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

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


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


"Banty" wrote in message
...

Actually my scenario is about reality and how stated objectives
in
the
CS
system are just "feel good" messages that get ignored in
practice.
And
the
scenario points out the reason so many CP mothers are against
any
form
of
accountability for how CS is spent. They want to treat CS
received
as
unallocated family support which is really the definition of
alimony.

Well, no, alimony is for support of the *ex spouse*.

That is only one of several reasons alimony can be awarded. My
point
is
mothers are against accountability for how CS is spent because
they
want
to
treat the money received as unallocated family support, i.e. they
can
use
it
any way they want at their personal discretion.

Well, the accountability would have to be reasonable. IF a
trustee
or
overseer
is expecting daughter number one to get steak and daughter number
two
to
get mac
and cheese, that woudl be a problem. Maybe those who are opposing
accountability are reading what *you* write.

I'm beginning to think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.
This
has nothing to do with what the children eat.

I'm trying to illustrate what kind of thing would happen in order to
not
comingle funds in your scenario. Things like rent and heat not
being
divisible
between two kids in a household.

It really shouldn't be that much of a problem. Mom simply adds more
funds
to child # 2's share of income, and things come out equal, right?
Rather
than taking from child 1 to make things even for child 2, she *adds
to*
child 2.

If she *has* those funds. She's got to earn more, then, while caring
for
two
little kids. But the calculation for the other child is based on a
lower
standard of living, lower income father. If she doesn't have extra
funds,
should she maintain different standards of living?

The CS system says that the standard of living is what is necessary--not
the
NCP. You seem to be saying that the NCP *should* be required to pay the
money to provide for that standard of living, but the CP should not be
required to maintain it.

So if you feel so strongly that children of the same mother should be
kept
at the same standard of living, why don't you feel that children of the
same
father are deserving of the same? Aren't all children equally valuable?


After all, she was aware that she had an obligation to child 1
before child 2 came along, right?


The second is the one with the low-income father, remember.

Ah--but she *****KNEW**** she had the older child ****BEFORE**** she
got
together with the new guy. Her obligation to the older child was
already
established, period!! Remember, that's how courts deal with subsequent
children, and you backed that up wholeheartedly in another post.

Sure.

Remember, the *new* daughter has a poorer father. Apparently she's to
have a
lower standard of living. Bob says - she has a share herself as to each
child -
$400 apiece. OK. No argument there. She has that although she
"****KNEW****" about her earlier obligation to the older daughter. No
argument
there.

The *question* is, what to do about two girls in her household, who are
to
be
maintained at a different standard.

The CS system has remedies for this circumstance.
The higher wage earner
father can use the CP's averaging of CS received to his advantage. If the
CP openly acknowledges she does not need $800 to support their joint
child,
and $500 is a more appropriate amount for her circumstance, the father can
mount a powerful legal rebuttal to show the CS guideline amount is not
appropriate in this case. My guess is the court would not lower the CS
award from $800 to $500, but would instead admonish the CP mother to start
spending the court ordered amount on their child.


And how does he show that. A very large part of the benefit to the
younger girl
would be incidental. Being in the same apartment, for example.

I thought folks here were telling me it's hard to impossible to get any
kind of
remedy in court. Now you're saying this is a reasonbly available
recourse? If
so, where do you see the inequities in your view?

Uh, he did say that it would probably not be granted.......

In article , teachrmama says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Shadow36 says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Shadow36 says...



If she *has* those funds. She's got to earn more, then, while caring
for
two
little kids. But the calculation for the other child is based on a
lower
standard of living, lower income father. If she doesn't have extra
funds,
should she maintain different standards of living?

Of course! You yourself maintain that the NCP should *step up* and move
to
the childs school district, get a two bedroom apartment, change jobs If
need
be to be able to spend more time with the child. If you think the NCP
should
maintain a different standard of living, even If they may not "have the
funds" shouldn't the CP?


She should increase to that income, and *more* to get the best life
possible for
her kids.

That's what I think.

And the girls should share.

Banty

The one flaw to your logic Is that you think everyone be It CP or NCP
should
step up to a higher income. Thats a LOT more easier said than done.

Oh, I know!

Didn't
you say In another post that you own some properties etc? I bet that,
while
you may not be wealthy, you aren't hard up for money. That would explain
why you think "basic needs" for a child Is 50 dollar school pictures,
hundreds for summer camp, dance lessons, etc etc. It's just not so cut and
dry as the NCP should move, get a better job, maintain a two person
household on a single persons budget.

Did you see Bob's example of the 800-dollar father and the 200-dollar
father?
Well, 200-dollar father clearly couldnt' provide more than the basics.
Nor
should he have to if he's a hard case.

My problem is with this idea that, *in any case*, only basics should be in
CS;
the rest being voluntarily because of 'relationship' (i.o.w. "be nice to
me and
I'll be nice to our kid").

Banty, you continually misinterpret what I said here. NOT a relationship
with the spouse. An ongoing, full, rich relationship with the CHILD. THAT
is why parents provide for their children beyond basics--because they LOVE
them--and love grows with relationship.

The love should be THERE.

And if it's there, why is there *any* question or import as to whether or not
it's counted as part of child support??

You remember the discussion about the NCP who wanted to give the school clothes
as a gift - in the *spring*?? The CP getting them in September meant she was
"impatient"?? What you call "extras" have day to day contingencies. For the CP
*with the responsibility* to handle.

Banty

In article , Bob Whiteside
says...


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


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


"Banty" wrote in message
...

Actually my scenario is about reality and how stated objectives
in
the
CS
system are just "feel good" messages that get ignored in
practice.
And
the
scenario points out the reason so many CP mothers are against
any
form
of
accountability for how CS is spent. They want to treat CS
received
as
unallocated family support which is really the definition of
alimony.

Well, no, alimony is for support of the *ex spouse*.

That is only one of several reasons alimony can be awarded. My
point
is
mothers are against accountability for how CS is spent because
they
want
to
treat the money received as unallocated family support, i.e. they
can
use
it
any way they want at their personal discretion.

Well, the accountability would have to be reasonable. IF a
trustee
or
overseer
is expecting daughter number one to get steak and daughter number
two
to
get mac
and cheese, that woudl be a problem. Maybe those who are opposing
accountability are reading what *you* write.

I'm beginning to think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.
This
has nothing to do with what the children eat.

I'm trying to illustrate what kind of thing would happen in order to
not
comingle funds in your scenario. Things like rent and heat not
being
divisible
between two kids in a household.

It really shouldn't be that much of a problem. Mom simply adds more
funds
to child # 2's share of income, and things come out equal, right?
Rather
than taking from child 1 to make things even for child 2, she *adds
to*
child 2.

If she *has* those funds. She's got to earn more, then, while caring
for
two
little kids. But the calculation for the other child is based on a
lower
standard of living, lower income father. If she doesn't have extra
funds,
should she maintain different standards of living?

The CS system says that the standard of living is what is necessary--not
the
NCP. You seem to be saying that the NCP *should* be required to pay the
money to provide for that standard of living, but the CP should not be
required to maintain it.

So if you feel so strongly that children of the same mother should be
kept
at the same standard of living, why don't you feel that children of the
same
father are deserving of the same? Aren't all children equally valuable?


After all, she was aware that she had an obligation to child 1
before child 2 came along, right?


The second is the one with the low-income father, remember.

Ah--but she *****KNEW**** she had the older child ****BEFORE**** she
got
together with the new guy. Her obligation to the older child was
already
established, period!! Remember, that's how courts deal with subsequent
children, and you backed that up wholeheartedly in another post.

Sure.

Remember, the *new* daughter has a poorer father. Apparently she's to
have a
lower standard of living. Bob says - she has a share herself as to each
child -
$400 apiece. OK. No argument there. She has that although she
"****KNEW****" about her earlier obligation to the older daughter. No
argument
there.

The *question* is, what to do about two girls in her household, who are
to
be
maintained at a different standard.

The CS system has remedies for this circumstance.
The higher wage earner
father can use the CP's averaging of CS received to his advantage. If the
CP openly acknowledges she does not need $800 to support their joint
child,
and $500 is a more appropriate amount for her circumstance, the father can
mount a powerful legal rebuttal to show the CS guideline amount is not
appropriate in this case. My guess is the court would not lower the CS
award from $800 to $500, but would instead admonish the CP mother to start
spending the court ordered amount on their child.


And how does he show that. A very large part of the benefit to the
younger girl
would be incidental. Being in the same apartment, for example.

Prior to the hearing use discovery to force her to produce a notarized
statement showing how she spents the CS money you both pay for your joint
child. Put her under oath. Ask how much CS she receives. Ask how she
manages the $800/200 difference.


I thought folks here were telling me it's hard to impossible to get any
kind of
remedy in court. Now you're saying this is a reasonbly available
recourse? If
so, where do you see the inequities in your view?

Remedies and CS reductions are not the same thing. In my example I noted
the court should provide a remedy and probably wouldn't provide a CS
reduction. You ask the court for a finding of fact on the record regarding
the court's ruling on the rebuttal to the CS guideline issue.



But Bob, folks here are telling me this is a reason why all kids should have the
same bare-bones CS - prevent this comingling you saw is so awful.

Now you're saying it can be remedied.

Banty

In article uSr%i.1541$Mg1.290@trndny03, Gini says...


"Banty" wrote
Bob Whiteside
says...
.......................................

The CS system has remedies for this circumstance.
The higher wage earner
father can use the CP's averaging of CS received to his advantage. If the
CP openly acknowledges she does not need $800 to support their joint
child,
and $500 is a more appropriate amount for her circumstance, the father can
mount a powerful legal rebuttal to show the CS guideline amount is not
appropriate in this case. My guess is the court would not lower the CS
award from $800 to $500, but would instead admonish the CP mother to start
spending the court ordered amount on their child.


And how does he show that. A very large part of the benefit to the
younger girl
would be incidental. Being in the same apartment, for example.

I thought folks here were telling me it's hard to impossible to get any
kind of
remedy in court. Now you're saying this is a reasonbly available
recourse?
=====
You read too quickly--Try it a little slower and this time point out the
"remedy" and "recourse."



So, Your Crypticness, it's that the admonishment isn't enough of a remedy,
lowering his funds to his own child is the preferred remedy...

Right?

Banty

In article , teachrmama says...


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

In article %hk%i.8$B21.4@trndny07, Gini says...


"Banty" wrote
.............

The *question* is, what to do about two girls in her household, who are
to
be
maintained at a different standard.
====
This question and solution have been addressed repeatedly--eliminate
lifestyle awards
which are inherently unequal. This problem was created and is maintained
by
the state,
not NCPs, not CPs.


That's your opinion, I disagree. For reasons I've addressed repeatedly.
I
don't see mingling funds in a subset of cases to be a smaller evul than
children
in the same household being raised decently together. And, yes, if I were
the
father of the first child (the one with 800 bucks to pay per month) I'd
think so
too. Because I know what happens to raise kids together. They share.
Mingling
of funds happen when the landlord or mortgage is paid anyway.

Make that, I *do* see mingling of funds to be a smaller evul than
just-above-poverty kids.

The consequences of basics-only would be that the vast majority of CP's
would be
providing most if not all of the items folks here deem not-basics, and
they
*would* because they would have to live daily with the consequences of not
doing
so, and have the see daily the children's emotions and limitations if they
do
not. The NCP does not have that balancing factor. Note w.r.t. this that
I also
favor oversight or involvement of a trustee.

I have to disagree with you about what the NCPs would do for their children.
I think the vast majority would happily supply more than the basic amount.

I think so too! I *know* so! Of the NCP's I know IRL, this is the first place
I've encountered this idea that only the bare bones should be set for CP. Just
because someone is happy to provide the extras does not mean it makes sense to
them for it to be included in the child support payment. Understand?

You certainly have a low opinion about NCPs. Why is that?

Not in general. Situations vary. But someone who really is that loving person
who would could be counted on to voluntarily provide these extras would try
*not* to be an NCP. It's the old biblical advice: ye shall know them by what
they do.

Banty

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 , teachrmama says...


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


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


"Banty" wrote in message
...

Actually my scenario is about reality and how stated objectives
in
the
CS
system are just "feel good" messages that get ignored in
practice.
And
the
scenario points out the reason so many CP mothers are against
any
form
of
accountability for how CS is spent. They want to treat CS
received
as
unallocated family support which is really the definition of
alimony.

Well, no, alimony is for support of the *ex spouse*.

That is only one of several reasons alimony can be awarded. My
point
is
mothers are against accountability for how CS is spent because
they
want
to
treat the money received as unallocated family support, i.e. they
can
use
it
any way they want at their personal discretion.

Well, the accountability would have to be reasonable. IF a
trustee
or
overseer
is expecting daughter number one to get steak and daughter number
two
to
get mac
and cheese, that woudl be a problem. Maybe those who are opposing
accountability are reading what *you* write.

I'm beginning to think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.
This
has nothing to do with what the children eat.

I'm trying to illustrate what kind of thing would happen in order to
not
comingle funds in your scenario. Things like rent and heat not
being
divisible
between two kids in a household.

It really shouldn't be that much of a problem. Mom simply adds more
funds
to child # 2's share of income, and things come out equal, right?
Rather
than taking from child 1 to make things even for child 2, she *adds
to*
child 2.

If she *has* those funds. She's got to earn more, then, while caring
for
two
little kids. But the calculation for the other child is based on a
lower
standard of living, lower income father. If she doesn't have extra
funds,
should she maintain different standards of living?

The CS system says that the standard of living is what is necessary--not
the
NCP. You seem to be saying that the NCP *should* be required to pay the
money to provide for that standard of living, but the CP should not be
required to maintain it.

So if you feel so strongly that children of the same mother should be
kept
at the same standard of living, why don't you feel that children of the
same
father are deserving of the same? Aren't all children equally valuable?


After all, she was aware that she had an obligation to child 1
before child 2 came along, right?


The second is the one with the low-income father, remember.

Ah--but she *****KNEW**** she had the older child ****BEFORE**** she
got
together with the new guy. Her obligation to the older child was
already
established, period!! Remember, that's how courts deal with subsequent
children, and you backed that up wholeheartedly in another post.

Sure.

Remember, the *new* daughter has a poorer father. Apparently she's to
have a
lower standard of living. Bob says - she has a share herself as to each
child -
$400 apiece. OK. No argument there. She has that although she
"****KNEW****" about her earlier obligation to the older daughter. No
argument
there.

The *question* is, what to do about two girls in her household, who are
to
be
maintained at a different standard.

The CS system has remedies for this circumstance.
The higher wage earner
father can use the CP's averaging of CS received to his advantage. If the
CP openly acknowledges she does not need $800 to support their joint
child,
and $500 is a more appropriate amount for her circumstance, the father can
mount a powerful legal rebuttal to show the CS guideline amount is not
appropriate in this case. My guess is the court would not lower the CS
award from $800 to $500, but would instead admonish the CP mother to start
spending the court ordered amount on their child.


And how does he show that. A very large part of the benefit to the
younger girl
would be incidental. Being in the same apartment, for example.

I thought folks here were telling me it's hard to impossible to get any
kind of
remedy in court. Now you're saying this is a reasonbly available
recourse? If
so, where do you see the inequities in your view?

Uh, he did say that it would probably not be granted.......



Yeah. I already decoded Gini. The admonishment to redistribute in her family
doesn't suffice. Only less money supporting his own girl less will do :-/

Banty

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


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Shadow36 says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Shadow36 says...



If she *has* those funds. She's got to earn more, then, while
caring
for
two
little kids. But the calculation for the other child is based on a
lower
standard of living, lower income father. If she doesn't have extra
funds,
should she maintain different standards of living?

Of course! You yourself maintain that the NCP should *step up* and
move
to
the childs school district, get a two bedroom apartment, change jobs
If
need
be to be able to spend more time with the child. If you think the NCP
should
maintain a different standard of living, even If they may not "have
the
funds" shouldn't the CP?


She should increase to that income, and *more* to get the best life
possible for
her kids.

That's what I think.

And the girls should share.

Banty

The one flaw to your logic Is that you think everyone be It CP or NCP
should
step up to a higher income. Thats a LOT more easier said than done.

Oh, I know!

Didn't
you say In another post that you own some properties etc? I bet that,
while
you may not be wealthy, you aren't hard up for money. That would
explain
why you think "basic needs" for a child Is 50 dollar school pictures,
hundreds for summer camp, dance lessons, etc etc. It's just not so cut
and
dry as the NCP should move, get a better job, maintain a two person
household on a single persons budget.

Did you see Bob's example of the 800-dollar father and the 200-dollar
father?
Well, 200-dollar father clearly couldnt' provide more than the basics.
Nor
should he have to if he's a hard case.

My problem is with this idea that, *in any case*, only basics should be
in
CS;
the rest being voluntarily because of 'relationship' (i.o.w. "be nice to
me and
I'll be nice to our kid").

Banty, you continually misinterpret what I said here. NOT a relationship
with the spouse. An ongoing, full, rich relationship with the CHILD.
THAT
is why parents provide for their children beyond basics--because they LOVE
them--and love grows with relationship.

The love should be THERE.

And if it's there, why is there *any* question or import as to whether or
not
it's counted as part of child support??

You remember the discussion about the NCP who wanted to give the school
clothes
as a gift - in the *spring*?? The CP getting them in September meant she
was
"impatient"?? What you call "extras" have day to day contingencies. For
the CP
*with the responsibility* to handle.

An NCP who spends time with his child is not going to say "wait until
spring." And NCP who spends time with his child is going to enjoy watching
the llok of deligh on his child'd face when his father provides him with
things. The mother gets to see that look and feel those hugs. Do you think
she ever says "No, Dear. Don't thank me. I paid for it with child support
money your father sent."

In article , Banty says...

In article , teachrmama says...


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

In article %hk%i.8$B21.4@trndny07, Gini says...


"Banty" wrote
.............

The *question* is, what to do about two girls in her household, who are
to
be
maintained at a different standard.
====
This question and solution have been addressed repeatedly--eliminate
lifestyle awards
which are inherently unequal. This problem was created and is maintained
by
the state,
not NCPs, not CPs.


That's your opinion, I disagree. For reasons I've addressed repeatedly.
I
don't see mingling funds in a subset of cases to be a smaller evul than
children
in the same household being raised decently together. And, yes, if I were
the
father of the first child (the one with 800 bucks to pay per month) I'd
think so
too. Because I know what happens to raise kids together. They share.
Mingling
of funds happen when the landlord or mortgage is paid anyway.

Make that, I *do* see mingling of funds to be a smaller evul than
just-above-poverty kids.

The consequences of basics-only would be that the vast majority of CP's
would be
providing most if not all of the items folks here deem not-basics, and
they
*would* because they would have to live daily with the consequences of not
doing
so, and have the see daily the children's emotions and limitations if they
do
not. The NCP does not have that balancing factor. Note w.r.t. this that
I also
favor oversight or involvement of a trustee.

I have to disagree with you about what the NCPs would do for their children.
I think the vast majority would happily supply more than the basic amount.

I think so too! I *know* so! Of the NCP's I know IRL, this is the first place
I've encountered this idea that only the bare bones should be set for CP. Just
because someone is happy to provide the extras does not mean it makes sense to
them for it to be included in the child support payment. Understand?

Erg. - I missed a 'not' in there.

Basically, it makes no material difference if the extras (as you call them) are
provided in the CS or not if it's coming.

Banty

"Banty" wrote in message
...


I thought folks here were telling me it's hard to impossible to get any
kind of
remedy in court. Now you're saying this is a reasonbly available
recourse? If
so, where do you see the inequities in your view?

Remedies and CS reductions are not the same thing. In my example I noted
the court should provide a remedy and probably wouldn't provide a CS
reduction. You ask the court for a finding of fact on the record
regarding
the court's ruling on the rebuttal to the CS guideline issue.



But Bob, folks here are telling me this is a reason why all kids should
have the
same bare-bones CS - prevent this comingling you saw is so awful.

I like the stated objective of CS awards allowing the children to share in
the incomes of their parents. Because the stated objective is NEVER
achieved some people advocate a basic CS award to avoid CS abuses. I think
it is reasonable to have an accounting of CS spending to ensure the money
awarded is spent as intended. The discrepency is just two potential
solutions to the same problem - CS misappropriation and abuses.


Now you're saying it can be remedied.

Remedies are legal ways to come at problems from different angles. That is
how the legal system works. When one avenue is blocked by law the game is
to find a different way to come at the problem. The bottom line issue is
the legal system is a game where outwitting the opponent is the end game.
And forcing the judge into a corner to rule in your favor results in a win.

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


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

In article %hk%i.8$B21.4@trndny07, Gini says...


"Banty" wrote
.............

The *question* is, what to do about two girls in her household, who
are
to
be
maintained at a different standard.
====
This question and solution have been addressed repeatedly--eliminate
lifestyle awards
which are inherently unequal. This problem was created and is
maintained
by
the state,
not NCPs, not CPs.


That's your opinion, I disagree. For reasons I've addressed repeatedly.
I
don't see mingling funds in a subset of cases to be a smaller evul than
children
in the same household being raised decently together. And, yes, if I
were
the
father of the first child (the one with 800 bucks to pay per month) I'd
think so
too. Because I know what happens to raise kids together. They share.
Mingling
of funds happen when the landlord or mortgage is paid anyway.

Make that, I *do* see mingling of funds to be a smaller evul than
just-above-poverty kids.

The consequences of basics-only would be that the vast majority of CP's
would be
providing most if not all of the items folks here deem not-basics, and
they
*would* because they would have to live daily with the consequences of
not
doing
so, and have the see daily the children's emotions and limitations if
they
do
not. The NCP does not have that balancing factor. Note w.r.t. this
that
I also
favor oversight or involvement of a trustee.

I have to disagree with you about what the NCPs would do for their
children.
I think the vast majority would happily supply more than the basic amount.

I think so too! I *know* so! Of the NCP's I know IRL, this is the first
place
I've encountered this idea that only the bare bones should be set for CP.

Bare bones and basics are not the same thing. I'm not sure why you see them
as the same. Several people have told you that the basics are not the same
as poverty level, scraping to survive.


Just
because someone is happy to provide the extras does not mean it makes
sense to
them for it to be included in the child support payment. Understand?

No. I have no clue what you are trying to say here.


You certainly have a low opinion about NCPs. Why is that?

Not in general. Situations vary. But someone who really is that loving
person
who would could be counted on to voluntarily provide these extras would
try
*not* to be an NCP. It's the old biblical advice: ye shall know them by
what
they do.

Again, your total lack of understanding of the system is showing, Banty.
You make assumptions that simply are not true.