"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
ups.com...

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"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 giant flaw in CS calculation methodology and the CS guidelines is
CP's
are allowed to pretend their per child expenses exist in a vacuum. When
a
woman has children with two men she is allowed 1/2 of her living
expenses
against one child, with the other 1/2 being her own marginal expenses.
And
then she can charge the other half of her marginal living expenses
against
the second child and that CS order. In essence with this and other
child
rearing expenses considered based on shared expenses within the CS
calculation methodology the system allows women to show 100% plus of
their
own marginal expenses against child rearing costs and pay nothing for
their
own expenses when multiple CS orders are in place. The CS calculation
method allows the CP mother to have zero marginal costs to support
herself.

Yuck, that definately sucks.

I can see a serious issue where two (or more) fathers are involved,
since neither father would want to pay above the minimun to support his
kid. But moms in the vice since the basic costs of support are higher
for three as compared to just two. I can see why a courts would side
with the mom in order to protect the kids from getting hurt in the
crossfire.

I can't. I can't see any reason why courts should be biased. Kids are
not being protected when one of their parents is being screwed by the law.
Of course the costs are higher for 3 than 2--but not so much higher that a
mother deserves 2 full CS awards to cover those costs.

The problem is that the courts decisions are so uninformed,
and long lasting. A temporary order until the estabilishment of a
negotated agreement seems like a much better way.

Riiiiight....that will certainly happen--the temporary order is so high
that the mother has no reason to negotiate to get it changed. Or the
temporary order is so low that the dad drags his feet. As long as the
system is adversarial there will be big business in screwing the other guy
to get what you want. And there will be vultures out there to help you
and get their pound of flesh, too.


That does kind of gloss over the fact that negoating an agreement would
be very difficult since five different peoples interests are at stake.

No, there are never 5 people involved. Only mom and dad. 2 people
responsible for their joint child(ren). Nobody else.

1. Mom
2. Child A
3. Father of child A
4. Child B
5. Father of child B



However, I still think that a legally mandated minimum (based on all
the children in the household)

Oh, I don't think so. You can't hold dad A responsible for the legally
mandated minimum for 4 children if he is only the father of 1 of the
children. What if dad A makes $100K per year and is the dad of 1 child,
and dad B makes $30K per year and is the father of 3 of the
children--should dad A have to fork over to raise the lifestyles of dad
B's children just so they will all be equal? How do you even begin to see
that as fair?

followed by a negotiated agreement with
the judge placing some of the adults (based on their discresion) income
into escrow and freezing collection of any bills that go past due in
the process would likley be the best way forward.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.....you're joking, right?


Even if all three
adults have to be beaten over the head by a mediator (selection by
elimation), that still seems the best way to protect the interests of
society as a whole while still respecting the ability of humans to make
better choices than a law book.

Why should 3 adults be negotiating at all? Do you mean that if the mother
has 7 children by 7 fathers, that 8 adults would be negotiating? Geesh,
ghost--what are you thinking?