Name change because parent not visiting child

wrote:
Thanks Ghost writer. I live in Georgia.

My ex and I do not have personality issues or anything. He just doesnt
want to do anything with his son because he choses not to tell the
world (and his girlfriends) that he has a son. I dont have a problem
with it...we are divorced now. But I am concerned about this name thing
affecting my child who feels strange because he has never met this
person who shares his last name. It's just sad.



Don't worry about it. My dad left when I was 9. He paid child support,
but I didn't see much of him. I kept his name. I never gave a crap.
There's more important **** to worry about.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"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?

You ask what I think - ok, here's what I think.

It isn't a matter of "more deserving" - and as long as you choose to use an
inflammatory phrase like that, you're going to stir up nothing but anger....
and certainly no solutions.

When I was married, I inherited 2 stepsons. There was an existing court
order. I had no say in that court order. That's how it SHOULD be. I sure
as HELL don't think that my ex's flavor of the week #4 (or 5, or whatever
number he might be up to by now) has ANY say in the support of my children.

She's irrelevant to the equation.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"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.

Um, no, that's NOT what he said. Read again

{portions not relevant to this particular issue snipped, reference for full
post at top of quoted portions]

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


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. .......

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


Ghostwriter

He says nothing about all 5 people being in the same negotiation.

There are 5 people in total. 3 of those people are the various parents of
the various children. There are noegotiations about CS.

It's really not that hard to understand.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"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?

You ask what I think - ok, here's what I think.

It isn't a matter of "more deserving" - and as long as you choose to use
an inflammatory phrase like that, you're going to stir up nothing but
anger.... and certainly no solutions.

When I was married, I inherited 2 stepsons. There was an existing court
order. I had no say in that court order. That's how it SHOULD be. I
sure as HELL don't think that my ex's flavor of the week #4 (or 5, or
whatever number he might be up to by now) has ANY say in the support of my
children.

But in my situation, he didn't even know he was the father of another child
until our children were 3 and 4 years old. There was no court order. So
that does not apply. And, in any case, children are children. NONE should
be deemed irrelevant! EVER!

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"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.

Um, no, that's NOT what he said. Read again

{portions not relevant to this particular issue snipped, reference for
full post at top of quoted portions]

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


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. .......

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


Ghostwriter

He says nothing about all 5 people being in the same negotiation.

There are 5 people in total. 3 of those people are the various parents of
the various children. There are noegotiations about CS.

Ghost is proposing that there SHOULD be negotiations about CS--that it would
make for a better system than the one we have today. He is proposing that
the parents negotiate monies paid above the basic support level--the level
of support that children require for food, shelter and clothing.

Here is the post you picked and chose phrases from:

****That does kind of gloss over the fact that negoating an agreement would
be very difficult since five different peoples interests are at stake.
However, I still think that a legally mandated minimum (based on all
the children in the household) followed by a negotiated agreement with
the judge placing some of the adults (based on their discresion) income
into escrow and freezing collection of any bills that go past due in
the process would likley be the best way forward. Even if all three
adults have to be beaten over the head by a mediator (selection by
elimation), that still seems the best way to protect the interests of
society as a whole while still respecting the ability of humans to make
better choices than a law book.****


The legally mandated minimum is based on all the children in the household.
The amount each father pays now becomes part of a negotiation among all 3
parents involved. It's really not that hard to understand.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"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?

You ask what I think - ok, here's what I think.

It isn't a matter of "more deserving" - and as long as you choose to use
an inflammatory phrase like that, you're going to stir up nothing but
anger.... and certainly no solutions.

When I was married, I inherited 2 stepsons. There was an existing court
order. I had no say in that court order. That's how it SHOULD be. I
sure as HELL don't think that my ex's flavor of the week #4 (or 5, or
whatever number he might be up to by now) has ANY say in the support of
my children.

But in my situation, he didn't even know he was the father of another
child until our children were 3 and 4 years old. There was no court
order. So that does not apply. And, in any case, children are children.
NONE should be deemed irrelevant! EVER!

They are irrelevant to the court proceedings for child support for some
other child, just as they are irrelevant to the court proceedings for child
support for my children.

Someday, perhaps you'll get over it.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"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.

Um, no, that's NOT what he said. Read again

{portions not relevant to this particular issue snipped, reference for
full post at top of quoted portions]

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


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. .......

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


Ghostwriter

He says nothing about all 5 people being in the same negotiation.

There are 5 people in total. 3 of those people are the various parents
of the various children. There are noegotiations about CS.

Ghost is proposing that there SHOULD be negotiations about CS--that it
would make for a better system than the one we have today. He is
proposing that the parents negotiate monies paid above the basic support
level--the level of support that children require for food, shelter and
clothing.

Here is the post you picked and chose phrases from:

****That does kind of gloss over the fact that negoating an agreement
would
be very difficult since five different peoples interests are at stake.
However, I still think that a legally mandated minimum (based on all
the children in the household) followed by a negotiated agreement with
the judge placing some of the adults (based on their discresion) income
into escrow and freezing collection of any bills that go past due in
the process would likley be the best way forward. Even if all three
adults have to be beaten over the head by a mediator (selection by
elimation), that still seems the best way to protect the interests of
society as a whole while still respecting the ability of humans to make
better choices than a law book.****


The legally mandated minimum is based on all the children in the
household. The amount each father pays now becomes part of a negotiation
among all 3 parents involved. It's really not that hard to understand.

So you're suggesting that the father of Child A should be part of the
negotiations about child support for Child B?

Aren't you the one who deemed that asinine?

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Someday, perhaps you'll get over it.

And you have been here how long? LOL

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"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?

You ask what I think - ok, here's what I think.

It isn't a matter of "more deserving" - and as long as you choose to use
an inflammatory phrase like that, you're going to stir up nothing but
anger.... and certainly no solutions.

When I was married, I inherited 2 stepsons. There was an existing court
order. I had no say in that court order. That's how it SHOULD be. I
sure as HELL don't think that my ex's flavor of the week #4 (or 5, or
whatever number he might be up to by now) has ANY say in the support of
my children.

But in my situation, he didn't even know he was the father of another
child until our children were 3 and 4 years old. There was no court
order. So that does not apply. And, in any case, children are children.
NONE should be deemed irrelevant! EVER!

They are irrelevant to the court proceedings for child support for some
other child, just as they are irrelevant to the court proceedings for
child support for my children.

No, no, Moon. You are playing blind again. They are considered irrelevant
as to any need they have fortheir father's income. Money for the child that
was kept from him for 13 years is taken out, and whatever is left is deemed
to be good enough ofr them. The system could take everything we have in the
name of the other child and leave our irrelevant children destitute if they
wanted to--if my husband were disabled and unable to pay the extortionate CS
rate for example. As flavor of the week #3, I know you are aware of that.
You just gloss over it because you have no real answers.


Someday, perhaps you'll get over it.

I will NEVER agree that ANY child is irrelevant, Moon. I don't see people
as disposable.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"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.

Um, no, that's NOT what he said. Read again

{portions not relevant to this particular issue snipped, reference for
full post at top of quoted portions]

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


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. .......

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


Ghostwriter

He says nothing about all 5 people being in the same negotiation.

There are 5 people in total. 3 of those people are the various parents
of the various children. There are noegotiations about CS.

Ghost is proposing that there SHOULD be negotiations about CS--that it
would make for a better system than the one we have today. He is
proposing that the parents negotiate monies paid above the basic support
level--the level of support that children require for food, shelter and
clothing.

Here is the post you picked and chose phrases from:

****That does kind of gloss over the fact that negoating an agreement
would
be very difficult since five different peoples interests are at stake.
However, I still think that a legally mandated minimum (based on all
the children in the household) followed by a negotiated agreement with
the judge placing some of the adults (based on their discresion) income
into escrow and freezing collection of any bills that go past due in
the process would likley be the best way forward. Even if all three
adults have to be beaten over the head by a mediator (selection by
elimation), that still seems the best way to protect the interests of
society as a whole while still respecting the ability of humans to make
better choices than a law book.****


The legally mandated minimum is based on all the children in the
household. The amount each father pays now becomes part of a negotiation
among all 3 parents involved. It's really not that hard to understand.

So you're suggesting that the father of Child A should be part of the
negotiations about child support for Child B?

Aren't you the one who deemed that asinine?

I didn't suggest it, Moon. Ghost did. Go drink some coffee and come back
when you can focus a bit better.