"Child Support" money?

Don't paint everyone with the brush you used on yourself - it spreads
disease...

Mel Gamble

Fighting For Kids wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:55:26 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

No seperate bedroom needed??? Why should the child feel any less
important at home with one parent than with the other? Maybe you'd also
suggest a diet of gruel while at home with the NCP???

Mel Gamble

Becuase one parent is only a part time participant. Just like in
marriages.

Don't paint everyone with the brush you used on yourself - it spreads
disease...

Mel Gamble

Fighting For Kids wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:55:26 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

No seperate bedroom needed??? Why should the child feel any less
important at home with one parent than with the other? Maybe you'd also
suggest a diet of gruel while at home with the NCP???

Mel Gamble

Becuase one parent is only a part time participant. Just like in
marriages.

Fighting for Air would see a flying pig and holler "deadbeat"....she's
back into her I-lost-track-of-the-logic-so-I'll-just-toss-random-insults
mode.

Mel Gamble

Paul Fritz wrote:

ASSuming. why am I not surprised.

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:38:12 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:


It's not being nasty - when you see a flying pig, you don't say "My,
what a strange bird...", you YELL "Hey, look - it's a freaking flying
pig!" Sometimes the obvious is just too obvious to dance around about.

Mel Gamble

Gee I see a deadbeat... and another and another..

Fighting for Air would see a flying pig and holler "deadbeat"....she's
back into her I-lost-track-of-the-logic-so-I'll-just-toss-random-insults
mode.

Mel Gamble

Paul Fritz wrote:

ASSuming. why am I not surprised.

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:38:12 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:


It's not being nasty - when you see a flying pig, you don't say "My,
what a strange bird...", you YELL "Hey, look - it's a freaking flying
pig!" Sometimes the obvious is just too obvious to dance around about.

Mel Gamble

Gee I see a deadbeat... and another and another..

Hey, "dumb and dumber"...sounds like a good idea for a movie script -
mind if I give it a try, Paul?

Mel Gamble

Paul Fritz wrote:

snicker what a hoot......two tree stumps battling about who is dumber.
LMAO

"stealing for mommies" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 04:42:55 -0600, "Moon Shyne"
wrote:



Take your feet out of your mouth - I'm the CP of 2 children, and have
sole
custody - they don't "come over to spend time" here, they *live* here. I
have
them 100% of the time, and yes, there are times that we get out the air
mattress
and put it in the living room, and watch movies all night - and we still
call it
camping out.


Hey!!!! Why dont you take your feet out of your mouth now,
dumbass!!!!

I was making a comment about the entire discussion not anything
directly related to you!!!!

Hey, "dumb and dumber"...sounds like a good idea for a movie script -
mind if I give it a try, Paul?

Mel Gamble

Paul Fritz wrote:

snicker what a hoot......two tree stumps battling about who is dumber.
LMAO

"stealing for mommies" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 04:42:55 -0600, "Moon Shyne"
wrote:



Take your feet out of your mouth - I'm the CP of 2 children, and have
sole
custody - they don't "come over to spend time" here, they *live* here. I
have
them 100% of the time, and yes, there are times that we get out the air
mattress
and put it in the living room, and watch movies all night - and we still
call it
camping out.


Hey!!!! Why dont you take your feet out of your mouth now,
dumbass!!!!

I was making a comment about the entire discussion not anything
directly related to you!!!!

You're talking to "cameron", Bob....

Bob Whiteside wrote:

"Cameron Stevens" wrote in message
.. .

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
om...
"Cameron Stevens" wrote in message
...

What I am saying is that if you cannot afford the housing that
accomodates
the children each in their own room, then it is not a criminal act to
provide a more modest accomodation. It's not about CP or NCP and it's
not
for one parent to say or the other. If the accomodation is safe for
inhabitation it's fine. This is not a discussion about how much who
should
pay whom but a statement on how one can accomodate children when money
is
scarce.

My kids share a room now, they will have their own rooms by March of
next
year. My daughters primarily live with Mom in a 3000 sq ft. house.

Cameron

I am actually trying to get an idea of specifically where you stand on
this issue, Cameron. Philosophicaly, just being together with one's
child might be enough. But in hard reality, is it ok for child
support to be assessed so that children have bedrooms at the CP's
house, but the NCP, because of the amount of CS assessed, cannot
afford to have bedrooms for the children? Is it ok for the CP to live
in a 3000 sq ft house, paid for, in good part, with CS funds. But the
NCP lives in a 500 sq ft apartment, and blows up a matress to
acomodate his children? Or do you think that EACH parent should have
the housing needs of the children considered in the setting of child
support?

Ok.

The parents (CP/NCP) should live within their means. The amount of the CS
is
not my concern for this arguement.

To answer your question: If CP gets into a relationship where the CP's new
*interest* is funding the accomodations i have no concern. Her luck. If
she's working at a job that provides such a disparate difference in
lifestyles perhaps the actual support amount the NCP pays gould drop so he
may get ahead a little, recover or work towards becoming a CP. CS should
not
go away. He still owes something towards the upkeep. This is where the
base
amount of funds to SUPPORT children may be called into play, his portion
of
this must be paid and any amount over that is a result of getting into a
payscale that's well about the CP. I'm not going to explore details on
this
right now. It's just an idea.

It's ok for the CP to live in the 3000sq ft. house while the NCP is in
that
apartment. If the father can show he wants to be a CP (~ 50/50) then the
courts should be supporting this.

So let's say the CP's new "interest" is the man she left you for and she is
living in the 3,000 square foot house that used to be yours. You are paying
her CS so she and your children can live with the guy who helped destroy
your marriage. Your CS is funding a wonderful life for her with her new
love "interest."

You have been kicked out of your prior home and now live in a one bedroom
apartment. You rarely see your children, and have been relegated to a
visitor in their lives. The guy who is living with your ex has more access
to your children than you do. You also had to give her at least half of
your assets and to help her get adjusted to being a single mother you are
paying her alimony.

Do you still think that is just her "good luck" and are you still happy
about her new life?

....of course he does.

Mel Gamble

You're talking to "cameron", Bob....

Bob Whiteside wrote:

"Cameron Stevens" wrote in message
.. .

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
om...
"Cameron Stevens" wrote in message
...

What I am saying is that if you cannot afford the housing that
accomodates
the children each in their own room, then it is not a criminal act to
provide a more modest accomodation. It's not about CP or NCP and it's
not
for one parent to say or the other. If the accomodation is safe for
inhabitation it's fine. This is not a discussion about how much who
should
pay whom but a statement on how one can accomodate children when money
is
scarce.

My kids share a room now, they will have their own rooms by March of
next
year. My daughters primarily live with Mom in a 3000 sq ft. house.

Cameron

I am actually trying to get an idea of specifically where you stand on
this issue, Cameron. Philosophicaly, just being together with one's
child might be enough. But in hard reality, is it ok for child
support to be assessed so that children have bedrooms at the CP's
house, but the NCP, because of the amount of CS assessed, cannot
afford to have bedrooms for the children? Is it ok for the CP to live
in a 3000 sq ft house, paid for, in good part, with CS funds. But the
NCP lives in a 500 sq ft apartment, and blows up a matress to
acomodate his children? Or do you think that EACH parent should have
the housing needs of the children considered in the setting of child
support?

Ok.

The parents (CP/NCP) should live within their means. The amount of the CS
is
not my concern for this arguement.

To answer your question: If CP gets into a relationship where the CP's new
*interest* is funding the accomodations i have no concern. Her luck. If
she's working at a job that provides such a disparate difference in
lifestyles perhaps the actual support amount the NCP pays gould drop so he
may get ahead a little, recover or work towards becoming a CP. CS should
not
go away. He still owes something towards the upkeep. This is where the
base
amount of funds to SUPPORT children may be called into play, his portion
of
this must be paid and any amount over that is a result of getting into a
payscale that's well about the CP. I'm not going to explore details on
this
right now. It's just an idea.

It's ok for the CP to live in the 3000sq ft. house while the NCP is in
that
apartment. If the father can show he wants to be a CP (~ 50/50) then the
courts should be supporting this.

So let's say the CP's new "interest" is the man she left you for and she is
living in the 3,000 square foot house that used to be yours. You are paying
her CS so she and your children can live with the guy who helped destroy
your marriage. Your CS is funding a wonderful life for her with her new
love "interest."

You have been kicked out of your prior home and now live in a one bedroom
apartment. You rarely see your children, and have been relegated to a
visitor in their lives. The guy who is living with your ex has more access
to your children than you do. You also had to give her at least half of
your assets and to help her get adjusted to being a single mother you are
paying her alimony.

Do you still think that is just her "good luck" and are you still happy
about her new life?

....of course he does.

Mel Gamble

Told ya : )

Mel Gamble

Cameron Stevens wrote:

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Cameron Stevens" wrote in message
.. .

It's ok for the CP to live in the 3000sq ft. house while the NCP is in
that
apartment. If the father can show he wants to be a CP (~ 50/50) then the
courts should be supporting this.

So let's say the CP's new "interest" is the man she left you for and she
is
living in the 3,000 square foot house that used to be yours. You are
paying
her CS so she and your children can live with the guy who helped destroy
your marriage. Your CS is funding a wonderful life for her with her new
love "interest."

You have been kicked out of your prior home and now live in a one bedroom
apartment. You rarely see your children, and have been relegated to a
visitor in their lives. The guy who is living with your ex has more
access
to your children than you do. You also had to give her at least half of
your assets and to help her get adjusted to being a single mother you are
paying her alimony.

Do you still think that is just her "good luck" and are you still happy
about her new life?

That scenario, which is not mine - but I will empathize, calls for a
seperation of two things. What she did to break up the marriage has nothing
to do with the justification or need for CS. The idea that you are prevented
from being an active father to a visitor is deplorable and while there are
legal paths to try to change that you're already broke from the CS you're
paying and the courts are not friends to the NCP. It's not fair or right in
the "BIG PICTURE" but...

Child Support is not about who screwed up the relationship, etc. It is about
parents being responsible financially. In this scenario there is a real lack
of responsible behavior from the ex-wife as she is allowing a minimized
amount of access to the children. Your only course of action, if you have
joint custody and no legal restrictions (R.O.s), is to show up at the ex's
home on a regular basis and do everything possible to ensure those children
have every chance to see you (in this scenario) as the father. If they ever
call "new-guy" (NG) "Dad" politely correct them. Kids only have one father.
If you're actively involved in their lives then you are still "Dad".

Alimony is not CS and should be considered seperately for the same reasons.

Cameron

Told ya : )

Mel Gamble

Cameron Stevens wrote:

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Cameron Stevens" wrote in message
.. .

It's ok for the CP to live in the 3000sq ft. house while the NCP is in
that
apartment. If the father can show he wants to be a CP (~ 50/50) then the
courts should be supporting this.

So let's say the CP's new "interest" is the man she left you for and she
is
living in the 3,000 square foot house that used to be yours. You are
paying
her CS so she and your children can live with the guy who helped destroy
your marriage. Your CS is funding a wonderful life for her with her new
love "interest."

You have been kicked out of your prior home and now live in a one bedroom
apartment. You rarely see your children, and have been relegated to a
visitor in their lives. The guy who is living with your ex has more
access
to your children than you do. You also had to give her at least half of
your assets and to help her get adjusted to being a single mother you are
paying her alimony.

Do you still think that is just her "good luck" and are you still happy
about her new life?

That scenario, which is not mine - but I will empathize, calls for a
seperation of two things. What she did to break up the marriage has nothing
to do with the justification or need for CS. The idea that you are prevented
from being an active father to a visitor is deplorable and while there are
legal paths to try to change that you're already broke from the CS you're
paying and the courts are not friends to the NCP. It's not fair or right in
the "BIG PICTURE" but...

Child Support is not about who screwed up the relationship, etc. It is about
parents being responsible financially. In this scenario there is a real lack
of responsible behavior from the ex-wife as she is allowing a minimized
amount of access to the children. Your only course of action, if you have
joint custody and no legal restrictions (R.O.s), is to show up at the ex's
home on a regular basis and do everything possible to ensure those children
have every chance to see you (in this scenario) as the father. If they ever
call "new-guy" (NG) "Dad" politely correct them. Kids only have one father.
If you're actively involved in their lives then you are still "Dad".

Alimony is not CS and should be considered seperately for the same reasons.

Cameron