Dad's Visitation Responsibility

"child support owed by deadbeats" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Oct 9, 10:48 pm, "DB" wrote:
"Chris" wrote in

jackets, and coats are too small. I spent close to $1,100.00 last
winter, and close to $500.00 this summer.

The above fiscal recklessness is typical of people that think they are
somehow owed "child support".

Is it any wonder they can make ends meet with the thousands of tax free
money they get?

Crybaby! You're just mad because the majority doesn't share your
opinion about child support. If they did, the institution of child
support would never have been introduced to the masses. You have like
40 people (maybe) in your little group, and yet there are millions of
child support cases. You are a big fish in a little pond on the
internet, but in reality, you're swimmikng in a fish bowl. The real
world acknowledges a fathers responsibility, and nothing you post is
going to change that!

Consensus gentium.

"Lvnsurpriseaz via FamilyKB.com" u37991@uwe wrote in message
news:7980b6fd3bd5e@uwe...
Sorry, but you are WRONG!!!!!!!! CS goes towards so many expenses directly
related to the health and welfare of the child. I have talked to many
judges
and attorneys and parents. CS is for a portion of everything!!!! He
needs
food to eat, health insurance, he needs me to have a car to get him from
place to place, he needs me to be able to provide car insurance so that if
we
get into an accident and he is hurt I have means to provide him with
coverage
so that his mother isn't sued and loose everything so that I am unable to
provide him with a roof over his head!! All you men are the same. CS is
based on percentage of visitation and income. My part of my income takes
care of my part of raising him and CS takes care of the fathers share.

The recitation above is indicative of the issue I am pointing out to you.
CS is not just the money the NCP father pays to the CP mother. CS is the
amount referred to as the "Total Child Support Obligation" on the CS
worksheets. In the Income Shares Model states (which are the majority of
all states) the "Total Child Support Obligation" is determined using both
parents' combined incomes. It is then split on a pro-rata basis between the
parents and called something like "Each Parent's Child Support Obligation."
There is a quantitative CS amount assigned to each parent as their share of
the CS obligation. The words typically used to describe how these amounts
are applied in practice is to refer to the NCP father's share as the amount
paid, and the CP mother's share as the amount provided.

There
is also NOTHING wrong with showing a child how to be responsible and
shareing
the cost of expensive "non necessary" items. CS isn't for expensive items
that are not needed for the health and welfare of the child. So,
therefore
if the child wants to waste money on things that are not necessary then
you
teach them to save and spend their own!!! Any counselor, decent parent,
judge, attorney, etcc.........would agree with me!

But the child's spending has nothing to do with CS obligations and how much
each parent is expected to contribute as their share for the "Care and
Maintenance of Minor Children". By substituting the child's spending for
amounts designated as your share of the CS obligation you are diverting
funds away from your child to use in ways unintended by the legislature and
the judicial system. And it is because of these types of games I am an
advocate for CS spending accountablity.

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 10, 12:09 pm, "Gini" wrote:
"Paula" wrote wrote:

Too bad all parents coul not handle theirchildsupportissues in
such a mature, loving way, instead of indulging themselves in the
acrimonious, adversarial family court system.

But you do acknowledge that the way in which Gini and her ex
were able to handle the rearing of their children was possible
only because they BOTH made the choices necessary to make
it work.

==
True, to some degree. But, it also takes a lot of compromise, which is
the
main thing lacking in many of the CPs who appear here.
They are obsessed with "getting what's due," having bought into the
attitude
that mothers are inherently better
qualified and outrank fathers on the parenting scale. There were many
things
I could have argued with and dragged my ex
into court for but that mindset was not a part of my/our parenting
psyche.
*Our kids were not property to be bickered over. Period.*
My ex was/is a great dad and I would never get into court disputes with
my
boys' father for any reason unless he were
somehow a danger to them. I could have dragged him into court when he
went to Ecuador for months and to Russia for months whining that our boys
were "due" the money those trips cost but I would not
have made that an issue, as many CPs would. He sent the boys letters,
gifts
and emails from all over the world that they still have today.
That was of far greater value to the kids than him handing me fists of
money
to put out for consumables that would never be remembered by the boys
into
their
adulthood. Money should never, ever, ever be the apex of a parent's
relationship with their children's father (or mother). It is really that
simple.
Fathers have just as much parenting rights as mothers, and their
parenting
style (if the father was chosen carefully by the mother, which he
absolutely should have been) is crucial to a healthy relationship within
the family dynamic--and therefore, a somewhat less traumatic childhood
for
the children of divided families. The other thing I had (have) was a very
understanding second husband who never ever interjected himself into my
sons' relationship with their dad (or their relationship with me, for
that
matter). My husband always welcomed my ex into our home and my ex always
treated my later-born children as part of his sons' family as well,
always welcoming them into his home. Would it have been this way if I
believed money was more important than these relationships? I think
not...and that is why I've been speaking out for fathers for more than
two
decades and why I am and have been a part of this group (despite some
poster's assertions that I am an unfit parent from Florida :-)

I guess all of us that have made mistakes should have looked into the
future to make sure we didn't make those mistakes. Gini here was able
to see into the future, thus allowing her to have a child with a non-
deadbeat. Please, Gini, look into all of us single parent, and single
parent to be future's and tell us which of the people will be
deadbeats, and which are going to handle thiers.

I'll bet that Gini did not call her ex a deadbeat when he didn't provide
money to compensate for the extra time she had the children while he was out
roaming the globe. I'll bet that respect for the person you produced a
child with, even when you don't agree with them was a big part of the
picture.

DB wrote:
"Lvnsurpriseaz via FamilyKB.com" u37991@uwe wrote in

If he wants $80 pair of shoes, I pay half,

yea, my father would have laughed and given me directions to Payless shoes!

$80 shoes are not a necessity!!!!



They are if you like having a spoiled teenager



--

Sarah Gray

Lvnsurpriseaz via FamilyKB.com wrote:
Exactly, they are NOT a necessity, that is why I pay a portion that I feel is
a fair portion and he has to pay the rest. That is the only fair thing to do
here. A high school boy WILL NOT wear payless shoes,


he would if his other option was going to school barefoot.


nor would I want to
have an argument over trying to"make" him wear them. So the best solution is
to pay a reasonable amount (out of his child support) towards clothes, shoes,
etc... that HE NEEDS, and if he wants to blow his money on expensive stuff he
has to pay the rest. Nothing wrong with that!!!!!!!!!!
DB wrote:
"Lvnsurpriseaz via FamilyKB.com" u37991@uwe wrote in

If he wants $80 pair of shoes, I pay half,
yea, my father would have laughed and given me directions to Payless shoes!

$80 shoes are not a necessity!!!!



--

Sarah Gray

"Lvnsurpriseaz via FamilyKB.com" u37991@uwe wrote in message
news:7980b6fd3bd5e@uwe...
Sorry, but you are WRONG!!!!!!!! CS goes towards so many expenses directly
related to the health and welfare of the child. I have talked to many
judges
and attorneys and parents. CS is for a portion of everything!!!! He
needs
food to eat, health insurance, he needs me to have a car to get him from
place to place, he needs me to be able to provide car insurance so that if
we
get into an accident and he is hurt I have means to provide him with
coverage
so that his mother isn't sued and loose everything so that I am unable to
provide him with a roof over his head!! All you men are the same. CS is
based on percentage of visitation and income. My part of my income takes
care of my part of raising him and CS takes care of the fathers share.
There
is also NOTHING wrong with showing a child how to be responsible and
shareing
the cost of expensive "non necessary" items. CS isn't for expensive items
that are not needed for the health and welfare of the child. So,
therefore
if the child wants to waste money on things that are not necessary then
you
teach them to save and spend their own!!! Any counselor, decent parent,
judge, attorney, etcc.........would agree with me!


Everytime you open your mouth you get stupider and stupider....

child support owed by deadbeats wrote:
On Oct 8, 2:41 pm, "DB" wrote:
"child support owed by deadbeats" wrote in

Think I spent a total of $200 last year on new clothes.
That was new clothes for myself! I still have T-shirts that are over 6 years
in use!

jackets, and coats are too small. I spent close to $1,100.00 last
winter, and close to $500.00 this summer.
Ever hear of Wal-Mart?

Ever hear of quality?


Neither you or your kid's father does not *owe* your child designer
wear. Child support is to cover the basic needs of a child. Get a
****ing grip! I don't think I've spent $1600 TOTAL on clothes for my
daughter, and she's 5. (granted, her grandparents like to buy/make her
clothes. but still, thats a big chunk of change.)

--

Sarah Gray

"Sarah Gray" wrote in

I don't think I've spent $1600 TOTAL on clothes for my daughter, and she's
5.

Guess you haven't heard of quality either? LOL

Lets see,

4 pairs of jeans @ $150 each.
10 tops at $50 each.
2 pairs of shoes at $100 each
Accessories for $300.

I do hope I keep up with my child's lastest fashions, my deadbeat doesn't
pay enough money? Bo hooooo

"teachrmama" wrote
.................
I'll bet that Gini did not call her ex a deadbeat when he didn't provide
money to compensate for the extra time she had the children while he was
out roaming the globe. I'll bet that respect for the person you produced
a child with, even when you don't agree with them was a big part of the
picture.
==
Bingo. Money is a wholly inadequate parent. Didn't someone say something
about it
even being the root of evil? It sure is the evil that courts put in the
middle of divided
families. It is truly hideous. And, it is just as hideous when parents, who
hope to gain
financially from this arrangement, lose all dignity as they go groveling,
scratching and clawing for a few
dollars that are "owed" (to their children, of course).

"Lvnsurpriseaz via FamilyKB.com" wrote
Sorry, but you are WRONG!!!!!!!! CS goes towards so many expenses directly
related to the health and welfare of the child. I have talked to many
judges
and attorneys and parents. CS is for a portion of everything!!!!
===
ROTFL! Next you're gonna try to tell us there's a "clearly written law."
:-)
===
He needs
food to eat, health insurance, he needs me to have a car to get him from
place to place, he needs me to be able to provide car insurance so that if
we
get into an accident and he is hurt I have means to provide him with
coverage
so that his mother isn't sued and loose everything so that I am unable to
provide him with a roof over his head!!
===
ROTFL! Your car insurance is YOUR responsibility. Anything you have as
necessary
for yourself is not chargeable to the NCP. YOUR expenses are YOUR
responsibility!
I suppose you're also gonna tell us that your ex owes you clothing money so
your child isn't
embarrased by your appearance! If you can't afford yourself, you shouldn't
have had kids.
You have got to be the whiningest CP that's come through here in years. I've
never seen a
single mother so resentful about having to support their own child. While
you have quite
a lot of entertainment value here, I can't help feeling profoundly sorry for
your child who
has two parents and neither wants to support him.
===
===