View Single Post
  #305  
Old December 18th 06, 01:13 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"Phil" wrote in message
k.net...

"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.



In the case involving my husband's daughter, though, it isn't the fool
mother--it is big daddy gubmint. SHE is supported by the taxpayers and
always has been. Big daddy gubmint wants as big a take as they can get--no
matter what it does to our children.