Ken Chaddock wrote:
Fred wrote:

Bob Whiteside wrote:

"Fred" wrote in message
. net...

Bob Whiteside wrote:

So then you have no problem with the child support used exclusively

for

said

child
and not be put into the family coffers for let's say, the mortgage,

SUV

payment?


You may take what I said at face value. I will leave it to
legislatures
and courts to figure out what constitutes an expense in the child's
interest.

[sanctimony deleted] Neither the legislatures nor the courts
have used expense based criteria to fulfill a child's interest
since the
mid-80's when CS guidelines were introduced.

But if one wants to go down OP's road, then you end up back at
expense-based criteria, with all of the nit-picking and litigation that
implies. Vicious circle.

BTW, how do you feel about the implication made by OP that using child
support money to help pay the mortgage on the house in which the child
lives is somehow not in the child's interest?


I feel it's bull****. CS is for the child not for the householder to
pay
the mortgage and gain home equity for themselves.


I see. As usual, it's all about the money, not the child.

Seriously, Bob, either I'm missing something,

You are clearly "missing something" Fred. I'll give you an example
from Canada. This is quite well documented. About 10 years ago a woman
named Chantell Leduc took a case all the way to the Supreme Court Of
Canada. She claimed that it was unfair that she would have to pay income
tax on child support money since, theoretically the money is for the
support of the child...even though she gets to spend it however she
likes without any requirement to prove that she spent it for the support
of the child. She won, the SCofC agreed and struck down that portion of
the Income Tax Act.

Ah yes, the Supreme Court of Canada, the body that ruled that it is
legal to force workers into retirement at age 65 even though it is
unconstitutional, thus institutionalizing age discrimination in Canada.
See McKinney v. University of Guelph.

So I will have to keep reminding myself that you are in Canada, and
subject to the arbitrary nature of Canadian law and a Charter of Rights
and Freedoms that isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.

No wonder you're ****ed off ...

or y'all are not communicating something, or y'all really do not give
a damn about the welfare of the child.

Actually *we* care a hell of a lot MORE about the welfare of the
children that the courts who don't even care whether the custodial
parent even spends the CS money for the benefit of the child.
My brother-in-law (by his 2nd marriage) had the experience of going
to court with well documented evidence that his ex-wife was using the CS
money he was paying to support his 3 sons to take her latest "boy toy" n
a two week southern vacation each year. She so poorly supported the boys
that he had to buy their clothes and pay for their school supplies out
of his own pocket even though these expenses were supposed to have been
covered by the CS. When he presented his irrefutable evidence, the judge
curtly told him it was none of the courts (or his !) business HOW his
ex-wife spent the CS money because it was HERS !

Now tell me how *those* inconvenient facts fit into your nice
"theory" of parental responsibility ?

They fit in a societal context, which, after all, is the context in
which we live, each in our own society. Because it is society, after
all, which sets the norms we are to follow, including those of
responsibility and accountability.

In your society, in which your highest court enshrines unconstitutional
acts as being legal, it does not surprise me to learn that norms of
responsibility and accountability in the raising of children have been
corrupted by that same court. It's tragic, but that's the system of
government y'all have in Canada, and I doubt that there's anything y'all
can do about it.

As I said, no wonder you're ****ed off ...