"ghostwriter" wrote in message
oups.com...

teachrmama wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote in message
oups.com...

DB wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in

children)--that extra $100 per month should be accounted
for--Johnnies
Little League fee, field trip to San Francisco, 3 Green Day
CDs--whatever--to make sure that the extra is being spent on
Johnnie--not
Mom--not other siblings--not new boyfriend. How difficult is that?
Just
the amount over and above basic support--the lifestyle nonsense that
the
court requires to be paid but doesn't require to be spent on the
child.

That's the best idea I've read here to date!

Accountability for anything above the basics, we should have the right
to
know that our money is being spent on our children. If they want more
money, we should have the right to know where the first $400 went?

Thats actually where the potential problem arises, who determines if
the benifit justifies the cost? If Johnnie lives with Mom the
household needs about $25K to stay above water in most areas of this
country. Thats about 12.5K or $500 per month per parent to support
Johnnies share. How much does Johnnie benifit from having a nicer home,
a safer school, a nicer car to ride in, better tasting food in the
fridge, cable TV and internet, savings to allow for emergencies, better
heath insurance on mom, life insurance on mom, etc? The addition of
more people and more income creates economics of scale that Johnnie
benifits from does that mean that the child support should go down
because Johnnie became cheaper to support?

Whats to stop the CP from saying that they use the money to meet the
fixed expenses, because honestly the fixed expenses in any household
are larger than any normal NCP's child support award. Even if you go to
a by share basis who determines what the household buys because Johnnie
wants it and what is bought because Step-dad and Johnnie like it. If
the amount of Johnnies child support is less then his share of the
mortgage, utilities, and food does that give the NCP the right to
demand what the CP spent their own salary on because of the fact that
the child support shifted money that the CP would have otherwise spent.

What on earth are you talking about? Johnnie's share of housing is the
difference between a 1 and 2 bedroom apartment. He does not owe a
percentage of the cost of buying a house! Dad most assuredly does not
have
any responsibility to kick in for mom's life and/or health insurance.
You
sound like a money-grubber in this one, ghost! "If I can say that
Johnnie
wants it, then Dad should have to pay." How ridiculous! The government
only requires a certain minimum level of provision for a child--if it's
good
enough to require of married parents, it's good enough to require of
unmarried parents. The fact that Johnnie might benefit from it is not a
good enough reason to force one segment of the population to pay for what
another has no requirement to provide. If both parents are actively
involved in their child's life, there is a much better chance that both
will
*want* to provide these things--and the child will be a common bond.


The other choice is to require some proof that Johnnie DIRECTLY
benifits from those expendtures. So if he rides 50miles a week in a car
that is driven for 150miles then one third of the month cost of that
car is attributed to him. If he only drives 10miles in step-dads truck
that is driven 200miles then only 5% of that cost can be given to him.
Mom getting health insurance though work benifits Johnnie but what if
she gets the lower co-pay version because step-dad is on viagra, should
the NCP have access to that information because his child support might
potentially be used to pay for mortgage costs that the health insurance
offset.

Again, Dad does not owe mom anything for any sort of insurance for
herself.
He has absolutely NO responsibility to meet any of her expenses--no
matter
how wonderful you think those benefits are. As for mileage in the car,
you
can't assume that the 50 miles Johnnie was actually in the car should be
charged only to him--does Johnnie pay for the whole family to travel
places?
And BOTH parents have cars--will mom have to pay for the percentage of
miles
that Johnny is in dad's car during the month, too. I think you are just
looking for ways to justify sticking it to dads because you don't think
the
vast majority of them measure up to your standards.



What if the NCP challenges the costs in court, should he be allowed to
demand an idemized recieit for every time a pizza was ordered to see
what percentage of the cost was reflected by the pizza his son eats.
Should he be able to question why mom got the 5 day course of brand
name antibotics for his son rather than the 10 day generics. Should he
be allowed to question why she spent $100 at the gap for his birthbay
presents rather than $50 at wal-mart. Does a cell phone have a set
value to Johnnie as a means of communication, and what if is part of a
family plan so the costs while less per phone are bundled with the rest
of the household, does that then give NCP the right to demand why the
household has to have 500mins/month and not 400.

Food, clothing, shelter aer covered in the basics. If mon chooses to buy
$100 jeans rather that $30 jeans, she pays the overage herself. SHE
should
not have the power to say that dad has to pay whatever amount she thinks
is
right. And cell phones are luxuries. Why should dad be stuck paying for
luxuries? If mom wants Johnnie to have them, let her pay. Wht on earth
do
you think that Johnnie's desires run the world?



Thats the reason that the court has stuck to a lifestyle arrangment
because accounting for all of the benifits Johnnie recieves, as a
result of them being provided to the household, is next to impossible
and would require a massive invasion of privacy. It would put the judge
into the situation of refreeing a bean-counting session, at huge cost
to the system. The average judge is not going to order that all the
money be spent on Johnnie and accounted for precisely, because that
would be huge interference with the CP's right to actually be a CP.

NCPs owe NOTHING to CP's household. The household is the responsibility
of
the adults in that house. You have made it abundantly clear in this post
that you feel that fathers should be forced to support not only their
children, but also their children's mothers, and the household that the
children live in. So what responsibility does that leave to mom? Not
much,
huh?


Accounting should be kept to a minimum, one affidavit with a request
for change seems reasonable. Any other requirments should be as a
result of a mutally negotiated agreement between the parents.

But moms can go back and demand more money any time they want to, can't
they?


My point was that accounting for the benfits that Johnnie recieves as a
result of them being provided to the household is impossible. Are you
honestly saying that Johnnie doesnt get any tangable benifit from
living in a better school system, or the fact that the household has a
computer and internet service, etc.

My point is--so what? What if he would benefit from those things. Why
should dad have to pay for a higher lifestyle for an entire household just
because Johnnie might benefit? If MARRIED parents are not REQUIRED to
provide such things, why should UNMARRIED FATHERS be required to provide
them? It's either everyone is required to do so, or nobody is required to
do so. The lawequires a minimum level of support--keep it that way for
everyone. And let the parents work together to provide more if they want
to. If one parent refuses to do so, chances are that same parent would have
acted the same way within the marriage. Extras should not be decided by the
court--only basic sipport should, as determined by law for everyone else.


I can easily see your argument that
the NCP should have a say in if the benifit justifies that cost. Thats
the reason that I advocate a mutally agreed upon binding agreement. Are
you honestly saying that since the CP and others in the household
benifit from that money spent that Johnnie recieves nothing from it?
That only costs that are 100% Johnnie's can be included in the
calcuation. That is so far beyond illogical that it suggests either
hate or pure greed as being the motivation.

No, what I am saying that basic levels of support are all that should be
required. If mom decides to live in a more expensive neighborhood, let her
foot the bill herself. Or maintain a relationship of mutual respect with
dad, and be able to discuss things civilly. Instead of the current system
where the courts screw dad and reward mom in the name of a child who may
not even be receiving the benefits that dad is paying for. CS for basic
needs--everyothing else worked out between the parents. Right now mom
doesn't even need to work things out--she has the court to back up her
demands.



The idea that a NCP should be able to determine on a miniute by minute
basis what amount of money they are going to supply is morally
repugnant.

You certainly never saw me say anything that ridiculous.

That removes any possibility of the CP using that money for
any of Johnnies needs that arent delayable and very modular. If she
would dare to use that money to better the lifestyle of the household

Of course she shouldn't!! Her household is her responsibility! Child
support is not to support a househols--it's to support a child! Dad does
NOT owe mom a lifestyle!! Why do you keep harping on this?


then she puts the NCP in a position of complete control since removal
of that money could potentially bankrupt them. That guts their ability
to be a custodian of the the child.

Nonsense--she will be getting basic support--and will simply have to
negotiate the extras with dad. He shouldn't owe any more than any other
parent does.



It also sets up a situation where getting the household to blend is
next to impossible, if NCP's money can only go to expenses that are
100% Johnnies then the CP must either buy step-brother the cool stuff
and hope that NCP is willing to pony up or lavish Johnnie with the
money from NCP while step-brother does without.

That is correct. If dad pays for Johnnie to have the coolest new shoes, and
the other child's dad does not, tough luck! Why should Johnnie's dad
provide for other men's children? Not in your wildest dreams can you
justify that!


Thats morally
disgusting and an excellent way to make Johnnie into a brat.

No it isn't. It is 2 parents providing for their own child. Geesh!


If I were
a CP forced into that situation I would dump all the money into a
investment fund and forget about it, and refuse to permit the NCP to
purchase anything for Johnnie where I could not supply an equivalent to
step-brother.

How very selfish of you. Johnnie cannot have anything if every other child
in the household can't have the exact same thing? And Johnnie's dad should
be forced to pay for it all? So if Johnnie's dad gives him a Playstation 3
for Christmas, you would get rid of it because his step- and half-siblings
did not also get Playstation 3s? Johnnie can't have an identity as his
father's som. but has to share his father with the entire household? Wow,
that will certainly blend the household well. NOT.


Frankly its bean counting with the intent to put the NCP in completel
control. It also shows complete disreguard for Johnnie's long term well
being and any of the intangable benifits from living in a healthy
household.

Not so. It's fairness under the law. Basic support is all that should be
required. Just like with married parents. Everything else is at the
diescretion of the parents. A father who has a relationship with his child
will more than likely want to supply more than that. But you don't even
want to give him a chance. And you want him to be held responsible for an
entire household--not just his own child.



Basically this is making the idea of a legally mandated minimium basic
support amount, followed up by the mandatory drafting of a binding
agreement. Where reporting requirements, support amounts, emergency
continegencies, justifications for asking for increases, effects of
remarriage, visitiation, etc. are hashed out in that agreement sound
better and better. Lets not substitute one set of poor assumption for
the opposite set of equally poor assumptions. Human judgement is a far
better problem solver than the law will ever be.


As soon as you make a hashed-out agreement legally binding, you have put
everyon back in the exact same position as now. As long as the law gets to
dictate family spending, it will not be a good system.