A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Name change because parent not visiting child



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #271  
Old December 15th 06, 04:39 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
ghostwriter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


teachrmama wrote:
"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 other choice is to require some proof that Johnnie DIRECTLY
benifits from those expendtures. So if he rides 50miles a week in a car
that is driven for 150miles then one third of the month cost of that
car is attributed to him. If he only drives 10miles in step-dads truck
that is driven 200miles then only 5% of that cost can be given to him.
Mom getting health insurance though work benifits Johnnie but what if
she gets the lower co-pay version because step-dad is on viagra, should
the NCP have access to that information because his child support might
potentially be used to pay for mortgage costs that the health insurance
offset.


Again, Dad does not owe mom anything for any sort of insurance for herself.
He has absolutely NO responsibility to meet any of her expenses--no matter
how wonderful you think those benefits are. As for mileage in the car, you
can't assume that the 50 miles Johnnie was actually in the car should be
charged only to him--does Johnnie pay for the whole family to travel places?
And BOTH parents have cars--will mom have to pay for the percentage of miles
that Johnny is in dad's car during the month, too. I think you are just
looking for ways to justify sticking it to dads because you don't think the
vast majority of them measure up to your standards.



What if the NCP challenges the costs in court, should he be allowed to
demand an idemized recieit for every time a pizza was ordered to see
what percentage of the cost was reflected by the pizza his son eats.
Should he be able to question why mom got the 5 day course of brand
name antibotics for his son rather than the 10 day generics. Should he
be allowed to question why she spent $100 at the gap for his birthbay
presents rather than $50 at wal-mart. Does a cell phone have a set
value to Johnnie as a means of communication, and what if is part of a
family plan so the costs while less per phone are bundled with the rest
of the household, does that then give NCP the right to demand why the
household has to have 500mins/month and not 400.


Food, clothing, shelter aer covered in the basics. If mon chooses to buy
$100 jeans rather that $30 jeans, she pays the overage herself. SHE should
not have the power to say that dad has to pay whatever amount she thinks is
right. And cell phones are luxuries. Why should dad be stuck paying for
luxuries? If mom wants Johnnie to have them, let her pay. Wht on earth do
you think that Johnnie's desires run the world?



Thats the reason that the court has stuck to a lifestyle arrangment
because accounting for all of the benifits Johnnie recieves, as a
result of them being provided to the household, is next to impossible
and would require a massive invasion of privacy. It would put the judge
into the situation of refreeing a bean-counting session, at huge cost
to the system. The average judge is not going to order that all the
money be spent on Johnnie and accounted for precisely, because that
would be huge interference with the CP's right to actually be a CP.


NCPs owe NOTHING to CP's household. The household is the responsibility of
the adults in that house. You have made it abundantly clear in this post
that you feel that fathers should be forced to support not only their
children, but also their children's mothers, and the household that the
children live in. So what responsibility does that leave to mom? Not much,
huh?


Accounting should be kept to a minimum, one affidavit with a request
for change seems reasonable. Any other requirments should be as a
result of a mutally negotiated agreement between the parents.


But moms can go back and demand more money any time they want to, can't
they?



My point was that accounting for the benfits that Johnnie recieves as a
result of them being provided to the household is impossible. Are you
honestly saying that Johnnie doesnt get any tangable benifit from
living in a better school system, or the fact that the household has a
computer and internet service, etc. I can easily see your argument that
the NCP should have a say in if the benifit justifies that cost. Thats
the reason that I advocate a mutally agreed upon binding agreement. Are
you honestly saying that since the CP and others in the household
benifit from that money spent that Johnnie recieves nothing from it?
That only costs that are 100% Johnnie's can be included in the
calcuation. That is so far beyond illogical that it suggests either
hate or pure greed as being the motivation.

The idea that a NCP should be able to determine on a miniute by minute
basis what amount of money they are going to supply is morally
repugnant. That removes any possibility of the CP using that money for
any of Johnnies needs that arent delayable and very modular. If she
would dare to use that money to better the lifestyle of the household
then she puts the NCP in a position of complete control since removal
of that money could potentially bankrupt them. That guts their ability
to be a custodian of the the child.

It also sets up a situation where getting the household to blend is
next to impossible, if NCP's money can only go to expenses that are
100% Johnnies then the CP must either buy step-brother the cool stuff
and hope that NCP is willing to pony up or lavish Johnnie with the
money from NCP while step-brother does without. Thats morally
disgusting and an excellent way to make Johnnie into a brat. If I were
a CP forced into that situation I would dump all the money into a
investment fund and forget about it, and refuse to permit the NCP to
purchase anything for Johnnie where I could not supply an equivalent to
step-brother.

Frankly its bean counting with the intent to put the NCP in completel
control. It also shows complete disreguard for Johnnie's long term well
being and any of the intangable benifits from living in a healthy
household.

Basically this is making the idea of a legally mandated minimium basic
support amount, followed up by the mandatory drafting of a binding
agreement. Where reporting requirements, support amounts, emergency
continegencies, justifications for asking for increases, effects of
remarriage, visitiation, etc. are hashed out in that agreement sound
better and better. Lets not substitute one set of poor assumption for
the opposite set of equally poor assumptions. Human judgement is a far
better problem solver than the law will ever be.

Ghostwriter

  #272  
Old December 15th 06, 05:39 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
DB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 139
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"ghostwriter" wrote in

Human judgement is a far better problem solver than the law will ever be.


Now you are finally getting it!


  #273  
Old December 15th 06, 05:53 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
DB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 139
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"ghostwriter" wrote in

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?


So because mommy gets herself knocked up, she is automatically guaranteed a
better life style than what she could afford on her without a child. Yep,
the child becomes a ticket to a better life!

Your theories are well meaning, but well meaning theories have a way of
screwing people in the end!


  #274  
Old December 15th 06, 05:54 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
ghostwriter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


teachrmama wrote:
"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 other choice is to require some proof that Johnnie DIRECTLY
benifits from those expendtures. So if he rides 50miles a week in a car
that is driven for 150miles then one third of the month cost of that
car is attributed to him. If he only drives 10miles in step-dads truck
that is driven 200miles then only 5% of that cost can be given to him.
Mom getting health insurance though work benifits Johnnie but what if
she gets the lower co-pay version because step-dad is on viagra, should
the NCP have access to that information because his child support might
potentially be used to pay for mortgage costs that the health insurance
offset.


Again, Dad does not owe mom anything for any sort of insurance for herself.
He has absolutely NO responsibility to meet any of her expenses--no matter
how wonderful you think those benefits are. As for mileage in the car, you
can't assume that the 50 miles Johnnie was actually in the car should be
charged only to him--does Johnnie pay for the whole family to travel places?
And BOTH parents have cars--will mom have to pay for the percentage of miles
that Johnny is in dad's car during the month, too. I think you are just
looking for ways to justify sticking it to dads because you don't think the
vast majority of them measure up to your standards.



What if the NCP challenges the costs in court, should he be allowed to
demand an idemized recieit for every time a pizza was ordered to see
what percentage of the cost was reflected by the pizza his son eats.
Should he be able to question why mom got the 5 day course of brand
name antibotics for his son rather than the 10 day generics. Should he
be allowed to question why she spent $100 at the gap for his birthbay
presents rather than $50 at wal-mart. Does a cell phone have a set
value to Johnnie as a means of communication, and what if is part of a
family plan so the costs while less per phone are bundled with the rest
of the household, does that then give NCP the right to demand why the
household has to have 500mins/month and not 400.


Food, clothing, shelter aer covered in the basics. If mon chooses to buy
$100 jeans rather that $30 jeans, she pays the overage herself. SHE should
not have the power to say that dad has to pay whatever amount she thinks is
right. And cell phones are luxuries. Why should dad be stuck paying for
luxuries? If mom wants Johnnie to have them, let her pay. Wht on earth do
you think that Johnnie's desires run the world?



Thats the reason that the court has stuck to a lifestyle arrangment
because accounting for all of the benifits Johnnie recieves, as a
result of them being provided to the household, is next to impossible
and would require a massive invasion of privacy. It would put the judge
into the situation of refreeing a bean-counting session, at huge cost
to the system. The average judge is not going to order that all the
money be spent on Johnnie and accounted for precisely, because that
would be huge interference with the CP's right to actually be a CP.


NCPs owe NOTHING to CP's household. The household is the responsibility of
the adults in that house. You have made it abundantly clear in this post
that you feel that fathers should be forced to support not only their
children, but also their children's mothers, and the household that the
children live in. So what responsibility does that leave to mom? Not much,
huh?


Accounting should be kept to a minimum, one affidavit with a request
for change seems reasonable. Any other requirments should be as a
result of a mutally negotiated agreement between the parents.


But moms can go back and demand more money any time they want to, can't
they?



My point was that accounting for the benfits that Johnnie recieves as a
result of them being provided to the household is impossible. Are you
honestly saying that Johnnie doesnt get any tangable benifit from
living in a better school system, or the fact that the household has a
computer and internet service, etc. I can easily see your argument that
the NCP should have a say in if the benifit justifies that cost. Thats
the reason that I advocate a mutally agreed upon binding agreement. Are
you honestly saying that since the CP and others in the household
benifit from that money spent that Johnnie recieves nothing from it?
That only costs that are 100% Johnnie's can be included in the
calcuation. That is so far beyond illogical that it suggests either
hate or pure greed as being the motivation.

The idea that a NCP should be able to determine on a miniute by minute
basis what amount of money they are going to supply is morally
repugnant. That removes any possibility of the CP using that money for
any of Johnnies needs that arent delayable and very modular. If she
would dare to use that money to better the lifestyle of the household
then she puts the NCP in a position of complete control since removal
of that money could potentially bankrupt them. That guts their ability
to be a custodian of the the child.

It also sets up a situation where getting the household to blend is
next to impossible, if NCP's money can only go to expenses that are
100% Johnnies then the CP must either buy step-brother the cool stuff
and hope that NCP is willing to pony up or lavish Johnnie with the
money from NCP while step-brother does without. Thats morally
disgusting and an excellent way to make Johnnie into a brat. If I were
a CP forced into that situation I would dump all the money into a
investment fund and forget about it, and refuse to permit the NCP to
purchase anything for Johnnie where I could not supply an equivalent to
step-brother.

Frankly its bean counting with the intent to put the NCP in completel
control. It also shows complete disreguard for Johnnie's long term well
being and any of the intangable benifits from living in a healthy
household.

Basically this is making the idea of a legally mandated minimium basic
support amount, followed up by the mandatory drafting of a binding
agreement. Where reporting requirements, support amounts, emergency
continegencies, justifications for asking for increases, effects of
remarriage, visitiation, etc. are hashed out in that agreement sound
better and better. Lets not substitute one set of poor assumption for
the opposite set of equally poor assumptions. Human judgement is a far
better problem solver than the law will ever be.

Ghostwriter

  #275  
Old December 15th 06, 06:26 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
ghostwriter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


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. 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.

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.

Ghostwriter

  #276  
Old December 16th 06, 03:50 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"ghostwriter" wrote in message
oups.com...

teachrmama wrote:
"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 other choice is to require some proof that Johnnie DIRECTLY
benifits from those expendtures. So if he rides 50miles a week in a car
that is driven for 150miles then one third of the month cost of that
car is attributed to him. If he only drives 10miles in step-dads truck
that is driven 200miles then only 5% of that cost can be given to him.
Mom getting health insurance though work benifits Johnnie but what if
she gets the lower co-pay version because step-dad is on viagra, should
the NCP have access to that information because his child support might
potentially be used to pay for mortgage costs that the health insurance
offset.


Again, Dad does not owe mom anything for any sort of insurance for
herself.
He has absolutely NO responsibility to meet any of her expenses--no
matter
how wonderful you think those benefits are. As for mileage in the car,
you
can't assume that the 50 miles Johnnie was actually in the car should be
charged only to him--does Johnnie pay for the whole family to travel
places?
And BOTH parents have cars--will mom have to pay for the percentage of
miles
that Johnny is in dad's car during the month, too. I think you are just
looking for ways to justify sticking it to dads because you don't think
the
vast majority of them measure up to your standards.



What if the NCP challenges the costs in court, should he be allowed to
demand an idemized recieit for every time a pizza was ordered to see
what percentage of the cost was reflected by the pizza his son eats.
Should he be able to question why mom got the 5 day course of brand
name antibotics for his son rather than the 10 day generics. Should he
be allowed to question why she spent $100 at the gap for his birthbay
presents rather than $50 at wal-mart. Does a cell phone have a set
value to Johnnie as a means of communication, and what if is part of a
family plan so the costs while less per phone are bundled with the rest
of the household, does that then give NCP the right to demand why the
household has to have 500mins/month and not 400.


Food, clothing, shelter aer covered in the basics. If mon chooses to buy
$100 jeans rather that $30 jeans, she pays the overage herself. SHE
should
not have the power to say that dad has to pay whatever amount she thinks
is
right. And cell phones are luxuries. Why should dad be stuck paying for
luxuries? If mom wants Johnnie to have them, let her pay. Wht on earth
do
you think that Johnnie's desires run the world?



Thats the reason that the court has stuck to a lifestyle arrangment
because accounting for all of the benifits Johnnie recieves, as a
result of them being provided to the household, is next to impossible
and would require a massive invasion of privacy. It would put the judge
into the situation of refreeing a bean-counting session, at huge cost
to the system. The average judge is not going to order that all the
money be spent on Johnnie and accounted for precisely, because that
would be huge interference with the CP's right to actually be a CP.


NCPs owe NOTHING to CP's household. The household is the responsibility
of
the adults in that house. You have made it abundantly clear in this post
that you feel that fathers should be forced to support not only their
children, but also their children's mothers, and the household that the
children live in. So what responsibility does that leave to mom? Not
much,
huh?


Accounting should be kept to a minimum, one affidavit with a request
for change seems reasonable. Any other requirments should be as a
result of a mutally negotiated agreement between the parents.


But moms can go back and demand more money any time they want to, can't
they?



My point was that accounting for the benfits that Johnnie recieves as a
result of them being provided to the household is impossible. Are you
honestly saying that Johnnie doesnt get any tangable benifit from
living in a better school system, or the fact that the household has a
computer and internet service, etc.


My point is--so what? What if he would benefit from those things. Why
should dad have to pay for a higher lifestyle for an entire household just
because Johnnie might benefit? If MARRIED parents are not REQUIRED to
provide such things, why should UNMARRIED FATHERS be required to provide
them? It's either everyone is required to do so, or nobody is required to
do so. The lawequires a minimum level of support--keep it that way for
everyone. And let the parents work together to provide more if they want
to. If one parent refuses to do so, chances are that same parent would have
acted the same way within the marriage. Extras should not be decided by the
court--only basic sipport should, as determined by law for everyone else.


I can easily see your argument that
the NCP should have a say in if the benifit justifies that cost. Thats
the reason that I advocate a mutally agreed upon binding agreement. Are
you honestly saying that since the CP and others in the household
benifit from that money spent that Johnnie recieves nothing from it?
That only costs that are 100% Johnnie's can be included in the
calcuation. That is so far beyond illogical that it suggests either
hate or pure greed as being the motivation.


No, what I am saying that basic levels of support are all that should be
required. If mom decides to live in a more expensive neighborhood, let her
foot the bill herself. Or maintain a relationship of mutual respect with
dad, and be able to discuss things civilly. Instead of the current system
where the courts screw dad and reward mom in the name of a child who may
not even be receiving the benefits that dad is paying for. CS for basic
needs--everyothing else worked out between the parents. Right now mom
doesn't even need to work things out--she has the court to back up her
demands.



The idea that a NCP should be able to determine on a miniute by minute
basis what amount of money they are going to supply is morally
repugnant.


You certainly never saw me say anything that ridiculous.

That removes any possibility of the CP using that money for
any of Johnnies needs that arent delayable and very modular. If she
would dare to use that money to better the lifestyle of the household


Of course she shouldn't!! Her household is her responsibility! Child
support is not to support a househols--it's to support a child! Dad does
NOT owe mom a lifestyle!! Why do you keep harping on this?


then she puts the NCP in a position of complete control since removal
of that money could potentially bankrupt them. That guts their ability
to be a custodian of the the child.


Nonsense--she will be getting basic support--and will simply have to
negotiate the extras with dad. He shouldn't owe any more than any other
parent does.



It also sets up a situation where getting the household to blend is
next to impossible, if NCP's money can only go to expenses that are
100% Johnnies then the CP must either buy step-brother the cool stuff
and hope that NCP is willing to pony up or lavish Johnnie with the
money from NCP while step-brother does without.


That is correct. If dad pays for Johnnie to have the coolest new shoes, and
the other child's dad does not, tough luck! Why should Johnnie's dad
provide for other men's children? Not in your wildest dreams can you
justify that!


Thats morally
disgusting and an excellent way to make Johnnie into a brat.


No it isn't. It is 2 parents providing for their own child. Geesh!


If I were
a CP forced into that situation I would dump all the money into a
investment fund and forget about it, and refuse to permit the NCP to
purchase anything for Johnnie where I could not supply an equivalent to
step-brother.


How very selfish of you. Johnnie cannot have anything if every other child
in the household can't have the exact same thing? And Johnnie's dad should
be forced to pay for it all? So if Johnnie's dad gives him a Playstation 3
for Christmas, you would get rid of it because his step- and half-siblings
did not also get Playstation 3s? Johnnie can't have an identity as his
father's som. but has to share his father with the entire household? Wow,
that will certainly blend the household well. NOT.


Frankly its bean counting with the intent to put the NCP in completel
control. It also shows complete disreguard for Johnnie's long term well
being and any of the intangable benifits from living in a healthy
household.


Not so. It's fairness under the law. Basic support is all that should be
required. Just like with married parents. Everything else is at the
diescretion of the parents. A father who has a relationship with his child
will more than likely want to supply more than that. But you don't even
want to give him a chance. And you want him to be held responsible for an
entire household--not just his own child.



Basically this is making the idea of a legally mandated minimium basic
support amount, followed up by the mandatory drafting of a binding
agreement. Where reporting requirements, support amounts, emergency
continegencies, justifications for asking for increases, effects of
remarriage, visitiation, etc. are hashed out in that agreement sound
better and better. Lets not substitute one set of poor assumption for
the opposite set of equally poor assumptions. Human judgement is a far
better problem solver than the law will ever be.



As soon as you make a hashed-out agreement legally binding, you have put
everyon back in the exact same position as now. As long as the law gets to
dictate family spending, it will not be a good system.


  #277  
Old December 16th 06, 04:41 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
DB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 139
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"teachrmama" wrote in

That removes any possibility of the CP using that money for
any of Johnnies needs that arent delayable and very modular. If she
would dare to use that money to better the lifestyle of the household


Of course she shouldn't!! Her household is her responsibility! Child
support is not to support a househols--it's to support a child! Dad does
NOT owe mom a lifestyle!! Why do you keep harping on this?



Like many people, they don't understand the concept of providing the basics.

He seems to think that a system will fix everything and that an upper
lifestyle will produce better children.

All the system has produced is a lot of human misery, but it gives
politicians the bragging rights on how much money they have sucked out of
NCPs.



  #278  
Old December 16th 06, 05:55 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"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.


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?


  #279  
Old December 16th 06, 01:39 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
animal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Name change because parent not visiting child

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.

The simple solution is that the cost of providing basics to a child is
already established by the state, by what they pay for foster care.
That number, divided by two, is what each parent should be required to
pay. If it is good enough for the state, it should be good enough for
all parents.
  #280  
Old December 17th 06, 01:11 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
...

"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



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?




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NFJA Position Statement: Child Support Enforcement Funding Dusty Child Support 0 March 2nd 06 01:49 AM
| | Kids should work... Kane Foster Parents 3 December 9th 03 12:53 AM
Kids should work. ChrisScaife Foster Parents 16 December 7th 03 05:27 AM
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking Kane Spanking 63 November 17th 03 11:12 PM
Helping Your Child Be Healthy and Fit sX3#;WA@'U John Smith Kids Health 0 July 20th 03 04:50 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.