"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"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.

Dads are told by judges to get rid of their flavor of the week because
they
cannot afford to support a second family relationship. While live-in
boyfriends are okay'd by the courts for mothers since they supposedly add
to
the children's financial wellbeing. Don't you see a double standard in
how
the courts rule on these blended family situations?

Well, Bob, your statements are simply that - they don't carry a whole lot of
weight unless you can provide cites for your anecdotes.

Got any?




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.

But you do know - coming from a long line of legal scholars - that the
appeals court decisions about non-bio fathers supporting children they did
not father is fairly common. And those decisions include men being forced
to support children that their wives created with lovers while being
married
through the assumption of paternity laws.