View Single Post
  #309  
Old December 18th 06, 03:16 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Moon Shyne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 427
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"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
...

"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.

Ghost is proposing that there SHOULD be negotiations about CS--that it
would make for a better system than the one we have today. He is
proposing that the parents negotiate monies paid above the basic support
level--the level of support that children require for food, shelter and
clothing.

Here is the post you picked and chose phrases from:

****That does kind of gloss over the fact that negoating an agreement
would
be very difficult since five different peoples interests are at stake.
However, I still think that a legally mandated minimum (based on all
the children in the household) 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. 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.****


The legally mandated minimum is based on all the children in the
household. The amount each father pays now becomes part of a negotiation
among all 3 parents involved. It's really not that hard to understand.


So you're suggesting that the father of Child A should be part of the
negotiations about child support for Child B?

Aren't you the one who deemed that asinine?


I didn't suggest it, Moon. Ghost did. Go drink some coffee and come back
when you can focus a bit better.


Nothing wrong with my focus, Teach, and I don't drink coffee past noon,
because of the caffeine.