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

child support review objection



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #911  
Old December 18th 07, 05:32 PM posted to alt.child-support
Sarah Gray[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 324
Default child support review objection

"Chris" wrote in
:


How do you contribute materially to a child in a *modern* society
without spending money on goods and services?


Like I said, ask the first people. Cmon', don't be afraid.


What do ancient people have to do with houw goods and services are
procured today?



This game is getting old...


Especially when you refuse to address the TRUTH.


What truth? You say fathers have no rights, but the facts do not bear
that out.
  #912  
Old December 18th 07, 05:34 PM posted to alt.child-support
Sarah Gray[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 324
Default child support review objection

wrote in
:

On Dec 18, 12:53 am, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message

news:19d1a531-03a6-4fc8-b438-


...





On Dec 12, 10:33 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message


news:632831e8-3d8e-4d3d-98cb-


om...


On Dec 11, 11:43 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message


snip


No it's not. You are wrong. A woman can go for years and not
tell the
man
that he is the father of her child. Custody automatically
rests with the
mother until it is challenged by a man calining to be the
father. Custody
does not need to be established by a court if there is only a
mother, does
it?


Which would lead to her being in possession of the child,


Ah, yes, children as possessions--just like dogs, cats, and toilet
seats. Sweet.


That's just how the Cp's and CS man-ghouls treat thier children,
and I see no reason to sugar-coat it. If you want to be kissing
Sarahs ass, and tell her she is doing the right thing, well then
you need to extent that to ALL cp's, and CS recipients. What is
good for one is good for the other.


Nonsense.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Nonsense/discrimination????!! So you ARE saying that only some single
mothers deserve child support, meaning that only some children deserve
to be supported by two/both parents. I knew something was wrong with
you.

Please explain why some women should get child support while others
shouldn't-mind now that *all* children are deserving to be supported
by both parents.


What she is saying is that men should have a way of deciding they don't
want to be parents early on, *just like women already do*. Parents who
take on the responsibilities of parenting their child can't just decide
they don't want to anymore, male or female.
  #913  
Old December 18th 07, 07:13 PM posted to alt.child-support
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default child support review objection


"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 33.102...
"Chris" wrote in

:

Nooooooo---of course not, Chris-------"child support is free money
paid to mothers by fathers" is not sort of sweeping generalization.

Not at all. It's a statement of FACT.



No, it is not. Child support is money paid by noncustodial parents to
support their children.

Nonsense. The proceeds can be spent ANY way the mother deems

fit.........
PERIOD!


Prove it.


Can't prove a negative. But then again, you already knew that (I think).
How
about YOU prove that she must spend it on any particular thing.


CP's have some discretion in how CS is used, which means they are not
required to spend the money on "any particular thing". But not spending the
money on the children is a valid reason to seek a variation from the CS
guideline amounts. Several states have statutes that allow the NCP to file
a motion with the court to get an accounting of how CS is spent.

Also every state that requires some kind of document be filed by the CP to
detail income and expenses prior to a CS modification has de facto CS
accounting.

The bottom line is the CP has to provide a sworn and notarized accounting of
how the household budget money is spent and how much is spent directly on
the children by expense category.

  #914  
Old December 18th 07, 08:03 PM posted to alt.child-support
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default child support review objection


wrote in message
...
On Dec 18, 12:53 am, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Dec 12, 10:33 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message


...


On Dec 11, 11:43 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message


snip


No it's not. You are wrong. A woman can go for years and not tell
the
man
that he is the father of her child. Custody automatically rests
with
the
mother until it is challenged by a man calining to be the father.
Custody
does not need to be established by a court if there is only a
mother,
does
it?


Which would lead to her being in possession of the child,


Ah, yes, children as possessions--just like dogs, cats, and toilet
seats.
Sweet.


That's just how the Cp's and CS man-ghouls treat thier children, and I
see no reason to sugar-coat it. If you want to be kissing Sarahs ass,
and tell her she is doing the right thing, well then you need to
extent that to ALL cp's, and CS recipients. What is good for one is
good for the other.


Nonsense.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Nonsense/discrimination????!! So you ARE saying that only some single
mothers deserve child support, meaning that only some children deserve
to be supported by two/both parents. I knew something was wrong with
you.

Please explain why some women should get child support while others
shouldn't-mind now that *all* children are deserving to be supported
by both parents.


Single mothers can be fit into categories of women who get 100% of CS
(non-TANF cases), women who get some portion of CS (TANF cases with
pass-throughs), and women who get no CS (TANF cases with no pass-throughs).
The latter two categories of mothers are "assumed" to be unable to provide
any portion of a CS order and therefore do not support their own children.

  #915  
Old December 18th 07, 08:20 PM posted to alt.child-support
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default child support review objection


"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
.102...
"Chris" wrote in news:ufI9j.24068$Qf1.14614
@newsfe07.phx:

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 33.102...
"Chris" wrote in news:gDA9j.20283$1C4.707

@newsfe10.phx:

Nooooooo---of course not, Chris-------"child support is free money
paid to mothers by fathers" is not sort of sweeping

generalization.

Not at all. It's a statement of FACT.



No, it is not. Child support is money paid by noncustodial parents to
support their children.

Nonsense. The proceeds can be spent ANY way the mother deems

fit.........
PERIOD!


I have already said that I am able and willing to provide my ex husband
with receipts for goods and services procured for my daughter.


Irrelevant. That has NO bearing on the truth of my claim.


Internal truths have no value until they become external truths based on
agreement with others about common sense or facts. Your statement does not
rise to the level of external truth because it excludes fathers, it suggests
the absence of any CS spending accountability, and it assumes mothers are
not trustworthy to spend CS money on children.

  #916  
Old December 18th 07, 09:48 PM posted to alt.child-support
Gini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 936
Default child support review objection


"Bob Whiteside" wrote
...............................

CP's have some discretion in how CS is used, which means they are not
required to spend the money on "any particular thing". But not spending
the money on the children is a valid reason to seek a variation from the
CS guideline amounts. Several states have statutes that allow the NCP to
file a motion with the court to get an accounting of how CS is spent.

Also every state that requires some kind of document be filed by the CP to
detail income and expenses prior to a CS modification has de facto CS
accounting.

The bottom line is the CP has to provide a sworn and notarized accounting
of how the household budget money is spent and how much is spent directly
on the children by expense category.

===
In theory, of course.


  #917  
Old December 18th 07, 10:18 PM posted to alt.child-support
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default child support review objection


"Gini" wrote in message
news:HmW9j.5994$L91.1601@trndny05...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote
..............................

CP's have some discretion in how CS is used, which means they are not
required to spend the money on "any particular thing". But not spending
the money on the children is a valid reason to seek a variation from the
CS guideline amounts. Several states have statutes that allow the NCP to
file a motion with the court to get an accounting of how CS is spent.

Also every state that requires some kind of document be filed by the CP
to detail income and expenses prior to a CS modification has de facto CS
accounting.

The bottom line is the CP has to provide a sworn and notarized accounting
of how the household budget money is spent and how much is spent directly
on the children by expense category.

===
In theory, of course.


I have to agree with you. The difference between theory and practice in
family law is hard to accept sometimes.

When I saw the Uniform Support Affidavit in my case I knew it was a totally
fabricated picture of what was really going on. It wasn't signed and
notarized as required which was another clue. It was later described as a
"draft" and not the finished product.

I used discovery to get checkbook records and did spreadsheets showing the
variances between the alleged spending and the actual spending to show she
was lying about her expenses to get more CS plus SS. The judge protected
her by refusing to allow my spreadsheets into evidence. No evidence. No
perjury. Simple. Screw the dad!

She never did produce a signed, final version of the USA as required by
state family law and the judge thought I was nit-picking to want her to sign
the declaration statement about its truth and accuracy.

  #918  
Old December 19th 07, 01:19 AM posted to alt.child-support
Gini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 936
Default child support review objection


"Bob Whiteside" wrote
"Gini" wrote
"Bob Whiteside" wrote
..............................

CP's have some discretion in how CS is used, which means they are not
required to spend the money on "any particular thing". But not spending
the money on the children is a valid reason to seek a variation from the
CS guideline amounts. Several states have statutes that allow the NCP
to file a motion with the court to get an accounting of how CS is spent.

Also every state that requires some kind of document be filed by the CP
to detail income and expenses prior to a CS modification has de facto CS
accounting.

The bottom line is the CP has to provide a sworn and notarized
accounting of how the household budget money is spent and how much is
spent directly on the children by expense category.

===
In theory, of course.


I have to agree with you. The difference between theory and practice in
family law is hard to accept sometimes.

When I saw the Uniform Support Affidavit in my case I knew it was a
totally fabricated picture of what was really going on. It wasn't signed
and notarized as required which was another clue. It was later described
as a "draft" and not the finished product.

I used discovery to get checkbook records and did spreadsheets showing the
variances between the alleged spending and the actual spending to show she
was lying about her expenses to get more CS plus SS. The judge protected
her by refusing to allow my spreadsheets into evidence. No evidence. No
perjury. Simple. Screw the dad!

She never did produce a signed, final version of the USA as required by
state family law and the judge thought I was nit-picking to want her to
sign the declaration statement about its truth and accuracy.

===
Of course, because to the court, it doesn't matter. Florida statute requires
all parties to file a financial affidavit with the court, and support cannot
be set without it.
But...in our case, the ex filled it out with all her expenses and to the
item "Actual expenses
for the child(ren)," she totaled $300.00. Yep. Right there it was--She
actually spent $300. of the
$1200. CS on the kids. No matter--this mandatory document that must be
submitted to the court
for the establishment of a child support order, was never even looked at by
the judge. He didn't give a **** what it
said. Support is set at the guidelines amount. Period. Rhetorically, does
anyone
really believe that if the NCP exercises his right under law to require an
accounting of CS expenditures, that the court
will actually audit it? Family law judges simply refuse to be encumbered by
details.


  #919  
Old December 19th 07, 01:53 AM posted to alt.child-support
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default child support review objection


"Gini" wrote in message
news:ksZ9j.5764$Xh1.5273@trndny03...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote
"Gini" wrote
"Bob Whiteside" wrote
..............................

CP's have some discretion in how CS is used, which means they are not
required to spend the money on "any particular thing". But not
spending the money on the children is a valid reason to seek a
variation from the CS guideline amounts. Several states have statutes
that allow the NCP to file a motion with the court to get an accounting
of how CS is spent.

Also every state that requires some kind of document be filed by the CP
to detail income and expenses prior to a CS modification has de facto
CS accounting.

The bottom line is the CP has to provide a sworn and notarized
accounting of how the household budget money is spent and how much is
spent directly on the children by expense category.
===
In theory, of course.


I have to agree with you. The difference between theory and practice in
family law is hard to accept sometimes.

When I saw the Uniform Support Affidavit in my case I knew it was a
totally fabricated picture of what was really going on. It wasn't signed
and notarized as required which was another clue. It was later described
as a "draft" and not the finished product.

I used discovery to get checkbook records and did spreadsheets showing
the variances between the alleged spending and the actual spending to
show she was lying about her expenses to get more CS plus SS. The judge
protected her by refusing to allow my spreadsheets into evidence. No
evidence. No perjury. Simple. Screw the dad!

She never did produce a signed, final version of the USA as required by
state family law and the judge thought I was nit-picking to want her to
sign the declaration statement about its truth and accuracy.

===
Of course, because to the court, it doesn't matter. Florida statute
requires
all parties to file a financial affidavit with the court, and support
cannot be set without it.
But...in our case, the ex filled it out with all her expenses and to the
item "Actual expenses
for the child(ren)," she totaled $300.00. Yep. Right there it was--She
actually spent $300. of the
$1200. CS on the kids. No matter--this mandatory document that must be
submitted to the court
for the establishment of a child support order, was never even looked at
by the judge. He didn't give a **** what it
said. Support is set at the guidelines amount. Period. Rhetorically, does
anyone
really believe that if the NCP exercises his right under law to require an
accounting of CS expenditures, that the court
will actually audit it? Family law judges simply refuse to be encumbered
by details.


The reason the judge gave for not entering my spreadsheet analysis into
evidence was because she didn't want to take the time to go through it.
Similarly, the same judge wouldn't allow me to testify about our previous
and current tax positions because I wasn't a CPA and therefore couldn't be
an "expert witness". They just make up crap on the fly to prevent the real
facts from coming out. (My anecdote is from the pre-guidelines days so the
expenses were important in setting the need for CS and SS. When the
guidelines came out my CS was lowered even though my income was higher.)

My attorney told me the judges are lazy and don't want to have to think or
get into any details. It was about this time I came to the realization
family courts are not about justice and fairness. And paying an attorney to
coach me behind the scenes was the way to go since the results were going to
be the same with or without an attorney.

  #920  
Old December 19th 07, 03:20 AM posted to alt.child-support
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default child support review objection


wrote in message
...
On Dec 18, 12:50 am, "teachrmama" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Dec 15, 1:39 am, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message


...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...


"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...


"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough
to
have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...


wrote in message


...
On Dec 12, 1:40 am, Sarah Gray
wrote:
"Chris" wrote
:


He's perfectly capable of getting and keeping a job.
All I
want
him
to do is to try and see her as often as is reasonable,
and
to
split
the basic costs of raising her fairly.


Fantastic! Then "split" her time with both of you by
sending
her
over
their and the basic costs will also be split. It simply
follows.


She cannot split her time with us 50/50 if he lives in
another
state.
There
is no reason I should not see my daughter regularly
because
he
chose
to
move far away.


Why Can't he have June-November and you have her
December-May,
with
the extra day left over to be for transportation?
The time can be split, and your daughter can go to school
in
TN
until
she moves back with you and can attend school where you
live.
She
could even be home schooled in TN in order to follow the
cirricular
for your county school district.
Don't say there are no options when there clearly are, it
is
just
that
you are not willing to consider them.


Why would you do that to a child? If they lived close
together
and
she
wasn't pulled away from her friends every 6 months, I could
understand
it.


Of course, because friends are FAR more valuable to a child
than
their
father.


No, Chris, because moving to a different place is an
adjustment--every
time.


So? LIFE is an "adjustment".


And breaking your arm and having to deal with that inconvenience is
an
adjustment, but that does not mean you break your arm every 6
months
and
deal with it just because lif is an adjustment.


Nor did I claim so. Your point?


Geesh.


The younger thetime, the bigger the adjustment. You are not
looking
at
the
child's well-being in this. You are only looking at the
father's
convenience.


You're right; my bad. A child living in one place is by FAR more
important
than living with their father. How could I have been so far off
with
THAT
one!


You're right, Chris--your bad. A child having the security of
living
in
the
same place, going to the same school, and having the same set of
people
aroung her is FAR more important than


.... being with her father.


indulging a man who moved 10 hours
away just because he had the "right" to do so.


That's right; it's the mother's "RIGHT" to keep her child away from
the
father. You GO girl!


It's the CHILD'S right to have a safe, consistent, secure environment
to
grow up in, Chris. The FATHER moved away--absolutely his right--but
that
does not take away the CHILD'S right to a safe, consistent, secure
environment. Being shipped back and forth from one state to another
every 6
months might satisfy the father's desire for time with his daughter,
but
it
would be an unspeakable disruption of her young life. If he really
wants
to
be a parent, let him parent the child where she is, instead of
expecting
her
to be shunted back and forth twice a year for the next 13 years!!


If being with his daughter
is so important to hime let HIM make the adjustment and move back.


And If being with his daughter is so important to the mother (which
CLEARLY
it's not), let HER make the adjustment and move to where he is.


HE moved, Chris. Perhaps in your little world everyone kowtows to you
or
is
evicted, but not in the real world.


A child is not a possession to be shared.


I agree; that's why the mother should not share her child.


The child is not
the one that should be forced to make such a radical adjustment
every
6
months.


"Radical" is a matter of opinion.


The parent needs to do the adjusting--


No they don't.


You're right--the father does not have to make any adjustment to
his
action
of moving away from his child.


It's the mother's force or threat thereof which precludes him from
being
with "his child". Not taking the child with him (moving away) simply
eliminates a whole LOT of grief. Either way, the end result is the
child
NOT
being with him.


Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, poor little Chris. Silly women are just not
listening to Chris tell them about the rights of the MAN, as opposed
to
the
rights of a mere child or a lowly woman. You were born out of time,
Chris.
You should have been born back when men were the rulers of the
households.


Unless he really wants to be a father to
her. His choice.


Untrue. The child is away from the father because


he moved away from her. Yes, Chris, because HE chose to move. The
mother
is not required to cater to him. The child is not required to disrupt
her
life every 6 months because of him. He is 1/3 of the people involved
here,
and the other 2/3 have lives, too. If he wants to be involved, he can
go
back to where he chose to move from, where the other 2/3 live.


the mother REFUSES to


allow the child to go be with him. Rather amusing that this fact
eludes
you..


Rather amusing that you think the other 2 OWE the MAN to the point of
having
the responsibility of making sure that they convenience him, even if
it
drastically inconveniences them.


especially since it is the
parent who did the moving and destroyed the parenting plan that
gave
the
child the opportunity to be with him 50% of the time!


Correction: It is not the parent moving that destroyed such
opportunity,
rather it is the mother's REFUSAL to allow it that has done so.


chuckle Oh, Chris, you are so stuck on "father's rights" that
you
cannot
(or will not) even see the forest for the trees.


"Father's rights", which actually don't exist, have no bearing on
the
truth
of my claim.


There is no thruth to your claim, Chris. Only narrow-minded
selfishness.- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


But only if the parents were married, right? It is your opinion that
only children of once wedded parents should be supported?


I didn't say that. I said that married parents are both automatically
for
the children they create. But, as far as unmarried parents go, both
should
have equitable post-conception rights. Since the woman has a certain
number
of days to walk away from parenthood via safe-haven laws, the man should
have the same right and the same amount of time to do so. Since men have
only a certain amount of time to contest paternity, women should have
only
that same amount of time to declare paternity. Make the playing field
equal. If both decide that they want to parent the child, and they do
not
wish to marry or live together as a family, 50/50 joint custody should be
the default ruling. Now if, from that, you think I said that children of
unmarried parents do not need to be supported, you are reading something
into it that isn;' there.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


What you just said contadicts the statement that "all children have a
right to be supported by both of thier parents".

Either all children deserve support from both parents, or they don't.

You didn't say *some* children deserve to be suported by both parents,
as you should have if you don't feel that single, never married
parents don't have a responsibility to thier children.


You are not comprehending what I am saying. Ideally. parents are married
before creating children. In that case, they will automatically be
supported by both parents. They *deserve* to be supported by both parents.
But that does not always happen, does it?


Then again, I am talking to the same person who stated that "the State
should take those children from the unwed mothers and give them to
couples" because you didn't feel the unwed parent had a right to ask
for child support.


That I did not say. What I said was that men and women should have
equitable post conception rights. A woman has a right to drop a child off
at safe haven and renounce her parental rights and responsibilities forever.
Men should have similar safe haven rights, and be able to renounce their
parental rights and responsibilities, wiithin the same time frame that women
can. So if a woman has a right to safe haven for the first week after her
child's birth, the man should have a right to safe haven for one week after
he is told he is a father.


Since legality doesn't see morality (why you would feel an unwed
mother is not moral is beyond me), all mothers who are CP are treated
equally-as it should be-since you feel all fathers have an obligation
to support basic needs of thier children.


I did not say that, either. You are missing the pice about equitable post
comception rights. Once the man has decided to be a father, however, he can
no longer walk away. NOW he is responsible for that child. Hopefully with
50/50 shared custody. But if that is not a possibility, then he (or she,
depending on who the NCP is) must pay 50% of the child's basic needs. But
only of the basic needs--no requirement to pay for anything else.


Unless you feel that only some women are entitled to child support,


I don't think **any** women are entitled to child support. Only
**children** are entitled to child support. Let the women take care of
themselves. They're adults.

and only some men have a responsibility toward thier children.


Fathers are responsible for half the basic needs of their children.
Hopefully provided during their 50% of the time with the children. If not,
then the cost of 50% of the child's basic needs.

Which
is it, please? Mind now that unmarried single mothers only get child
support and not CS and alamony that divorced parents get to rob from
the NCP.


See above.


 




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
Sacramento County, CA -- Review shows more child-neglect deaths:12-year-old girl wasted away to 23 pounds, even after six separate reportsto Child Protective Services about the child fx Spanking 0 September 14th 07 04:50 AM
PHOENIX Arizona Objection to releasing slain kids' files ends... fx Spanking 0 July 25th 07 04:46 AM
PHOENIX Arizona Objection to releasing slain kids' files ends... fx Foster Parents 0 July 25th 07 04:46 AM
Sign our Child Support patition for child support reform [email protected] Child Support 0 February 24th 07 11:01 AM
P. Diddy: Child support lawsuit really about 'adult support' Dusty Child Support 0 September 13th 04 12:35 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:19 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.