Name change because parent not visiting child

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
ps.com...

Gini wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote
...............

And yes I realize that it would make an effective tool for illustrating
that some CP waste the money while the NCP lingers near poverty. But
like a lot of stormtrooper tactics it works both ways and I am
unwilling to accept the cost.
==
Puleez!! YOU are unwilling to accept the cost? What cost is it for you?
Apparently, you
are unaware, or would rather "accept the cost," that 2/3 of all child
abuse
is committed
by the mother. You really don't let reality get in the way of your
drooling
for money, do you?
The assumption that the custodial parent inherently acts in the best
interest of the child is nothing more
than a tired cliche used by those who would rather not be inconvenienced
by
accountability. We've heard
the same squeal by many CPs who stop by here for a dose of pity. They are
quite willing to ravage dad while
they cling white-knickled to their fist of cash and claim it's about the
kid. Spare me. Until you are willing
to accept responsibility and accountibility for your own obligations to
the
child(ren) you cannot claim with
the slightest credibility that you are in it for anything other than
cash.
To assert that CPs have a right to spend the money
as they wish because they inherently act in the best interest of the
child
is not only ludicrous, it's embarrassingly foolish.


Actually it holds no benifit for me, I am the FATHER of two kids but am
happily married to their mother (its called sexual responsibilty, give
it a try). I am however a foster parent who gets to pick up the pieces
when people have children, but no ****ing clue. I mentioned that fact
near the beginning of this thread but that was a month ago so it is
easy to make the mistake that I have some kind of vested interest in
this system. Actually I am far more the objective observer than about
anyone else posting on this topic.

I have literally thousands of hours of experience dealing with abuse
and neglect issues in children, and hundreds of hours of training to go
allow with that experience. And while 60% of the abusers are single
mothers, poverty is hugely correlated to those cases. About 85% of
abusive mothers are below the poverty line (this number is from a
training manual, if you want to question its validity I will try to
find a neutral source). The vast majority of abusive mothers are
charged with neglect and dependency offences, things that directly
correlate to poverty. Even with neglect cases, the majority of single
mothers of children in foster care have been abused by the fathers of
those same children, and/or both parents are drug addicted or
incarcerated.

CP's are held to a standard, currently existing neglect laws, just like
other parents in this country. Adding some type of secondary
accountability to allow the NCP to frustrate and harass has consitently
been found to be a violation of the right to privacy of the CP. Its a
nasty attempt to make the process of collecting the money more trouble
than its worth. You are cloaking your greed under the "best interests
of the child" in the same manner as you accuse the CP's of doing.

I don't think so, ghost. If CPs are only help to financial responsibility
at the neglect level, so should NCPs be held responsible at that same level.
If more money is required to be paid, then any amount above the NCPs 50%
requirement to keep kids above the neglect level should ahve to be accounted
for. I worked in high povety areas for many years (right now I am in a
moderate poverty area), and I have seen monies misused in some pretty
egregious ways. The only way to stop that is to require
accountability--privacy be damned! If monies are paid for a certain thing,
they should be used for that thing--eg: child support for the support of
the child. I think the Enron folks wish they had remembered that
accountability trumped right to privacy!


Once you have paid child support the money no longer belongs to you,
you can no more demand an account for it than an employer can demand to
know how a salary is spent.

Ghostwriter

DB wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote in

Actually it holds no benifit for me, I am the FATHER of two kids but am
happily married to their mother (its called sexual responsibilty, give
it a try).

So a normal married couple is now called sexual responsibility? LOL

And here i was thinking that the marriages that actually work was because
two normal people know how to get along well with each other. You must be
a real saint to take in other non sexually responsible people's kids?

Let me guess, you are part of the silent moral majority?


The sexual responsibility comment was because in addition to staying
married I was somehow able to not impregnate anyone prior to getting
married.

I take the kids because they are the only truly innocent party in the
whole damn business. Sainthood has nothing to do with it, once I knew
about the situation doing nothing simply wasnt an option.

In my personal thinking, a successful marriage is mostly about being
able to walk away from the little crap and actually force yourself to
give a higher priority to the reasons to stay rather than the reasons
to leave. Every human relationship has a thousand reasons to leave, but
you have to find the little bit of God inside your partner, the same as
you concentrate on the little bit of God in a child (foster or birth)
when at 3am they are sick, dirty, screaming, and clinging to you.

Ghostwriter

teachrmama wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote in message
ps.com...

Gini wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote
...............

And yes I realize that it would make an effective tool for illustrating
that some CP waste the money while the NCP lingers near poverty. But
like a lot of stormtrooper tactics it works both ways and I am
unwilling to accept the cost.
==
Puleez!! YOU are unwilling to accept the cost? What cost is it for you?
Apparently, you
are unaware, or would rather "accept the cost," that 2/3 of all child
abuse
is committed
by the mother. You really don't let reality get in the way of your
drooling
for money, do you?
The assumption that the custodial parent inherently acts in the best
interest of the child is nothing more
than a tired cliche used by those who would rather not be inconvenienced
by
accountability. We've heard
the same squeal by many CPs who stop by here for a dose of pity. They are
quite willing to ravage dad while
they cling white-knickled to their fist of cash and claim it's about the
kid. Spare me. Until you are willing
to accept responsibility and accountibility for your own obligations to
the
child(ren) you cannot claim with
the slightest credibility that you are in it for anything other than
cash.
To assert that CPs have a right to spend the money
as they wish because they inherently act in the best interest of the
child
is not only ludicrous, it's embarrassingly foolish.


Actually it holds no benifit for me, I am the FATHER of two kids but am
happily married to their mother (its called sexual responsibilty, give
it a try). I am however a foster parent who gets to pick up the pieces
when people have children, but no ****ing clue. I mentioned that fact
near the beginning of this thread but that was a month ago so it is
easy to make the mistake that I have some kind of vested interest in
this system. Actually I am far more the objective observer than about
anyone else posting on this topic.

I have literally thousands of hours of experience dealing with abuse
and neglect issues in children, and hundreds of hours of training to go
allow with that experience. And while 60% of the abusers are single
mothers, poverty is hugely correlated to those cases. About 85% of
abusive mothers are below the poverty line (this number is from a
training manual, if you want to question its validity I will try to
find a neutral source). The vast majority of abusive mothers are
charged with neglect and dependency offences, things that directly
correlate to poverty. Even with neglect cases, the majority of single
mothers of children in foster care have been abused by the fathers of
those same children, and/or both parents are drug addicted or
incarcerated.

CP's are held to a standard, currently existing neglect laws, just like
other parents in this country. Adding some type of secondary
accountability to allow the NCP to frustrate and harass has consitently
been found to be a violation of the right to privacy of the CP. Its a
nasty attempt to make the process of collecting the money more trouble
than its worth. You are cloaking your greed under the "best interests
of the child" in the same manner as you accuse the CP's of doing.

I don't think so, ghost. If CPs are only help to financial responsibility
at the neglect level, so should NCPs be held responsible at that same level.
If more money is required to be paid, then any amount above the NCPs 50%
requirement to keep kids above the neglect level should ahve to be accounted
for. I worked in high povety areas for many years (right now I am in a
moderate poverty area), and I have seen monies misused in some pretty
egregious ways. The only way to stop that is to require
accountability--privacy be damned! If monies are paid for a certain thing,
they should be used for that thing--eg: child support for the support of
the child. I think the Enron folks wish they had remembered that
accountability trumped right to privacy!

Like we discussed earlyier, I would rather have a hard and fast number
for total income of the CP be the requirement. With a binding agreement
worked out to cover the remaining inequality, certainly reasonable
accountablity can be mutually worked out in that agreement. My problem
is that using a subjective standard inside of the adverserial system
that currently exists is begging for abuse.

Bob mentioned that in his state a single affidavit of expendatures
submitted with a request for change is the requirement, and that
certainly seems a reasonable level.

But perhaps I misunderstand the level of accountability you are
requesting, do you want to require updates only when a change is
requested in the support level or do you want to be able to challange
the amount of support based on a yearly report, what documentation
would you require to prove what the money was spent on, and whats to
stop someone from demanding proof of every trip to Mcdonalds and then
challanging it as an unnecessary expense. Do you want to get an
itemized medical costs so that you know every condition in the whole
household and then use that info to challange custody because unmarried
mom is using birth control? Or the step-brother has ADHD, etc, etc,
etc. How about insurance costs so that you know if step-dad has three
tickets on his licence, or if mom had a fender bender last year. I
think you get my point.

Ghostwriter








Once you have paid child support the money no longer belongs to you,
you can no more demand an account for it than an employer can demand to
know how a salary is spent.

Ghostwriter

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote in message
ps.com...

Gini wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote
...............

And yes I realize that it would make an effective tool for
illustrating
that some CP waste the money while the NCP lingers near poverty.
But
like a lot of stormtrooper tactics it works both ways and I am
unwilling to accept the cost.
==
Puleez!! YOU are unwilling to accept the cost? What cost is it for
you?
Apparently, you
are unaware, or would rather "accept the cost," that 2/3 of all
child
abuse
is committed
by the mother. You really don't let reality get in the way of your
drooling
for money, do you?
The assumption that the custodial parent inherently acts in the best
interest of the child is nothing more
than a tired cliche used by those who would rather not be
inconvenienced
by
accountability. We've heard
the same squeal by many CPs who stop by here for a dose of pity.
They
are
quite willing to ravage dad while
they cling white-knickled to their fist of cash and claim it's about
the
kid. Spare me. Until you are willing
to accept responsibility and accountibility for your own obligations
to
the
child(ren) you cannot claim with
the slightest credibility that you are in it for anything other than
cash.
To assert that CPs have a right to spend the money
as they wish because they inherently act in the best interest of the
child
is not only ludicrous, it's embarrassingly foolish.


Actually it holds no benifit for me, I am the FATHER of two kids but
am
happily married to their mother (its called sexual responsibilty, give
it a try). I am however a foster parent who gets to pick up the pieces
when people have children, but no ****ing clue. I mentioned that fact
near the beginning of this thread but that was a month ago so it is
easy to make the mistake that I have some kind of vested interest in
this system. Actually I am far more the objective observer than about
anyone else posting on this topic.

In my state foster parents are paid $387 to $497 per month depending on
the
age of the child. Are you claiming your household receives no benefit
from
those payments? Quite frankly, I believe there is a benefit to your
household and that is why you are so strongly against accounting for CS
money and how it is spent.

$480 or $600 depending of if the child is 13 yet. I seldom take
teenagers because of the age of my birth children so $16 per day per
child is normal for me. After food, diapers, formula, extra utilities,
etc that comes out to less than $0.50 per hour, $0.25 per man hour when
both my wife and I are home. We also normally recieve a one time $100
voucher to a local department store for clothes/underwear etc. And the
county usally gives another $100 for Christmas gifts for each child if
you have a placement over the holidays. CPS also pays for daycare if
both parents work during the day. Plus $400/year for the 20 hours of
training that me and my wife require to stay licenced.

Other than the voucher the money is always payed in arrears so I am
usually out a couple of hundred bucks before the check arrives. If I
have a small child I make maybe $250-300 a month, and that number goes
down as the age and needs of the child increases.

CPS is extremely unlikley to ever require an accounting out of foster
parents, the child is seen a great many times in the course of an
average month. The case worker is required to visit the child in my
home at least once a month, and usally mom and/or dad have a visit once
a week, grandparents once ever two weeks, one doctors visit, one
dentist visit, and oftentimes weekly therapy sessions. Just getting the
child to practice normal hygiene is considered a major accomplishment.
And I routinely amaze case workers because I am brave enough to start
potty training in older toddlers.

Of course the other reason that CPS is unlikley ever to require
accounting of the money is the simple fact that we are a volunteer
group, so making the process more difficult for us is a good way to
drive us away.

I have literally thousands of hours of experience dealing with abuse
and neglect issues in children, and hundreds of hours of training to
go
allow with that experience. And while 60% of the abusers are single
mothers, poverty is hugely correlated to those cases. About 85% of
abusive mothers are below the poverty line (this number is from a
training manual, if you want to question its validity I will try to
find a neutral source). The vast majority of abusive mothers are
charged with neglect and dependency offences, things that directly
correlate to poverty. Even with neglect cases, the majority of single
mothers of children in foster care have been abused by the fathers of
those same children, and/or both parents are drug addicted or
incarcerated.

Perhaps you can explain all the different percentages that get tossed
around
regarding child abuse and neglect. Some percentages are for the Harm
Standard and some are for the Endangered Standard. Then there are
issues of
percentages being applied to "parents" and sometimes to "both parents."
But
parents can be defined as single-parents, biological parents, and
parent-substitutes. Some percentages are for abuse, some are for
neglect,
some are for both abuse and neglect, and still others are for
"maltreatment."

Here's an example: The National Incidence Study for Child Abuse and
Neglect
reports 75% of maltreated children were maltreated by their mothers.
Above
you wrote 60% of abusers are single mothers. So the questions become -
What
is the difference between abuse and maltreatment? Which standard is
being
quoted? And how are the percentages determined, i.e. a percent of what
number in the sample?

Maltreatment includes all possible forms of child abuse including
dependancy type offences. Dependancy being the inability to provide
secure food, shelter, etc. The number I quoted was from CPS in Ohio
and only included physical/sexual/emotional abuse and neglect. That
suggests that 15% of cases were more pure dependency type situations
whereas the 60% number that I quoted was the more severe neglect(which
may or may not be a product of a dependancy situation) and
physical/emotional abuse type offenses. Mothers are almost never
accused of sexual abuse (about 3% of the time if memory serves).

Anectdotally the abuse situations I have seen where mom has been single
and the abuser have almost always involved chemical abuse in some way.
The one situation where is was not was when mom was a complete doormat,
had never been married, had gone from one abusive boyfriend to another,
and her 11yo called the 911 and hid the phone so that the fight would
be recorded. That mom was charged with neglect for failing to protect
her children from the boyfriend. The charges were later dropped after
she swore out a complaint against the boyfriend. Boyfriend was dodging
the law but was stupid enough to show up for his appointment with his
parole officer. They revoked his parole and he went to jail for a
couple of years for that.

Thanks for trying to explain it. I already knew nobody could really pin it
down with factual data. The statistics get so mudded up it is impossible to
be able to state with certainty what "60% of abusers are mothers" really
means. It could be 60% of all abusers, 60% of mother only abusers, 60% of
maltreatment by mothers is abuse, 60% of abuse by mothers is physical, 60%
of abuse by mothers is psychological, 60% of abuse by mothers is physical,
etc.

But your anecdote is very good. It illustrates a point we have discussed
here many times. It is not the biological fathers who do the abuse,
neglect, or maltreatment. It is the mother's poor choices in boyfriends who
are the males doing the vast majority of crimes against children. It is my
personal belief mothers should be prosecuted for endangering their children
by inviting bad characters into their homes and exposing their children to
poor treatment.

Be careful about putting too much stock in the numbers that deal with
charges, by the time charges have been filed the situation is usally
rather horrible. That fact is with the kids I have had mom and kids
were abused by the birth father, the boyfriends, sometimes uncles or
grandfathers, etc. etc. etc. Mom is usally however the only person
where enough proof exists to actually make a charge. Birth dad, when he
is around, is usally chemically dependant or incarcerated.

Under current CS law, we pay mothers money to perpetuate and abet these
crimes against their children. Giving these low life mothers money for
breeding and shacking up is like pouring gasoline on a fire!

Actually I would be very suprised if abusive parents are getting much
in the way of child support, most are on welfare. Its the borderline
cases where the child support is what is keeping the family above water
that worry me. Outside of true poverty abuse rates for mothers account
for 15%(based on the 85% of abusive mother are below the poverty line)
of that 60% number, 9% which is comprable to the 8% numer that I
generally see for fathers. I dont know what the poverty rate is for
mother whose kids are abused by boyfriend. Or the percentage of
abusive fathers that are below the poverty line.

I would be interested in seeing what the abuse rates versus time spent
parenting are for mothers as compared to fathers. And the income versus
parenting time versus abuse rates for both. Thats the problem with
most of surveys they dont do large enough samples for the
quantification of interaction effects. Statistical method also isnt
that big a class in social work majors.

Ghoswriter

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
ps.com...

teachrmama wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote in message
ps.com...

Gini wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote
...............

And yes I realize that it would make an effective tool for
illustrating
that some CP waste the money while the NCP lingers near poverty.
But
like a lot of stormtrooper tactics it works both ways and I am
unwilling to accept the cost.
==
Puleez!! YOU are unwilling to accept the cost? What cost is it for
you?
Apparently, you
are unaware, or would rather "accept the cost," that 2/3 of all child
abuse
is committed
by the mother. You really don't let reality get in the way of your
drooling
for money, do you?
The assumption that the custodial parent inherently acts in the best
interest of the child is nothing more
than a tired cliche used by those who would rather not be
inconvenienced
by
accountability. We've heard
the same squeal by many CPs who stop by here for a dose of pity. They
are
quite willing to ravage dad while
they cling white-knickled to their fist of cash and claim it's about
the
kid. Spare me. Until you are willing
to accept responsibility and accountibility for your own obligations
to
the
child(ren) you cannot claim with
the slightest credibility that you are in it for anything other than
cash.
To assert that CPs have a right to spend the money
as they wish because they inherently act in the best interest of the
child
is not only ludicrous, it's embarrassingly foolish.


Actually it holds no benifit for me, I am the FATHER of two kids but am
happily married to their mother (its called sexual responsibilty, give
it a try). I am however a foster parent who gets to pick up the pieces
when people have children, but no ****ing clue. I mentioned that fact
near the beginning of this thread but that was a month ago so it is
easy to make the mistake that I have some kind of vested interest in
this system. Actually I am far more the objective observer than about
anyone else posting on this topic.

I have literally thousands of hours of experience dealing with abuse
and neglect issues in children, and hundreds of hours of training to go
allow with that experience. And while 60% of the abusers are single
mothers, poverty is hugely correlated to those cases. About 85% of
abusive mothers are below the poverty line (this number is from a
training manual, if you want to question its validity I will try to
find a neutral source). The vast majority of abusive mothers are
charged with neglect and dependency offences, things that directly
correlate to poverty. Even with neglect cases, the majority of single
mothers of children in foster care have been abused by the fathers of
those same children, and/or both parents are drug addicted or
incarcerated.

CP's are held to a standard, currently existing neglect laws, just like
other parents in this country. Adding some type of secondary
accountability to allow the NCP to frustrate and harass has consitently
been found to be a violation of the right to privacy of the CP. Its a
nasty attempt to make the process of collecting the money more trouble
than its worth. You are cloaking your greed under the "best interests
of the child" in the same manner as you accuse the CP's of doing.

I don't think so, ghost. If CPs are only help to financial
responsibility
at the neglect level, so should NCPs be held responsible at that same
level.
If more money is required to be paid, then any amount above the NCPs 50%
requirement to keep kids above the neglect level should ahve to be
accounted
for. I worked in high povety areas for many years (right now I am in a
moderate poverty area), and I have seen monies misused in some pretty
egregious ways. The only way to stop that is to require
accountability--privacy be damned! If monies are paid for a certain
thing,
they should be used for that thing--eg: child support for the support of
the child. I think the Enron folks wish they had remembered that
accountability trumped right to privacy!

Like we discussed earlyier, I would rather have a hard and fast number
for total income of the CP be the requirement. With a binding agreement
worked out to cover the remaining inequality, certainly reasonable
accountablity can be mutually worked out in that agreement. My problem
is that using a subjective standard inside of the adverserial system
that currently exists is begging for abuse.

Bob mentioned that in his state a single affidavit of expendatures
submitted with a request for change is the requirement, and that
certainly seems a reasonable level.

But perhaps I misunderstand the level of accountability you are
requesting, do you want to require updates only when a change is
requested in the support level or do you want to be able to challange
the amount of support based on a yearly report, what documentation
would you require to prove what the money was spent on, and whats to
stop someone from demanding proof of every trip to Mcdonalds and then
challanging it as an unnecessary expense. Do you want to get an
itemized medical costs so that you know every condition in the whole
household and then use that info to challange custody because unmarried
mom is using birth control? Or the step-brother has ADHD, etc, etc,
etc. How about insurance costs so that you know if step-dad has three
tickets on his licence, or if mom had a fender bender last year. I
think you get my point.

What I am saying is that the law requires a basic level of support--each
parent should be responsible for 50% of that basic support. (And the cost
of the time the child spends with the NCP should be a part of his 50%) Any
amount required to be paid over and above the basic amount required by law
should be accounted for. So if dad is charged $100 per month over the basic
support required by law of any parent to provide food, shelter, clothing
(you know--so Child Protective Services doesn't swoop down and grab the
children)--that extra $100 per month should be accounted for--Johnnies
Little League fee, field trip to San Francisco, 3 Green Day
CDs--whatever--to make sure that the extra is being spent on Johnnie--not
Mom--not other siblings--not new boyfriend. How difficult is that? Just
the amount over and above basic support--the lifestyle nonsense that the
court requires to be paid but doesn't require to be spent on the child.

"teachrmama" wrote in

children)--that extra $100 per month should be accounted for--Johnnies
Little League fee, field trip to San Francisco, 3 Green Day
CDs--whatever--to make sure that the extra is being spent on Johnnie--not
Mom--not other siblings--not new boyfriend. How difficult is that? Just
the amount over and above basic support--the lifestyle nonsense that the
court requires to be paid but doesn't require to be spent on the child.

That's the best idea I've read here to date!

Accountability for anything above the basics, we should have the right to
know that our money is being spent on our children. If they want more
money, we should have the right to know where the first $400 went?

DB wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in

children)--that extra $100 per month should be accounted for--Johnnies
Little League fee, field trip to San Francisco, 3 Green Day
CDs--whatever--to make sure that the extra is being spent on Johnnie--not
Mom--not other siblings--not new boyfriend. How difficult is that? Just
the amount over and above basic support--the lifestyle nonsense that the
court requires to be paid but doesn't require to be spent on the child.

That's the best idea I've read here to date!

Accountability for anything above the basics, we should have the right to
know that our money is being spent on our children. If they want more
money, we should have the right to know where the first $400 went?

Thats actually where the potential problem arises, who determines if
the benifit justifies the cost? If Johnnie lives with Mom the
household needs about $25K to stay above water in most areas of this
country. Thats about 12.5K or $500 per month per parent to support
Johnnies share. How much does Johnnie benifit from having a nicer home,
a safer school, a nicer car to ride in, better tasting food in the
fridge, cable TV and internet, savings to allow for emergencies, better
heath insurance on mom, life insurance on mom, etc? The addition of
more people and more income creates economics of scale that Johnnie
benifits from does that mean that the child support should go down
because Johnnie became cheaper to support?

Whats to stop the CP from saying that they use the money to meet the
fixed expenses, because honestly the fixed expenses in any household
are larger than any normal NCP's child support award. Even if you go to
a by share basis who determines what the household buys because Johnnie
wants it and what is bought because Step-dad and Johnnie like it. If
the amount of Johnnies child support is less then his share of the
mortgage, utilities, and food does that give the NCP the right to
demand what the CP spent their own salary on because of the fact that
the child support shifted money that the CP would have otherwise spent.

The other choice is to require some proof that Johnnie DIRECTLY
benifits from those expendtures. So if he rides 50miles a week in a car
that is driven for 150miles then one third of the month cost of that
car is attributed to him. If he only drives 10miles in step-dads truck
that is driven 200miles then only 5% of that cost can be given to him.
Mom getting health insurance though work benifits Johnnie but what if
she gets the lower co-pay version because step-dad is on viagra, should
the NCP have access to that information because his child support might
potentially be used to pay for mortgage costs that the health insurance
offset.

What if the NCP challenges the costs in court, should he be allowed to
demand an idemized recieit for every time a pizza was ordered to see
what percentage of the cost was reflected by the pizza his son eats.
Should he be able to question why mom got the 5 day course of brand
name antibotics for his son rather than the 10 day generics. Should he
be allowed to question why she spent $100 at the gap for his birthbay
presents rather than $50 at wal-mart. Does a cell phone have a set
value to Johnnie as a means of communication, and what if is part of a
family plan so the costs while less per phone are bundled with the rest
of the household, does that then give NCP the right to demand why the
household has to have 500mins/month and not 400.

Thats the reason that the court has stuck to a lifestyle arrangment
because accounting for all of the benifits Johnnie recieves, as a
result of them being provided to the household, is next to impossible
and would require a massive invasion of privacy. It would put the judge
into the situation of refreeing a bean-counting session, at huge cost
to the system. The average judge is not going to order that all the
money be spent on Johnnie and accounted for precisely, because that
would be huge interference with the CP's right to actually be a CP.

Accounting should be kept to a minimum, one affidavit with a request
for change seems reasonable. Any other requirments should be as a
result of a mutally negotiated agreement between the parents.

Ghostwriter

"ghostwriter" wrote in

Thats actually where the potential problem arises, who determines if
the benifit justifies the cost? If Johnnie lives with Mom the
household needs about $25K to stay above water in most areas of this
country. Thats about 12.5K or $500 per month per parent to support
Johnnies share.

Wrong!

If a one bedroom apartment is $700/mth and she needs a two bedroom for
$850/mth to accommodate little Johnny, then the true cost for the child is
$150 difference /2= $75 per parent.

She would need to pay rent regardless if she had a child or not, so the $700
is all hers!

If her and step dad purchase a house, then that's all their investment and
the child's room is a nominal difference.

Food, $100 week/2 = $50 per parent x 4 = $200/mth per parent

Clothing, how many pairs of shoes or pants does little Johnny need each
month?
I always got hand me downs, nothing was rarely new!

That's the basics, everything else the father can have the choice what he
wants to buy for his child.
If the father chooses to not add value to their child's lives, then you
can't help those people, but they are far and few between and it makes no
sense to have everyone suffer on their account.

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
oups.com...

DB wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in

children)--that extra $100 per month should be accounted for--Johnnies
Little League fee, field trip to San Francisco, 3 Green Day
CDs--whatever--to make sure that the extra is being spent on
Johnnie--not
Mom--not other siblings--not new boyfriend. How difficult is that?
Just
the amount over and above basic support--the lifestyle nonsense that
the
court requires to be paid but doesn't require to be spent on the child.

That's the best idea I've read here to date!

Accountability for anything above the basics, we should have the right to
know that our money is being spent on our children. If they want more
money, we should have the right to know where the first $400 went?

Thats actually where the potential problem arises, who determines if
the benifit justifies the cost? If Johnnie lives with Mom the
household needs about $25K to stay above water in most areas of this
country. Thats about 12.5K or $500 per month per parent to support
Johnnies share. How much does Johnnie benifit from having a nicer home,
a safer school, a nicer car to ride in, better tasting food in the
fridge, cable TV and internet, savings to allow for emergencies, better
heath insurance on mom, life insurance on mom, etc? The addition of
more people and more income creates economics of scale that Johnnie
benifits from does that mean that the child support should go down
because Johnnie became cheaper to support?

Whats to stop the CP from saying that they use the money to meet the
fixed expenses, because honestly the fixed expenses in any household
are larger than any normal NCP's child support award. Even if you go to
a by share basis who determines what the household buys because Johnnie
wants it and what is bought because Step-dad and Johnnie like it. If
the amount of Johnnies child support is less then his share of the
mortgage, utilities, and food does that give the NCP the right to
demand what the CP spent their own salary on because of the fact that
the child support shifted money that the CP would have otherwise spent.

What on earth are you talking about? Johnnie's share of housing is the
difference between a 1 and 2 bedroom apartment. He does not owe a
percentage of the cost of buying a house! Dad most assuredly does not have
any responsibility to kick in for mom's life and/or health insurance. You
sound like a money-grubber in this one, ghost! "If I can say that Johnnie
wants it, then Dad should have to pay." How ridiculous! The government
only requires a certain minimum level of provision for a child--if it's good
enough to require of married parents, it's good enough to require of
unmarried parents. The fact that Johnnie might benefit from it is not a
good enough reason to force one segment of the population to pay for what
another has no requirement to provide. If both parents are actively
involved in their child's life, there is a much better chance that both will
*want* to provide these things--and the child will be a common bond.


The other choice is to require some proof that Johnnie DIRECTLY
benifits from those expendtures. So if he rides 50miles a week in a car
that is driven for 150miles then one third of the month cost of that
car is attributed to him. If he only drives 10miles in step-dads truck
that is driven 200miles then only 5% of that cost can be given to him.
Mom getting health insurance though work benifits Johnnie but what if
she gets the lower co-pay version because step-dad is on viagra, should
the NCP have access to that information because his child support might
potentially be used to pay for mortgage costs that the health insurance
offset.

Again, Dad does not owe mom anything for any sort of insurance for herself.
He has absolutely NO responsibility to meet any of her expenses--no matter
how wonderful you think those benefits are. As for mileage in the car, you
can't assume that the 50 miles Johnnie was actually in the car should be
charged only to him--does Johnnie pay for the whole family to travel places?
And BOTH parents have cars--will mom have to pay for the percentage of miles
that Johnny is in dad's car during the month, too. I think you are just
looking for ways to justify sticking it to dads because you don't think the
vast majority of them measure up to your standards.



What if the NCP challenges the costs in court, should he be allowed to
demand an idemized recieit for every time a pizza was ordered to see
what percentage of the cost was reflected by the pizza his son eats.
Should he be able to question why mom got the 5 day course of brand
name antibotics for his son rather than the 10 day generics. Should he
be allowed to question why she spent $100 at the gap for his birthbay
presents rather than $50 at wal-mart. Does a cell phone have a set
value to Johnnie as a means of communication, and what if is part of a
family plan so the costs while less per phone are bundled with the rest
of the household, does that then give NCP the right to demand why the
household has to have 500mins/month and not 400.

Food, clothing, shelter aer covered in the basics. If mon chooses to buy
$100 jeans rather that $30 jeans, she pays the overage herself. SHE should
not have the power to say that dad has to pay whatever amount she thinks is
right. And cell phones are luxuries. Why should dad be stuck paying for
luxuries? If mom wants Johnnie to have them, let her pay. Wht on earth do
you think that Johnnie's desires run the world?



Thats the reason that the court has stuck to a lifestyle arrangment
because accounting for all of the benifits Johnnie recieves, as a
result of them being provided to the household, is next to impossible
and would require a massive invasion of privacy. It would put the judge
into the situation of refreeing a bean-counting session, at huge cost
to the system. The average judge is not going to order that all the
money be spent on Johnnie and accounted for precisely, because that
would be huge interference with the CP's right to actually be a CP.

NCPs owe NOTHING to CP's household. The household is the responsibility of
the adults in that house. You have made it abundantly clear in this post
that you feel that fathers should be forced to support not only their
children, but also their children's mothers, and the household that the
children live in. So what responsibility does that leave to mom? Not much,
huh?


Accounting should be kept to a minimum, one affidavit with a request
for change seems reasonable. Any other requirments should be as a
result of a mutally negotiated agreement between the parents.

But moms can go back and demand more money any time they want to, can't
they?

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
oups.com...

DB wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in

children)--that extra $100 per month should be accounted
for--Johnnies
Little League fee, field trip to San Francisco, 3 Green Day
CDs--whatever--to make sure that the extra is being spent on
Johnnie--not
Mom--not other siblings--not new boyfriend. How difficult is that?
Just
the amount over and above basic support--the lifestyle nonsense that
the
court requires to be paid but doesn't require to be spent on the
child.

That's the best idea I've read here to date!

Accountability for anything above the basics, we should have the right
to
know that our money is being spent on our children. If they want more
money, we should have the right to know where the first $400 went?

Thats actually where the potential problem arises, who determines if
the benifit justifies the cost? If Johnnie lives with Mom the
household needs about $25K to stay above water in most areas of this
country. Thats about 12.5K or $500 per month per parent to support
Johnnies share. How much does Johnnie benifit from having a nicer home,
a safer school, a nicer car to ride in, better tasting food in the
fridge, cable TV and internet, savings to allow for emergencies, better
heath insurance on mom, life insurance on mom, etc? The addition of
more people and more income creates economics of scale that Johnnie
benifits from does that mean that the child support should go down
because Johnnie became cheaper to support?

Whats to stop the CP from saying that they use the money to meet the
fixed expenses, because honestly the fixed expenses in any household
are larger than any normal NCP's child support award. Even if you go to
a by share basis who determines what the household buys because Johnnie
wants it and what is bought because Step-dad and Johnnie like it. If
the amount of Johnnies child support is less then his share of the
mortgage, utilities, and food does that give the NCP the right to
demand what the CP spent their own salary on because of the fact that
the child support shifted money that the CP would have otherwise spent.

What on earth are you talking about? Johnnie's share of housing is the
difference between a 1 and 2 bedroom apartment. He does not owe a
percentage of the cost of buying a house! Dad most assuredly does not
have
any responsibility to kick in for mom's life and/or health insurance. You
sound like a money-grubber in this one, ghost! "If I can say that Johnnie
wants it, then Dad should have to pay." How ridiculous! The government
only requires a certain minimum level of provision for a child--if it's
good
enough to require of married parents, it's good enough to require of
unmarried parents. The fact that Johnnie might benefit from it is not a
good enough reason to force one segment of the population to pay for what
another has no requirement to provide. If both parents are actively
involved in their child's life, there is a much better chance that both
will
*want* to provide these things--and the child will be a common bond.

The giant flaw in CS calculation methodology and the CS guidelines is CP's
are allowed to pretend their per child expenses exist in a vacuum. When a
woman has children with two men she is allowed 1/2 of her living expenses
against one child, with the other 1/2 being her own marginal expenses. And
then she can charge the other half of her marginal living expenses against
the second child and that CS order. In essence with this and other child
rearing expenses considered based on shared expenses within the CS
calculation methodology the system allows women to show 100% plus of their
own marginal expenses against child rearing costs and pay nothing for their
own expenses when multiple CS orders are in place. The CS calculation
method allows the CP mother to have zero marginal costs to support herself.