A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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

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

Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child support debt?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 15th 07, 07:32 PM posted to alt.child-support
Banty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,278
Default 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  
Old November 15th 07, 09:23 PM posted to alt.child-support
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default 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  
Old November 15th 07, 09:48 PM posted to alt.child-support
Banty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,278
Default 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  
Old November 15th 07, 10:43 PM posted to alt.child-support
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default 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  
Old November 15th 07, 11:27 PM posted to alt.child-support
Banty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,278
Default 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  
Old November 16th 07, 12:48 AM posted to alt.child-support
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default 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  
Old November 16th 07, 03:25 AM posted to alt.child-support
Banty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,278
Default 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  
Old November 16th 07, 04:52 AM posted to alt.child-support
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default 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  
Old November 16th 07, 06:04 AM posted to alt.child-support
Sarah Gray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default 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  
Old November 16th 07, 06:53 AM posted to alt.child-support
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default 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

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

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:03 PM.


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