A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Name change because parent not visiting child



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #281  
Old December 17th 06, 12:38 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
ups.com...

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
oups.com...

DB wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in

children)--that extra $100 per month should be accounted
for--Johnnies
Little League fee, field trip to San Francisco, 3 Green Day
CDs--whatever--to make sure that the extra is being spent on
Johnnie--not
Mom--not other siblings--not new boyfriend. How difficult is
that?
Just
the amount over and above basic support--the lifestyle nonsense
that
the
court requires to be paid but doesn't require to be spent on

the
child.

That's the best idea I've read here to date!

Accountability for anything above the basics, we should have the
right
to
know that our money is being spent on our children. If they want
more
money, we should have the right to know where the first $400

went?

Thats actually where the potential problem arises, who determines

if
the benifit justifies the cost? If Johnnie lives with Mom the
household needs about $25K to stay above water in most areas of

this
country. Thats about 12.5K or $500 per month per parent to support
Johnnies share. How much does Johnnie benifit from having a nicer
home,
a safer school, a nicer car to ride in, better tasting food in the
fridge, cable TV and internet, savings to allow for emergencies,
better
heath insurance on mom, life insurance on mom, etc? The addition

of
more people and more income creates economics of scale that

Johnnie
benifits from does that mean that the child support should go down
because Johnnie became cheaper to support?

Whats to stop the CP from saying that they use the money to meet

the
fixed expenses, because honestly the fixed expenses in any

household
are larger than any normal NCP's child support award. Even if you

go
to
a by share basis who determines what the household buys because
Johnnie
wants it and what is bought because Step-dad and Johnnie like it.

If
the amount of Johnnies child support is less then his share of the
mortgage, utilities, and food does that give the NCP the right to
demand what the CP spent their own salary on because of the fact
that
the child support shifted money that the CP would have otherwise
spent.

What on earth are you talking about? Johnnie's share of housing is
the
difference between a 1 and 2 bedroom apartment. He does not owe a
percentage of the cost of buying a house! Dad most assuredly does

not
have
any responsibility to kick in for mom's life and/or health

insurance.
You
sound like a money-grubber in this one, ghost! "If I can say that
Johnnie
wants it, then Dad should have to pay." How ridiculous! The
government
only requires a certain minimum level of provision for a child--if
it's
good
enough to require of married parents, it's good enough to require of
unmarried parents. The fact that Johnnie might benefit from it is

not
a
good enough reason to force one segment of the population to pay for
what
another has no requirement to provide. If both parents are actively
involved in their child's life, there is a much better chance that
both
will
*want* to provide these things--and the child will be a common bond.

The giant flaw in CS calculation methodology and the CS guidelines is
CP's
are allowed to pretend their per child expenses exist in a vacuum.

When
a
woman has children with two men she is allowed 1/2 of her living
expenses
against one child, with the other 1/2 being her own marginal expenses.
And
then she can charge the other half of her marginal living expenses
against
the second child and that CS order. In essence with this and other
child
rearing expenses considered based on shared expenses within the CS
calculation methodology the system allows women to show 100% plus of
their
own marginal expenses against child rearing costs and pay nothing for
their
own expenses when multiple CS orders are in place. The CS calculation
method allows the CP mother to have zero marginal costs to support
herself.

Yuck, that definately sucks.

I can see a serious issue where two (or more) fathers are involved,
since neither father would want to pay above the minimun to support his
kid. But moms in the vice since the basic costs of support are higher
for three as compared to just two. I can see why a courts would side
with the mom in order to protect the kids from getting hurt in the
crossfire.


I can't. I can't see any reason why courts should be biased. Kids are
not being protected when one of their parents is being screwed by the

law.
Of course the costs are higher for 3 than 2--but not so much higher that

a
mother deserves 2 full CS awards to cover those costs.

The problem is that the courts decisions are so uninformed,
and long lasting. A temporary order until the estabilishment of a
negotated agreement seems like a much better way.


Riiiiight....that will certainly happen--the temporary order is so high
that the mother has no reason to negotiate to get it changed. Or the
temporary order is so low that the dad drags his feet. As long as the
system is adversarial there will be big business in screwing the other

guy
to get what you want. And there will be vultures out there to help you
and get their pound of flesh, too.


That does kind of gloss over the fact that negoating an agreement would
be very difficult since five different peoples interests are at stake.


No, there are never 5 people involved. Only mom and dad. 2 people
responsible for their joint child(ren). Nobody else.


I think the point was for each child there is one mom and one dad involved
in each CS cases. But to take your example to the extreme:


1. Mom
2. Child A


2A. Maternal grandma and grandpa.
2 B. Mom's new live-in boyfriend.

3. Father of child A


3A. Paternal grandma and grandpa.

4. Child B
5. Father of child B


5A. Paternal grandma and grandpa.

You have to recognize many states allow grandparents to seek visitation
rights. And in some extreme cases non-bio dads are party to CS cases
becasue they acted like a dad.



  #282  
Old December 17th 06, 02:03 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Moon Shyne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 427
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
ups.com...

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
oups.com...

DB wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in





The problem is that the courts decisions are so uninformed,
and long lasting. A temporary order until the estabilishment of a
negotated agreement seems like a much better way.

Riiiiight....that will certainly happen--the temporary order is so high
that the mother has no reason to negotiate to get it changed. Or the
temporary order is so low that the dad drags his feet. As long as the
system is adversarial there will be big business in screwing the other

guy
to get what you want. And there will be vultures out there to help you
and get their pound of flesh, too.


That does kind of gloss over the fact that negoating an agreement
would
be very difficult since five different peoples interests are at stake.

No, there are never 5 people involved. Only mom and dad. 2 people
responsible for their joint child(ren). Nobody else.


I think the point was for each child there is one mom and one dad involved
in each CS cases. But to take your example to the extreme:


1. Mom
2. Child A


2A. Maternal grandma and grandpa.
2 B. Mom's new live-in boyfriend.


You forgot Dad's flavor of the week.


3. Father of child A


3A. Paternal grandma and grandpa.

4. Child B
5. Father of child B


5A. Paternal grandma and grandpa.

You have to recognize many states allow grandparents to seek visitation
rights.


Perhaps - I don't see where they fit into the child support equation,
though.

And in some extreme cases non-bio dads are party to CS cases
becasue they acted like a dad.


I find it amusing that you have to go to the "extreme case" in order to
continue your point.

Most people don't fall into that extreme case.






  #283  
Old December 17th 06, 02:08 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
ups.com...

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
oups.com...

DB wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in

children)--that extra $100 per month should be accounted
for--Johnnies
Little League fee, field trip to San Francisco, 3 Green Day
CDs--whatever--to make sure that the extra is being spent on
Johnnie--not
Mom--not other siblings--not new boyfriend. How difficult is
that?
Just
the amount over and above basic support--the lifestyle nonsense
that
the
court requires to be paid but doesn't require to be spent on the
child.

That's the best idea I've read here to date!

Accountability for anything above the basics, we should have the
right
to
know that our money is being spent on our children. If they want
more
money, we should have the right to know where the first $400 went?

Thats actually where the potential problem arises, who determines
if
the benifit justifies the cost? If Johnnie lives with Mom the
household needs about $25K to stay above water in most areas of
this
country. Thats about 12.5K or $500 per month per parent to support
Johnnies share. How much does Johnnie benifit from having a nicer
home,
a safer school, a nicer car to ride in, better tasting food in the
fridge, cable TV and internet, savings to allow for emergencies,
better
heath insurance on mom, life insurance on mom, etc? The addition of
more people and more income creates economics of scale that Johnnie
benifits from does that mean that the child support should go down
because Johnnie became cheaper to support?

Whats to stop the CP from saying that they use the money to meet
the
fixed expenses, because honestly the fixed expenses in any
household
are larger than any normal NCP's child support award. Even if you
go to
a by share basis who determines what the household buys because
Johnnie
wants it and what is bought because Step-dad and Johnnie like it.
If
the amount of Johnnies child support is less then his share of the
mortgage, utilities, and food does that give the NCP the right to
demand what the CP spent their own salary on because of the fact
that
the child support shifted money that the CP would have otherwise
spent.

What on earth are you talking about? Johnnie's share of housing is
the
difference between a 1 and 2 bedroom apartment. He does not owe a
percentage of the cost of buying a house! Dad most assuredly does
not
have
any responsibility to kick in for mom's life and/or health insurance.
You
sound like a money-grubber in this one, ghost! "If I can say that
Johnnie
wants it, then Dad should have to pay." How ridiculous! The
government
only requires a certain minimum level of provision for a child--if
it's
good
enough to require of married parents, it's good enough to require of
unmarried parents. The fact that Johnnie might benefit from it is
not a
good enough reason to force one segment of the population to pay for
what
another has no requirement to provide. If both parents are actively
involved in their child's life, there is a much better chance that
both
will
*want* to provide these things--and the child will be a common bond.

The giant flaw in CS calculation methodology and the CS guidelines is
CP's
are allowed to pretend their per child expenses exist in a vacuum.
When a
woman has children with two men she is allowed 1/2 of her living
expenses
against one child, with the other 1/2 being her own marginal expenses.
And
then she can charge the other half of her marginal living expenses
against
the second child and that CS order. In essence with this and other
child
rearing expenses considered based on shared expenses within the CS
calculation methodology the system allows women to show 100% plus of
their
own marginal expenses against child rearing costs and pay nothing for
their
own expenses when multiple CS orders are in place. The CS calculation
method allows the CP mother to have zero marginal costs to support
herself.

Yuck, that definately sucks.

I can see a serious issue where two (or more) fathers are involved,
since neither father would want to pay above the minimun to support his
kid. But moms in the vice since the basic costs of support are higher
for three as compared to just two. I can see why a courts would side
with the mom in order to protect the kids from getting hurt in the
crossfire.


I can't. I can't see any reason why courts should be biased. Kids are
not being protected when one of their parents is being screwed by the
law. Of course the costs are higher for 3 than 2--but not so much higher
that a mother deserves 2 full CS awards to cover those costs.

The problem is that the courts decisions are so uninformed,
and long lasting. A temporary order until the estabilishment of a
negotated agreement seems like a much better way.


Riiiiight....that will certainly happen--the temporary order is so high
that the mother has no reason to negotiate to get it changed. Or the
temporary order is so low that the dad drags his feet. As long as the
system is adversarial there will be big business in screwing the other
guy to get what you want. And there will be vultures out there to help
you and get their pound of flesh, too.


That does kind of gloss over the fact that negoating an agreement would
be very difficult since five different peoples interests are at stake.


No, there are never 5 people involved. Only mom and dad. 2 people
responsible for their joint child(ren). Nobody else.


1. Mom
2. Child A
3. Father of child A
4. Child B
5. Father of child B


In a negotiation for child support between mom and father of child A? I
don't think so. Why should child B and father of child B be involved at
all? How asinine!



  #284  
Old December 17th 06, 03:03 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
ups.com...

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
oups.com...

DB wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in





The problem is that the courts decisions are so uninformed,
and long lasting. A temporary order until the estabilishment of a
negotated agreement seems like a much better way.

Riiiiight....that will certainly happen--the temporary order is so
high
that the mother has no reason to negotiate to get it changed. Or the
temporary order is so low that the dad drags his feet. As long as the
system is adversarial there will be big business in screwing the other

guy
to get what you want. And there will be vultures out there to help
you
and get their pound of flesh, too.


That does kind of gloss over the fact that negoating an agreement
would
be very difficult since five different peoples interests are at
stake.

No, there are never 5 people involved. Only mom and dad. 2 people
responsible for their joint child(ren). Nobody else.


I think the point was for each child there is one mom and one dad
involved
in each CS cases. But to take your example to the extreme:


1. Mom
2. Child A


2A. Maternal grandma and grandpa.
2 B. Mom's new live-in boyfriend.


You forgot Dad's flavor of the week.


So, apparently, did ghost. Do you think Dad's new wife and his subsequent
children should have as much say over his money as the mother of his other
children does? Do you think that subsequent children deserve equal standing
in the eyes of the court?




  #285  
Old December 17th 06, 03:31 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
ups.com...

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
oups.com...

DB wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in





The problem is that the courts decisions are so uninformed,
and long lasting. A temporary order until the estabilishment of a
negotated agreement seems like a much better way.

Riiiiight....that will certainly happen--the temporary order is so

high
that the mother has no reason to negotiate to get it changed. Or the
temporary order is so low that the dad drags his feet. As long as

the
system is adversarial there will be big business in screwing the

other
guy
to get what you want. And there will be vultures out there to help

you
and get their pound of flesh, too.


That does kind of gloss over the fact that negoating an agreement
would
be very difficult since five different peoples interests are at

stake.

No, there are never 5 people involved. Only mom and dad. 2 people
responsible for their joint child(ren). Nobody else.


I think the point was for each child there is one mom and one dad

involved
in each CS cases. But to take your example to the extreme:


1. Mom
2. Child A


2A. Maternal grandma and grandpa.
2 B. Mom's new live-in boyfriend.


You forgot Dad's flavor of the week.


Dads are told by judges to get rid of their flavor of the week because they
cannot afford to support a second family relationship. While live-in
boyfriends are okay'd by the courts for mothers since they supposedly add to
the children's financial wellbeing. Don't you see a double standard in how
the courts rule on these blended family situations?



3. Father of child A


3A. Paternal grandma and grandpa.

4. Child B
5. Father of child B


5A. Paternal grandma and grandpa.

You have to recognize many states allow grandparents to seek visitation
rights.


Perhaps - I don't see where they fit into the child support equation,
though.

And in some extreme cases non-bio dads are party to CS cases
becasue they acted like a dad.


I find it amusing that you have to go to the "extreme case" in order to
continue your point.

Most people don't fall into that extreme case.


But you do know - coming from a long line of legal scholars - that the
appeals court decisions about non-bio fathers supporting children they did
not father is fairly common. And those decisions include men being forced
to support children that their wives created with lovers while being married
through the assumption of paternity laws.


  #286  
Old December 17th 06, 04:24 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Moon Shyne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 427
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
ups.com...

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
oups.com...

DB wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in





The problem is that the courts decisions are so uninformed,
and long lasting. A temporary order until the estabilishment of a
negotated agreement seems like a much better way.

Riiiiight....that will certainly happen--the temporary order is so
high
that the mother has no reason to negotiate to get it changed. Or the
temporary order is so low that the dad drags his feet. As long as
the
system is adversarial there will be big business in screwing the
other
guy
to get what you want. And there will be vultures out there to help
you
and get their pound of flesh, too.


That does kind of gloss over the fact that negoating an agreement
would
be very difficult since five different peoples interests are at
stake.

No, there are never 5 people involved. Only mom and dad. 2 people
responsible for their joint child(ren). Nobody else.

I think the point was for each child there is one mom and one dad
involved
in each CS cases. But to take your example to the extreme:


1. Mom
2. Child A

2A. Maternal grandma and grandpa.
2 B. Mom's new live-in boyfriend.


You forgot Dad's flavor of the week.


So, apparently, did ghost. Do you think Dad's new wife and his subsequent
children should have as much say over his money as the mother of his other
children does? Do you think that subsequent children deserve equal
standing in the eyes of the court?


Teach, you missed my point, entirely.

Bob is SO QUICK to slam the mom, with "Mom's new live-in boyfriend" (who, by
the way is certainly entitled to how HIS money is allocated, especially
since the child isn't his, nor is it his responsibility to support said
child) - but was SO NON-RESPONSIVE to show dear old dad equal treatment with
his flavor of the week (who is also entitled to how HER money is allocated,
especially since the child isn't hers, nor it is her responsibility o
support said child).

Now, in answer to your question... Dad's new wife and his subsequent
children get say over dad's available resources to their communal household.
They do NOT get any say in dad's responsibilities to any prior children.

In the eyes of the court, standing is determined by the court orders. The
children who are NOT the subject/recipient/topic of general conversation of
existing court orders have NO standing in the court proceedings of a child
who IS the subject/recipient/topic of general conversation of existing court
orders.

The same way you have no standing in any court proceedings concerning my
children, or anyone else's children. You're not part of the court order,
you're not part of the equation.






  #287  
Old December 17th 06, 04:25 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Moon Shyne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 427
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
ups.com...

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
oups.com...

DB wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in





The problem is that the courts decisions are so uninformed,
and long lasting. A temporary order until the estabilishment of a
negotated agreement seems like a much better way.

Riiiiight....that will certainly happen--the temporary order is so

high
that the mother has no reason to negotiate to get it changed. Or
the
temporary order is so low that the dad drags his feet. As long as

the
system is adversarial there will be big business in screwing the

other
guy
to get what you want. And there will be vultures out there to help

you
and get their pound of flesh, too.


That does kind of gloss over the fact that negoating an agreement
would
be very difficult since five different peoples interests are at

stake.

No, there are never 5 people involved. Only mom and dad. 2 people
responsible for their joint child(ren). Nobody else.

I think the point was for each child there is one mom and one dad

involved
in each CS cases. But to take your example to the extreme:


1. Mom
2. Child A

2A. Maternal grandma and grandpa.
2 B. Mom's new live-in boyfriend.


You forgot Dad's flavor of the week.


Dads are told by judges to get rid of their flavor of the week because
they
cannot afford to support a second family relationship. While live-in
boyfriends are okay'd by the courts for mothers since they supposedly add
to
the children's financial wellbeing. Don't you see a double standard in
how
the courts rule on these blended family situations?


Well, Bob, your statements are simply that - they don't carry a whole lot of
weight unless you can provide cites for your anecdotes.

Got any?




3. Father of child A

3A. Paternal grandma and grandpa.

4. Child B
5. Father of child B

5A. Paternal grandma and grandpa.

You have to recognize many states allow grandparents to seek visitation
rights.


Perhaps - I don't see where they fit into the child support equation,
though.

And in some extreme cases non-bio dads are party to CS cases
becasue they acted like a dad.


I find it amusing that you have to go to the "extreme case" in order to
continue your point.

Most people don't fall into that extreme case.


But you do know - coming from a long line of legal scholars - that the
appeals court decisions about non-bio fathers supporting children they did
not father is fairly common. And those decisions include men being forced
to support children that their wives created with lovers while being
married
through the assumption of paternity laws.




  #288  
Old December 17th 06, 04:26 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Moon Shyne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 427
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
ups.com...

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
oups.com...

DB wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in

children)--that extra $100 per month should be accounted
for--Johnnies
Little League fee, field trip to San Francisco, 3 Green Day
CDs--whatever--to make sure that the extra is being spent on
Johnnie--not
Mom--not other siblings--not new boyfriend. How difficult is
that?
Just
the amount over and above basic support--the lifestyle nonsense
that
the
court requires to be paid but doesn't require to be spent on
the
child.

That's the best idea I've read here to date!

Accountability for anything above the basics, we should have the
right
to
know that our money is being spent on our children. If they want
more
money, we should have the right to know where the first $400
went?

Thats actually where the potential problem arises, who determines
if
the benifit justifies the cost? If Johnnie lives with Mom the
household needs about $25K to stay above water in most areas of
this
country. Thats about 12.5K or $500 per month per parent to support
Johnnies share. How much does Johnnie benifit from having a nicer
home,
a safer school, a nicer car to ride in, better tasting food in the
fridge, cable TV and internet, savings to allow for emergencies,
better
heath insurance on mom, life insurance on mom, etc? The addition
of
more people and more income creates economics of scale that
Johnnie
benifits from does that mean that the child support should go down
because Johnnie became cheaper to support?

Whats to stop the CP from saying that they use the money to meet
the
fixed expenses, because honestly the fixed expenses in any
household
are larger than any normal NCP's child support award. Even if you
go to
a by share basis who determines what the household buys because
Johnnie
wants it and what is bought because Step-dad and Johnnie like it.
If
the amount of Johnnies child support is less then his share of the
mortgage, utilities, and food does that give the NCP the right to
demand what the CP spent their own salary on because of the fact
that
the child support shifted money that the CP would have otherwise
spent.

What on earth are you talking about? Johnnie's share of housing is
the
difference between a 1 and 2 bedroom apartment. He does not owe a
percentage of the cost of buying a house! Dad most assuredly does
not
have
any responsibility to kick in for mom's life and/or health
insurance. You
sound like a money-grubber in this one, ghost! "If I can say that
Johnnie
wants it, then Dad should have to pay." How ridiculous! The
government
only requires a certain minimum level of provision for a child--if
it's
good
enough to require of married parents, it's good enough to require of
unmarried parents. The fact that Johnnie might benefit from it is
not a
good enough reason to force one segment of the population to pay for
what
another has no requirement to provide. If both parents are actively
involved in their child's life, there is a much better chance that
both
will
*want* to provide these things--and the child will be a common bond.

The giant flaw in CS calculation methodology and the CS guidelines is
CP's
are allowed to pretend their per child expenses exist in a vacuum.
When a
woman has children with two men she is allowed 1/2 of her living
expenses
against one child, with the other 1/2 being her own marginal expenses.
And
then she can charge the other half of her marginal living expenses
against
the second child and that CS order. In essence with this and other
child
rearing expenses considered based on shared expenses within the CS
calculation methodology the system allows women to show 100% plus of
their
own marginal expenses against child rearing costs and pay nothing for
their
own expenses when multiple CS orders are in place. The CS calculation
method allows the CP mother to have zero marginal costs to support
herself.

Yuck, that definately sucks.

I can see a serious issue where two (or more) fathers are involved,
since neither father would want to pay above the minimun to support his
kid. But moms in the vice since the basic costs of support are higher
for three as compared to just two. I can see why a courts would side
with the mom in order to protect the kids from getting hurt in the
crossfire.

I can't. I can't see any reason why courts should be biased. Kids are
not being protected when one of their parents is being screwed by the
law. Of course the costs are higher for 3 than 2--but not so much higher
that a mother deserves 2 full CS awards to cover those costs.

The problem is that the courts decisions are so uninformed,
and long lasting. A temporary order until the estabilishment of a
negotated agreement seems like a much better way.

Riiiiight....that will certainly happen--the temporary order is so high
that the mother has no reason to negotiate to get it changed. Or the
temporary order is so low that the dad drags his feet. As long as the
system is adversarial there will be big business in screwing the other
guy to get what you want. And there will be vultures out there to help
you and get their pound of flesh, too.


That does kind of gloss over the fact that negoating an agreement would
be very difficult since five different peoples interests are at stake.

No, there are never 5 people involved. Only mom and dad. 2 people
responsible for their joint child(ren). Nobody else.


1. Mom
2. Child A
3. Father of child A
4. Child B
5. Father of child B


In a negotiation for child support between mom and father of child A? I
don't think so. Why should child B and father of child B be involved at
all? How asinine!


Are you being dense on purpose?

Parents of child A (that's 2 people) deal with the needs for child A (that's
person number 3)

Parents of child B (that adds dad, who is person number 4) deal with the
needs for child B (that's person number 5).

If you still can't understand this, perhaps you should consider giving up
teaching.






  #289  
Old December 17th 06, 05:22 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
ups.com...

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
oups.com...

DB wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in





The problem is that the courts decisions are so uninformed,
and long lasting. A temporary order until the estabilishment of a
negotated agreement seems like a much better way.

Riiiiight....that will certainly happen--the temporary order is so
high
that the mother has no reason to negotiate to get it changed. Or
the
temporary order is so low that the dad drags his feet. As long as
the
system is adversarial there will be big business in screwing the
other
guy
to get what you want. And there will be vultures out there to help
you
and get their pound of flesh, too.


That does kind of gloss over the fact that negoating an agreement
would
be very difficult since five different peoples interests are at
stake.

No, there are never 5 people involved. Only mom and dad. 2 people
responsible for their joint child(ren). Nobody else.

I think the point was for each child there is one mom and one dad
involved
in each CS cases. But to take your example to the extreme:


1. Mom
2. Child A

2A. Maternal grandma and grandpa.
2 B. Mom's new live-in boyfriend.

You forgot Dad's flavor of the week.


So, apparently, did ghost. Do you think Dad's new wife and his
subsequent children should have as much say over his money as the mother
of his other children does? Do you think that subsequent children
deserve equal standing in the eyes of the court?


Teach, you missed my point, entirely.

Bob is SO QUICK to slam the mom, with "Mom's new live-in boyfriend" (who,
by the way is certainly entitled to how HIS money is allocated, especially
since the child isn't his, nor is it his responsibility to support said
child) - but was SO NON-RESPONSIVE to show dear old dad equal treatment
with his flavor of the week (who is also entitled to how HER money is
allocated, especially since the child isn't hers, nor it is her
responsibility o support said child).

Now, in answer to your question... Dad's new wife and his subsequent
children get say over dad's available resources to their communal
household. They do NOT get any say in dad's responsibilities to any prior
children.

In the eyes of the court, standing is determined by the court orders. The
children who are NOT the subject/recipient/topic of general conversation
of existing court orders have NO standing in the court proceedings of a
child who IS the subject/recipient/topic of general conversation of
existing court orders.

The same way you have no standing in any court proceedings concerning my
children, or anyone else's children. You're not part of the court order,
you're not part of the equation.


I didn't ask what the law said. I already know that--my children are
orrelevant, remember? I asked what YOU think of that particular type of
situation. Should all children be considered equal--or are the older
children more deserving?


  #290  
Old December 17th 06, 05:24 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
ups.com...

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
oups.com...

DB wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in

children)--that extra $100 per month should be accounted
for--Johnnies
Little League fee, field trip to San Francisco, 3 Green Day
CDs--whatever--to make sure that the extra is being spent on
Johnnie--not
Mom--not other siblings--not new boyfriend. How difficult is
that?
Just
the amount over and above basic support--the lifestyle
nonsense that
the
court requires to be paid but doesn't require to be spent on
the
child.

That's the best idea I've read here to date!

Accountability for anything above the basics, we should have the
right
to
know that our money is being spent on our children. If they
want more
money, we should have the right to know where the first $400
went?

Thats actually where the potential problem arises, who determines
if
the benifit justifies the cost? If Johnnie lives with Mom the
household needs about $25K to stay above water in most areas of
this
country. Thats about 12.5K or $500 per month per parent to
support
Johnnies share. How much does Johnnie benifit from having a nicer
home,
a safer school, a nicer car to ride in, better tasting food in
the
fridge, cable TV and internet, savings to allow for emergencies,
better
heath insurance on mom, life insurance on mom, etc? The addition
of
more people and more income creates economics of scale that
Johnnie
benifits from does that mean that the child support should go
down
because Johnnie became cheaper to support?

Whats to stop the CP from saying that they use the money to meet
the
fixed expenses, because honestly the fixed expenses in any
household
are larger than any normal NCP's child support award. Even if you
go to
a by share basis who determines what the household buys because
Johnnie
wants it and what is bought because Step-dad and Johnnie like it.
If
the amount of Johnnies child support is less then his share of
the
mortgage, utilities, and food does that give the NCP the right to
demand what the CP spent their own salary on because of the fact
that
the child support shifted money that the CP would have otherwise
spent.

What on earth are you talking about? Johnnie's share of housing
is the
difference between a 1 and 2 bedroom apartment. He does not owe a
percentage of the cost of buying a house! Dad most assuredly does
not
have
any responsibility to kick in for mom's life and/or health
insurance. You
sound like a money-grubber in this one, ghost! "If I can say that
Johnnie
wants it, then Dad should have to pay." How ridiculous! The
government
only requires a certain minimum level of provision for a child--if
it's
good
enough to require of married parents, it's good enough to require
of
unmarried parents. The fact that Johnnie might benefit from it is
not a
good enough reason to force one segment of the population to pay
for what
another has no requirement to provide. If both parents are
actively
involved in their child's life, there is a much better chance that
both
will
*want* to provide these things--and the child will be a common
bond.

The giant flaw in CS calculation methodology and the CS guidelines is
CP's
are allowed to pretend their per child expenses exist in a vacuum.
When a
woman has children with two men she is allowed 1/2 of her living
expenses
against one child, with the other 1/2 being her own marginal
expenses. And
then she can charge the other half of her marginal living expenses
against
the second child and that CS order. In essence with this and other
child
rearing expenses considered based on shared expenses within the CS
calculation methodology the system allows women to show 100% plus of
their
own marginal expenses against child rearing costs and pay nothing for
their
own expenses when multiple CS orders are in place. The CS
calculation
method allows the CP mother to have zero marginal costs to support
herself.

Yuck, that definately sucks.

I can see a serious issue where two (or more) fathers are involved,
since neither father would want to pay above the minimun to support
his
kid. But moms in the vice since the basic costs of support are higher
for three as compared to just two. I can see why a courts would side
with the mom in order to protect the kids from getting hurt in the
crossfire.

I can't. I can't see any reason why courts should be biased. Kids are
not being protected when one of their parents is being screwed by the
law. Of course the costs are higher for 3 than 2--but not so much
higher that a mother deserves 2 full CS awards to cover those costs.

The problem is that the courts decisions are so uninformed,
and long lasting. A temporary order until the estabilishment of a
negotated agreement seems like a much better way.

Riiiiight....that will certainly happen--the temporary order is so high
that the mother has no reason to negotiate to get it changed. Or the
temporary order is so low that the dad drags his feet. As long as the
system is adversarial there will be big business in screwing the other
guy to get what you want. And there will be vultures out there to help
you and get their pound of flesh, too.


That does kind of gloss over the fact that negoating an agreement
would
be very difficult since five different peoples interests are at stake.

No, there are never 5 people involved. Only mom and dad. 2 people
responsible for their joint child(ren). Nobody else.

1. Mom
2. Child A
3. Father of child A
4. Child B
5. Father of child B


In a negotiation for child support between mom and father of child A? I
don't think so. Why should child B and father of child B be involved at
all? How asinine!


Are you being dense on purpose?

Parents of child A (that's 2 people) deal with the needs for child A
(that's person number 3)

Parents of child B (that adds dad, who is person number 4) deal with the
needs for child B (that's person number 5).

If you still can't understand this, perhaps you should consider giving up
teaching.


Actually, Moon, that is NOT what ghost said in his post. He said that all
are involved in the negotiations--not just mom and dad A for kid 1 and mom
and dad B for kid 2. Read it again.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NFJA Position Statement: Child Support Enforcement Funding Dusty Child Support 0 March 2nd 06 12:49 AM
| | Kids should work... Kane Foster Parents 3 December 8th 03 11:53 PM
Kids should work. ChrisScaife Foster Parents 16 December 7th 03 04:27 AM
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking Kane Spanking 63 November 17th 03 10:12 PM
Helping Your Child Be Healthy and Fit sX3#;[email protected]'U John Smith Kids Health 0 July 20th 03 04:50 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.