In article , Bob Whiteside
says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...

Actually my scenario is about reality and how stated objectives in the CS
system are just "feel good" messages that get ignored in practice. And
the
scenario points out the reason so many CP mothers are against any form of
accountability for how CS is spent. They want to treat CS received as
unallocated family support which is really the definition of alimony.

Well, no, alimony is for support of the *ex spouse*.

That is only one of several reasons alimony can be awarded. My point is
mothers are against accountability for how CS is spent because they want to
treat the money received as unallocated family support, i.e. they can use it
any way they want at their personal discretion.

Well, the accountability would have to be reasonable. IF a trustee or overseer
is expecting daughter number one to get steak and daughter number two to get mac
and cheese, that woudl be a problem. Maybe those who are opposing
accountability are reading what *you* write.

The difference, of course,
is CS is tax free money, not taxable like unallocated family support which
is treated for tax purposes like alimony.

If CS *weren't* tax free, it would be taxed twice (once as the NCP earns it,
then as the CS gets it), and *would* have a valid reason to be concerned that
ther would be a perverse incentive by government benefiting from CS, the more
the better. But that's not the case. It would be double taxation. So no, that
doesn't happen and shouldn't happen. (BTW, you're not applying your 'intact
family' guideline here I see.)



I have no doubt things are implemented poorly a lot of times, though, and
I'm
all for oversight of the CP. But practicalities will overwhelm some of
the
concerns I've heard people voice.

My state is one of a handful where the NCP can demand an accounting of how
CS is spent. You should have seen the look on my ex-wife's face when here
own attorney told her in front of me she had to keep receipts and records
regarding how she spent the CS.

Good! Yes, if it's mandated from you, she should account for its spending.



And
as you pointed out, fairness for the children trumps fairness for the
fathers who pay the support. The hierarchy of interests within the system
is always government, mothers, children, and then fathers.


Depends on how the NCP's look at it - as parents, or wallets.

Well the trick for NCP's is to accept they are being used as a wallet, but
act like a parent.

Parents are *both*. The practicalities call for the wallet. (Just like in any
intact family.) When wallet concerns override what works for the kids (like the
girls sitting down to different meals), yes, the NCP is acting like a wallet and
not a parent.




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!!

I don't get hung up on micromanaging how CS is ordered and spent when all
of
the children have the same father.

OK, I'm glad. I was wondering where this was heading.

Where I find a major flaw in the CS
system is when there is no consideration given to blended familes. Each
CS
case is treated as a stand alone circumstance without regard for other
factors. And there are built in gender-biased rules. For instance, it is
okay for a mother to remarry (as you suggested above) and co-mingle
available funds at her discretion for family support, but fathers are told
that if they remarry no consideration will be given to how they support
step-children or any subsequent children.

See, I don't see that as equal situations. For one thing, the NCP, once
he or
she remarries, has access for all the *new partner's* resources and
potential.
The first scenario you gave - there was none of that. But you were happy
to
have all the goodies go to the other mens' kids if things went up.

Let me ask you this: time and time again the situation of new burdens,
loss of
job, in the NCP household should mean the CP cuts back too. Does that
work both
ways? If the NCP's new wife gets an inheritance - where is the CP
regarding
that?

This is another unequal way the system deals with issues. If a CP falls on
hard times they simply cut back appropriately. If the NCP falls on hard
times they need to hire an attorney, file motions with the court, wait for a
hearing date, and hope they get some relief. While all that is goping on
the NCP is flling further and further into arrears which triggers the CS
enforcement mechanisms to add more pressure to the situation.

Didn't answer my quesiton.

If the NCP falls upon *good* times, like that inheritance, does the CP get any?
No? Why not? (BTW hopefully not.)

Why would it work only one way.

So to your statement (which I see a lot) - it's called D-I-V-O-R-C-E. That
partnership where people share the ups and downs, set their own priorities and
tradoffs? It's gone kaput dissolved. What's left is an obligation to the kid.
You dont' get to shoulder new burdens together. CP has nothing to do with it
either way - bigger bills, or nice winning lottery ticket the new wifey bought.

It's a consequence of that the CP has nearly all the *responsibility*. If
someone can't stomach that - they need to be the full parent or co-parent.

I just don't sign on to that either being the same situation, or inequitable any
other way.




Don't forget that CP mothers have a pro-rata share of CS that they are
expected to provide too. Having multiple children with multiple fathers
diminishes their ability to provide support at the levels assumed in the
CS
setting process.


Meaning exactly, what. (seriously, wondered if something along this line
why the
second kid was only gettng200 bucks...)

It's two separate things. The $800/$200 example was about CS being set
differently when two fathers have different incomes.

OK.

The pro-rata share
comment is about how a total CS obligation based on combined incomes is
divided between the parents. IOW - The NCP pays CS and the CP provides CS.
The issue of CS accountability is twofold. One is to ensure the CP provides
their share in addition to the NCP's payments, and the second is to ensure
the total CS obligation is spent.


OK, sure. Meaning, for example, the CP pays part of the cost to raise the kids,
too. That would be the kind of thing some oversight would have to account for,
too.



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?

If I'm the guy ordered to pay CS for the "care and maintenance of minor
children" I believe it is fair for me to have an expectation that my
support
will be used as the court ordered. The legal justification for the CS
system is the state legislatures have a "rational basis" for stepping into
family decisions. If the laws are not implemented as passed, the
legislative intent becomes mute.


If the first girl (yours, say) gets benefit of all $800 dollars, but so
does the
other girl, would you think that consistent with what the court ordered?

Sure. But that doesn't happen. Let's say the mothers pro-rata share of the
CS obligation is $400 per child. That means to equalize the child rearing
expenditures she would have to spend her per child assumed total of $800

OK, for the two daughters... 400 x 2 = 800...

plus add another $400 in spending to provide equally for both children plus
the $1,000 received from the fathers.

And the othre $400 is from..? (sorry I may be dense here..)

In practice whatever needs to happen to get the kids raised is what happens. It
may be more.



THe only way (practically, reasonably) a difference could be generated
woudl be
something like ballet lessons for her, and not the other. But what if
she's not
interested in anything like that..

There are all kinds of practical ways for CP's to manage the differing CS
amounts received per child. Here is just one - Spent the same lower of the
two CS amounts received on both children, but put the difference in a
savings account for the child with the higher CS award.

REALLY? Until when?? In the meantime, the first child is held to the standard
determined by the very low income of the second father. Artificially.
Presumably until the younger is raised?? (which would be the whole childhood of
the older!) Really? And *this* to prevent $$ mixing so's the first father can
have his contribution unsullied by others' needs?? His own kid doens't see the
money until she's grown, no Brownies, no school trips, etc.? Because now there's
another child in the family and to keep it away from her?

If the first dad, with the more income, thinks that's appropriate, that's a
wallet and not a parent.

Is THAT the kind of accounting you'd like to see? Like I said, if CP advocacy
groups are reading THIS, no small wonder they're resisting the idea of
oversight.

Banty