A Novel Idea for Custodial Moms

"Gini" wrote in message ...
In article Zynte.871$up5.445@lakeread02, Werebat says...
......................

Beverly wrote:
...................

Now comes an interesting part... the non-custodial parent's direct
contribution while exercising standard visitation. Standard
visitation, in hours, amounts to 22% of the total year. Hence, the
non-custodial parent is assumed to provide $1651.07 directly, leaving
$5853.79 to be spent while in the custodial parent's care. Divide
that by 12 to get a monthly figure and it amount to $487.82 per month.

If you make more than he, it seems to me that $250 per month has him
paying for more than his share seeing that YOU would only be
responsible for the other $237.82.

It's better for her than that, since she is not contributing to ANY of
the expenses incurred while the child is with the NCP. But you already
know that, Bev.

- Ron ^*^
==============
Similar to my husband's ex. She sincerely believed that he should be
totally
responsible for all the kids' expenses (even though she took the kids and
left
him when he was at work one day). To her, the $1200. support was to
reimburse
her for what she already spent on them (the toasted cheese and tomato
soup) and
to pay her bills (student loans, charge cards, her hair stylist). When the
kids
wanted anything outside basics, she told them to call their dad (collect)
to
send more money. Yet, when my stepson came to live with us in 7th grade,
not
only did she demand in court that we continue to send her the full amount
of
support, it never occured to her that she had a financial obligation to us
for
him. It was one of the two times the judge ruled against her. He told her
he
wasn't going to make us/him pay her support for a kid who lived with him.
(The
other time was when she wanted to double the CS for my stepdaughter when
my
stepson turned 18, so she wouldn't have to "take a cut in income."
Yep--That's
what she said, but don't get me started.
=============

This thinking is very common. In fact, my understanding is that,
although most states base CS on the income shares principle, some of them
determine CS liability on the basis of the income of the non-custodial
parent (read, "father") alone. So if the ex-wife has an income that vastly
exceeds that of the father, he could still end up paying her a substantial
percentage of his income.

Even in states that have the income shares approach, the notion that
only fathers pay CS is deeply ingrained in the thinking of everyone involved
in this system. I'm past the stage of having my ex on my payroll, but my
experience years ago may illustrate what happens. When the CS arrangements
were first being negotiated, my then-wife wanted written into the agreement
a contingency plan under which, if one of our two children came into my
custody, the money I paid her would be halved. I was so sick of all her
haggling, which my lawyer at one stage described as being like trying to
negotiate with Saddam Hussein, that I agreed to this. I thought that at
least there would not be a second round of haggling if the custody
arrangements did change.

I never considered -- nor did my lawyer think of it either -- that the
responsibility to pay CS is applicable to mothers, as well as fathers, since
I live in an income-shares state. I should have taken into account the fact
that, if one child lived with me, my ex should pay me CS as an offset to
what I paid her.

In the event, about a year after the divorce, my ex did agree that I
should have custody of my son, largely because he was too much trouble for
her. However, characteristically, she then reneged on the deal she had
struck not much more than a year before. In order to finalize the agreement
for the change in custody, I had to accept that, although the amount I paid
my ex would be reduced, it would not be halved. I figured that, during the
years that my son was in my custody, I was paying my ex more than twice what
the state guidelines would have provided in this split-custody situation.
Ultimately, when I thought of taking the issue to court, my lawyer told me
that I would likely be successful, but what I would save in CS during the
remaining years that I had to pay would likely be outweighed by the cost of
the court proceedings.

I suppose it's all part of the entitlement mentality. No one ever
challenges it, largely because those who feel entitled to the money are one
of the politically protected groups in the U.S. today.

"teachrmama" wrote in

is not right! One of Maya's arguments is that lack of accountability for
how child support is spent is ok because it is "legal." That does not
make it right.


Yes, we agree that the term "Legal", does not necessary define the right
thing to do!

Lets face it, Fathers are legally second class citizens!

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
...
In article , Tracy says...

"Gini" wrote in message
...
In article , Maya Lanza says...
.................

The cost of living for those countries is exceedingly low. Have you
priced
asparagus lately?
====
So you can't afford to buy asparagus. Deal with it, or plant a garden.
Don't
whine to a judge about it.

We don't purchase asparagus weekly for a reason. I won't purchase
apricots
currently for the same reason.
===
No, no no, Tracy, you have it all wrong! If you can't afford something,
go
see
the judge. Why not? If Maya's judge tells her she has a right to
asparagus
(and
the asparagus will "trickle down" to the lacking child, of course) why
should
you receive anything less? Cut back on "extras,"...plant a garden?
Sheesh,
you
and TM aren't going about this right. I'm thinkin' I might even go ask
the
judge
for a little something myself. My 10 year old wants a Star Wars poster
and
it's
really expensive.
===
===

OK, Gini, I gotta know this. What man are you going to take to the judge
to
get that Star Wars poster? I know you are married to the father of your
children, just as I am married to the father of my children. So I really
need to know who you are going to have the judge order to pay your bills,
just in case I need to use you as my role model.

George Lucas of course!

"Tracy" wrote in message
...
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
...
In article , Tracy says...

"Gini" wrote in message
...
In article , Maya Lanza says...
.................

The cost of living for those countries is exceedingly low. Have you
priced
asparagus lately?
====
So you can't afford to buy asparagus. Deal with it, or plant a
garden.
Don't
whine to a judge about it.

We don't purchase asparagus weekly for a reason. I won't purchase
apricots
currently for the same reason.
===
No, no no, Tracy, you have it all wrong! If you can't afford something,
go
see
the judge. Why not? If Maya's judge tells her she has a right to
asparagus
(and
the asparagus will "trickle down" to the lacking child, of course) why
should
you receive anything less? Cut back on "extras,"...plant a garden?
Sheesh,
you
and TM aren't going about this right. I'm thinkin' I might even go ask
the
judge
for a little something myself. My 10 year old wants a Star Wars poster
and
it's
really expensive.
===
===

OK, Gini, I gotta know this. What man are you going to take to the judge
to
get that Star Wars poster? I know you are married to the father of your
children, just as I am married to the father of my children. So I really
need to know who you are going to have the judge order to pay your bills,
just in case I need to use you as my role model.

George Lucas of course!

chuckle Works for me!

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Hmm, I get less than that per child (2 children), and he hasn't bothered
to
see the kids in 3 years now, so that's another 22% per year he stuck it to
me.

Do you not at least appreciate the two beautiful children you have full
access to?

"G" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Hmm, I get less than that per child (2 children), and he hasn't bothered
to
see the kids in 3 years now, so that's another 22% per year he stuck it
to
me.

Do you not at least appreciate the two beautiful children you have full
access to?

Of course I do - though it would have been nice to have BOTH parents
involved in the children's lives, rather than being the only one.