"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , teachrmama says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob
Whiteside
says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , teachrmama says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob
Whiteside
says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob
Whiteside
says...

Then we basically agree. How would you implement it, though?

Define "child support." Create specific criteria for how CS is to
be
spent.
Require periodic disclosure of expenses paid. Do the same thing
to
CP
mothers they do to NCP dads - presume they are guilty of
misappropriation
of
the funds and make them prove otherwise. IOW - Assume they won't
spend
the
money as intended and force them to rebut the assumption by
showing
they
spent it correctly.


Hmm, I mean who and how and how is it going to be paid for?

Seems you're more motivated by doing unto 'them' what was done to
'us'
than
actually seeing that the kids get the benefit...

Nope. I am more for getting the government completely out of family
decisions. The intrusion by government into people's private lives
has
become a real crisis. I personally fear it because to me it is
social
engineering run amok.

So you're *not* for CS at all.


They do it under the guise of their actions being in the best
interest
of
the children, but in reality everything they do is in the best
interest
of
the government. Until the "other side" starts to feel what it is
like
to
get similar treatment to what they advocate for fathers to receive I
don't
see any change occurring. You see it is a zero sum game - To give
rights
to
fathers the government has to take rights away from mothers.

Actually I don't. I see that increasingly *either* fathers and
mothers
take
either role (as it's not a zero sum game), and advocate for *both*
having
some
physical custody, which is also happening increasingly. But that
won't
'stick
it to' anyone to make a point to your satisfaction, it seems.

As you may
have notice in this newsgroup, many of the father's rights advocates
are
second wives who have lived through how their husbands have been
mistreated,
or children of fathers who got bad treatment. The advocates for the
status
quo are always the people who benefit from the unfairness inherent
in
the
current system.

Who might have something of a vested interest in smaller CS
payments.

Who also might have some vested interest in equity.



That's best determined by a third party, not the two parties with
conflicting
interests.

So let me challenge your theory on third parties making decisions on
conflicting interests. A mother has two children with different
fathers.
Father #1 is ordered to pay her $800 per month to support his child.
Father
#2 is ordered to pay her $200 per month to support his child. The
mother
gets $1000 per month in CS. If the mother co-mingles the CS into the
household budget she spends $500 per child. Child #1 is getting the
benefit
of $300 less than the court ordered CS. Child #2 is getting the benefit
of
$300 more than the court ordered CS. How should a third party rule on
how
the CS is being spent and what should be done about it?


Well, I dont' know *why* the payments are so different. Say - maybe
it's
to
avoid the "Welfare queeen" "CS queen thing" And some judge decided
two
girls, different fathers or no, can go into one bedroom. Or Dad #2 has
a
much
lower earning capacity.

Inevitably, the expenses would co-mingle. Dinner get made at one time;
Mom
woudln't take two girls to the zoo and only take the older one on the
rides.
And the girls would be sisters to each other.

What, would you think it's like a dog kennel, where I can get a bigger
pen
for
my dog if I pay more?

So child support isn't really paid for the wellbeing of the child, but for
the operating expenses of the household?



How can you separate them? Think of your own two kids! How would it be
to
raise one one way; the other the other way. Just having them in the same
place
and sitting at the same dinner table would account for much of the CS.

Like we have been talking about, the operating expenses of the household
are
counted as far as *additional* expenses are necessary to set up a
household to
raise the kids in. Vs. the less expensive and wider options available to
a
single person.

I thought we were discussing CS in the context of your agreeing children
should receive the benefit of their parent's income beyond the basics and
you also believed a third party should settle disputes over how the money is
spent.

Now you appear to be saying it is okay for CP mothers to ignore the way CS
awards are determined and re-allocate the money so the child does not
receive the benefit of their parent's income and actually receive less than
the court ordered. And you seem to be saying it is okay for a father's CS
payments to be used to provide for non-biological children with a different
father.

Are you really meaning to say a third party should tell a father it is okay
for his child to get less than he is under court order to provide and it is
okay for his CS payments to be used for someone else's child?



Yes I would - she has to make a working household to raise these two kids in.
And I'd be *very* likely to find that, given the whole house/apartment use for
*both* and other things going along with that being for *both*, and that the
groceries all get bought at once for *both*, and the toys being bought for
*both*, a pet is brought into the house for *both* to enjoy, to find that the
$800 can be accounted to be going to the first kid. The second is riding along.
Man #2 actually gets some leverage!

Your complaint is all about kuntrol. And $$ being the only consideration (and
people complain about being treated as wallets, not parents...) If I were
father number one (and not just thinking of myself as wallet number one), I'd
want to see a happy girl in a decent environment. Not soemthing on the order of
a bigger kennel for the bigger dog. Jees.

Think of the alternatives - bare bones for all (why would the father of the
oldest want that, if he is a *parent*), or one half-sister being held off from
the other, leading to jealousy and a miserable half-sister for the older girl to
live with (why would the father of the oldest want that, if he is a *parent*).

How about one for YOU! That mom remarries, new hubby is a little better off
than the first two men but not exactly swimming in funds, then half sister
number three is born. They won't be eating lobster every night, but now the
hamburger/ chicken leg budget can go to have steak once in a while!

SO - by you, would it be OK to, in order to not have *his* precious $$$ not
admixed into the care and support of the older children who are not his
bio-children, and all the men to be 'honored' in the way you would have, to feed
daughter number one chicken, daughter number two mac and cheese, and daughter
number three steak!? That's the kind of thing that would have to happen to do
what you want!!

Or, if you really believe in only bare-bones CS, the first two sisters get mac
and cheese and daughter number three steak. All sitting at the same dinner
table.

These things are two way streets, y'know.

OK by you? Sound like a good result? Man number one with his precious $800 not
sullied by mixture with the hundred or so *more* in effect of funds, that his
daughter could have benifitted from in that situation? His kid gets chicken,
what more do you want. She can just ignore the half-sister over there with her
steak and apple pie. Maybe to avoid the pain of that they can leave the older
two girls home once a month while the parents and youngest go for a restaurant
meal. Dont' want those funds mixed up, y'know! That good?

Over to you...

Banty