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


"Banty" wrote in message
...
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.

I'm beginning to think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. This
has nothing to do with what the children eat.

I'm trying to illustrate what kind of thing would happen in order to not
comingle funds in your scenario. Things like rent and heat not being
divisible
between two kids in a household.

It really shouldn't be that much of a problem. Mom simply adds more funds
to child # 2's share of income, and things come out equal, right? Rather
than taking from child 1 to make things even for child 2, she *adds to*
child 2. After all, she was aware that she had an obligation to child 1
before child 2 came along, right?