If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#491
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child
In article , teachrmama says...
"Banty" wrote in message ... In article , teachrmama says... snip So they had a lien on your house because of the (on the books) arrearages! But, you're also saying the bank actually consulted with the CS officer??? Yes--they had to, to find out about the reason for the lien. I can understand a LOT of frustration over that. In general, this automatic wage withholding, and the privacy and beaurocratic problems attendant to that. And I've been reading that since 1994 wage withholding is immediate, and in practice the exceptions are narrowly drawn. I can see how the credit report picks that up if things don't work just right, and you have no way to know if things aren't working just right, or even fix that. Not the credit report. Direct and derogatory comments by the CS officer, indicating that HE, in his total lack of any wisdom whatsoever, considered us to be poor credit risks. He knew nothing about my husband--but he did not hesitate to make the comments he dis as the "official" stand of the CS system. So the CS officer didn't know the whole story? or was only listening to the mother? or simply saying arrearages have % percent rate of satisfaction, which is poor? The mother was never even consulted--the CS stuff was done without her, because she is out of state. The % of satisfaction from onset of CS was 100%--never a payment missed. I was referring to arrearages in general. He was paying on the arrearages every month--never a payment missed--following to the letter the court order. How can there be a poor % of satisfaction in that? ::sigh:: Arrearages *in general*. I wasn't talking about your personal situation - my comment was that perhaps the CS agent had given an assessment of the percent of arrearages *in general* (all the arrearages in the US, for instance), that spooked the bank. I'd think that for something like arrearages, they're not settled until they're gone, completely paid. It's past-due stuff. Legally, anyway. Your husband didn't deserve to have arrearages *at all*, but if they're there, they're there until they're gone. Like any default. It wasn't just the arrearages--it was also possible future payments. And, not, the jerk didn't bother to look at the whole story--but that is so common with the system. They report the facts that make them seem necessary. You contested this - right? What happened with that? I realize the arrearages are there for a long time until that's done. (Of course, your house dind't get refied; that sucks.) Let's see--it would have cost several thousand dollars to contest, and we probably would have lost anyway. And even if we wom, we would have already spent a big chunk of anything we would have saved from the refi--and would now be paying a lawyer's bill on top of the mortgage--which would have kept our monthly payments the same as if we never refied. So, no, we did not contest. We did not have the $$$$ to do so. I mean, did you contest the CS arrearages *itself*. Is that was you're referring to? Banty, you can't contest arrearages that are legal. And, in our state at the time, the legal amount for arrearages was 2 years back from proof of paternity. So there were 2 years of arrearages plus interest and penalties owed plus ongoing support. *Every case*? Which state is this? Is there any discretion as to wether or not the father knew of the possibility, but was denying paternity, or if he didn't know at all? I mean - this is an automatic thing? But, for purposes of the lien, he owed 8+ years of child support, because of future payments until the child reached 19 years of age or graduated high school. Meaning *future* payments?? They had a lien agaisnt a *future* obligation? We were actually fortunate. Had paternity been established a few years earlier, my husband would have owed child support back to the birth of the child, plus pregnancy and birth expenses--at his current salary--not what he was earning back then! Some states may still go back to the birth of the child. Some limit arrearages to a certain number of years. And some charge CS only from proof of paternity. Yikes. Did he ever get to meet his kid? Banty |
#492
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child
In article ,
Paula says... THAT, I think, is the way to frame with question. Instead of this "classes of parents equal" business. They're because they're NOT. Of course they are. In different situations, but still, parents are parents, and have the same legal requirements to provide the basics for their children. That statement is a load of BS. A NCP can go months without seeing or speaking to the child. A CP taking the same action would result in the removal of the child. Damn good point. A NCP doesn't come anywhere near having the same legal requirements and responsibilities that CPs do. Are the requirements other than financial for the NCP? Banty |
#493
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child support debt?
In article , teachrmama says...
"Paula" wrote in message ... That statement is a load of BS. A NCP can go months without seeing or speaking to the child. A CP taking the same action would result in the removal of the child. A NCP doesn't come anywhere near having the same legal requirements and responsibilities that CPs do. *Seeing* the child and providing the legally mandated needs of the child are not the same thing. You must be dealing with some lollapaloozer of an ex, Paula. That must be really ahard on your child. But, no matter how you look at it, *all* parents are required by law to make sure the basic needs of their children are met. Oh dont' be silly I don't think by 'seeing' she's talking about looking through a spyglass or camera lens or something. If the custodial parent decided not to be around for awhile, not come home for a few days, even though they're "her days", the kid would be in the foster care system and her ass would be up for child endangerment. On the other hand, I've never known a CP who leaves a child at an appointed place for visitation pickup (sometimes these ex's you think would just do the right thang if the gummit would leave them alone can barely stand to be in the same town with each other), gotten the call from the friend or other appointed person that the NCP didn't show, and NOT come to pick them up again. Kinda goes to that fundamental aspect of being a CP. Yeah, that happens. And, that's *some* NCP's who wouldn't show. Some some some some not all not all not all. (Why do I feel like I have to say that even though my paragraph in no way implies 'all NCPs are scum'). Banty |
#494
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child
"Banty" wrote in message ... In article , teachrmama says... "Banty" wrote in message ... In article , teachrmama says... snip So they had a lien on your house because of the (on the books) arrearages! But, you're also saying the bank actually consulted with the CS officer??? Yes--they had to, to find out about the reason for the lien. I can understand a LOT of frustration over that. In general, this automatic wage withholding, and the privacy and beaurocratic problems attendant to that. And I've been reading that since 1994 wage withholding is immediate, and in practice the exceptions are narrowly drawn. I can see how the credit report picks that up if things don't work just right, and you have no way to know if things aren't working just right, or even fix that. Not the credit report. Direct and derogatory comments by the CS officer, indicating that HE, in his total lack of any wisdom whatsoever, considered us to be poor credit risks. He knew nothing about my husband--but he did not hesitate to make the comments he dis as the "official" stand of the CS system. So the CS officer didn't know the whole story? or was only listening to the mother? or simply saying arrearages have % percent rate of satisfaction, which is poor? The mother was never even consulted--the CS stuff was done without her, because she is out of state. The % of satisfaction from onset of CS was 100%--never a payment missed. I was referring to arrearages in general. He was paying on the arrearages every month--never a payment missed--following to the letter the court order. How can there be a poor % of satisfaction in that? ::sigh:: Arrearages *in general*. I wasn't talking about your personal situation - my comment was that perhaps the CS agent had given an assessment of the percent of arrearages *in general* (all the arrearages in the US, for instance), that spooked the bank. No, Banty, the bank would not do the refi because the CS guy told them that they would not subjugate their claim to the arrearages plus future CS, so the bank would have to play second fiddle to the CS system if the house ever fell into foreclosure. The bank was not willing to play second fiddle to that amount of money--even though they had not problem in playing second fiddle to the arrearages. It was the *future obligation* that spooked them, and the fact that the CS jerk told them that my husband was a real deadbeat. I'd think that for something like arrearages, they're not settled until they're gone, completely paid. It's past-due stuff. Legally, anyway. Your husband didn't deserve to have arrearages *at all*, but if they're there, they're there until they're gone. Like any default. Unfortunately, what you and I both think on this issue is not the way the CS system operates. sigh It wasn't just the arrearages--it was also possible future payments. And, not, the jerk didn't bother to look at the whole story--but that is so common with the system. They report the facts that make them seem necessary. You contested this - right? What happened with that? I realize the arrearages are there for a long time until that's done. (Of course, your house dind't get refied; that sucks.) Let's see--it would have cost several thousand dollars to contest, and we probably would have lost anyway. And even if we wom, we would have already spent a big chunk of anything we would have saved from the refi--and would now be paying a lawyer's bill on top of the mortgage--which would have kept our monthly payments the same as if we never refied. So, no, we did not contest. We did not have the $$$$ to do so. I mean, did you contest the CS arrearages *itself*. Is that was you're referring to? Banty, you can't contest arrearages that are legal. And, in our state at the time, the legal amount for arrearages was 2 years back from proof of paternity. So there were 2 years of arrearages plus interest and penalties owed plus ongoing support. *Every case*? Which state is this? Is there any discretion as to wether or not the father knew of the possibility, but was denying paternity, or if he didn't know at all? I mean - this is an automatic thing? Every case. That is the law. 2 years back from proof of paternity--just because. Doesn't matter if you knew there was a child or not. I'm just glad we are not in a state where they go back to birth. Can you imagine finding out you are the father of a 17 year old, and you owe the mother all that $$$$, plus owe the child a college education? whew But, for purposes of the lien, he owed 8+ years of child support, because of future payments until the child reached 19 years of age or graduated high school. Meaning *future* payments?? They had a lien agaisnt a *future* obligation? Yes. They still do, and the arrearages hve been paid off. We were actually fortunate. Had paternity been established a few years earlier, my husband would have owed child support back to the birth of the child, plus pregnancy and birth expenses--at his current salary--not what he was earning back then! Some states may still go back to the birth of the child. Some limit arrearages to a certain number of years. And some charge CS only from proof of paternity. Yikes. Did he ever get to meet his kid? Yes. We drove out to where she is the summer after we found out. She seems like a sweetie. Her dear, sweet mother had told her for her entire life that her dad had abandoned her, and that's why she didn't have a father.Such a kind, caring woman, looking only to support this child emotionally. I don't know what she told her other children about their respective fathers. We've not had the money to make such a trip since then. |
#495
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child
"Banty" wrote in message ... In article , Paula says... THAT, I think, is the way to frame with question. Instead of this "classes of parents equal" business. They're because they're NOT. Of course they are. In different situations, but still, parents are parents, and have the same legal requirements to provide the basics for their children. That statement is a load of BS. A NCP can go months without seeing or speaking to the child. A CP taking the same action would result in the removal of the child. Damn good point. A NCP doesn't come anywhere near having the same legal requirements and responsibilities that CPs do. When the child is with the NCP, he must provide for the needs of the child just like the CP does. How does that make the legal requirements different? Are the requirements other than financial for the NCP? |
#496
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child support debt?
"Paula" wrote in message ... On Nov 17, 2:54 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote: "Paula" wrote in message ... Whose definition of sufficient detail are we using here? I've already stated that there are physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual aspects of child development that are at risk in these contentious situations. Being ever mindful of that spectrum of need within the child(ren) and holding those needs with priority is the "best interests of the children." Paula - You usually have some good perspectives on issues but I have to challenge what you are saying here. First you said there were "costs" associated with emotional, psychological, and spiritual child rearing and you related it to CS needing to be provided to cover those costs. Now it seems you are backing off of your original comment and referring to those factors as being "aspects" of child rearing. Which is it? I don't see a conflict in my comments/perspective. There are emotional, psychological, spiritual, and physical aspects to child development. Nurturing said development entails some cost ... soccer lessons, school trips, church group trips, band uniforms, Tae Kwon Do lessons, etc. I agree with the comments about child development being a priority and a child's need for both parents to be involved in their lives is a key to raising healthy children. What I don't agree with is the assumption paying money will fix any child development issues and improve a child's development. I don't accept the premise providing money is a substitute for parental attention. My experience is none of the child rearing models come close to expanding the costs of rearing children beyond the basic needs of housing, food, transportation, clothes, education, healthcare, and miscellaneous expenditures. I don't know much of what the models are based upon ... only my opinion of what's right for the child(ren) and what the system should address. Well let me challenge that statement too. Should the "system" award extra money to CP's so they can be better parents? Does increasing the amount of CS received help a parent to do their job better? And if, as you suggested, parents are responsible for providing for a child's emotional, psychological, and spiritual upbringing, why are women given a free pass for disrupting those child development factors when they initiate divorce 85% of the time? I'd venture to guess that some of that 85% of the time, the mother is doing the child(ren) a favor by breaking up the household ... my parents stayed together "for my sake" and, looking back, I wish that they hadn't. I'd have been better off had they acknowledged their issues and been more forward in dealing with them ... and recognizing that they (and I) were better with them apart. Could be but the social science research seems to support the premise women break up marriages and relationships for loosey goosey reasons like they felt like they were growing apart or they needed to find themselves or they needed a change. None pof those reason have anything to do with the role of fathers. other than how women perceive the father role to be. Why are the fathers who are kicked out of their children's lives over their objections held responsible to repair the issues created by the mothers? They're not. Both parents are equally responsible as long as they stay in the mix and put the kids needs *first* above their own. So when women put their own feelings ahead of the relationship how are men supposed to understand their desires and react? |
#497
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child support debt?
"Banty" wrote in message ... In article , teachrmama says... "Paula" wrote in message ... That statement is a load of BS. A NCP can go months without seeing or speaking to the child. A CP taking the same action would result in the removal of the child. A NCP doesn't come anywhere near having the same legal requirements and responsibilities that CPs do. *Seeing* the child and providing the legally mandated needs of the child are not the same thing. You must be dealing with some lollapaloozer of an ex, Paula. That must be really ahard on your child. But, no matter how you look at it, *all* parents are required by law to make sure the basic needs of their children are met. Oh dont' be silly I don't think by 'seeing' she's talking about looking through a spyglass or camera lens or something. I don't either. How ridiculous! If the custodial parent decided not to be around for awhile, not come home for a few days, even though they're "her days", the kid would be in the foster care system and her ass would be up for child endangerment. On the other hand, I've never known a CP who leaves a child at an appointed place for visitation pickup (sometimes these ex's you think would just do the right thang if the gummit would leave them alone can barely stand to be in the same town with each other), gotten the call from the friend or other appointed person that the NCP didn't show, and NOT come to pick them up again. Kinda goes to that fundamental aspect of being a CP. The key here is, what percentage of the NCP population are you referring to? I've already commented that you must know some doozies to make the nasty comments about NCPs that you make. So how about the NCP that waits and waits and waits forthe child to be dropped off for visitation, and the child never comes, even though it is *his* weekend? So long as the CP hasn't abandoned the child, that is ok? (and what % of the CP population do you think acts in such a despicable way?) Yeah, that happens. And, that's *some* NCP's who wouldn't show. Some some some some not all not all not all. (Why do I feel like I have to say that even though my paragraph in no way implies 'all NCPs are scum'). But if only *some* do these things, why are *all* NCPs being punished for it? Why don't we have a system that deals only with those who need to be dealt with? Sort of like the prison system deals only with those who need to be dealt with. We wouldn't ever think of locking up everyone in a certain segment of the population, would we? |
#498
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child support debt?
In article , teachrmama says...
"Banty" wrote in message ... In article , teachrmama says... "Paula" wrote in message ... That statement is a load of BS. A NCP can go months without seeing or speaking to the child. A CP taking the same action would result in the removal of the child. A NCP doesn't come anywhere near having the same legal requirements and responsibilities that CPs do. *Seeing* the child and providing the legally mandated needs of the child are not the same thing. You must be dealing with some lollapaloozer of an ex, Paula. That must be really ahard on your child. But, no matter how you look at it, *all* parents are required by law to make sure the basic needs of their children are met. Oh dont' be silly I don't think by 'seeing' she's talking about looking through a spyglass or camera lens or something. I don't either. How ridiculous! If the custodial parent decided not to be around for awhile, not come home for a few days, even though they're "her days", the kid would be in the foster care system and her ass would be up for child endangerment. On the other hand, I've never known a CP who leaves a child at an appointed place for visitation pickup (sometimes these ex's you think would just do the right thang if the gummit would leave them alone can barely stand to be in the same town with each other), gotten the call from the friend or other appointed person that the NCP didn't show, and NOT come to pick them up again. Kinda goes to that fundamental aspect of being a CP. The key here is, what percentage of the NCP population are you referring to? Actually that's not 'key', that's an aside. The *point* is that a CP can't just decide not to do "her days" without serious consequences, while the NCP *does* get away with it. I think Paula's in a position to know that - her ex hasn't had charges of neglect; if she did the same, she would. Which more than offsets this complaint about the NCP's CS amount being some kind of parental "mandate" that the CP isn't similarly be beholden to. It's pretty straightforward; one parent has the child and the lion's share of responsibility for the child, half of the expenses go to the parent who does not, adjusted one way or the other accounting for income producing ability. Money is transferred every month, deal is done, nothing hanging. And straightforward, especially when it comes to dealing with people estranged from each other, is what works all around. I've already commented that you must know some doozies to make the nasty comments about NCPs that you make. Oh come off it. I don't see Paula flipping out over imagined insinuations that all CP's don't do *their* part and what awful awful crowds people must run with to have their opinions on the matter. It's argument appealing to emotion, and it's getting pretty tiresome. So how about the NCP that waits and waits and waits forthe child to be dropped off for visitation, and the child never comes, even though it is *his* weekend? So long as the CP hasn't abandoned the child, that is ok? (and what % of the CP population do you think acts in such a despicable way?) Not the point at all. No one is saying it's "OK". But it doesnt' end up with a kid in foster care and a parent up on charges now does it. THAT's her point. Yeah, that happens. And, that's *some* NCP's who wouldn't show. Some some some some not all not all not all. (Why do I feel like I have to say that even though my paragraph in no way implies 'all NCPs are scum'). But if only *some* do these things, why are *all* NCPs being punished for it? Why don't we have a system that deals only with those who need to be dealt with? Sort of like the prison system deals only with those who need to be dealt with. We wouldn't ever think of locking up everyone in a certain segment of the population, would we? No one is being 'punished'. Banty |
#499
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child
teachrmama wrote:
"Banty" wrote in message ... In article , Paula says... On Nov 16, 1:56 pm, Banty wrote: 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... 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. It's YOU who has to live, every day, every hour, with what happens, and it's YOU planning and looking to the future and thinking about what is happening with the real flesh and blood human being in front of you, and her development into some kind of decent adult. It's YOU with **more** responsibility. But if you don't buckle under each and ever time and he doesn't get his pure perfect way, you're 'driving him away'. Seen that. He contributes his CS money, and that's it. And he doesn't seem to care how much pain and confusion she's feeling because of it. Wish it could have been different. At least you have that. Are his wages garnished? Nope, but they could be if I requested it. While he is prone to playing games where he can, he provides the CS on time and in full, and as long as it stays that way I will not request it. That' great. Maybe he really, totally, does not know what to do and does not feel connected, but at least recognizes this responsibility (or just the law)? Just in case the regulars here decide to attempt to jump on that last line ... if there is a problem that would affect his ability to pay the CS, all he has to do is bring it to my attention. I understand reality and would have no problem with temporary downward-adjustment due to a significant, long- or medium-term downturn in his income. Wow they would jump on you for that? There may be some that would--not most. I am, for all intents and purposes, a CP, and the only one one here who I've had a real problem with is Chris, who any reasonable person probably would butt heads with. -- Sarah Gray |
#500
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child
Banty wrote:
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. You're talking about what they told you about full custody, right? (And you would decide to leave your kids not with you to increase your marriage chances??) Banty Banty, even if a father wants joint custody, usually, they would have to fight for it in court. Because many, many women are not willing to trade less child support for more time that their children spend with their father. When my ex filed for divorce, he was asking for full custody of our daughter. I countered with a request for joint custody, and the referee (judge's assistant of sorts) was FLOORED that I was not asking for full in return. -- Sarah Gray |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
how to collect more child support | fathersrights | Child Support | 4 | September 6th 07 05:30 AM |
HOW TO COLLECT MORE SUPPORT | dadslawyer | Child Support | 0 | August 21st 06 03:40 PM |
Question on Child Support Debt | xyz | Child Support | 8 | October 20th 05 06:07 PM |
Phantom debt creation by child support bureaucrats | Edmund Esterbauer | Child Support | 0 | January 23rd 04 10:42 AM |
Outrage Over Plan To Wipe Child Support Debt | Greg | Child Support | 4 | December 10th 03 02:48 AM |