Dad's Visitation Responsibility

"Gini" wrote in message
news:5EyOi.3356$ai2.3224@trndny05...

"Lvnsurpriseaz via FamilyKB.com" wrote
What are you thinking Child support is for? It isn't just for shoes,
clothes
and food. It for a portion of everything I need to keep a home running
and a
car running for the childs benefit as well. CS is for all household
expenses,
vehicle expenses, ontop of clothes, shoes, haircuts, food, entertainment,
etc.
====
No, it's NOT "for a portion of everything [you] need to keep a home
running and a car running."
It is NOT "for all household expenses, vehicle expenses..." The amount of
child support applicable
for household expenses is negligible. For instance, the amount of
utilities to which child support can be applied is one half (or the NCP's
percent share)
of the difference *between the amount needed for the parent and other
family members* and the amount
directly attributible to the child(ren) of the order. ie--Only the amount
of electricity directly used by the child of the order.
It is not an even split between all household members. The NCP is
NOT responsible for one dime of the CPs and other family members'
household needs. Rent is somewhat easier to define--
If a one bedroom apartment rents for 400. per month and a two bedroom
rents for 465. per month, the child support
share of rent would be one half (or the NCPs percent share) of the
difference. In this case, CS for rent would be one half
of $65.00., or 32.50 per month--assuming no other children in the
household. If there is even one other child, the CS contribution for rent
would be even less or none at all especially if the child shares a room
with a child not of the order. Auto expenses--The NCP is not responsible
for half the cost of keeping your car on the road. You are required to
insure your car no matter how many kids you have. Your car is required to
have tires and other maintenance, regardless how many kids are riding in
it. Unless the child is a driver, no CS is to be allocated for car
insurance and very little for auto maintenance. These numbers are even
less when there are more family members not of the order. It appears, from
what you've written here, that you are grossly mismanaging your child's
support money by diverting it to the household pool which is not
permitted.

Rather than getting too specific about which expenditures CS is intended to
cover, I prefer to stick with the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer
Expenditure (CEX) Survey results that track household expenditures
nationally on an ongoing basis. That data is used to create the CS
guideline tables in the vast majority of states.

The CEX shows child rearing costs vary by numbers of children - one child
25%, two children 37%, three children 44% - as a percentage of total
household spending in intact families. Data on intact families is used
because single parent households spend less than an intact family would
spend. And a disproportionate number of single mothers spend less on their
children because they are below the poverty line. Using intact family data
causes CS awards to simulate what a two parent household would spend.

So for instance a single mother with one child would spend the CS received
plus her pro-rata share of CS to generate the equivalent of 25% of the
combined household incomes on one child. That amount may be more or less
than half of the CP's household expenditures depending on how much she
makes. It is when the CP's start complaining the CS received is not enough
that my antenna goes up because the CS guidelines are constructed to allow
the CP to have enough money to meet national spending patterns for the
children.

"child support owed by deadbeats" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 5, 9:32 am, whatamess wrote:
On Oct 5, 4:41 am, Henry wrote:





Henry wrote
om:

So, a $1 chocolate bar is being hard-nosed... but a $70 lesson... he
has
a point. It all adds up...

H.

sorry to follow up to my own post... but I forgot one more thing...

The icing on the cake is when dad ponders, "Hey, I paid CS and then I
paid
$70 for a soccer lesson.... where did that $70 go that was in the child
support?" Since mom did not have to pay for it, what happened to it?
Well,
my CS did not go down by $70... I still must pay the full amount. So
where
did it go? And that is when dad's get ****ed off again when they see
mom
with a new hair do, new clothes, trips with the boyfriend, etc. If dad
speaks up, he is branded a whiner, complainer, control-freak,
deadbeat...

People have little idea why men are ****ed at the CS system. You have
to
live it to believe it.

H.

The guy pays child support, the guy lives in a different state and
STILL comes to
visit once a month (most NCPs in the same state only have visitation
twice a month)...
and you are complaining? Geez! Well, what would happen if he came up
on
the weekends that he didn't have the sports? Ah yes, then you'd
complain
that your son's father misses his tournaments! Go figure!

Can you tell me exactly what good enough is for you? Obviously, it's
not
related to CS, but more to you wanting to control his life and not
only
have you already forced him how to spend his money by getting CS
and you spend it as YOU see fit, but now you want to get into whatever
he has left and tell him how to spend that too?

I hope your son never ends up in the same situation you have put his
father.
I can assure you, that any boy who ends up in the same situation as
their
father and then truly realizes how unreasonable their mother was
being,
will end up resenting her more than the 70USD you are complaining
about.
It happened to my husband. Until he was in that situation, he thought
the world of his mother and thought his dad was a lousy piece of
garbage...
Now? He sees his mother once a year, if that much and always talks
about how now he sees what a greedy and horrible mother she was.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Haters want to hate! How do you know she is being controlling? The boy
is 16 years old, and I am sure she is not telling him he HAS to play
sports. Do you have any idea what the cost of cloths for children are,
sneakers, food, spending money when they want to go out? That stuff
all adds up too.
Why don't you two just split the cost of it? $35.00 for each. It's a
sport, and you should split the cos, instead of arguing about it and
making your son feel bad because he likes to play baseball. Now if it
was cooking, or home making stuff, the the mom should be %100
responsible, but it is a sport the boy wants to play. If they love
thier child, the will not argue and just split it down the middle.

My recollection is that the mother raised this issue initially in this
news group. She wanted advice on how to persuade her ex that he should pay
for some extra expenses incurred during the time the child was with him,
even though the father was paying the mother "child support" money that was
supposed to cover the child's expenses.

The father's position is a legitimate one (even if it mostly reflects
his frustration at having to pay the mother large amounts of
"child support"). And the practical reality is that, although the mother
can force the father to pay her "child support," she cannot force him to pay
these additional amounts. So she might just as well forget it, if she's
only concerns with small amounts of money. However, the fact that she
raised the issue in the first place more than likely indicates that she
wanted to extend the degree of her control over the father--even beyond the
extent that she already controls him via having imposed on him the
requirement to pay her "child support."

No doubt the father wants to establish the principle that, beyond a
certain point, the mother cannot force him to dance to her tune. I can't
believe that the mother is concerned only with the money. Much more likely
is that she wants to show who's the boss.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote

"Gini" wrote

"Lvnsurpriseaz via FamilyKB.com" wrote
What are you thinking Child support is for? It isn't just for shoes,
clothes
and food. It for a portion of everything I need to keep a home running
and a
car running for the childs benefit as well. CS is for all household
expenses,
vehicle expenses, ontop of clothes, shoes, haircuts, food,
entertainment, etc.
====
No, it's NOT "for a portion of everything [you] need to keep a home
running and a car running."
It is NOT "for all household expenses, vehicle expenses..." The amount of
child support applicable
for household expenses is negligible. For instance, the amount of
utilities to which child support can be applied is one half (or the NCP's
percent share)
of the difference *between the amount needed for the parent and other
family members* and the amount
directly attributible to the child(ren) of the order. ie--Only the amount
of electricity directly used by the child of the order.
It is not an even split between all household members. The NCP is
NOT responsible for one dime of the CPs and other family members'
household needs. Rent is somewhat easier to define--
If a one bedroom apartment rents for 400. per month and a two bedroom
rents for 465. per month, the child support
share of rent would be one half (or the NCPs percent share) of the
difference. In this case, CS for rent would be one half
of $65.00., or 32.50 per month--assuming no other children in the
household. If there is even one other child, the CS contribution for rent
would be even less or none at all especially if the child shares a room
with a child not of the order. Auto expenses--The NCP is not responsible
for half the cost of keeping your car on the road. You are required to
insure your car no matter how many kids you have. Your car is required to
have tires and other maintenance, regardless how many kids are riding in
it. Unless the child is a driver, no CS is to be allocated for car
insurance and very little for auto maintenance. These numbers are even
less when there are more family members not of the order. It appears,
from what you've written here, that you are grossly mismanaging your
child's support money by diverting it to the household pool which is not
permitted.

Rather than getting too specific about which expenditures CS is intended
to cover, I prefer to stick with the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer
Expenditure (CEX) Survey results that track household expenditures
nationally on an ongoing basis. That data is used to create the CS
guideline tables in the vast majority of states.

The CEX shows child rearing costs vary by numbers of children - one child
25%, two children 37%, three children 44% - as a percentage of total
household spending in intact families. Data on intact families is used
because single parent households spend less than an intact family would
spend. And a disproportionate number of single mothers spend less on
their children because they are below the poverty line. Using intact
family data causes CS awards to simulate what a two parent household would
spend.

So for instance a single mother with one child would spend the CS received
plus her pro-rata share of CS to generate the equivalent of 25% of the
combined household incomes on one child. That amount may be more or less
than half of the CP's household expenditures depending on how much she
makes. It is when the CP's start complaining the CS received is not
enough that my antenna goes up because the CS guidelines are constructed
to allow the CP to have enough money to meet national spending patterns
for the children.
==
Fine. But my point stands. If the state mandates lifestyle support for the
child of the order and
the CP dilutes the money into the household expenses of the CP, the child is
being deprived of
the lifestyle said money would provide. In other words, it the child
"deserves" designer jeans, he/she
has a right to said jeans, and if the CP says "we can't buy the jeans
because the car needs brakes and the rent is due,"
the child's money is being misapplied. It is the government that mandates
the lifestyle, after all, not the CP or the NCP,
and the government has decided that this is in the best interest of the
child.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

The CEX shows child rearing costs vary by numbers of children - one child
25%, two children 37%, three children 44% - as a percentage of total
household spending in intact families. Data on intact families is used
because single parent households spend less than an intact family would
spend.

This is where the basic numbers are flawed, it's based on a one house
dwelling, they should recalculate the percentages to show a family with two
houses. The expense of the extra house would reflect the true reality of
present day relationships.

Both parents have the same income, but another rental dwelling is needed
when they separate!

"Gini" wrote in message
news:VtAOi.13275$gC2.9249@trndny09...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote

"Gini" wrote

"Lvnsurpriseaz via FamilyKB.com" wrote
What are you thinking Child support is for? It isn't just for shoes,
clothes
and food. It for a portion of everything I need to keep a home running
and a
car running for the childs benefit as well. CS is for all household
expenses,
vehicle expenses, ontop of clothes, shoes, haircuts, food,
entertainment, etc.
====
No, it's NOT "for a portion of everything [you] need to keep a home
running and a car running."
It is NOT "for all household expenses, vehicle expenses..." The amount
of child support applicable
for household expenses is negligible. For instance, the amount of
utilities to which child support can be applied is one half (or the
NCP's percent share)
of the difference *between the amount needed for the parent and other
family members* and the amount
directly attributible to the child(ren) of the order. ie--Only the
amount of electricity directly used by the child of the order.
It is not an even split between all household members. The NCP is
NOT responsible for one dime of the CPs and other family members'
household needs. Rent is somewhat easier to define--
If a one bedroom apartment rents for 400. per month and a two bedroom
rents for 465. per month, the child support
share of rent would be one half (or the NCPs percent share) of the
difference. In this case, CS for rent would be one half
of $65.00., or 32.50 per month--assuming no other children in the
household. If there is even one other child, the CS contribution for
rent
would be even less or none at all especially if the child shares a room
with a child not of the order. Auto expenses--The NCP is not responsible
for half the cost of keeping your car on the road. You are required to
insure your car no matter how many kids you have. Your car is required
to have tires and other maintenance, regardless how many kids are riding
in it. Unless the child is a driver, no CS is to be allocated for car
insurance and very little for auto maintenance. These numbers are even
less when there are more family members not of the order. It appears,
from what you've written here, that you are grossly mismanaging your
child's support money by diverting it to the household pool which is not
permitted.

Rather than getting too specific about which expenditures CS is intended
to cover, I prefer to stick with the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer
Expenditure (CEX) Survey results that track household expenditures
nationally on an ongoing basis. That data is used to create the CS
guideline tables in the vast majority of states.

The CEX shows child rearing costs vary by numbers of children - one child
25%, two children 37%, three children 44% - as a percentage of total
household spending in intact families. Data on intact families is used
because single parent households spend less than an intact family would
spend. And a disproportionate number of single mothers spend less on
their children because they are below the poverty line. Using intact
family data causes CS awards to simulate what a two parent household
would spend.

So for instance a single mother with one child would spend the CS
received plus her pro-rata share of CS to generate the equivalent of 25%
of the combined household incomes on one child. That amount may be more
or less than half of the CP's household expenditures depending on how
much she makes. It is when the CP's start complaining the CS received is
not enough that my antenna goes up because the CS guidelines are
constructed to allow the CP to have enough money to meet national
spending patterns for the children.
==
Fine. But my point stands. If the state mandates lifestyle support for the
child of the order and
the CP dilutes the money into the household expenses of the CP, the child
is being deprived of
the lifestyle said money would provide. In other words, it the child
"deserves" designer jeans, he/she
has a right to said jeans, and if the CP says "we can't buy the jeans
because the car needs brakes and the rent is due,"
the child's money is being misapplied. It is the government that mandates
the lifestyle, after all, not the CP or the NCP,
and the government has decided that this is in the best interest of the
child.

We agree. Remember this all started with the OP suggesting the NCP should
pay for their son's activities when he comes for visitations. That's just a
backhanded way of suggesting CS money is not enough and should be paid twice
so CS already received can be freed up to pay for her household expenses.
The CP's get plenty of money to pay for all child expenditures just like any
intact family. And in an intact family their is no way to go to an employer
and say I need an extra 10% bonus this month because I want to spend more
than I normally earn.

"DB" wrote in message
t...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

The CEX shows child rearing costs vary by numbers of children - one child
25%, two children 37%, three children 44% - as a percentage of total
household spending in intact families. Data on intact families is used
because single parent households spend less than an intact family would
spend.

This is where the basic numbers are flawed, it's based on a one house
dwelling, they should recalculate the percentages to show a family with
two houses. The expense of the extra house would reflect the true reality
of present day relationships.

Both parents have the same income, but another rental dwelling is needed
when they separate!

Your point is very valid. The only expenses that are considered are those
of the CP. The NCP's cost for living, visitations, expenditures that travel
with the children, etc. are ignored. That is why I always remind people CS
awards assume the children are with the CP 100% of the time.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

The NCP's cost for living, visitations, expenditures that travel with the
children, etc. are ignored.


Just another sign of how governments don't deal with reality, is it any
wonder the country is $48 trillion in debt?

There are some states that recogise the failure of a federal government and
want to secede from the Union.
Unfortunately they can't afford the debt load that it would cost to separate
from this sinking ship.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
news:VtAOi.13275$gC2.9249@trndny09...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote

"Gini" wrote

"Lvnsurpriseaz via FamilyKB.com" wrote
What are you thinking Child support is for? It isn't just for shoes,
clothes
and food. It for a portion of everything I need to keep a home
running and a
car running for the childs benefit as well. CS is for all household
expenses,
vehicle expenses, ontop of clothes, shoes, haircuts, food,
entertainment, etc.
====
No, it's NOT "for a portion of everything [you] need to keep a home
running and a car running."
It is NOT "for all household expenses, vehicle expenses..." The amount
of child support applicable
for household expenses is negligible. For instance, the amount of
utilities to which child support can be applied is one half (or the
NCP's percent share)
of the difference *between the amount needed for the parent and other
family members* and the amount
directly attributible to the child(ren) of the order. ie--Only the
amount of electricity directly used by the child of the order.
It is not an even split between all household members. The NCP is
NOT responsible for one dime of the CPs and other family members'
household needs. Rent is somewhat easier to define--
If a one bedroom apartment rents for 400. per month and a two bedroom
rents for 465. per month, the child support
share of rent would be one half (or the NCPs percent share) of the
difference. In this case, CS for rent would be one half
of $65.00., or 32.50 per month--assuming no other children in the
household. If there is even one other child, the CS contribution for
rent
would be even less or none at all especially if the child shares a room
with a child not of the order. Auto expenses--The NCP is not
responsible for half the cost of keeping your car on the road. You are
required to insure your car no matter how many kids you have. Your car
is required to have tires and other maintenance, regardless how many
kids are riding in it. Unless the child is a driver, no CS is to be
allocated for car insurance and very little for auto maintenance. These
numbers are even less when there are more family members not of the
order. It appears, from what you've written here, that you are grossly
mismanaging your child's support money by diverting it to the household
pool which is not permitted.

Rather than getting too specific about which expenditures CS is intended
to cover, I prefer to stick with the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer
Expenditure (CEX) Survey results that track household expenditures
nationally on an ongoing basis. That data is used to create the CS
guideline tables in the vast majority of states.

The CEX shows child rearing costs vary by numbers of children - one
child 25%, two children 37%, three children 44% - as a percentage of
total household spending in intact families. Data on intact families is
used because single parent households spend less than an intact family
would spend. And a disproportionate number of single mothers spend less
on their children because they are below the poverty line. Using intact
family data causes CS awards to simulate what a two parent household
would spend.

So for instance a single mother with one child would spend the CS
received plus her pro-rata share of CS to generate the equivalent of 25%
of the combined household incomes on one child. That amount may be more
or less than half of the CP's household expenditures depending on how
much she makes. It is when the CP's start complaining the CS received
is not enough that my antenna goes up because the CS guidelines are
constructed to allow the CP to have enough money to meet national
spending patterns for the children.
==
Fine. But my point stands. If the state mandates lifestyle support for
the child of the order and
the CP dilutes the money into the household expenses of the CP, the child
is being deprived of
the lifestyle said money would provide. In other words, it the child
"deserves" designer jeans, he/she
has a right to said jeans, and if the CP says "we can't buy the jeans
because the car needs brakes and the rent is due,"
the child's money is being misapplied. It is the government that mandates
the lifestyle, after all, not the CP or the NCP,
and the government has decided that this is in the best interest of the
child.

We agree. Remember this all started with the OP suggesting the NCP should
pay for their son's activities when he comes for visitations.
==
True. This is usenet however and popular usenet convention provides that if
a poster wishes
to stray off the original topic and take the thread in an entirely different
direction, it is within that poster's
discretion to do so. How's that? :-)

On Oct 8, 5:17 pm, "Lvnsurpriseaz via FamilyKB.com" u37991@uwe
wrote:
Court orders don't specify an amount that the CP provides? If the father had
more visitation his CS would go down because he would have to provide for his
son when he has visitation.


How much does the Court ORDER you to pay for your child? Why not post
a copy of the last court order of support entered and let us all see
how much some fat, lazy ass judge ORDERED you to pay for your kid?

___ NONE ___ that's how much the court ordered you to pay.

Stupid bitch.

Believe me, my son helps pay for things that he wants because of his age and
things being so expensive, my child support and the money that I make to
support him just isn't enough. If he wants $80 pair of shoes, I pay half, if
he wants to upgrade his cell phone (something and isn't a necessity, he pays
for it it full himself). I am teaching him how expensive things are and how
to be a responsilble adult. I am also trying to teach him how NOT to get a
girl pregnant in his young years because careing and paying for a child at
his young age will start him off behind in his finances. It is hard enough
these days keeping up with our childrends needs, but to be a teen and try to
provide would be HELL!

DB wrote:
"Lvnsurpriseaz via FamilyKB.com" u37991@uwe wrote in

.. That adds up quickly for a 16 year old. Not to mention re-stocking
items needed for baseball everytime he grows an inch in height and shoe
size!

I remember at 16 that anything i wanted i had to go out and earn it!

--
Message posted via FamilyKB.com
http://www.familykb.com/Uwe/Forums.a...nting/200710/1