Gini wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote

Gini wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote
...............
The law and the courts decided a
long time ago that your child's rights trumped yours in the situation
of child-support.
==
Really? Then why don't the courts require the custodial parent to spend
the money on the kid? See, the courts actually decided the the *mother's*
rights trump the kids' and the dads'.

Actually they decided before child support really existed that, absent
evidence of abuse, the decisions of a fit custodial parent are by
definition "in the child's best interest".

That happens to be one of the major pillars of western civilization.
==
And?

And amazingly enough you dont get the right to demand an accounting for
every dime of that money, its not relevent to the law. The CP actually
gets to act in the best interests of the child without having you
looking over their shoulder every moment. A law would have to be
enacted to give you that right over the right to privacy of the CP. I
cannot imagine a congress being willing to legalize what is very likley
to become a means of harassing CPs.

Challanges for every purchase, demands for justification of every
penny, demands to know what the CP spends personal salary on etc. etc.
etc. Its far too blunt an instrument to solve what should be solved by
changing the percent of salary to a more adjustable number.

And yes I realize that it would make an effective tool for illustrating
that some CP waste the money while the NCP lingers near poverty. But
like a lot of stormtrooper tactics it works both ways and I am
unwilling to accept the cost.

Ghostwriter