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

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


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

Please do show me where in any post I have ever put down custodial
parents in general. Because I haven't. We are discussing a system
where
mediation might be an answer. It is NOT the system in place
today--because there is no need to negotiate when you already know you
are going to win. That does NOT mean that the kind, caring people
would
behave that way. But they are not teh problem, are they?

And long as mandatory mediation is done in the courthouse by court
employees there is no hope for mediation to be unbiased and without
being
"in the shadow of the law." And as long as judges treat mediation
agreements reached prior to hearings as being non-legally binding and
not
admissible in court, mediation is a joke.

Precisely. The system in place today does not have a level playing field.
Nor does it allow adults to be adults. An outside person (the judge) has
the final say, no matter what agreement the adults might reach together.



There's somebody (or some persons) missing - here.

Who?

In article , teachrmama says...


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


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

Please do show me where in any post I have ever put down custodial
parents in general. Because I haven't. We are discussing a system
where
mediation might be an answer. It is NOT the system in place
today--because there is no need to negotiate when you already know you
are going to win. That does NOT mean that the kind, caring people
would
behave that way. But they are not teh problem, are they?

And long as mandatory mediation is done in the courthouse by court
employees there is no hope for mediation to be unbiased and without
being
"in the shadow of the law." And as long as judges treat mediation
agreements reached prior to hearings as being non-legally binding and
not
admissible in court, mediation is a joke.

Precisely. The system in place today does not have a level playing field.
Nor does it allow adults to be adults. An outside person (the judge) has
the final say, no matter what agreement the adults might reach together.



There's somebody (or some persons) missing - here.

Who?



I'll keep that response. It's illustrative.

Banty

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


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


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

Please do show me where in any post I have ever put down custodial
parents in general. Because I haven't. We are discussing a system
where
mediation might be an answer. It is NOT the system in place
today--because there is no need to negotiate when you already know
you
are going to win. That does NOT mean that the kind, caring people
would
behave that way. But they are not teh problem, are they?

And long as mandatory mediation is done in the courthouse by court
employees there is no hope for mediation to be unbiased and without
being
"in the shadow of the law." And as long as judges treat mediation
agreements reached prior to hearings as being non-legally binding and
not
admissible in court, mediation is a joke.

Precisely. The system in place today does not have a level playing
field.
Nor does it allow adults to be adults. An outside person (the judge)
has
the final say, no matter what agreement the adults might reach together.



There's somebody (or some persons) missing - here.

Who?



I'll keep that response. It's illustrative.

It was an honest question. I have no idea what you are talking about. When
the parents get together and work out an agreement which the judge may or
may not agree with, who is missing? Should someone else be involved in the
negotiations? If so, who would that be?

In article , teachrmama says...


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


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


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

Please do show me where in any post I have ever put down custodial
parents in general. Because I haven't. We are discussing a system
where
mediation might be an answer. It is NOT the system in place
today--because there is no need to negotiate when you already know
you
are going to win. That does NOT mean that the kind, caring people
would
behave that way. But they are not teh problem, are they?

And long as mandatory mediation is done in the courthouse by court
employees there is no hope for mediation to be unbiased and without
being
"in the shadow of the law." And as long as judges treat mediation
agreements reached prior to hearings as being non-legally binding and
not
admissible in court, mediation is a joke.

Precisely. The system in place today does not have a level playing
field.
Nor does it allow adults to be adults. An outside person (the judge)
has
the final say, no matter what agreement the adults might reach together.



There's somebody (or some persons) missing - here.

Who?



I'll keep that response. It's illustrative.

It was an honest question. I have no idea what you are talking about. When
the parents get together and work out an agreement which the judge may or
may not agree with, who is missing? Should someone else be involved in the
negotiations? If so, who would that be?



Whose interests would be involved other than that of the parents?

Banty

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


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


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


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

Please do show me where in any post I have ever put down custodial
parents in general. Because I haven't. We are discussing a system
where
mediation might be an answer. It is NOT the system in place
today--because there is no need to negotiate when you already know
you
are going to win. That does NOT mean that the kind, caring people
would
behave that way. But they are not teh problem, are they?

And long as mandatory mediation is done in the courthouse by court
employees there is no hope for mediation to be unbiased and without
being
"in the shadow of the law." And as long as judges treat mediation
agreements reached prior to hearings as being non-legally binding
and
not
admissible in court, mediation is a joke.

Precisely. The system in place today does not have a level playing
field.
Nor does it allow adults to be adults. An outside person (the judge)
has
the final say, no matter what agreement the adults might reach
together.



There's somebody (or some persons) missing - here.

Who?



I'll keep that response. It's illustrative.

It was an honest question. I have no idea what you are talking about.
When
the parents get together and work out an agreement which the judge may or
may not agree with, who is missing? Should someone else be involved in
the
negotiations? If so, who would that be?



Whose interests would be involved other than that of the parents?

Oh, so you think the 2 year old and the 5 year old should sit in on the
negotiations? Because the parents would be likely trying to rip their
children off, and the 2 year old and the 5 year old should be their to stand
up for themselves? Wow--interesting concept. Do you really think that
parents *want* to make their kids miserable, Banty? Were you to divorce,
would your husband go out of his way to make sure your child lived at
poverty level just to put a few extra dollars in his pocket or to make you
miserable?

In article , teachrmama says...


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


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


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


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

Please do show me where in any post I have ever put down custodial
parents in general. Because I haven't. We are discussing a system
where
mediation might be an answer. It is NOT the system in place
today--because there is no need to negotiate when you already know
you
are going to win. That does NOT mean that the kind, caring people
would
behave that way. But they are not teh problem, are they?

And long as mandatory mediation is done in the courthouse by court
employees there is no hope for mediation to be unbiased and without
being
"in the shadow of the law." And as long as judges treat mediation
agreements reached prior to hearings as being non-legally binding
and
not
admissible in court, mediation is a joke.

Precisely. The system in place today does not have a level playing
field.
Nor does it allow adults to be adults. An outside person (the judge)
has
the final say, no matter what agreement the adults might reach
together.



There's somebody (or some persons) missing - here.

Who?



I'll keep that response. It's illustrative.

It was an honest question. I have no idea what you are talking about.
When
the parents get together and work out an agreement which the judge may or
may not agree with, who is missing? Should someone else be involved in
the
negotiations? If so, who would that be?



Whose interests would be involved other than that of the parents?

Oh, so you think the 2 year old and the 5 year old should sit in on the
negotiations? Because the parents would be likely trying to rip their
children off, and the 2 year old and the 5 year old should be their to stand
up for themselves? Wow--interesting concept.

Of course not. That's why it is made certain that their interests are
represented by someone *else*, and someone disinterested and competent in the
relevent laws and practices of the situation. It is certainly fair to question
the particulars of the laws and practices of the situation. But it's unwise to
forget why they're there.

Do you really think that
parents *want* to make their kids miserable, Banty? Were you to divorce,
would your husband go out of his way to make sure your child lived at
poverty level just to put a few extra dollars in his pocket or to make you
miserable?


Again with argument that two parents with proven animosity toward each other, or
at least insufficient cooperative relation to each other to get together to
actually raise the child (what a concept), and their pocketbooks at stake to
boot, are going to act with enlightened reasonableness and far sighted wisdom.
And you stake the childhoods and well being of tens of thousands of children on
that optimistic confidence of yours. With your usual appeal to emotion thrown
in. Maybe you can browse the archives of alt.support.step-parents for many
examples to the contrary. People in these situations are often focused on their
grievances with the other *adult* and not particularly clear in their judgment.

I've been willing to look at reasons why CS amounts are too much, how the
mechanizations of it are brutal and sometimes misdirected, and why parents who
want to *parent* are shuffled into being NCPs unjustly. But, the blinkered POV
of an NCP, with sometimes unacknowledged personal interests, is directing the
pattern of thought and 'accumulated wisdom' here. And this results in the sheer
denial of some pretty basic aspects of these situation. That CP's effort and
responsibility in childrearing is a nit, that he or she would redirect funds to
his or her own enjoyment given the opportunity, that NCP's on the other hand
would consistently dispense the same funds as wise and loving parents. It's not
enough for me to recognize that that is true in many cases - you want to have
the whole system resting on it. And here the very center of this drama was
forgotten entirely until I decided to leave you to consider it for yourself for
some time.

I'm moving on to look into the issue by other methods and bringing in other
perspectives. Thanks, all. Bob, you have been particularly helpful.

Banty

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


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


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


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


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

Please do show me where in any post I have ever put down
custodial
parents in general. Because I haven't. We are discussing a
system
where
mediation might be an answer. It is NOT the system in place
today--because there is no need to negotiate when you already
know
you
are going to win. That does NOT mean that the kind, caring
people
would
behave that way. But they are not teh problem, are they?

And long as mandatory mediation is done in the courthouse by court
employees there is no hope for mediation to be unbiased and
without
being
"in the shadow of the law." And as long as judges treat mediation
agreements reached prior to hearings as being non-legally binding
and
not
admissible in court, mediation is a joke.

Precisely. The system in place today does not have a level playing
field.
Nor does it allow adults to be adults. An outside person (the
judge)
has
the final say, no matter what agreement the adults might reach
together.



There's somebody (or some persons) missing - here.

Who?



I'll keep that response. It's illustrative.

It was an honest question. I have no idea what you are talking about.
When
the parents get together and work out an agreement which the judge may
or
may not agree with, who is missing? Should someone else be involved in
the
negotiations? If so, who would that be?



Whose interests would be involved other than that of the parents?

Oh, so you think the 2 year old and the 5 year old should sit in on the
negotiations? Because the parents would be likely trying to rip their
children off, and the 2 year old and the 5 year old should be their to
stand
up for themselves? Wow--interesting concept.

Of course not. That's why it is made certain that their interests are
represented by someone *else*, and someone disinterested and competent in
the
relevent laws and practices of the situation. It is certainly fair to
question
the particulars of the laws and practices of the situation. But it's
unwise to
forget why they're there.

Then we might as well all give up and let Big Daddy Government take over and
tell us every move to make. Obviously, a father and a mother are too
ignorant, selfish, and immature to look out for the best interests of their
own children, so *other* adults, who do not know the children, the
circumstances, or the situation are **far better able** to make any
necessary decisions than the stupid parents are. Why don't we just change
the age af adulthood to, say, 90, rather than 18. And the instant a child
is conceived he becomes a ward of the court--and the parents supply the
money--but only those who have passed some sort of government standardized
test snd become mighty Government Workers make decisions about how the child
is reared. Except for their own children, of course. A different
Gvoernment Worker is assigned to their case. All Hail the Mighty
Government. All Hail Big Brother. How would we survive without Him!!


Do you really think that
parents *want* to make their kids miserable, Banty? Were you to divorce,
would your husband go out of his way to make sure your child lived at
poverty level just to put a few extra dollars in his pocket or to make you
miserable?


Again with argument that two parents with proven animosity toward each
other, or
at least insufficient cooperative relation to each other to get together
to
actually raise the child (what a concept), and their pocketbooks at stake
to
boot, are going to act with enlightened reasonableness and far sighted
wisdom.

And MIghty Government **always** acts with enlightened reasonableness and
far sighted wisdom. That's why the bidget is balanced, and tehe country is
at peace.

I think, given the opportunity, the *vast majority* of parents could pull it
off, Banty. Then the system could work with only those that actually *need*
the system--which is why it was set up to begin with.

And you stake the childhoods and well being of tens of thousands of
children on
that optimistic confidence of yours.

YOU stake the childhoods of tens of thousands of children on a cold
strangers following little numbers on a pices of paper withou regards to the
real circumstances of a situation. Hmmmm...cold, uncaring government vs
loving parents......hmmmm...who would I want making choices for my
children....hmmmm.....

On Nov 20, 9:41 am, "teachrmama" wrote:

"Banty" wrote in message
...

In article , teachrmama says...

Oh, so you think the 2 year old and the 5 year old should sit in on the
negotiations? Because the parents would be likely trying to rip their
children off, and the 2 year old and the 5 year old should be their to
stand
up for themselves? Wow--interesting concept.

Of course not. That's why it is made certain that their interests are
represented by someone *else*, and someone disinterested and competent in
the
relevent laws and practices of the situation. It is certainly fair to
question
the particulars of the laws and practices of the situation. But it's
unwise to
forget why they're there.

Then we might as well all give up and let Big Daddy Government take over and
tell us every move to make. Obviously, a father and a mother are too
ignorant, selfish, and immature to look out for the best interests of their
own children, so *other* adults, who do not know the children, the
circumstances, or the situation are **far better able** to make any
necessary decisions than the stupid parents are. Why don't we just change
the age af adulthood to, say, 90, rather than 18. And the instant a child
is conceived he becomes a ward of the court--and the parents supply the
money--but only those who have passed some sort of government standardized
test snd become mighty Government Workers make decisions about how the child
is reared. Except for their own children, of course. A different
Gvoernment Worker is assigned to their case. All Hail the Mighty
Government. All Hail Big Brother. How would we survive without Him!!


More emotion and extremeism ... which doesn't get anyone
any closer to a workable solution, now does it?!


Do you really think that
parents *want* to make their kids miserable, Banty? Were you to divorce,
would your husband go out of his way to make sure your child lived at
poverty level just to put a few extra dollars in his pocket or to make you
miserable?

Again with argument that two parents with proven animosity toward each
other, or
at least insufficient cooperative relation to each other to get together
to
actually raise the child (what a concept), and their pocketbooks at stake
to
boot, are going to act with enlightened reasonableness and far sighted
wisdom.

And MIghty Government **always** acts with enlightened reasonableness and
far sighted wisdom. That's why the bidget is balanced, and tehe country is
at peace.

I think, given the opportunity, the *vast majority* of parents could pull it
off, Banty.

And I disagree. I think you need to remove those rose-colored
glasses and take a real look at the animosities between the
parents to whom you refer.

Then the system could work with only those that actually *need*
the system--which is why it was set up to begin with.

Which, IMHO, is a far greater percentage than you are
willing to acknowledge.

And you stake the childhoods and well being of tens of thousands of
children on
that optimistic confidence of yours.

YOU stake the childhoods of tens of thousands of children on a cold
strangers following little numbers on a pices of paper withou regards to the
real circumstances of a situation. Hmmmm...cold, uncaring government vs
loving parents......hmmmm...who would I want making choices for my
children....hmmmm.....

Some of those parents are cold and uncaring when it comes
to anything other than their own wants and needs ... hmmmm.

"Paula" wrote in

Some of those parents are cold and uncaring when it comes
to anything other than their own wants and needs ... hmmmm.

That's why you take money out of the equation!

Some might think long and hard before they jump out of the marriage too
quickly.

Why do we think the government can solve any of our personal problems?

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


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


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


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


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

Please do show me where in any post I have ever put down
custodial
parents in general. Because I haven't. We are discussing a
system
where
mediation might be an answer. It is NOT the system in place
today--because there is no need to negotiate when you already
know
you
are going to win. That does NOT mean that the kind, caring
people
would
behave that way. But they are not teh problem, are they?

And long as mandatory mediation is done in the courthouse by court
employees there is no hope for mediation to be unbiased and
without
being
"in the shadow of the law." And as long as judges treat mediation
agreements reached prior to hearings as being non-legally binding
and
not
admissible in court, mediation is a joke.

Precisely. The system in place today does not have a level playing
field.
Nor does it allow adults to be adults. An outside person (the
judge)
has
the final say, no matter what agreement the adults might reach
together.



There's somebody (or some persons) missing - here.

Who?



I'll keep that response. It's illustrative.

It was an honest question. I have no idea what you are talking about.
When
the parents get together and work out an agreement which the judge may
or
may not agree with, who is missing? Should someone else be involved in
the
negotiations? If so, who would that be?



Whose interests would be involved other than that of the parents?

Oh, so you think the 2 year old and the 5 year old should sit in on the
negotiations? Because the parents would be likely trying to rip their
children off, and the 2 year old and the 5 year old should be their to
stand
up for themselves? Wow--interesting concept.

Of course not. That's why it is made certain that their interests are
represented by someone *else*, and someone disinterested and competent in
the
relevent laws and practices of the situation. It is certainly fair to
question
the particulars of the laws and practices of the situation. But it's
unwise to
forget why they're there.

Here are the problems with that type of approach.

First, if this service is part of the court system the judges will have
significant influence over the outcome either directly or by the pattern of
how they decide issues. This is called "negotiating in the shadow of the
law."

Second, there are several hundred of these programs already in existence.
Their major priority is to educate potential custodial parents about their
responsibility in encouraging their soon-to-be ex-spouse's to have access to
the children.

Third, the parents are "there" because the mothers made a unilateral
decision to end the marriage/relationship over the objection of the fathers
in over 70% of the cases. It is the mothers who put her personal desire to
separate ahead of the children's needs.

Fourth, who is going to pay for this service?

Fifth, judges view their discretion as power. Could judges over-ride the
negotitiated outcome and substitute their personal bias as they do now?


Do you really think that
parents *want* to make their kids miserable, Banty? Were you to divorce,
would your husband go out of his way to make sure your child lived at
poverty level just to put a few extra dollars in his pocket or to make you
miserable?


Again with argument that two parents with proven animosity toward each
other, or
at least insufficient cooperative relation to each other to get together
to
actually raise the child (what a concept), and their pocketbooks at stake
to
boot, are going to act with enlightened reasonableness and far sighted
wisdom.
And you stake the childhoods and well being of tens of thousands of
children on
that optimistic confidence of yours. With your usual appeal to emotion
thrown
in. Maybe you can browse the archives of alt.support.step-parents for
many
examples to the contrary. People in these situations are often focused on
their
grievances with the other *adult* and not particularly clear in their
judgment.

The social science research indicates the root cause of those parental
issues are found in how cases have been historically decided. As long as
mothers have an 85+% change to gain child custody (an emotional motivator)
and a predictable amount of child support (a financial motivator)
divorce/separations will continue to be a disadvantage to fathers. If the
outcomes for custody and CS were unpredictable, the divorce/separation rate
would come down, and there would be motivation to be cooperative adn
reasonable should a relationship breakdown.


I've been willing to look at reasons why CS amounts are too much, how the
mechanizations of it are brutal and sometimes misdirected, and why parents
who
want to *parent* are shuffled into being NCPs unjustly. But, the
blinkered POV
of an NCP, with sometimes unacknowledged personal interests, is directing
the
pattern of thought and 'accumulated wisdom' here. And this results in the
sheer
denial of some pretty basic aspects of these situation. That CP's effort
and
responsibility in childrearing is a nit, that he or she would redirect
funds to
his or her own enjoyment given the opportunity, that NCP's on the other
hand
would consistently dispense the same funds as wise and loving parents.
It's not
enough for me to recognize that that is true in many cases - you want to
have
the whole system resting on it. And here the very center of this drama
was
forgotten entirely until I decided to leave you to consider it for
yourself for
some time.

See above. This summary is a recitation of the myths regarding
divorce/separation. Mommy is good. Daddy is bad. The facts are, the party
filing for a court order holds significant power over the other party. The
legal system assumes the filing party has good reasons to break up the
relationship. Women have more incentives and fewer barriers to end
relationships so they pre-plan the demise of their relationships. They
control the timing, they prepare themselves mentally for the break up, they
develop their justification for taking action, and they solicit emotional
support from friends and relatives in advance of announcing their decision.