If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#281
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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#;WA@'U | John Smith | Kids Health | 0 | July 20th 03 04:50 AM |