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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child support debt?
"Banty" wrote in message ... In article , teachrmama says... "Banty" wrote in message ... In article , Bob Whiteside says... "Banty" wrote in message ... In article , teachrmama says... "Banty" wrote in message ... In article , Bob Whiteside says... "Banty" wrote in message ... In article , Bob Whiteside says... Then we basically agree. How would you implement it, though? Define "child support." Create specific criteria for how CS is to be spent. Require periodic disclosure of expenses paid. Do the same thing to CP mothers they do to NCP dads - presume they are guilty of misappropriation of the funds and make them prove otherwise. IOW - Assume they won't spend the money as intended and force them to rebut the assumption by showing they spent it correctly. Hmm, I mean who and how and how is it going to be paid for? Seems you're more motivated by doing unto 'them' what was done to 'us' than actually seeing that the kids get the benefit... Nope. I am more for getting the government completely out of family decisions. The intrusion by government into people's private lives has become a real crisis. I personally fear it because to me it is social engineering run amok. So you're *not* for CS at all. They do it under the guise of their actions being in the best interest of the children, but in reality everything they do is in the best interest of the government. Until the "other side" starts to feel what it is like to get similar treatment to what they advocate for fathers to receive I don't see any change occurring. You see it is a zero sum game - To give rights to fathers the government has to take rights away from mothers. Actually I don't. I see that increasingly *either* fathers and mothers take either role (as it's not a zero sum game), and advocate for *both* having some physical custody, which is also happening increasingly. But that won't 'stick it to' anyone to make a point to your satisfaction, it seems. As you may have notice in this newsgroup, many of the father's rights advocates are second wives who have lived through how their husbands have been mistreated, or children of fathers who got bad treatment. The advocates for the status quo are always the people who benefit from the unfairness inherent in the current system. Who might have something of a vested interest in smaller CS payments. Who also might have some vested interest in equity. That's best determined by a third party, not the two parties with conflicting interests. So let me challenge your theory on third parties making decisions on conflicting interests. A mother has two children with different fathers. Father #1 is ordered to pay her $800 per month to support his child. Father #2 is ordered to pay her $200 per month to support his child. The mother gets $1000 per month in CS. If the mother co-mingles the CS into the household budget she spends $500 per child. Child #1 is getting the benefit of $300 less than the court ordered CS. Child #2 is getting the benefit of $300 more than the court ordered CS. How should a third party rule on how the CS is being spent and what should be done about it? Well, I dont' know *why* the payments are so different. Say - maybe it's to avoid the "Welfare queeen" "CS queen thing" And some judge decided two girls, different fathers or no, can go into one bedroom. Or Dad #2 has a much lower earning capacity. Inevitably, the expenses would co-mingle. Dinner get made at one time; Mom woudln't take two girls to the zoo and only take the older one on the rides. And the girls would be sisters to each other. What, would you think it's like a dog kennel, where I can get a bigger pen for my dog if I pay more? So child support isn't really paid for the wellbeing of the child, but for the operating expenses of the household? How can you separate them? Think of your own two kids! How would it be to raise one one way; the other the other way. Just having them in the same place and sitting at the same dinner table would account for much of the CS. Like we have been talking about, the operating expenses of the household are counted as far as *additional* expenses are necessary to set up a household to raise the kids in. Vs. the less expensive and wider options available to a single person. I thought we were discussing CS in the context of your agreeing children should receive the benefit of their parent's income beyond the basics and you also believed a third party should settle disputes over how the money is spent. Now you appear to be saying it is okay for CP mothers to ignore the way CS awards are determined and re-allocate the money so the child does not receive the benefit of their parent's income and actually receive less than the court ordered. And you seem to be saying it is okay for a father's CS payments to be used to provide for non-biological children with a different father. Are you really meaning to say a third party should tell a father it is okay for his child to get less than he is under court order to provide and it is okay for his CS payments to be used for someone else's child? Yes I would - she has to make a working household to raise these two kids in. And I'd be *very* likely to find that, given the whole house/apartment use for *both* and other things going along with that being for *both*, and that the groceries all get bought at once for *both*, and the toys being bought for *both*, a pet is brought into the house for *both* to enjoy, to find that the $800 can be accounted to be going to the first kid. The second is riding along. Man #2 actually gets some leverage! Your complaint is all about kuntrol. And $$ being the only consideration (and people complain about being treated as wallets, not parents...) If I were father number one (and not just thinking of myself as wallet number one), I'd want to see a happy girl in a decent environment. Not soemthing on the order of a bigger kennel for the bigger dog. Jees. Think of the alternatives - bare bones for all (why would the father of the oldest want that, if he is a *parent*), or one half-sister being held off from the other, leading to jealousy and a miserable half-sister for the older girl to live with (why would the father of the oldest want that, if he is a *parent*). How about one for YOU! That mom remarries, new hubby is a little better off than the first two men but not exactly swimming in funds, then half sister number three is born. They won't be eating lobster every night, but now the hamburger/ chicken leg budget can go to have steak once in a while! SO - by you, would it be OK to, in order to not have *his* precious $$$ not admixed into the care and support of the older children who are not his bio-children, and all the men to be 'honored' in the way you would have, to feed daughter number one chicken, daughter number two mac and cheese, and daughter number three steak!? That's the kind of thing that would have to happen to do what you want!! Or, if you really believe in only bare-bones CS, the first two sisters get mac and cheese and daughter number three steak. All sitting at the same dinner table. These things are two way streets, y'know. OK by you? Sound like a good result? Man number one with his precious $800 not sullied by mixture with the hundred or so *more* in effect of funds, that his daughter could have benifitted from in that situation? His kid gets chicken, what more do you want. She can just ignore the half-sister over there with her steak and apple pie. Maybe to avoid the pain of that they can leave the older two girls home once a month while the parents and youngest go for a restaurant meal. Dont' want those funds mixed up, y'know! That good? Over to you... Banty |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child support debt?
"Banty" wrote in message ... "Banty" wrote in message ... In article , teachrmama says... "Banty" wrote in message ... In article , Bob Whiteside says... "Banty" wrote in message ... In article , teachrmama says... "Banty" wrote in message ... In article , Bob Whiteside says... "Banty" wrote in message ... In article , Bob Whiteside says... Then we basically agree. How would you implement it, though? Define "child support." Create specific criteria for how CS is to be spent. Require periodic disclosure of expenses paid. Do the same thing to CP mothers they do to NCP dads - presume they are guilty of misappropriation of the funds and make them prove otherwise. IOW - Assume they won't spend the money as intended and force them to rebut the assumption by showing they spent it correctly. Hmm, I mean who and how and how is it going to be paid for? Seems you're more motivated by doing unto 'them' what was done to 'us' than actually seeing that the kids get the benefit... Nope. I am more for getting the government completely out of family decisions. The intrusion by government into people's private lives has become a real crisis. I personally fear it because to me it is social engineering run amok. So you're *not* for CS at all. They do it under the guise of their actions being in the best interest of the children, but in reality everything they do is in the best interest of the government. Until the "other side" starts to feel what it is like to get similar treatment to what they advocate for fathers to receive I don't see any change occurring. You see it is a zero sum game - To give rights to fathers the government has to take rights away from mothers. Actually I don't. I see that increasingly *either* fathers and mothers take either role (as it's not a zero sum game), and advocate for *both* having some physical custody, which is also happening increasingly. But that won't 'stick it to' anyone to make a point to your satisfaction, it seems. As you may have notice in this newsgroup, many of the father's rights advocates are second wives who have lived through how their husbands have been mistreated, or children of fathers who got bad treatment. The advocates for the status quo are always the people who benefit from the unfairness inherent in the current system. Who might have something of a vested interest in smaller CS payments. Who also might have some vested interest in equity. That's best determined by a third party, not the two parties with conflicting interests. So let me challenge your theory on third parties making decisions on conflicting interests. A mother has two children with different fathers. Father #1 is ordered to pay her $800 per month to support his child. Father #2 is ordered to pay her $200 per month to support his child. The mother gets $1000 per month in CS. If the mother co-mingles the CS into the household budget she spends $500 per child. Child #1 is getting the benefit of $300 less than the court ordered CS. Child #2 is getting the benefit of $300 more than the court ordered CS. How should a third party rule on how the CS is being spent and what should be done about it? Well, I dont' know *why* the payments are so different. Say - maybe it's to avoid the "Welfare queeen" "CS queen thing" And some judge decided two girls, different fathers or no, can go into one bedroom. Or Dad #2 has a much lower earning capacity. Inevitably, the expenses would co-mingle. Dinner get made at one time; Mom woudln't take two girls to the zoo and only take the older one on the rides. And the girls would be sisters to each other. What, would you think it's like a dog kennel, where I can get a bigger pen for my dog if I pay more? So child support isn't really paid for the wellbeing of the child, but for the operating expenses of the household? How can you separate them? Think of your own two kids! How would it be to raise one one way; the other the other way. Just having them in the same place and sitting at the same dinner table would account for much of the CS. Like we have been talking about, the operating expenses of the household are counted as far as *additional* expenses are necessary to set up a household to raise the kids in. Vs. the less expensive and wider options available to a single person. I thought we were discussing CS in the context of your agreeing children should receive the benefit of their parent's income beyond the basics and you also believed a third party should settle disputes over how the money is spent. Now you appear to be saying it is okay for CP mothers to ignore the way CS awards are determined and re-allocate the money so the child does not receive the benefit of their parent's income and actually receive less than the court ordered. And you seem to be saying it is okay for a father's CS payments to be used to provide for non-biological children with a different father. Are you really meaning to say a third party should tell a father it is okay for his child to get less than he is under court order to provide and it is okay for his CS payments to be used for someone else's child? Yes I would - she has to make a working household to raise these two kids in. And I'd be *very* likely to find that, given the whole house/apartment use for *both* and other things going along with that being for *both*, and that the groceries all get bought at once for *both*, and the toys being bought for *both*, a pet is brought into the house for *both* to enjoy, to find that the $800 can be accounted to be going to the first kid. The second is riding along. Man #2 actually gets some leverage! Your complaint is all about kuntrol. And $$ being the only consideration (and people complain about being treated as wallets, not parents...) If I were father number one (and not just thinking of myself as wallet number one), I'd want to see a happy girl in a decent environment. Not soemthing on the order of a bigger kennel for the bigger dog. Jees. Actually my scenario is about reality and how stated objectives in the CS system are just "feel good" messages that get ignored in practice. And the scenario points out the reason so many CP mothers are against any form of accountability for how CS is spent. They want to treat CS received as unallocated family support which is really the definition of alimony. And as you pointed out, fairness for the children trumps fairness for the fathers who pay the support. The hierarchy of interests within the system is always government, mothers, children, and then fathers. Think of the alternatives - bare bones for all (why would the father of the oldest want that, if he is a *parent*), or one half-sister being held off from the other, leading to jealousy and a miserable half-sister for the older girl to live with (why would the father of the oldest want that, if he is a *parent*). How about one for YOU! That mom remarries, new hubby is a little better off than the first two men but not exactly swimming in funds, then half sister number three is born. They won't be eating lobster every night, but now the hamburger/ chicken leg budget can go to have steak once in a while! SO - by you, would it be OK to, in order to not have *his* precious $$$ not admixed into the care and support of the older children who are not his bio-children, and all the men to be 'honored' in the way you would have, to feed daughter number one chicken, daughter number two mac and cheese, and daughter number three steak!? That's the kind of thing that would have to happen to do what you want!! I don't get hung up on micromanaging how CS is ordered and spent when all of the children have the same father. Where I find a major flaw in the CS system is when there is no consideration given to blended familes. Each CS case is treated as a stand alone circumstance without regard for other factors. And there are built in gender-biased rules. For instance, it is okay for a mother to remarry (as you suggested above) and co-mingle available funds at her discretion for family support, but fathers are told that if they remarry no consideration will be given to how they support step-children or any subsequent children. Don't forget that CP mothers have a pro-rata share of CS that they are expected to provide too. Having multiple children with multiple fathers diminishes their ability to provide support at the levels assumed in the CS setting process. Or, if you really believe in only bare-bones CS, the first two sisters get mac and cheese and daughter number three steak. All sitting at the same dinner table. These things are two way streets, y'know. OK by you? Sound like a good result? Man number one with his precious $800 not sullied by mixture with the hundred or so *more* in effect of funds, that his daughter could have benifitted from in that situation? His kid gets chicken, what more do you want. She can just ignore the half-sister over there with her steak and apple pie. Maybe to avoid the pain of that they can leave the older two girls home once a month while the parents and youngest go for a restaurant meal. Dont' want those funds mixed up, y'know! That good? If I'm the guy ordered to pay CS for the "care and maintenance of minor children" I believe it is fair for me to have an expectation that my support will be used as the court ordered. The legal justification for the CS system is the state legislatures have a "rational basis" for stepping into family decisions. If the laws are not implemented as passed, the legislative intent becomes mute. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child support debt?
In article , Bob Whiteside
says... "Banty" wrote in message ... "Banty" wrote in message ... In article , teachrmama says... "Banty" wrote in message ... In article , Bob Whiteside says... "Banty" wrote in message ... In article , teachrmama says... "Banty" wrote in message ... In article , Bob Whiteside says... "Banty" wrote in message ... In article , Bob Whiteside says... Then we basically agree. How would you implement it, though? Define "child support." Create specific criteria for how CS is to be spent. Require periodic disclosure of expenses paid. Do the same thing to CP mothers they do to NCP dads - presume they are guilty of misappropriation of the funds and make them prove otherwise. IOW - Assume they won't spend the money as intended and force them to rebut the assumption by showing they spent it correctly. Hmm, I mean who and how and how is it going to be paid for? Seems you're more motivated by doing unto 'them' what was done to 'us' than actually seeing that the kids get the benefit... Nope. I am more for getting the government completely out of family decisions. The intrusion by government into people's private lives has become a real crisis. I personally fear it because to me it is social engineering run amok. So you're *not* for CS at all. They do it under the guise of their actions being in the best interest of the children, but in reality everything they do is in the best interest of the government. Until the "other side" starts to feel what it is like to get similar treatment to what they advocate for fathers to receive I don't see any change occurring. You see it is a zero sum game - To give rights to fathers the government has to take rights away from mothers. Actually I don't. I see that increasingly *either* fathers and mothers take either role (as it's not a zero sum game), and advocate for *both* having some physical custody, which is also happening increasingly. But that won't 'stick it to' anyone to make a point to your satisfaction, it seems. As you may have notice in this newsgroup, many of the father's rights advocates are second wives who have lived through how their husbands have been mistreated, or children of fathers who got bad treatment. The advocates for the status quo are always the people who benefit from the unfairness inherent in the current system. Who might have something of a vested interest in smaller CS payments. Who also might have some vested interest in equity. That's best determined by a third party, not the two parties with conflicting interests. So let me challenge your theory on third parties making decisions on conflicting interests. A mother has two children with different fathers. Father #1 is ordered to pay her $800 per month to support his child. Father #2 is ordered to pay her $200 per month to support his child. The mother gets $1000 per month in CS. If the mother co-mingles the CS into the household budget she spends $500 per child. Child #1 is getting the benefit of $300 less than the court ordered CS. Child #2 is getting the benefit of $300 more than the court ordered CS. How should a third party rule on how the CS is being spent and what should be done about it? Well, I dont' know *why* the payments are so different. Say - maybe it's to avoid the "Welfare queeen" "CS queen thing" And some judge decided two girls, different fathers or no, can go into one bedroom. Or Dad #2 has a much lower earning capacity. Inevitably, the expenses would co-mingle. Dinner get made at one time; Mom woudln't take two girls to the zoo and only take the older one on the rides. And the girls would be sisters to each other. What, would you think it's like a dog kennel, where I can get a bigger pen for my dog if I pay more? So child support isn't really paid for the wellbeing of the child, but for the operating expenses of the household? How can you separate them? Think of your own two kids! How would it be to raise one one way; the other the other way. Just having them in the same place and sitting at the same dinner table would account for much of the CS. Like we have been talking about, the operating expenses of the household are counted as far as *additional* expenses are necessary to set up a household to raise the kids in. Vs. the less expensive and wider options available to a single person. I thought we were discussing CS in the context of your agreeing children should receive the benefit of their parent's income beyond the basics and you also believed a third party should settle disputes over how the money is spent. Now you appear to be saying it is okay for CP mothers to ignore the way CS awards are determined and re-allocate the money so the child does not receive the benefit of their parent's income and actually receive less than the court ordered. And you seem to be saying it is okay for a father's CS payments to be used to provide for non-biological children with a different father. Are you really meaning to say a third party should tell a father it is okay for his child to get less than he is under court order to provide and it is okay for his CS payments to be used for someone else's child? Yes I would - she has to make a working household to raise these two kids in. And I'd be *very* likely to find that, given the whole house/apartment use for *both* and other things going along with that being for *both*, and that the groceries all get bought at once for *both*, and the toys being bought for *both*, a pet is brought into the house for *both* to enjoy, to find that the $800 can be accounted to be going to the first kid. The second is riding along. Man #2 actually gets some leverage! Your complaint is all about kuntrol. And $$ being the only consideration (and people complain about being treated as wallets, not parents...) If I were father number one (and not just thinking of myself as wallet number one), I'd want to see a happy girl in a decent environment. Not soemthing on the order of a bigger kennel for the bigger dog. Jees. Actually my scenario is about reality and how stated objectives in the CS system are just "feel good" messages that get ignored in practice. And the scenario points out the reason so many CP mothers are against any form of accountability for how CS is spent. They want to treat CS received as unallocated family support which is really the definition of alimony. Well, no, alimony is for support of the *ex spouse*. I have no doubt things are implemented poorly a lot of times, though, and I'm all for oversight of the CP. But practicalities will overwhelm some of the concerns I've heard people voice. And as you pointed out, fairness for the children trumps fairness for the fathers who pay the support. The hierarchy of interests within the system is always government, mothers, children, and then fathers. Depends on how the NCP's look at it - as parents, or wallets. Think of the alternatives - bare bones for all (why would the father of the oldest want that, if he is a *parent*), or one half-sister being held off from the other, leading to jealousy and a miserable half-sister for the older girl to live with (why would the father of the oldest want that, if he is a *parent*). How about one for YOU! That mom remarries, new hubby is a little better off than the first two men but not exactly swimming in funds, then half sister number three is born. They won't be eating lobster every night, but now the hamburger/ chicken leg budget can go to have steak once in a while! SO - by you, would it be OK to, in order to not have *his* precious $$$ not admixed into the care and support of the older children who are not his bio-children, and all the men to be 'honored' in the way you would have, to feed daughter number one chicken, daughter number two mac and cheese, and daughter number three steak!? That's the kind of thing that would have to happen to do what you want!! I don't get hung up on micromanaging how CS is ordered and spent when all of the children have the same father. OK, I'm glad. I was wondering where this was heading. Where I find a major flaw in the CS system is when there is no consideration given to blended familes. Each CS case is treated as a stand alone circumstance without regard for other factors. And there are built in gender-biased rules. For instance, it is okay for a mother to remarry (as you suggested above) and co-mingle available funds at her discretion for family support, but fathers are told that if they remarry no consideration will be given to how they support step-children or any subsequent children. See, I don't see that as equal situations. For one thing, the NCP, once he or she remarries, has access for all the *new partner's* resources and potential. The first scenario you gave - there was none of that. But you were happy to have all the goodies go to the other mens' kids if things went up. Let me ask you this: time and time again the situation of new burdens, loss of job, in the NCP household should mean the CP cuts back too. Does that work both ways? If the NCP's new wife gets an inheritance - where is the CP regarding that? Don't forget that CP mothers have a pro-rata share of CS that they are expected to provide too. Having multiple children with multiple fathers diminishes their ability to provide support at the levels assumed in the CS setting process. Meaning exactly, what. (seriously, wondered if something along this line why the second kid was only gettng200 bucks...) Or, if you really believe in only bare-bones CS, the first two sisters get mac and cheese and daughter number three steak. All sitting at the same dinner table. These things are two way streets, y'know. OK by you? Sound like a good result? Man number one with his precious $800 not sullied by mixture with the hundred or so *more* in effect of funds, that his daughter could have benifitted from in that situation? His kid gets chicken, what more do you want. She can just ignore the half-sister over there with her steak and apple pie. Maybe to avoid the pain of that they can leave the older two girls home once a month while the parents and youngest go for a restaurant meal. Dont' want those funds mixed up, y'know! That good? If I'm the guy ordered to pay CS for the "care and maintenance of minor children" I believe it is fair for me to have an expectation that my support will be used as the court ordered. The legal justification for the CS system is the state legislatures have a "rational basis" for stepping into family decisions. If the laws are not implemented as passed, the legislative intent becomes mute. If the first girl (yours, say) gets benefit of all $800 dollars, but so does the other girl, would you think that consistent with what the court ordered? THe only way (practically, reasonably) a difference could be generated woudl be something like ballet lessons for her, and not the other. But what if she's not interested in anything like that.. Banty |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child support debt?
"Banty" wrote in message ... Actually my scenario is about reality and how stated objectives in the CS system are just "feel good" messages that get ignored in practice. And the scenario points out the reason so many CP mothers are against any form of accountability for how CS is spent. They want to treat CS received as unallocated family support which is really the definition of alimony. Well, no, alimony is for support of the *ex spouse*. That is only one of several reasons alimony can be awarded. My point is mothers are against accountability for how CS is spent because they want to treat the money received as unallocated family support, i.e. they can use it any way they want at their personal discretion. The difference, of course, is CS is tax free money, not taxable like unallocated family support which is treated for tax purposes like alimony. I have no doubt things are implemented poorly a lot of times, though, and I'm all for oversight of the CP. But practicalities will overwhelm some of the concerns I've heard people voice. My state is one of a handful where the NCP can demand an accounting of how CS is spent. You should have seen the look on my ex-wife's face when here own attorney told her in front of me she had to keep receipts and records regarding how she spent the CS. And as you pointed out, fairness for the children trumps fairness for the fathers who pay the support. The hierarchy of interests within the system is always government, mothers, children, and then fathers. Depends on how the NCP's look at it - as parents, or wallets. Well the trick for NCP's is to accept they are being used as a wallet, but act like a parent. Think of the alternatives - bare bones for all (why would the father of the oldest want that, if he is a *parent*), or one half-sister being held off from the other, leading to jealousy and a miserable half-sister for the older girl to live with (why would the father of the oldest want that, if he is a *parent*). How about one for YOU! That mom remarries, new hubby is a little better off than the first two men but not exactly swimming in funds, then half sister number three is born. They won't be eating lobster every night, but now the hamburger/ chicken leg budget can go to have steak once in a while! SO - by you, would it be OK to, in order to not have *his* precious $$$ not admixed into the care and support of the older children who are not his bio-children, and all the men to be 'honored' in the way you would have, to feed daughter number one chicken, daughter number two mac and cheese, and daughter number three steak!? That's the kind of thing that would have to happen to do what you want!! I don't get hung up on micromanaging how CS is ordered and spent when all of the children have the same father. OK, I'm glad. I was wondering where this was heading. Where I find a major flaw in the CS system is when there is no consideration given to blended familes. Each CS case is treated as a stand alone circumstance without regard for other factors. And there are built in gender-biased rules. For instance, it is okay for a mother to remarry (as you suggested above) and co-mingle available funds at her discretion for family support, but fathers are told that if they remarry no consideration will be given to how they support step-children or any subsequent children. See, I don't see that as equal situations. For one thing, the NCP, once he or she remarries, has access for all the *new partner's* resources and potential. The first scenario you gave - there was none of that. But you were happy to have all the goodies go to the other mens' kids if things went up. Let me ask you this: time and time again the situation of new burdens, loss of job, in the NCP household should mean the CP cuts back too. Does that work both ways? If the NCP's new wife gets an inheritance - where is the CP regarding that? This is another unequal way the system deals with issues. If a CP falls on hard times they simply cut back appropriately. If the NCP falls on hard times they need to hire an attorney, file motions with the court, wait for a hearing date, and hope they get some relief. While all that is goping on the NCP is flling further and further into arrears which triggers the CS enforcement mechanisms to add more pressure to the situation. Don't forget that CP mothers have a pro-rata share of CS that they are expected to provide too. Having multiple children with multiple fathers diminishes their ability to provide support at the levels assumed in the CS setting process. Meaning exactly, what. (seriously, wondered if something along this line why the second kid was only gettng200 bucks...) It's two separate things. The $800/$200 example was about CS being set differently when two fathers have different incomes. The pro-rata share comment is about how a total CS obligation based on combined incomes is divided between the parents. IOW - The NCP pays CS and the CP provides CS. The issue of CS accountability is twofold. One is to ensure the CP provides their share in addition to the NCP's payments, and the second is to ensure the total CS obligation is spent. Or, if you really believe in only bare-bones CS, the first two sisters get mac and cheese and daughter number three steak. All sitting at the same dinner table. These things are two way streets, y'know. OK by you? Sound like a good result? Man number one with his precious $800 not sullied by mixture with the hundred or so *more* in effect of funds, that his daughter could have benifitted from in that situation? His kid gets chicken, what more do you want. She can just ignore the half-sister over there with her steak and apple pie. Maybe to avoid the pain of that they can leave the older two girls home once a month while the parents and youngest go for a restaurant meal. Dont' want those funds mixed up, y'know! That good? If I'm the guy ordered to pay CS for the "care and maintenance of minor children" I believe it is fair for me to have an expectation that my support will be used as the court ordered. The legal justification for the CS system is the state legislatures have a "rational basis" for stepping into family decisions. If the laws are not implemented as passed, the legislative intent becomes mute. If the first girl (yours, say) gets benefit of all $800 dollars, but so does the other girl, would you think that consistent with what the court ordered? Sure. But that doesn't happen. Let's say the mothers pro-rata share of the CS obligation is $400 per child. That means to equalize the child rearing expenditures she would have to spend her per child assumed total of $800 plus add another $400 in spending to provide equally for both children plus the $1,000 received from the fathers. THe only way (practically, reasonably) a difference could be generated woudl be something like ballet lessons for her, and not the other. But what if she's not interested in anything like that.. There are all kinds of practical ways for CP's to manage the differing CS amounts received per child. Here is just one - Spent the same lower of the two CS amounts received on both children, but put the difference in a savings account for the child with the higher CS award. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child support debt?
In article , Bob Whiteside
says... "Banty" wrote in message ... Actually my scenario is about reality and how stated objectives in the CS system are just "feel good" messages that get ignored in practice. And the scenario points out the reason so many CP mothers are against any form of accountability for how CS is spent. They want to treat CS received as unallocated family support which is really the definition of alimony. Well, no, alimony is for support of the *ex spouse*. That is only one of several reasons alimony can be awarded. My point is mothers are against accountability for how CS is spent because they want to treat the money received as unallocated family support, i.e. they can use it any way they want at their personal discretion. Well, the accountability would have to be reasonable. IF a trustee or overseer is expecting daughter number one to get steak and daughter number two to get mac and cheese, that woudl be a problem. Maybe those who are opposing accountability are reading what *you* write. The difference, of course, is CS is tax free money, not taxable like unallocated family support which is treated for tax purposes like alimony. If CS *weren't* tax free, it would be taxed twice (once as the NCP earns it, then as the CS gets it), and *would* have a valid reason to be concerned that ther would be a perverse incentive by government benefiting from CS, the more the better. But that's not the case. It would be double taxation. So no, that doesn't happen and shouldn't happen. (BTW, you're not applying your 'intact family' guideline here I see.) I have no doubt things are implemented poorly a lot of times, though, and I'm all for oversight of the CP. But practicalities will overwhelm some of the concerns I've heard people voice. My state is one of a handful where the NCP can demand an accounting of how CS is spent. You should have seen the look on my ex-wife's face when here own attorney told her in front of me she had to keep receipts and records regarding how she spent the CS. Good! Yes, if it's mandated from you, she should account for its spending. And as you pointed out, fairness for the children trumps fairness for the fathers who pay the support. The hierarchy of interests within the system is always government, mothers, children, and then fathers. Depends on how the NCP's look at it - as parents, or wallets. Well the trick for NCP's is to accept they are being used as a wallet, but act like a parent. Parents are *both*. The practicalities call for the wallet. (Just like in any intact family.) When wallet concerns override what works for the kids (like the girls sitting down to different meals), yes, the NCP is acting like a wallet and not a parent. Think of the alternatives - bare bones for all (why would the father of the oldest want that, if he is a *parent*), or one half-sister being held off from the other, leading to jealousy and a miserable half-sister for the older girl to live with (why would the father of the oldest want that, if he is a *parent*). How about one for YOU! That mom remarries, new hubby is a little better off than the first two men but not exactly swimming in funds, then half sister number three is born. They won't be eating lobster every night, but now the hamburger/ chicken leg budget can go to have steak once in a while! SO - by you, would it be OK to, in order to not have *his* precious $$$ not admixed into the care and support of the older children who are not his bio-children, and all the men to be 'honored' in the way you would have, to feed daughter number one chicken, daughter number two mac and cheese, and daughter number three steak!? That's the kind of thing that would have to happen to do what you want!! I don't get hung up on micromanaging how CS is ordered and spent when all of the children have the same father. OK, I'm glad. I was wondering where this was heading. Where I find a major flaw in the CS system is when there is no consideration given to blended familes. Each CS case is treated as a stand alone circumstance without regard for other factors. And there are built in gender-biased rules. For instance, it is okay for a mother to remarry (as you suggested above) and co-mingle available funds at her discretion for family support, but fathers are told that if they remarry no consideration will be given to how they support step-children or any subsequent children. See, I don't see that as equal situations. For one thing, the NCP, once he or she remarries, has access for all the *new partner's* resources and potential. The first scenario you gave - there was none of that. But you were happy to have all the goodies go to the other mens' kids if things went up. Let me ask you this: time and time again the situation of new burdens, loss of job, in the NCP household should mean the CP cuts back too. Does that work both ways? If the NCP's new wife gets an inheritance - where is the CP regarding that? This is another unequal way the system deals with issues. If a CP falls on hard times they simply cut back appropriately. If the NCP falls on hard times they need to hire an attorney, file motions with the court, wait for a hearing date, and hope they get some relief. While all that is goping on the NCP is flling further and further into arrears which triggers the CS enforcement mechanisms to add more pressure to the situation. Didn't answer my quesiton. If the NCP falls upon *good* times, like that inheritance, does the CP get any? No? Why not? (BTW hopefully not.) Why would it work only one way. So to your statement (which I see a lot) - it's called D-I-V-O-R-C-E. That partnership where people share the ups and downs, set their own priorities and tradoffs? It's gone kaput dissolved. What's left is an obligation to the kid. You dont' get to shoulder new burdens together. CP has nothing to do with it either way - bigger bills, or nice winning lottery ticket the new wifey bought. It's a consequence of that the CP has nearly all the *responsibility*. If someone can't stomach that - they need to be the full parent or co-parent. I just don't sign on to that either being the same situation, or inequitable any other way. Don't forget that CP mothers have a pro-rata share of CS that they are expected to provide too. Having multiple children with multiple fathers diminishes their ability to provide support at the levels assumed in the CS setting process. Meaning exactly, what. (seriously, wondered if something along this line why the second kid was only gettng200 bucks...) It's two separate things. The $800/$200 example was about CS being set differently when two fathers have different incomes. OK. The pro-rata share comment is about how a total CS obligation based on combined incomes is divided between the parents. IOW - The NCP pays CS and the CP provides CS. The issue of CS accountability is twofold. One is to ensure the CP provides their share in addition to the NCP's payments, and the second is to ensure the total CS obligation is spent. OK, sure. Meaning, for example, the CP pays part of the cost to raise the kids, too. That would be the kind of thing some oversight would have to account for, too. Or, if you really believe in only bare-bones CS, the first two sisters get mac and cheese and daughter number three steak. All sitting at the same dinner table. These things are two way streets, y'know. OK by you? Sound like a good result? Man number one with his precious $800 not sullied by mixture with the hundred or so *more* in effect of funds, that his daughter could have benifitted from in that situation? His kid gets chicken, what more do you want. She can just ignore the half-sister over there with her steak and apple pie. Maybe to avoid the pain of that they can leave the older two girls home once a month while the parents and youngest go for a restaurant meal. Dont' want those funds mixed up, y'know! That good? If I'm the guy ordered to pay CS for the "care and maintenance of minor children" I believe it is fair for me to have an expectation that my support will be used as the court ordered. The legal justification for the CS system is the state legislatures have a "rational basis" for stepping into family decisions. If the laws are not implemented as passed, the legislative intent becomes mute. If the first girl (yours, say) gets benefit of all $800 dollars, but so does the other girl, would you think that consistent with what the court ordered? Sure. But that doesn't happen. Let's say the mothers pro-rata share of the CS obligation is $400 per child. That means to equalize the child rearing expenditures she would have to spend her per child assumed total of $800 OK, for the two daughters... 400 x 2 = 800... plus add another $400 in spending to provide equally for both children plus the $1,000 received from the fathers. And the othre $400 is from..? (sorry I may be dense here..) In practice whatever needs to happen to get the kids raised is what happens. It may be more. THe only way (practically, reasonably) a difference could be generated woudl be something like ballet lessons for her, and not the other. But what if she's not interested in anything like that.. There are all kinds of practical ways for CP's to manage the differing CS amounts received per child. Here is just one - Spent the same lower of the two CS amounts received on both children, but put the difference in a savings account for the child with the higher CS award. REALLY? Until when?? In the meantime, the first child is held to the standard determined by the very low income of the second father. Artificially. Presumably until the younger is raised?? (which would be the whole childhood of the older!) Really? And *this* to prevent $$ mixing so's the first father can have his contribution unsullied by others' needs?? His own kid doens't see the money until she's grown, no Brownies, no school trips, etc.? Because now there's another child in the family and to keep it away from her? If the first dad, with the more income, thinks that's appropriate, that's a wallet and not a parent. Is THAT the kind of accounting you'd like to see? Like I said, if CP advocacy groups are reading THIS, no small wonder they're resisting the idea of oversight. Banty |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child support debt?
"Banty" wrote in message ... In article , Bob Whiteside says... "Banty" wrote in message ... Actually my scenario is about reality and how stated objectives in the CS system are just "feel good" messages that get ignored in practice. And the scenario points out the reason so many CP mothers are against any form of accountability for how CS is spent. They want to treat CS received as unallocated family support which is really the definition of alimony. Well, no, alimony is for support of the *ex spouse*. That is only one of several reasons alimony can be awarded. My point is mothers are against accountability for how CS is spent because they want to treat the money received as unallocated family support, i.e. they can use it any way they want at their personal discretion. Well, the accountability would have to be reasonable. IF a trustee or overseer is expecting daughter number one to get steak and daughter number two to get mac and cheese, that woudl be a problem. Maybe those who are opposing accountability are reading what *you* write. I'm beginning to think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. This has nothing to do with what the children eat. Here is how accountability is currently done for NCP's. How much did you owe. How much did you pay. Is there a difference? Here is how accountability could be done for CP's. How much did you recieve and how much were you expected to provide? How much did you spend? Is there a difference. Now for a real life example. I paid CS for my youngest child intended to cover all of her child rearing expenses. As a teenager she worked while going to school. Out of her own money she bought food, gasoline, car insurance, clothes, entertainment, etc. That meant the CS I was paying to cover those expenditures was spent on something else. An accounting would show not all the money I paid got spent on her. I would expect any accounting to cover a period of time to take out the month to month variations tha occur in any budget. The difference, of course, is CS is tax free money, not taxable like unallocated family support which is treated for tax purposes like alimony. If CS *weren't* tax free, it would be taxed twice (once as the NCP earns it, then as the CS gets it), and *would* have a valid reason to be concerned that ther would be a perverse incentive by government benefiting from CS, the more the better. But that's not the case. It would be double taxation. So no, that doesn't happen and shouldn't happen. (BTW, you're not applying your 'intact family' guideline here I see.) Huh? I think you left out CS could be deductible from income before taxes. In essence it really doesn't matter who pays the taxes on CS as long as the guidelines are based on a fair set of tax assumptions. Ditto for whether CS is calculated using gross income or net income. I have no doubt things are implemented poorly a lot of times, though, and I'm all for oversight of the CP. But practicalities will overwhelm some of the concerns I've heard people voice. My state is one of a handful where the NCP can demand an accounting of how CS is spent. You should have seen the look on my ex-wife's face when here own attorney told her in front of me she had to keep receipts and records regarding how she spent the CS. Good! Yes, if it's mandated from you, she should account for its spending. And as you pointed out, fairness for the children trumps fairness for the fathers who pay the support. The hierarchy of interests within the system is always government, mothers, children, and then fathers. Depends on how the NCP's look at it - as parents, or wallets. Well the trick for NCP's is to accept they are being used as a wallet, but act like a parent. Parents are *both*. The practicalities call for the wallet. (Just like in any intact family.) When wallet concerns override what works for the kids (like the girls sitting down to different meals), yes, the NCP is acting like a wallet and not a parent. Why are you so hung up on what children eat? You are an advocate for family lifestyle spending from a pool of money so children with different parents are treated equally. I am an advocate for CS accountability because the CS awards are based on specific spending assumptions related to parental incomes. Think of the alternatives - bare bones for all (why would the father of the oldest want that, if he is a *parent*), or one half-sister being held off from the other, leading to jealousy and a miserable half-sister for the older girl to live with (why would the father of the oldest want that, if he is a *parent*). How about one for YOU! That mom remarries, new hubby is a little better off than the first two men but not exactly swimming in funds, then half sister number three is born. They won't be eating lobster every night, but now the hamburger/ chicken leg budget can go to have steak once in a while! SO - by you, would it be OK to, in order to not have *his* precious $$$ not admixed into the care and support of the older children who are not his bio-children, and all the men to be 'honored' in the way you would have, to feed daughter number one chicken, daughter number two mac and cheese, and daughter number three steak!? That's the kind of thing that would have to happen to do what you want!! I don't get hung up on micromanaging how CS is ordered and spent when all of the children have the same father. OK, I'm glad. I was wondering where this was heading. Where I find a major flaw in the CS system is when there is no consideration given to blended familes. Each CS case is treated as a stand alone circumstance without regard for other factors. And there are built in gender-biased rules. For instance, it is okay for a mother to remarry (as you suggested above) and co-mingle available funds at her discretion for family support, but fathers are told that if they remarry no consideration will be given to how they support step-children or any subsequent children. See, I don't see that as equal situations. For one thing, the NCP, once he or she remarries, has access for all the *new partner's* resources and potential. The first scenario you gave - there was none of that. But you were happy to have all the goodies go to the other mens' kids if things went up. Let me ask you this: time and time again the situation of new burdens, loss of job, in the NCP household should mean the CP cuts back too. Does that work both ways? If the NCP's new wife gets an inheritance - where is the CP regarding that? This is another unequal way the system deals with issues. If a CP falls on hard times they simply cut back appropriately. If the NCP falls on hard times they need to hire an attorney, file motions with the court, wait for a hearing date, and hope they get some relief. While all that is goping on the NCP is flling further and further into arrears which triggers the CS enforcement mechanisms to add more pressure to the situation. Didn't answer my quesiton. If the NCP falls upon *good* times, like that inheritance, does the CP get any? No? Why not? (BTW hopefully not.) Theoretically only the parent's incomes are used to set CS. However, there are loosy goosy loopholes built into the law language, i.e. the court can consider other available sources of income. That includes spouse's incomes, lottery winnings, inheritances, etc. and leaves the outcome up to the discretion of a judge. In reality, the CP's income and how it is treated has very little impact on how much an NCP will be ordered to pay. It is how the NCP's income is treated that drives the CS calculations and the outcome. Why would it work only one way. Because the calculation methodology is biased against NCP's and the CP's have the ability to make changes without court appproval. So to your statement (which I see a lot) - it's called D-I-V-O-R-C-E. That partnership where people share the ups and downs, set their own priorities and tradoffs? It's gone kaput dissolved. What's left is an obligation to the kid. You dont' get to shoulder new burdens together. CP has nothing to do with it either way - bigger bills, or nice winning lottery ticket the new wifey bought. It's a consequence of that the CP has nearly all the *responsibility*. If someone can't stomach that - they need to be the full parent or co-parent. I just don't sign on to that either being the same situation, or inequitable any other way. Are you aware that over 1/3 of CS recipients were never married? Don't forget that CP mothers have a pro-rata share of CS that they are expected to provide too. Having multiple children with multiple fathers diminishes their ability to provide support at the levels assumed in the CS setting process. Meaning exactly, what. (seriously, wondered if something along this line why the second kid was only gettng200 bucks...) It's two separate things. The $800/$200 example was about CS being set differently when two fathers have different incomes. OK. The pro-rata share comment is about how a total CS obligation based on combined incomes is divided between the parents. IOW - The NCP pays CS and the CP provides CS. The issue of CS accountability is twofold. One is to ensure the CP provides their share in addition to the NCP's payments, and the second is to ensure the total CS obligation is spent. OK, sure. Meaning, for example, the CP pays part of the cost to raise the kids, too. That would be the kind of thing some oversight would have to account for, too. I noted that above. Or, if you really believe in only bare-bones CS, the first two sisters get mac and cheese and daughter number three steak. All sitting at the same dinner table. These things are two way streets, y'know. OK by you? Sound like a good result? Man number one with his precious $800 not sullied by mixture with the hundred or so *more* in effect of funds, that his daughter could have benifitted from in that situation? His kid gets chicken, what more do you want. She can just ignore the half-sister over there with her steak and apple pie. Maybe to avoid the pain of that they can leave the older two girls home once a month while the parents and youngest go for a restaurant meal. Dont' want those funds mixed up, y'know! That good? If I'm the guy ordered to pay CS for the "care and maintenance of minor children" I believe it is fair for me to have an expectation that my support will be used as the court ordered. The legal justification for the CS system is the state legislatures have a "rational basis" for stepping into family decisions. If the laws are not implemented as passed, the legislative intent becomes mute. If the first girl (yours, say) gets benefit of all $800 dollars, but so does the other girl, would you think that consistent with what the court ordered? Sure. But that doesn't happen. Let's say the mothers pro-rata share of the CS obligation is $400 per child. That means to equalize the child rearing expenditures she would have to spend her per child assumed total of $800 OK, for the two daughters... 400 x 2 = 800... plus add another $400 in spending to provide equally for both children plus the $1,000 received from the fathers. And the othre $400 is from..? (sorry I may be dense here..) The extra $600 ($400 was a typo) to equalize the spending at $800 on both children, as you suggested. Child #1 $800 dad's share plus $400 mom's share equals $1200. Child #2 $200 dad's share plus $400 mom's share plus $600 equalization share equals $1200. In practice whatever needs to happen to get the kids raised is what happens. It may be more. THe only way (practically, reasonably) a difference could be generated woudl be something like ballet lessons for her, and not the other. But what if she's not interested in anything like that.. There are all kinds of practical ways for CP's to manage the differing CS amounts received per child. Here is just one - Spent the same lower of the two CS amounts received on both children, but put the difference in a savings account for the child with the higher CS award. REALLY? Until when?? In the meantime, the first child is held to the standard determined by the very low income of the second father. Artificially. Presumably until the younger is raised?? (which would be the whole childhood of the older!) Really? And *this* to prevent $$ mixing so's the first father can have his contribution unsullied by others' needs?? His own kid doens't see the money until she's grown, no Brownies, no school trips, etc.? Because now there's another child in the family and to keep it away from her? If the first dad, with the more income, thinks that's appropriate, that's a wallet and not a parent. Is THAT the kind of accounting you'd like to see? Like I said, if CP advocacy groups are reading THIS, no small wonder they're resisting the idea of oversight. What I really want is an accounting system that guarantees and NCP's CS payments are spent on his child. If mom decided to have subsequent children with a couple of other men, the first dad's child should not be penalized financially for her mother's subsequent choices. The concept of CS is for the children to benefit from the lifestyle of both of their parents as if the family were intact. You are suggesting the child should have their lifestyle adjusted based on only one of their parents. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child support debt?
In article , Bob Whiteside
says... "Banty" wrote in message ... In article , Bob Whiteside says... "Banty" wrote in message ... Actually my scenario is about reality and how stated objectives in the CS system are just "feel good" messages that get ignored in practice. And the scenario points out the reason so many CP mothers are against any form of accountability for how CS is spent. They want to treat CS received as unallocated family support which is really the definition of alimony. Well, no, alimony is for support of the *ex spouse*. That is only one of several reasons alimony can be awarded. My point is mothers are against accountability for how CS is spent because they want to treat the money received as unallocated family support, i.e. they can use it any way they want at their personal discretion. Well, the accountability would have to be reasonable. IF a trustee or overseer is expecting daughter number one to get steak and daughter number two to get mac and cheese, that woudl be a problem. Maybe those who are opposing accountability are reading what *you* write. I'm beginning to think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. This has nothing to do with what the children eat. I'm trying to illustrate what kind of thing would happen in order to not comingle funds in your scenario. Things like rent and heat not being divisible between two kids in a household. Here is how accountability is currently done for NCP's. How much did you owe. How much did you pay. Is there a difference? Here is how accountability could be done for CP's. How much did you recieve and how much were you expected to provide? How much did you spend? Is there a difference. Now for a real life example. I paid CS for my youngest child intended to cover all of her child rearing expenses. As a teenager she worked while going to school. Out of her own money she bought food, gasoline, car insurance, clothes, entertainment, etc. That meant the CS I was paying to cover those expenditures was spent on something else. An accounting would show not all the money I paid got spent on her. I would expect any accounting to cover a period of time to take out the month to month variations tha occur in any budget. You're not living there; you don't know what the money got spent on or even if it still wasn't spent for the benefit of your daughter. I do support an accounting. At least to a third party. Then you would know it's going to her. And if things weren't on the up and up, well actually an accounting would be strong incentive against that. The difference, of course, is CS is tax free money, not taxable like unallocated family support which is treated for tax purposes like alimony. If CS *weren't* tax free, it would be taxed twice (once as the NCP earns it, then as the CS gets it), and *would* have a valid reason to be concerned that ther would be a perverse incentive by government benefiting from CS, the more the better. But that's not the case. It would be double taxation. So no, that doesn't happen and shouldn't happen. (BTW, you're not applying your 'intact family' guideline here I see.) Huh? I think you left out CS could be deductible from income before taxes. Yes - it's not taxed again. In essence it really doesn't matter who pays the taxes on CS as long as the guidelines are based on a fair set of tax assumptions. Ditto for whether CS is calculated using gross income or net income. You paid the taxes. The money was only earned once. If it were taxed again as income to the CP household, you'd end up paying a higher gross. If it were given as a gift (as I think you advocate, at least that portion above bare basics), it wouldn't be taxed then, either. Thought you didnt' like money going to the gummit. I have no doubt things are implemented poorly a lot of times, though, and I'm all for oversight of the CP. But practicalities will overwhelm some of the concerns I've heard people voice. My state is one of a handful where the NCP can demand an accounting of how CS is spent. You should have seen the look on my ex-wife's face when here own attorney told her in front of me she had to keep receipts and records regarding how she spent the CS. Good! Yes, if it's mandated from you, she should account for its spending. And as you pointed out, fairness for the children trumps fairness for the fathers who pay the support. The hierarchy of interests within the system is always government, mothers, children, and then fathers. Depends on how the NCP's look at it - as parents, or wallets. Well the trick for NCP's is to accept they are being used as a wallet, but act like a parent. Parents are *both*. The practicalities call for the wallet. (Just like in any intact family.) When wallet concerns override what works for the kids (like the girls sitting down to different meals), yes, the NCP is acting like a wallet and not a parent. Why are you so hung up on what children eat? You are an advocate for family lifestyle spending from a pool of money so children with different parents are treated equally. I am an advocate for CS accountability because the CS awards are based on specific spending assumptions related to parental incomes. If there were an accounting, what kind of arrangement in the CP's household would satisfy you? Think of the alternatives - bare bones for all (why would the father of the oldest want that, if he is a *parent*), or one half-sister being held off from the other, leading to jealousy and a miserable half-sister for the older girl to live with (why would the father of the oldest want that, if he is a *parent*). How about one for YOU! That mom remarries, new hubby is a little better off than the first two men but not exactly swimming in funds, then half sister number three is born. They won't be eating lobster every night, but now the hamburger/ chicken leg budget can go to have steak once in a while! SO - by you, would it be OK to, in order to not have *his* precious $$$ not admixed into the care and support of the older children who are not his bio-children, and all the men to be 'honored' in the way you would have, to feed daughter number one chicken, daughter number two mac and cheese, and daughter number three steak!? That's the kind of thing that would have to happen to do what you want!! I don't get hung up on micromanaging how CS is ordered and spent when all of the children have the same father. OK, I'm glad. I was wondering where this was heading. Where I find a major flaw in the CS system is when there is no consideration given to blended familes. Each CS case is treated as a stand alone circumstance without regard for other factors. And there are built in gender-biased rules. For instance, it is okay for a mother to remarry (as you suggested above) and co-mingle available funds at her discretion for family support, but fathers are told that if they remarry no consideration will be given to how they support step-children or any subsequent children. See, I don't see that as equal situations. For one thing, the NCP, once he or she remarries, has access for all the *new partner's* resources and potential. The first scenario you gave - there was none of that. But you were happy to have all the goodies go to the other mens' kids if things went up. Let me ask you this: time and time again the situation of new burdens, loss of job, in the NCP household should mean the CP cuts back too. Does that work both ways? If the NCP's new wife gets an inheritance - where is the CP regarding that? This is another unequal way the system deals with issues. If a CP falls on hard times they simply cut back appropriately. If the NCP falls on hard times they need to hire an attorney, file motions with the court, wait for a hearing date, and hope they get some relief. While all that is goping on the NCP is flling further and further into arrears which triggers the CS enforcement mechanisms to add more pressure to the situation. Didn't answer my quesiton. If the NCP falls upon *good* times, like that inheritance, does the CP get any? No? Why not? (BTW hopefully not.) Theoretically only the parent's incomes are used to set CS. Right, only the bio parents in most states, as I understand it. However, there are loosy goosy loopholes built into the law language, i.e. the court can consider other available sources of income. That includes spouse's incomes, lottery winnings, inheritances, etc. and leaves the outcome up to the discretion of a judge. I'm not sure what you mean by 'loosy goosy'. Discretion of a judge is there to handle the hard cases and unusual situations. In reality, the CP's income and how it is treated has very little impact on how much an NCP will be ordered to pay. It is how the NCP's income is treated that drives the CS calculations and the outcome. Why would it work only one way. Because the calculation methodology is biased against NCP's and the CP's have the ability to make changes without court appproval. How is the calculation methodology biased? You gave one concrete example, about housing expenses being per person. OK, that's unreasonable for the NCP. How else? So to your statement (which I see a lot) - it's called D-I-V-O-R-C-E. That partnership where people share the ups and downs, set their own priorities and tradoffs? It's gone kaput dissolved. What's left is an obligation to the kid. You dont' get to shoulder new burdens together. CP has nothing to do with it either way - bigger bills, or nice winning lottery ticket the new wifey bought. It's a consequence of that the CP has nearly all the *responsibility*. If someone can't stomach that - they need to be the full parent or co-parent. I just don't sign on to that either being the same situation, or inequitable any other way. Are you aware that over 1/3 of CS recipients were never married? Yes. And? Don't forget that CP mothers have a pro-rata share of CS that they are expected to provide too. Having multiple children with multiple fathers diminishes their ability to provide support at the levels assumed in the CS setting process. Meaning exactly, what. (seriously, wondered if something along this line why the second kid was only gettng200 bucks...) It's two separate things. The $800/$200 example was about CS being set differently when two fathers have different incomes. OK. The pro-rata share comment is about how a total CS obligation based on combined incomes is divided between the parents. IOW - The NCP pays CS and the CP provides CS. The issue of CS accountability is twofold. One is to ensure the CP provides their share in addition to the NCP's payments, and the second is to ensure the total CS obligation is spent. OK, sure. Meaning, for example, the CP pays part of the cost to raise the kids, too. That would be the kind of thing some oversight would have to account for, too. I noted that above. Or, if you really believe in only bare-bones CS, the first two sisters get mac and cheese and daughter number three steak. All sitting at the same dinner table. These things are two way streets, y'know. OK by you? Sound like a good result? Man number one with his precious $800 not sullied by mixture with the hundred or so *more* in effect of funds, that his daughter could have benifitted from in that situation? His kid gets chicken, what more do you want. She can just ignore the half-sister over there with her steak and apple pie. Maybe to avoid the pain of that they can leave the older two girls home once a month while the parents and youngest go for a restaurant meal. Dont' want those funds mixed up, y'know! That good? If I'm the guy ordered to pay CS for the "care and maintenance of minor children" I believe it is fair for me to have an expectation that my support will be used as the court ordered. The legal justification for the CS system is the state legislatures have a "rational basis" for stepping into family decisions. If the laws are not implemented as passed, the legislative intent becomes mute. If the first girl (yours, say) gets benefit of all $800 dollars, but so does the other girl, would you think that consistent with what the court ordered? Sure. But that doesn't happen. Let's say the mothers pro-rata share of the CS obligation is $400 per child. That means to equalize the child rearing expenditures she would have to spend her per child assumed total of $800 OK, for the two daughters... 400 x 2 = 800... plus add another $400 in spending to provide equally for both children plus the $1,000 received from the fathers. And the othre $400 is from..? (sorry I may be dense here..) The extra $600 ($400 was a typo) to equalize the spending at $800 on both children, as you suggested. Child #1 $800 dad's share plus $400 mom's share equals $1200. Child #2 $200 dad's share plus $400 mom's share plus $600 equalization share equals $1200. So now you're saying, because the second father was poorer so was assessed less, to make things fairly equal but keep things from being co-mingled she has to earn 600 more now? Tell you what - the older child can use 800 dollars a month, the younger only 200, and she has to write thank you notes to the older if by the kindness of the older girl's heart her bed was just as warm and she got to play with the same dolls :-/ In practice whatever needs to happen to get the kids raised is what happens. It may be more. THe only way (practically, reasonably) a difference could be generated woudl be something like ballet lessons for her, and not the other. But what if she's not interested in anything like that.. There are all kinds of practical ways for CP's to manage the differing CS amounts received per child. Here is just one - Spent the same lower of the two CS amounts received on both children, but put the difference in a savings account for the child with the higher CS award. REALLY? Until when?? In the meantime, the first child is held to the standard determined by the very low income of the second father. Artificially. Presumably until the younger is raised?? (which would be the whole childhood of the older!) Really? And *this* to prevent $$ mixing so's the first father can have his contribution unsullied by others' needs?? His own kid doens't see the money until she's grown, no Brownies, no school trips, etc.? Because now there's another child in the family and to keep it away from her? If the first dad, with the more income, thinks that's appropriate, that's a wallet and not a parent. Is THAT the kind of accounting you'd like to see? Like I said, if CP advocacy groups are reading THIS, no small wonder they're resisting the idea of oversight. What I really want is an accounting system that guarantees and NCP's CS payments are spent on his child. If mom decided to have subsequent children with a couple of other men, the first dad's child should not be penalized financially for her mother's subsequent choices. So you see the problem with the bank account idea? The concept of CS is for the children to benefit from the lifestyle of both of their parents as if the family were intact. Actually that doesnt' happen even in the best of cases. Taking just the finances, it will have to be spread over two households. That's especially felt if two incomes were needed for a modest life in the intact family before the divorce. If CP was stay at home, she will have less time and energy for this kids even if income wise it makes up the difference. (Not that that isn't what she should do.) You are suggesting the child should have their lifestyle adjusted based on only one of their parents. (Yet that's exactly what you want in the case of the NCP having a new burden or losing his job..) I think there would no problem accounting for that 800 going to the older daughter. When the NCP turns his back, he wont' know the mom is teaching her kids to share. Banty |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child support debt?
"Banty" wrote in message ... You're not living there; you don't know what the money got spent on or even if it still wasn't spent for the benefit of your daughter. You mean father's should not believe their children when they tell the dads their mom's have transitioned from ripping off the fathers to ripping off their own children? Your assumptions are far off the mark. My daughter asked to come live with me and she has given me more details than I wanted to know about the mother games. She has volunteered a lot to confirm my suspicions. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a childsupport debt?
Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Banty" wrote in message ... You're not living there; you don't know what the money got spent on or even if it still wasn't spent for the benefit of your daughter. You mean father's should not believe their children when they tell the dads their mom's have transitioned from ripping off the fathers to ripping off their own children? Your assumptions are far off the mark. My daughter asked to come live with me and she has given me more details than I wanted to know about the mother games. She has volunteered a lot to confirm my suspicions. At the same time, Bob, not *all* CPs are like that. Just saying... -- Sarah Gray |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child support debt?
"Banty" wrote in message ... In article , Bob Whiteside says... "Banty" wrote in message ... In article , Bob Whiteside says... "Banty" wrote in message ... Actually my scenario is about reality and how stated objectives in the CS system are just "feel good" messages that get ignored in practice. And the scenario points out the reason so many CP mothers are against any form of accountability for how CS is spent. They want to treat CS received as unallocated family support which is really the definition of alimony. Well, no, alimony is for support of the *ex spouse*. That is only one of several reasons alimony can be awarded. My point is mothers are against accountability for how CS is spent because they want to treat the money received as unallocated family support, i.e. they can use it any way they want at their personal discretion. Well, the accountability would have to be reasonable. IF a trustee or overseer is expecting daughter number one to get steak and daughter number two to get mac and cheese, that woudl be a problem. Maybe those who are opposing accountability are reading what *you* write. I'm beginning to think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. This has nothing to do with what the children eat. I'm trying to illustrate what kind of thing would happen in order to not comingle funds in your scenario. Things like rent and heat not being divisible between two kids in a household. It really shouldn't be that much of a problem. Mom simply adds more funds to child # 2's share of income, and things come out equal, right? Rather than taking from child 1 to make things even for child 2, she *adds to* child 2. After all, she was aware that she had an obligation to child 1 before child 2 came along, right? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child | Banty | Child Support | 54 | December 19th 07 12:57 PM |
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child support debt? | [email protected] | Child Support | 562 | November 21st 07 08:02 PM |
how to collect more child support | fathersrights | Child Support | 4 | September 6th 07 05:30 AM |
Question on Child Support Debt | xyz | Child Support | 8 | October 20th 05 06:07 PM |
Phantom debt creation by child support bureaucrats | Edmund Esterbauer | Child Support | 0 | January 23rd 04 11:42 AM |