"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news

"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.

Dads are told by judges to get rid of their flavor of the week because
they
cannot afford to support a second family relationship. While live-in
boyfriends are okay'd by the courts for mothers since they supposedly
add
to
the children's financial wellbeing. Don't you see a double standard in
how
the courts rule on these blended family situations?

Well, Bob, your statements are simply that - they don't carry a whole lot
of
weight unless you can provide cites for your anecdotes.

Got any?

Nobody can provide cites for anecdotes. But if you hear enough anecdotes
you start to see a pattern of events.

Here's a few anecdotes that show a pattern:

I asked the court for lower CS so I could have money for a social life and
to buy appropriate clothing for my level of employment. The court told me
I
had no business dating and I should wear my suits until they wore out.

Teachrmama has had her children described as "irrelevant" by the court.
The
implication is her husband had no business getting married.

CS guideline formulas do not include support for subsequent children.

Moon Shyne and other women complain their ex's spends money dating instead
of paying CS as ordered.

I have NEVER made such a claim, Bob. Try truth instead of fiction, please.

The courts allow vindictive mothers to use
draconian methods to collect the CS and stop the dating.

Live-in boyfriends are more likely than fathers to commit intimate partner
violence. Studies using small samples cause this statistic to vary from
twice as likely to 60 times as likely but the courts do nothing to stop it
from happening.