"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"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





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.

I think the point was for each child there is one mom and one dad involved
in each CS cases. But to take your example to the extreme:


1. Mom
2. Child A

2A. Maternal grandma and grandpa.
2 B. Mom's new live-in boyfriend.

You forgot Dad's flavor of the week.


3. Father of child A

3A. Paternal grandma and grandpa.

4. Child B
5. Father of child B

5A. Paternal grandma and grandpa.

You have to recognize many states allow grandparents to seek visitation
rights.

Perhaps - I don't see where they fit into the child support equation,
though.

And in some extreme cases non-bio dads are party to CS cases
becasue they acted like a dad.

I find it amusing that you have to go to the "extreme case" in order to
continue your point.

Most people don't fall into that extreme case.