"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" 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

children)--that extra $100 per month should be accounted
for--Johnnies
Little League fee, field trip to San Francisco, 3 Green Day
CDs--whatever--to make sure that the extra is being spent on
Johnnie--not
Mom--not other siblings--not new boyfriend. How difficult is
that?
Just
the amount over and above basic support--the lifestyle
nonsense that
the
court requires to be paid but doesn't require to be spent on
the
child.

That's the best idea I've read here to date!

Accountability for anything above the basics, we should have
the right
to
know that our money is being spent on our children. If they
want more
money, we should have the right to know where the first $400
went?

Thats actually where the potential problem arises, who
determines if
the benifit justifies the cost? If Johnnie lives with Mom the
household needs about $25K to stay above water in most areas of
this
country. Thats about 12.5K or $500 per month per parent to
support
Johnnies share. How much does Johnnie benifit from having a
nicer home,
a safer school, a nicer car to ride in, better tasting food in
the
fridge, cable TV and internet, savings to allow for emergencies,
better
heath insurance on mom, life insurance on mom, etc? The addition
of
more people and more income creates economics of scale that
Johnnie
benifits from does that mean that the child support should go
down
because Johnnie became cheaper to support?

Whats to stop the CP from saying that they use the money to meet
the
fixed expenses, because honestly the fixed expenses in any
household
are larger than any normal NCP's child support award. Even if
you go to
a by share basis who determines what the household buys because
Johnnie
wants it and what is bought because Step-dad and Johnnie like
it. If
the amount of Johnnies child support is less then his share of
the
mortgage, utilities, and food does that give the NCP the right
to
demand what the CP spent their own salary on because of the fact
that
the child support shifted money that the CP would have otherwise
spent.

What on earth are you talking about? Johnnie's share of housing
is the
difference between a 1 and 2 bedroom apartment. He does not owe a
percentage of the cost of buying a house! Dad most assuredly does
not
have
any responsibility to kick in for mom's life and/or health
insurance. You
sound like a money-grubber in this one, ghost! "If I can say that
Johnnie
wants it, then Dad should have to pay." How ridiculous! The
government
only requires a certain minimum level of provision for a child--if
it's
good
enough to require of married parents, it's good enough to require
of
unmarried parents. The fact that Johnnie might benefit from it is
not a
good enough reason to force one segment of the population to pay
for what
another has no requirement to provide. If both parents are
actively
involved in their child's life, there is a much better chance that
both
will
*want* to provide these things--and the child will be a common
bond.

The giant flaw in CS calculation methodology and the CS guidelines
is CP's
are allowed to pretend their per child expenses exist in a vacuum.
When a
woman has children with two men she is allowed 1/2 of her living
expenses
against one child, with the other 1/2 being her own marginal
expenses. And
then she can charge the other half of her marginal living expenses
against
the second child and that CS order. In essence with this and other
child
rearing expenses considered based on shared expenses within the CS
calculation methodology the system allows women to show 100% plus of
their
own marginal expenses against child rearing costs and pay nothing
for their
own expenses when multiple CS orders are in place. The CS
calculation
method allows the CP mother to have zero marginal costs to support
herself.

Yuck, that definately sucks.

I can see a serious issue where two (or more) fathers are involved,
since neither father would want to pay above the minimun to support
his
kid. But moms in the vice since the basic costs of support are
higher
for three as compared to just two. I can see why a courts would side
with the mom in order to protect the kids from getting hurt in the
crossfire.

I can't. I can't see any reason why courts should be biased. Kids
are not being protected when one of their parents is being screwed by
the law. Of course the costs are higher for 3 than 2--but not so much
higher that a mother deserves 2 full CS awards to cover those costs.

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.

1. Mom
2. Child A
3. Father of child A
4. Child B
5. Father of child B

In a negotiation for child support between mom and father of child A? I
don't think so. Why should child B and father of child B be involved at
all? How asinine!

Are you being dense on purpose?

Parents of child A (that's 2 people) deal with the needs for child A
(that's person number 3)

Parents of child B (that adds dad, who is person number 4) deal with the
needs for child B (that's person number 5).

If you still can't understand this, perhaps you should consider giving up
teaching.

Actually, Moon, that is NOT what ghost said in his post. He said that all
are involved in the negotiations--not just mom and dad A for kid 1 and mom
and dad B for kid 2. Read it again.

Um, no, that's NOT what he said. Read again

{portions not relevant to this particular issue snipped, reference for full
post at top of quoted portions]

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
ups.com...


Yuck, that definately sucks.

I can see a serious issue where two (or more) fathers are involved,
since neither father would want to pay above the minimun to support his
kid. .......

That does kind of gloss over the fact that negoating an agreement would
be very difficult since five different peoples interests are at stake.


Ghostwriter

He says nothing about all 5 people being in the same negotiation.

There are 5 people in total. 3 of those people are the various parents of
the various children. There are noegotiations about CS.

It's really not that hard to understand.