"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"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.

So, apparently, did ghost. Do you think Dad's new wife and his
subsequent children should have as much say over his money as the mother
of his other children does? Do you think that subsequent children
deserve equal standing in the eyes of the court?

Teach, you missed my point, entirely.

Bob is SO QUICK to slam the mom, with "Mom's new live-in boyfriend" (who,
by the way is certainly entitled to how HIS money is allocated,
especially since the child isn't his, nor is it his responsibility to
support said child) - but was SO NON-RESPONSIVE to show dear old dad
equal treatment with his flavor of the week (who is also entitled to how
HER money is allocated, especially since the child isn't hers, nor it is
her responsibility o support said child).

Now, in answer to your question... Dad's new wife and his subsequent
children get say over dad's available resources to their communal
household. They do NOT get any say in dad's responsibilities to any prior
children.

In the eyes of the court, standing is determined by the court orders.
The children who are NOT the subject/recipient/topic of general
conversation of existing court orders have NO standing in the court
proceedings of a child who IS the subject/recipient/topic of general
conversation of existing court orders.

The same way you have no standing in any court proceedings concerning my
children, or anyone else's children. You're not part of the court order,
you're not part of the equation.

I didn't ask what the law said. I already know that--my children are
orrelevant, remember? I asked what YOU think of that particular type of
situation. Should all children be considered equal--or are the older
children more deserving?

You ask what I think - ok, here's what I think.

It isn't a matter of "more deserving" - and as long as you choose to use an
inflammatory phrase like that, you're going to stir up nothing but anger....
and certainly no solutions.

When I was married, I inherited 2 stepsons. There was an existing court
order. I had no say in that court order. That's how it SHOULD be. I sure
as HELL don't think that my ex's flavor of the week #4 (or 5, or whatever
number he might be up to by now) has ANY say in the support of my children.

She's irrelevant to the equation.