"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"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.

But in my situation, he didn't even know he was the father of
another child until our children were 3 and 4 years old. There was
no court order. So that does not apply. And, in any case, children
are children. NONE should be deemed irrelevant! EVER!

They are irrelevant to the court proceedings for child support for
some other child, just as they are irrelevant to the court
proceedings for child support for my children.

No, no, Moon. You are playing blind again. They are considered
irrelevant as to any need they have fortheir father's income. Money
for the child that was kept from him for 13 years is taken out, and
whatever is left is deemed to be good enough ofr them. The system
could take everything we have in the name of the other child and leave
our irrelevant children destitute if they wanted to--if my husband
were disabled and unable to pay the extortionate CS rate for example.
As flavor of the week #3, I know you are aware of that. You just gloss
over it because you have no real answers.


Someday, perhaps you'll get over it.

I will NEVER agree that ANY child is irrelevant, Moon. I don't see
people as disposable.

I think what you don't get, TM, is that all children are irrelevant when
it comes to C$. The only determining factor is: how much money can a
woman make from her children. It just ain't about the children, any
children.
Phil #3