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
  #301  
Old December 17th 06, 08:25 PM 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
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?


Nobody can provide cites for anecdotes. But if you hear enough anecdotes
you start to see a pattern of events.

Here's a few anecdotes that show a pattern:

I asked the court for lower CS so I could have money for a social life and
to buy appropriate clothing for my level of employment. The court told me I
had no business dating and I should wear my suits until they wore out.

Teachrmama has had her children described as "irrelevant" by the court. The
implication is her husband had no business getting married.

CS guideline formulas do not include support for subsequent children.

Moon Shyne and other women complain their ex's spends money dating instead
of paying CS as ordered. The courts allow vindictive mothers to use
draconian methods to collect the CS and stop the dating.

Live-in boyfriends are more likely than fathers to commit intimate partner
violence. Studies using small samples cause this statistic to vary from
twice as likely to 60 times as likely but the courts do nothing to stop it
from happening.


  #302  
Old December 17th 06, 08:39 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
ghostwriter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


animal wrote:
teachrmama wrote:

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

Bob Whiteside wrote:

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
legroups.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.



However, I still think that a legally mandated minimum (based on all
the children in the household)



Oh, I don't think so. You can't hold dad A responsible for the legally
mandated minimum for 4 children if he is only the father of 1 of the
children. What if dad A makes $100K per year and is the dad of 1 child, and
dad B makes $30K per year and is the father of 3 of the children--should dad
A have to fork over to raise the lifestyles of dad B's children just so they
will all be equal? How do you even begin to see that as fair?

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.



Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.....you're joking, right?


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.



Why should 3 adults be negotiating at all? Do you mean that if the mother
has 7 children by 7 fathers, that 8 adults would be negotiating? Geesh,
ghost--what are you thinking?


He's not, and you have to wonder with thinking like that, if he should
be around impressinoable children.



Getting licenced as a foster parent requires you to be financially
stable prior without the income. The money is nice but meaningless in
the long run, if they only payed my expenses I would still do it. In
the end it pays about half my tithe at church and thats about it.

In the end the amount of money a child gets is far less important than
the intangibles of life, thats the reason that I am in favor of joint
custody, thats the reason I am in favor of forcing mom and dad to
figure out a dynamic that allows them to both prosper, the examples of
adults dealing with the problems is priceless for a kid growning up.

A binding agreement is necessary for stability and security, society
has to have a formal dispute resolution available. And yes all effected
members have to be involved even if just by being given a copy of the
agreement and a chance to submit written comments. The point is I
want a unbias informed decision made that reflects the best interests
of all involved. Lifestyle is important, but how important is left to
the mediator to determine if the participant cant agree. Teaching
self-control and love of family is far more important, but can be far
harder to teach if the household is on the edge of failing.

This is the stuff I teach the kids that come into my home, if you dont
like it go get licenced yourself.

Ghostwriter

  #303  
Old December 17th 06, 09:44 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


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

animal wrote:
teachrmama wrote:

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

Bob Whiteside wrote:

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
legroups.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.



However, I still think that a legally mandated minimum (based on all
the children in the household)


Oh, I don't think so. You can't hold dad A responsible for the legally
mandated minimum for 4 children if he is only the father of 1 of the
children. What if dad A makes $100K per year and is the dad of 1
child, and
dad B makes $30K per year and is the father of 3 of the
children--should dad
A have to fork over to raise the lifestyles of dad B's children just so
they
will all be equal? How do you even begin to see that as fair?

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.


Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.....you're joking, right?


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.


Why should 3 adults be negotiating at all? Do you mean that if the
mother
has 7 children by 7 fathers, that 8 adults would be negotiating?
Geesh,
ghost--what are you thinking?


He's not, and you have to wonder with thinking like that, if he should
be around impressinoable children.



Getting licenced as a foster parent requires you to be financially
stable prior without the income. The money is nice but meaningless in
the long run, if they only payed my expenses I would still do it. In
the end it pays about half my tithe at church and thats about it.

In the end the amount of money a child gets is far less important than
the intangibles of life, thats the reason that I am in favor of joint
custody, thats the reason I am in favor of forcing mom and dad to
figure out a dynamic that allows them to both prosper, the examples of
adults dealing with the problems is priceless for a kid growning up.

A binding agreement is necessary for stability and security, society
has to have a formal dispute resolution available. And yes all effected
members have to be involved even if just by being given a copy of the
agreement and a chance to submit written comments. The point is I
want a unbias informed decision made that reflects the best interests
of all involved. Lifestyle is important, but how important is left to
the mediator to determine if the participant cant agree. Teaching
self-control and love of family is far more important, but can be far
harder to teach if the household is on the edge of failing.


In spite of what you say here, ghost, you are so doggone focused on money
that it's not even funny! Parents owe their children support--NOT jsut
MONEY. If mom decieves the father of the child and does not inform him that
he is a father for years and years, and he has married and has another
family, thet fool of a selfish, self centered woman should have NO POWER
WHATSOEVER to dictate how much she can take the man for. She should get to
LISTEN when he talks, and nothing more. No negotiation! He should have the
option to pay minimum support--and more if and when he wants to. No matter
how much higher his income is than hers. The child is simply unfortunate to
have such scum for a mother. That frees tha father to be as kind and loving
as he wants to be, but keeps his family safe, too.

When parents divorce, 50/50 custody should be ths law. Money should not
enter the picture unless mom has been a stay-at-home mom devoting herself to
family while dad is the breadwinner. At that point a negotiation should
take place so mom can develop the skills she needs to support herself and
her children. That's only fair.

But, if both parents work. then they need to work things out before they
split up so that the children are taken care of. Dump it on them--no
divorce until you get it settled. No attorneys, no court intervention. A
mutually agreeable counselor. But YOU are the parents--get the job done.

Where one parent is going to have full custody--if it is over the objection
of the other parent, then the one claiming the kids pays for the kids. If
she wants help paying for things, then share the children, too.

I agree with you that seeing adults work out their differences is a
wonderful example. It would be far better if these differences were worked
out within the marriage, so fewer divorces took place. I was reading this
article yesterday where a celebrity was asked about whether she was going to
start dating again. Her comment was that she was going to be more selective
in who she went out with now, and that there would be no sex for at least 6
months. Whew--what a wonderful message: It's ok to risk creating a child
out of wedlock as long as you wait 6 months before doing so. And look where
this wonderful lack of a moral code has brought us as a society. And the
family court system is not even beginning to help solve the problem. It is
making it worse by giving women a far superior position than men in almost
every situation. Take away any vestige of that and put them in a position
where they and they alone have the power to makt things work, and we will
see an almost immediate change.

And, ghost, I still desagree that things will work if you force every adult
involved into the negotiations. How would you handle this?

Woman has 5 kids by 4 dads. Negotiation would involve:

Dad 1, his wife ( kid by mom 1 and 2 by his wife)
Dad 2, his ex wife, his current wife, his former mistress (1 kid by mom 1,
1 by ex wife, 1 by current wife, 1 by mistress)
Dad 3, his 3 exes, (1 by mom 1, 1 by ex 1, 1 by ex 2, 1 by ex 3)
Dad 4, his current wife, (2 by mom 1, 2 by current wife)

That would be 12 adults negotiating for 14 kids.

Salaries

Mom 1--0 doesn't work and neither does current live-in boyfriend
Dad 1--$35K/year
Dad 2--$100K per year
Dad 3--$44Kper year
Dad 4--$26K per year

Now, ghost, who should pay how much? How would you negotiate this out?
Should Dad 2 pay the most to make sure that all of mom 1's kids have an
equal lifestyle? Should the other children of the fathers live lower
lifestyle's than mom 1's kids so that all of HER kids are equal? Should all
26 people involved live the exact same lifestyls/ (Perhaos set up a commune
and all share equally) How would you work this out equitably?

Think it doesn't happen? I KNOW this family!


This is the stuff I teach the kids that come into my home, if you dont
like it go get licenced yourself.

Ghostwriter



  #304  
Old December 18th 06, 12:01 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Phil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 387
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"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
...

"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.

I think what you don't get, TM, is that all children are irrelevant when
it comes to C$. The only determining factor is: how much money can a
woman make from her children. It just ain't about the children, any
children.
Phil #3


  #305  
Old December 18th 06, 12:13 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"Phil" wrote in message
k.net...

"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
...

"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.

I think what you don't get, TM, is that all children are irrelevant when
it comes to C$. The only determining factor is: how much money can a woman
make from her children. It just ain't about the children, any children.



In the case involving my husband's daughter, though, it isn't the fool
mother--it is big daddy gubmint. SHE is supported by the taxpayers and
always has been. Big daddy gubmint wants as big a take as they can get--no
matter what it does to our children.


  #306  
Old December 18th 06, 12:31 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
DB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 139
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"Phil" wrote in

I think what you don't get, TM, is that all children are irrelevant when
it comes to C$. The only determining factor is: how much money can a woman
make from her children. It just ain't about the children, any children.


I would have to severely agree with this statement!

A child is nothing more than a ticket to rob, a license to raid, a porthole
to take from a man's paycheck.
What's worse is we have a wacked out government that condones this behavior!


  #307  
Old December 18th 06, 01:38 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
DB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 139
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"teachrmama" wrote in

In the case involving my husband's daughter, though, it isn't the fool
mother--it is big daddy gubmint. SHE is supported by the taxpayers and
always has been. Big daddy gubmint wants as big a take as they can
get--no matter what it does to our children.


Yes, there's no incentive for her to get out and earn a living with big
daddy G paying all the bills!
Then the politicians can smile and claim victory when they raid dad's bank
account to pay for their generosity.


  #308  
Old December 18th 06, 02:15 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
...

"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?


Nobody can provide cites for anecdotes. But if you hear enough anecdotes
you start to see a pattern of events.

Here's a few anecdotes that show a pattern:

I asked the court for lower CS so I could have money for a social life and
to buy appropriate clothing for my level of employment. The court told me
I
had no business dating and I should wear my suits until they wore out.

Teachrmama has had her children described as "irrelevant" by the court.
The
implication is her husband had no business getting married.

CS guideline formulas do not include support for subsequent children.

Moon Shyne and other women complain their ex's spends money dating instead
of paying CS as ordered.


I have NEVER made such a claim, Bob. Try truth instead of fiction, please.

The courts allow vindictive mothers to use
draconian methods to collect the CS and stop the dating.

Live-in boyfriends are more likely than fathers to commit intimate partner
violence. Studies using small samples cause this statistic to vary from
twice as likely to 60 times as likely but the courts do nothing to stop it
from happening.




  #309  
Old December 18th 06, 02:16 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
...

"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.


Nothing wrong with my focus, Teach, and I don't drink coffee past noon,
because of the caffeine.






  #310  
Old December 18th 06, 03:16 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
...

"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?


Nobody can provide cites for anecdotes. But if you hear enough

anecdotes
you start to see a pattern of events.

Here's a few anecdotes that show a pattern:

I asked the court for lower CS so I could have money for a social life

and
to buy appropriate clothing for my level of employment. The court told

me
I
had no business dating and I should wear my suits until they wore out.

Teachrmama has had her children described as "irrelevant" by the court.
The
implication is her husband had no business getting married.

CS guideline formulas do not include support for subsequent children.

Moon Shyne and other women complain their ex's spends money dating

instead
of paying CS as ordered.


I have NEVER made such a claim, Bob. Try truth instead of fiction,

please.

You are correct. You have complained your ex was not paying all CS as
ordered. And you have complained your ex is living with his flavor of the
week. But you have only implied the two complaints are related. I should
have known deductive reasoning never works with anything you say.


 




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 03:02 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.