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

animal wrote:
teachrmama wrote:

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

Bob Whiteside wrote:

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
legroups.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.



However, I still think that a legally mandated minimum (based on all
the children in the household)


Oh, I don't think so. You can't hold dad A responsible for the legally
mandated minimum for 4 children if he is only the father of 1 of the
children. What if dad A makes $100K per year and is the dad of 1
child, and
dad B makes $30K per year and is the father of 3 of the
children--should dad
A have to fork over to raise the lifestyles of dad B's children just so
they
will all be equal? How do you even begin to see that as fair?

followed by a negotiated agreement with

the judge placing some of the adults (based on their discresion) income
into escrow and freezing collection of any bills that go past due in
the process would likley be the best way forward.


Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.....you're joking, right?


Even if all three

adults have to be beaten over the head by a mediator (selection by
elimation), that still seems the best way to protect the interests of
society as a whole while still respecting the ability of humans to make
better choices than a law book.


Why should 3 adults be negotiating at all? Do you mean that if the
mother
has 7 children by 7 fathers, that 8 adults would be negotiating?
Geesh,
ghost--what are you thinking?


He's not, and you have to wonder with thinking like that, if he should
be around impressinoable children.


Getting licenced as a foster parent requires you to be financially
stable prior without the income. The money is nice but meaningless in
the long run, if they only payed my expenses I would still do it. In
the end it pays about half my tithe at church and thats about it.

In the end the amount of money a child gets is far less important than
the intangibles of life, thats the reason that I am in favor of joint
custody, thats the reason I am in favor of forcing mom and dad to
figure out a dynamic that allows them to both prosper, the examples of
adults dealing with the problems is priceless for a kid growning up.

A binding agreement is necessary for stability and security, society
has to have a formal dispute resolution available. And yes all effected
members have to be involved even if just by being given a copy of the
agreement and a chance to submit written comments. The point is I
want a unbias informed decision made that reflects the best interests
of all involved. Lifestyle is important, but how important is left to
the mediator to determine if the participant cant agree. Teaching
self-control and love of family is far more important, but can be far
harder to teach if the household is on the edge of failing.

In spite of what you say here, ghost, you are so doggone focused on money
that it's not even funny! Parents owe their children support--NOT jsut
MONEY. If mom decieves the father of the child and does not inform him that
he is a father for years and years, and he has married and has another
family, thet fool of a selfish, self centered woman should have NO POWER
WHATSOEVER to dictate how much she can take the man for. She should get to
LISTEN when he talks, and nothing more. No negotiation! He should have the
option to pay minimum support--and more if and when he wants to. No matter
how much higher his income is than hers. The child is simply unfortunate to
have such scum for a mother. That frees tha father to be as kind and loving
as he wants to be, but keeps his family safe, too.

When parents divorce, 50/50 custody should be ths law. Money should not
enter the picture unless mom has been a stay-at-home mom devoting herself to
family while dad is the breadwinner. At that point a negotiation should
take place so mom can develop the skills she needs to support herself and
her children. That's only fair.

But, if both parents work. then they need to work things out before they
split up so that the children are taken care of. Dump it on them--no
divorce until you get it settled. No attorneys, no court intervention. A
mutually agreeable counselor. But YOU are the parents--get the job done.

Where one parent is going to have full custody--if it is over the objection
of the other parent, then the one claiming the kids pays for the kids. If
she wants help paying for things, then share the children, too.

I agree with you that seeing adults work out their differences is a
wonderful example. It would be far better if these differences were worked
out within the marriage, so fewer divorces took place. I was reading this
article yesterday where a celebrity was asked about whether she was going to
start dating again. Her comment was that she was going to be more selective
in who she went out with now, and that there would be no sex for at least 6
months. Whew--what a wonderful message: It's ok to risk creating a child
out of wedlock as long as you wait 6 months before doing so. And look where
this wonderful lack of a moral code has brought us as a society. And the
family court system is not even beginning to help solve the problem. It is
making it worse by giving women a far superior position than men in almost
every situation. Take away any vestige of that and put them in a position
where they and they alone have the power to makt things work, and we will
see an almost immediate change.

And, ghost, I still desagree that things will work if you force every adult
involved into the negotiations. How would you handle this?

Woman has 5 kids by 4 dads. Negotiation would involve:

Dad 1, his wife ( kid by mom 1 and 2 by his wife)
Dad 2, his ex wife, his current wife, his former mistress (1 kid by mom 1,
1 by ex wife, 1 by current wife, 1 by mistress)
Dad 3, his 3 exes, (1 by mom 1, 1 by ex 1, 1 by ex 2, 1 by ex 3)
Dad 4, his current wife, (2 by mom 1, 2 by current wife)

That would be 12 adults negotiating for 14 kids.

Salaries

Mom 1--0 doesn't work and neither does current live-in boyfriend
Dad 1--$35K/year
Dad 2--$100K per year
Dad 3--$44Kper year
Dad 4--$26K per year

Now, ghost, who should pay how much? How would you negotiate this out?
Should Dad 2 pay the most to make sure that all of mom 1's kids have an
equal lifestyle? Should the other children of the fathers live lower
lifestyle's than mom 1's kids so that all of HER kids are equal? Should all
26 people involved live the exact same lifestyls/ (Perhaos set up a commune
and all share equally) How would you work this out equitably?

Think it doesn't happen? I KNOW this family!


This is the stuff I teach the kids that come into my home, if you dont
like it go get licenced yourself.

Ghostwriter