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

"Paula" wrote in message
...
On Nov 16, 7:39 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message

...





On Nov 15, 11:31 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"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.

You arestill laboring under the idea that the NCP is a "single
person."
The
NCP needs the same # of bedrooms as the CP--for the exact same
children.
He
needs supplies for those children when they are with him. He needs
furniture for them when they are with him. He is NOT living as a
single
person--that is such an odd idea.

And what of those fathers who choose (no, I'm not speaking
of those who are driven away, and, yes, that does occur just
not in all situations as is assumed most of the time in here)
to NEVER have the child(ren) with him? What of those who
just walk away?

Do you think they should be charged extra to make up for their seeming
inability to love?

Did I say that?

Do you feel that a parent who only wants to pay for the basic necessities of
life should be permitted to do that? Or do you feel that a parent should be
forced to provide more than basics (and I'm not talking poverty level)? If
so, which parents should be forced to provide more than basics, and which
ones can decide to provide only basics?

In article , teachrmama says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Paula says...

On Nov 16, 12:13 pm, Banty wrote:
In article
,
Paula says...







On Nov 16, 10:39 am, Banty wrote:
In article
,
Paula says...

On Nov 15, 11:31 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"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.

You arestill laboring under the idea that the NCP is a "single
person."
The
NCP needs the same # of bedrooms as the CP--for the exact same
children.
He
needs supplies for those children when they are with him. He
needs
furniture for them when they are with him. He is NOT living as a
single
person--that is such an odd idea.

And what of those fathers who choose (no, I'm not speaking
of those who are driven away, and, yes, that does occur just
not in all situations as is assumed most of the time in here)

Yes, it can be made impossible to stay in a household, and hugely
costly to
set
up immmediately to share the childrearing. (Note I said
"immediately".) Yes,
it
happens. (And I suspect you're right about it not as frequently as
assumed in
here..)

But the father doesn't go *far* away. And I don't think evul wife is
stalking
him, preventing him from looking at houses or apartments to rent.

to NEVER have the child(ren) with him? What of those who
just walk away?

More often that just walking away (at least IME), it's more like drift
away -
a
mental resignation of custody to the other parent before they ever go
to court
because they're feeling overwhelmed by thinking of what real changes
they'd
need
to make, or they're thinking all-or-nothing full custody or forget it
and
they're advised that ain't gonna happen.

Banty

Actually I was speaking of situations such as my own
where the NCP has severed all contact with the child
(based upon an ultimatum regarding the financials --
"sign the thing as is or visitation is over") and does
not have a need to provide food, shelter, or anything
else because of never having contact with the child.

Yes. That happens. The "my way or the highway" thing.

And the guys who just never show.

Both of these types are living like a single person, or moving on
otherwise. No
clue, no contribution. Sucks.

Do you ever get accused have having 'driven him away'?

Banty

Yep, I sure do ... and I bent over backwards attempting to
keep him involved. That ended when my DD decided that she
got to treat Mommy in the manner in which she witnessed
Daddy treating Mommy -- i.e. "Daddy ignores what you
say, so can I".

This when she spent an average of a couple hours a week
with him, and he _chose_ not to attend parent-teacher
conferences, doctor appointments, etc. He chose not to
co-parent, and I was left to do all of the parenting work.

That extra effort that I put into trying to keep him involved
ended when DD said what's quoted above. Especially
considering the fact that he's never been an active parent,
I can't abide by her being taught to disrespect and
disregard the only real parent she has ... that would have
disastrous consequences once she reaches her tween
and teen years.

YES see. See that's the thing that that can't be emphasized enough with
all
this talk of monetary control and monetary measuring and who shares in
downturns
(but not windfalls) and why-do-I-hafta-but-they-don'-hafta.

There are noncustodial jerks. And there are custodial jerks. And NO SYSTEM
is going to change that fact.

Of course. But any system has to *account* for that. And many the non-jerks
are people *mad at each other*.

And any decent system would not build in perverse incentives.

But the *vast majority* of parents are good,
knd, anring parents. The system squashed good, kind, caring people like
bugs. Good, kind, caring people should not even be in the system. Once
they get over the first shock and hurt of divorce, they can manage just fime
by being the good, kind caring people they are. Not all NCPs are like
Paula's ex, and they shouldn't be treated as if they are. Just like not all
CPs are like the mother of my husband's daughter--and they shouldn't be
treated as if they are.

I'm not talking the extremes; I'm talking the usual cases.

Tell me this - if it's all about giving good people the benefit of the doubt
when it comes to the NCP, why is there a desire for making sure the *CP* is
allocating the money correctly??

Banty

In article , teachrmama says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , teachrmama says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Paula says...

On Nov 15, 11:31 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"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.

You arestill laboring under the idea that the NCP is a "single
person."
The
NCP needs the same # of bedrooms as the CP--for the exact same
children.
He
needs supplies for those children when they are with him. He needs
furniture for them when they are with him. He is NOT living as a
single
person--that is such an odd idea.

And what of those fathers who choose (no, I'm not speaking
of those who are driven away, and, yes, that does occur just
not in all situations as is assumed most of the time in here)

Yes, it can be made impossible to stay in a household, and hugely costly
to set
up immmediately to share the childrearing. (Note I said "immediately".)
Yes, it
happens. (And I suspect you're right about it not as frequently as
assumed in
here..)

But the father doesn't go *far* away. And I don't think evul wife is
stalking
him, preventing him from looking at houses or apartments to rent.

to NEVER have the child(ren) with him? What of those who
just walk away?

More often that just walking away (at least IME), it's more like drift
away - a
mental resignation of custody to the other parent before they ever go to
court
because they're feeling overwhelmed by thinking of what real changes
they'd need
to make, or they're thinking all-or-nothing full custody or forget it
and
they're advised that ain't gonna happen.

And they have probably already been told by their lawyer to accept what is
offered, because the fight for custody will probably be long and futile.
It
is only recently that we are beginning to see even a small shift in the
tradition of maternal custody.


How about *joint* custody in a state where that is a common arrangement.

What I see is, not setting up for that, not going for *that*.

Like the father I told you about you got a rental house, just *outside*
his
kids' school district. He said counsel told him his ex would have to be
something like terrorist for him to get custody. I asked about *joint*
custody.
"Well I have that already" "Huh?" Well, joint legal. I said "how about
joint
*phsycial* custody." "Well, I may do that; right now I feel a need for
some
space...."

You're talking about *1 person.* That's hardly statistically signifigant..

OF COURSE.

All the personal stories people have here are about *1 person*. THe question is
- what is underlying the issue. This is an illustration.

Why would his having a home just outside of the school district make any
difference? The mother lives inside the school district, does she not? All
the children need is an address inside the district, and transportation to
and from school.



Transportation would not go to his house. Adding significantly to the
complication and expense.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about - he's either not *thinking* about
these things, or he's distancing himself. Neither is good.

Banty

In article , teachrmama says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob Whiteside
says...


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Paula says...

On Nov 15, 11:31 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"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.

You arestill laboring under the idea that the NCP is a "single
person."
The
NCP needs the same # of bedrooms as the CP--for the exact same
children. He
needs supplies for those children when they are with him. He needs
furniture for them when they are with him. He is NOT living as a
single
person--that is such an odd idea.

And what of those fathers who choose (no, I'm not speaking
of those who are driven away, and, yes, that does occur just
not in all situations as is assumed most of the time in here)

Yes, it can be made impossible to stay in a household, and hugely
costly
to set
up immmediately to share the childrearing. (Note I said
"immediately".)
Yes, it
happens. (And I suspect you're right about it not as frequently as
assumed in
here..)

But the father doesn't go *far* away. And I don't think evul wife is
stalking
him, preventing him from looking at houses or apartments to rent.

to NEVER have the child(ren) with him? What of those who
just walk away?

More often that just walking away (at least IME), it's more like drift
away - a
mental resignation of custody to the other parent before they ever go
to
court
because they're feeling overwhelmed by thinking of what real changes
they'd need
to make, or they're thinking all-or-nothing full custody or forget it
and
they're advised that ain't gonna happen.

And they have probably already been told by their lawyer to accept what
is
offered, because the fight for custody will probably be long and futile.
It is only recently that we are beginning to see even a small shift in
the
tradition of maternal custody.

Here is the legal advice I got in the mid-80's - Fighting for custody will
cost you at least another $12,000-15,000 in legal fees and the results are
most likely to go against you. You may also be ordered to pay your wife's
legal fee to fight your attempts to get custody. If you ever intend to
get
remarried you are better off not having custody of children. Divorced men
without custody of children statistically have a greater rate of
remarriage
than divorced men with custody of children.


I'm talking about why I'm seeing a lot of fathers not setting up for JOINT
physical custody. One of the reasons, BTW, being an all-or-nothing
full-custody
or forget it attitude. in a state where joint physical custody is common.

OK, are you talking about joint custody, which does no necessarily mean
50/50 and can still have an NCP and a CP identified, or 50/50 shared
custody, whre the child has a home with each parent equally? Joint custody
*can* mean only a right to help make decisions, but might not result in any
more time spent with the children than normal visitation.



How many times have my fingers tripped over each other tapping out "joint
physical custody" and how my friend ha settled for "joint legal custody". Look
just above your response.

Banty

In article , teachrmama says...


"Paula" wrote in message
...
On Nov 16, 7:39 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message

...





On Nov 15, 11:31 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"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.

You arestill laboring under the idea that the NCP is a "single
person."
The
NCP needs the same # of bedrooms as the CP--for the exact same
children.
He
needs supplies for those children when they are with him. He needs
furniture for them when they are with him. He is NOT living as a
single
person--that is such an odd idea.

And what of those fathers who choose (no, I'm not speaking
of those who are driven away, and, yes, that does occur just
not in all situations as is assumed most of the time in here)
to NEVER have the child(ren) with him? What of those who
just walk away?

Do you think they should be charged extra to make up for their seeming
inability to love?

Did I say that?

Do you feel that a parent who only wants to pay for the basic necessities of
life should be permitted to do that? Or do you feel that a parent should be
forced to provide more than basics (and I'm not talking poverty level)? If
so, which parents should be forced to provide more than basics, and which
ones can decide to provide only basics?


See, this "two classes of parents/equality" is an instance of framing the
argument.

One "class" has nearly all the responsibility. Fundamentally different.
Apples/oranges/HELLO.

With responsibility, comes discretion.

Banty

On Nov 16, 10:36 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message

...





On Nov 16, 7:39 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message

...

On Nov 15, 11:31 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"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.

You arestill laboring under the idea that the NCP is a "single
person."
The
NCP needs the same # of bedrooms as the CP--for the exact same
children.
He
needs supplies for those children when they are with him. He needs
furniture for them when they are with him. He is NOT living as a
single
person--that is such an odd idea.

And what of those fathers who choose (no, I'm not speaking
of those who are driven away, and, yes, that does occur just
not in all situations as is assumed most of the time in here)
to NEVER have the child(ren) with him? What of those who
just walk away?

Do you think they should be charged extra to make up for their seeming
inability to love?

Did I say that?

Do you feel that a parent who only wants to pay for the basic necessities of
life should be permitted to do that?

If parent1 provides a full life for the children in their 50/50
physical custody
agreement, they should be able to pay co-parent1 minimal if any CS.
Else,
no. The only other exception to a reasonable-but-more-than-basics CS
is
poverty.

Or do you feel that a parent should be
forced to provide more than basics (and I'm not talking poverty level)? If
so, which parents should be forced to provide more than basics, and which
ones can decide to provide only basics?

Intact families would be the only ones that can decide to provide only
basics and only because it *would* be an intrusion of the state for it
to step into the intact family. Parents who are split who can't
figure
this stuff out for themselves *need* the intervention of the state to
ensure the interests of the child(ren).

The 'basics' to which you refer consider only physical needs. There
is
sooo much more to raising a child than that, and there are costs that
come with nurturing the emotional, psychological, spiritual child. If
parent1 does not provide for those needs, ex-parent1 has additional
costs to be covered within CS.

BUT I agree with the logic behind the case that Gini posted. The
child's
standard of living should not be imbalanced in favor of child over
parent at
parent's expense. And I know that happens; we don't disagree that
the system is broken. We just disagree regarding how to go about
fixing it.

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , teachrmama says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Paula says...

On Nov 16, 12:13 pm, Banty wrote:
In article
,
Paula says...







On Nov 16, 10:39 am, Banty wrote:
In article
,
Paula says...

On Nov 15, 11:31 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"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.

You arestill laboring under the idea that the NCP is a "single
person."
The
NCP needs the same # of bedrooms as the CP--for the exact same
children.
He
needs supplies for those children when they are with him. He
needs
furniture for them when they are with him. He is NOT living as a
single
person--that is such an odd idea.

And what of those fathers who choose (no, I'm not speaking
of those who are driven away, and, yes, that does occur just
not in all situations as is assumed most of the time in here)

Yes, it can be made impossible to stay in a household, and hugely
costly to
set
up immmediately to share the childrearing. (Note I said
"immediately".) Yes,
it
happens. (And I suspect you're right about it not as frequently as
assumed in
here..)

But the father doesn't go *far* away. And I don't think evul wife is
stalking
him, preventing him from looking at houses or apartments to rent.

to NEVER have the child(ren) with him? What of those who
just walk away?

More often that just walking away (at least IME), it's more like
drift
away -
a
mental resignation of custody to the other parent before they ever go
to court
because they're feeling overwhelmed by thinking of what real changes
they'd
need
to make, or they're thinking all-or-nothing full custody or forget
it
and
they're advised that ain't gonna happen.

Banty

Actually I was speaking of situations such as my own
where the NCP has severed all contact with the child
(based upon an ultimatum regarding the financials --
"sign the thing as is or visitation is over") and does
not have a need to provide food, shelter, or anything
else because of never having contact with the child.

Yes. That happens. The "my way or the highway" thing.

And the guys who just never show.

Both of these types are living like a single person, or moving on
otherwise. No
clue, no contribution. Sucks.

Do you ever get accused have having 'driven him away'?

Banty

Yep, I sure do ... and I bent over backwards attempting to
keep him involved. That ended when my DD decided that she
got to treat Mommy in the manner in which she witnessed
Daddy treating Mommy -- i.e. "Daddy ignores what you
say, so can I".

This when she spent an average of a couple hours a week
with him, and he _chose_ not to attend parent-teacher
conferences, doctor appointments, etc. He chose not to
co-parent, and I was left to do all of the parenting work.

That extra effort that I put into trying to keep him involved
ended when DD said what's quoted above. Especially
considering the fact that he's never been an active parent,
I can't abide by her being taught to disrespect and
disregard the only real parent she has ... that would have
disastrous consequences once she reaches her tween
and teen years.

YES see. See that's the thing that that can't be emphasized enough with
all
this talk of monetary control and monetary measuring and who shares in
downturns
(but not windfalls) and why-do-I-hafta-but-they-don'-hafta.

There are noncustodial jerks. And there are custodial jerks. And NO
SYSTEM
is going to change that fact.

Of course. But any system has to *account* for that. And many the
non-jerks
are people *mad at each other*.

And any decent system would not build in perverse incentives.

But the *vast majority* of parents are good,
knd, anring parents. The system squashed good, kind, caring people like
bugs. Good, kind, caring people should not even be in the system. Once
they get over the first shock and hurt of divorce, they can manage just
fime
by being the good, kind caring people they are. Not all NCPs are like
Paula's ex, and they shouldn't be treated as if they are. Just like not
all
CPs are like the mother of my husband's daughter--and they shouldn't be
treated as if they are.

I'm not talking the extremes; I'm talking the usual cases.

Tell me this - if it's all about giving good people the benefit of the
doubt
when it comes to the NCP, why is there a desire for making sure the *CP*
is
allocating the money correctly??

The system DOES NOT recognize any NCP as decent. It DOES NOT recognize any
CP as not so decent. There is an underlying assumption that the CP will
treat her children exremely well, and that the NCP will try his darndest to
prevent her from having the means to do so. That is why so much money is
taken from the NCP and given to the CP--so that the struggling heroine can
survive despite the cruelty of the deadbeat NCP. It is very wearing to
constantly be labeled the bad guy, no matter what you do. I can tell you,
that in our personal case, we were denied a refi on our home (which would
have saved us thousands), because the system told the refi company that they
would not subjugate their claim in arrearages because "this guy is a real
deadbeat," even though he NEVER missed a payment, and NEVER paid late--snd
did not know the child existed until she was almost 13. The system looked
ot the fact that he hadn't paid until she was almost 13 as HIM BEING WRONG,
AND THE POOR MAMA BEING ROOKED. So HE was evil, despite the fact that it
wasn't his choice--it was HERS!! And that is how the system sees NCPs. We
need to LET fathers be fathers--give them the opportunity to provide for
their children. The vast majority WANT to do that--they don't need to be
turned into evil jerks trying to escape any responsibility by a system that
seeks to expand the ability of mothers to parent, and push fathers off to
the side.

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , teachrmama says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob
Whiteside
says...


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Paula says...

On Nov 15, 11:31 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"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.

You arestill laboring under the idea that the NCP is a "single
person."
The
NCP needs the same # of bedrooms as the CP--for the exact same
children. He
needs supplies for those children when they are with him. He needs
furniture for them when they are with him. He is NOT living as a
single
person--that is such an odd idea.

And what of those fathers who choose (no, I'm not speaking
of those who are driven away, and, yes, that does occur just
not in all situations as is assumed most of the time in here)

Yes, it can be made impossible to stay in a household, and hugely
costly
to set
up immmediately to share the childrearing. (Note I said
"immediately".)
Yes, it
happens. (And I suspect you're right about it not as frequently as
assumed in
here..)

But the father doesn't go *far* away. And I don't think evul wife is
stalking
him, preventing him from looking at houses or apartments to rent.

to NEVER have the child(ren) with him? What of those who
just walk away?

More often that just walking away (at least IME), it's more like
drift
away - a
mental resignation of custody to the other parent before they ever go
to
court
because they're feeling overwhelmed by thinking of what real changes
they'd need
to make, or they're thinking all-or-nothing full custody or forget it
and
they're advised that ain't gonna happen.

And they have probably already been told by their lawyer to accept
what
is
offered, because the fight for custody will probably be long and
futile.
It is only recently that we are beginning to see even a small shift in
the
tradition of maternal custody.

Here is the legal advice I got in the mid-80's - Fighting for custody
will
cost you at least another $12,000-15,000 in legal fees and the results
are
most likely to go against you. You may also be ordered to pay your
wife's
legal fee to fight your attempts to get custody. If you ever intend to
get
remarried you are better off not having custody of children. Divorced
men
without custody of children statistically have a greater rate of
remarriage
than divorced men with custody of children.


I'm talking about why I'm seeing a lot of fathers not setting up for
JOINT
physical custody. One of the reasons, BTW, being an all-or-nothing
full-custody
or forget it attitude. in a state where joint physical custody is
common.

OK, are you talking about joint custody, which does no necessarily mean
50/50 and can still have an NCP and a CP identified, or 50/50 shared
custody, whre the child has a home with each parent equally? Joint
custody
*can* mean only a right to help make decisions, but might not result in
any
more time spent with the children than normal visitation.



How many times have my fingers tripped over each other tapping out "joint
physical custody" and how my friend ha settled for "joint legal custody".
Look
just above your response.

Banty, joint physical custody does not necessarily mean 50/50. It just
doesn't. Sounds really good, though.

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , teachrmama says...

snip for length

How about *joint* custody in a state where that is a common arrangement.

What I see is, not setting up for that, not going for *that*.

Like the father I told you about you got a rental house, just *outside*
his
kids' school district. He said counsel told him his ex would have to be
something like terrorist for him to get custody. I asked about *joint*
custody.
"Well I have that already" "Huh?" Well, joint legal. I said "how
about
joint
*phsycial* custody." "Well, I may do that; right now I feel a need for
some
space...."

You're talking about *1 person.* That's hardly statistically
signifigant..

OF COURSE.

All the personal stories people have here are about *1 person*. THe
question is
- what is underlying the issue. This is an illustration.

How the heck many people do you think do that?

Why would his having a home just outside of the school district make any
difference? The mother lives inside the school district, does she not?
All
the children need is an address inside the district, and transportation to
and from school.



Transportation would not go to his house. Adding significantly to the
complication and expense.

Only his. So what?

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , teachrmama says...


"Paula" wrote in message
...
On Nov 16, 7:39 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message

...





On Nov 15, 11:31 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"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.

You arestill laboring under the idea that the NCP is a "single
person."
The
NCP needs the same # of bedrooms as the CP--for the exact same
children.
He
needs supplies for those children when they are with him. He needs
furniture for them when they are with him. He is NOT living as a
single
person--that is such an odd idea.

And what of those fathers who choose (no, I'm not speaking
of those who are driven away, and, yes, that does occur just
not in all situations as is assumed most of the time in here)
to NEVER have the child(ren) with him? What of those who
just walk away?

Do you think they should be charged extra to make up for their seeming
inability to love?

Did I say that?

Do you feel that a parent who only wants to pay for the basic necessities
of
life should be permitted to do that? Or do you feel that a parent should
be
forced to provide more than basics (and I'm not talking poverty level)?
If
so, which parents should be forced to provide more than basics, and which
ones can decide to provide only basics?


See, this "two classes of parents/equality" is an instance of framing the
argument.

One "class" has nearly all the responsibility. Fundamentally different.
Apples/oranges/HELLO.

Not so. Every parent everywhere (except NCPs) has the right to decide to
provide only basics. Many parents have the ability to provide only basics.
Many CS orders cover only basics, because that is all the salaries of the
parents can afford. These people live happily and well.


With responsibility, comes discretion.

Absolutely correct!! Give the NCP the opportunity to be responsible, and I
am sure that you will find that he will be equal to the task. Enough of
this struggling heroine CP vs evil NCP nonsense!!