *arguing* with you. ;)
>
>
>
>>===
>>......................
>>>
>>>It took two people to make a child and it should be those two same people
>>that
>>>have to agree on any financial changes their child will suffer from.
>>>Hence
>>the
>>>way many states deal with additional children when setting CS orders.
>>====
>>This is far too simplistic and, as the state is wont to do, fails to deal
>>with
>>the reality that divorce happens and parents go on with their lives.
>
> No parent should *go on with their life* without putting their existing
> children in the same light they did while still married. But ya see that
> doesn't tend to happen, esp when the new spouses get on board.
>

It *could* be a plausable statement IF it was a requirement for BOTH
parents. Since it isn't, it's just more hot air directed at the only parent
who has no control over the children's SOL, regardless the amount of money
given to the CP.

> The
>>state
>>has no more business telling parents how many children they can have any
>>more
>>than it should be mandating that NCPs hand over a percentage of their
>>income
>>to
>>their former spouse so that it might (or might not) trickle down to the
>>kids.
>
> I think it would be so very nice if the state didn't have to get involved
> at
> all. Problem is that it is the actions of *some* NCPs that started that
> ball
> rolling when they didn't provide sufficent support.

I disagree. If there was any mechanism to insure the children RECEIVED the
SOL that should be attainable by the C$, it might sound real. The fact that
the cash flow is the only consideration points out that it is not about
children at all.
It was not because of "some" NCPs that the state got so heavily involved in
C$; it was greed on the part of CPs and the state, pure and simple.

>
> And no noone should be able to tell anyone how many kids they can have.
> But on
> the other hand those same people need to suck it up if they have children
> they
> can't afford.
>

If applicable to both parents, sure. As it is, it only applies to the NCP in
the case of C$ awards, which is considerably one-sided.
It should apply to the poor as well as the CPs and NCps but it doesn't and
won't because it's not about children. It's about money and occasionally
revenge and/or punishment.

>>====
>>.....................
>>>Bottom line: Responsible people don't have children they can't afford.
>>====
>>An overgeneralization. We *could* afford to have our two little
>>subsequents--The
>>state said "If you can afford to have more kids, you must not be paying
>>enough
>>child support. Let's double it and call it even."
>>====
>
> Hmmm...... How did they get around using the set %?
>
>>..............................
>>>
>>>That's probably why other
>>>>states don't do it. FL does, of course, discriminate against subsequent
>>>>children. Older children are always favored by the courts with
>>>>subsequent
>>>>children having no standing regardless of their economic peril.
>>>
>>>So you really believe the courts should be supporting irresponsible
>>behavior,
>>>as in having children that can't be afforded because unilateral financial
>>>chioces for a child with two parents isn't allowed?
>>====
>>I disagree with your characterization so no comment is warranted.
>>====
>
> I figured you would. :)
>
>>.......................
>>>Oh, but it would be just fine and dandy if the pre existing children
>>>became
>>the
>>>*Cinderella children* because only one of their parents chooses to have
>>>more
>>>children than they can afford? You can't put back the pre existing
>>>children,
>>>but you sure can stop the subsequent children from having to suffer the
>>perils.
>>====
>>Ah c'mon--You're a much deeper thinker than this! These statements are
>>absurd.
>
> Just being honest.

"Only one parent has more children than they can afford" is only true
because only one specific parent is demanded to support their children, that
being divorced or never-married NCPs. Intact families and especially single
CP mothers have the gummit ready, willing and able to help fund their
choices.
What it sounds like you're trying to say is that no parent can ever have a
second child because no matter what, the second child will draw funding
that, according to you, is *earmarked* for the first. This would be true
even in intact familes unless the family had more money than necessary,
which I doubt is true for most.

>
>>On one hand you say that parents/state shouldn't discriminate against
>>older
>>children, while on the other hand you claim the state *should*
>>discriminate
>>against younger children and claim that the states that view *all* the
>>children
>>as *equally important* (which they are) are slighting the older children.
>
> Well you see I don't see the subsequent children as being treated
> unfairly, in
> most cases. Their parents brought them into the world knowing the other
> children already existed and just how much money goes to support them.
> Like I
> said before you can't put back the existing children, but you can prevent
> additional children.
>

This just backs up your supposition that parents can only have one child.
My parents had 9 children. Do you suppose the first was neglected because of
the "drain" the other 8 had on the family economy?
I wonder how they could have afforded to support all these children if they
were forced to do so according to guidelines??? Answer: they couldn't have,
even in our intact family.
You seen the basic problem is that C$ guidelines are not based in reality
nor are they equally applied to both parents. Therein lies the problem.

>>Have
>>you really thought that through?
>
> Of course, for a long time. However this last convo with Nephew's wife got
> me
> riled up about it. LOL
>
> BTW, where do *you* stand in birth order?
>>(Had
>>to ask :)
>
> Ah me? The middle child. Older sib got *everything* because well she was
> the
> oldest. Younger sib got *everything+* because he was the baby and the only
> son.
> Me? I worked my ass off and ended up more succesful and happier than both
> of
> them put together. :)
>
> Mrs Indyguy

I'm the 'baby'. I'm just glad my siblings immediately older than I were
boys. :) (for those not old enough to understand hand-me-downs, 40 or more
years ago, it was common for younger children to wear the older children's
outgrown clothes. It's not practiced much anymore with the ever-changing
"styles" and name-brand clothing that must be replaced at least yearly in
order to remain "cool").
Phil#3

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