Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child support debt?

In article , teachrmama says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , teachrmama says...
snip

So they had a lien on your house because of the (on the books)
arrearages!

But, you're also saying the bank actually consulted with the CS
officer???

Yes--they had to, to find out about the reason for the lien.




I can understand a LOT of frustration over that. In general, this
automatic
wage withholding, and the privacy and beaurocratic problems attendant
to
that.
And I've been reading that since 1994 wage withholding is immediate,
and
in
practice the exceptions are narrowly drawn. I can see how the credit
report
picks that up if things don't work just right, and you have no way to
know
if
things aren't working just right, or even fix that.

Not the credit report. Direct and derogatory comments by the CS
officer,
indicating that HE, in his total lack of any wisdom whatsoever,
considered
us to be poor credit risks. He knew nothing about my husband--but he
did
not hesitate to make the comments he dis as the "official" stand of the
CS
system.

So the CS officer didn't know the whole story? or was only listening to
the
mother? or simply saying arrearages have % percent rate of satisfaction,
which
is poor?

The mother was never even consulted--the CS stuff was done without her,
because she is out of state. The % of satisfaction from onset of CS was
100%--never a payment missed.

I was referring to arrearages in general.

He was paying on the arrearages every month--never a payment
missed--following to the letter the court order. How can there be a poor %
of satisfaction in that?

::sigh::

Arrearages *in general*.

I wasn't talking about your personal situation - my comment was that perhaps the
CS agent had given an assessment of the percent of arrearages *in general* (all
the arrearages in the US, for instance), that spooked the bank.

I'd think that for something like arrearages, they're not settled until they're
gone, completely paid. It's past-due stuff. Legally, anyway. Your husband
didn't deserve to have arrearages *at all*, but if they're there, they're there
until they're gone. Like any default.




It wasn't just the arrearages--it was also
possible future payments. And, not, the jerk didn't bother to look at the
whole story--but that is so common with the system. They report the facts
that make them seem necessary.


You contested this - right? What happened with that? I realize the
arrearages
are there for a long time until that's done. (Of course, your house
dind't get
refied; that sucks.)

Let's see--it would have cost several thousand dollars to contest, and we
probably would have lost anyway. And even if we wom, we would have
already
spent a big chunk of anything we would have saved from the refi--and would
now be paying a lawyer's bill on top of the mortgage--which would have
kept
our monthly payments the same as if we never refied. So, no, we did not
contest. We did not have the $$$$ to do so.

I mean, did you contest the CS arrearages *itself*. Is that was you're
referring
to?

Banty, you can't contest arrearages that are legal. And, in our state at
the time, the legal amount for arrearages was 2 years back from proof of
paternity. So there were 2 years of arrearages plus interest and penalties
owed plus ongoing support.

*Every case*? Which state is this? Is there any discretion as to wether or not
the father knew of the possibility, but was denying paternity, or if he didn't
know at all? I mean - this is an automatic thing?

But, for purposes of the lien, he owed 8+ years
of child support, because of future payments until the child reached 19
years of age or graduated high school.

Meaning *future* payments?? They had a lien agaisnt a *future* obligation?


We were actually fortunate. Had paternity been established a few years
earlier, my husband would have owed child support back to the birth of the
child, plus pregnancy and birth expenses--at his current salary--not what he
was earning back then! Some states may still go back to the birth of the
child. Some limit arrearages to a certain number of years. And some charge
CS only from proof of paternity.


Yikes.

Did he ever get to meet his kid?

Banty

In article ,
Paula says...

THAT, I think, is the way to frame with question. Instead of this
"classes of
parents equal" business. They're because they're NOT.

Of course they are. In different situations, but still, parents are
parents, and have the same legal requirements to provide the basics for
their children.

That statement is a load of BS. A NCP can go months without
seeing or speaking to the child. A CP taking the same action would
result in the removal of the child.

Damn good point.

A NCP doesn't come anywhere
near having the same legal requirements and responsibilities that
CPs do.

Are the requirements other than financial for the NCP?

Banty

In article , teachrmama says...


"Paula" wrote in message
...
That statement is a load of BS. A NCP can go months without
seeing or speaking to the child. A CP taking the same action would
result in the removal of the child. A NCP doesn't come anywhere
near having the same legal requirements and responsibilities that
CPs do.

*Seeing* the child and providing the legally mandated needs of the child are
not the same thing. You must be dealing with some lollapaloozer of an ex,
Paula. That must be really ahard on your child. But, no matter how you
look at it, *all* parents are required by law to make sure the basic needs
of their children are met.

Oh dont' be silly I don't think by 'seeing' she's talking about looking through
a spyglass or camera lens or something. If the custodial parent decided not to
be around for awhile, not come home for a few days, even though they're "her
days", the kid would be in the foster care system and her ass would be up for
child endangerment. On the other hand, I've never known a CP who leaves a child
at an appointed place for visitation pickup (sometimes these ex's you think
would just do the right thang if the gummit would leave them alone can barely
stand to be in the same town with each other), gotten the call from the friend
or other appointed person that the NCP didn't show, and NOT come to pick them up
again. Kinda goes to that fundamental aspect of being a CP.

Yeah, that happens. And, that's *some* NCP's who wouldn't show. Some some some
some not all not all not all. (Why do I feel like I have to say that even
though my paragraph in no way implies 'all NCPs are scum').

Banty

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , teachrmama says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , teachrmama says...
snip

So they had a lien on your house because of the (on the books)
arrearages!

But, you're also saying the bank actually consulted with the CS
officer???

Yes--they had to, to find out about the reason for the lien.




I can understand a LOT of frustration over that. In general, this
automatic
wage withholding, and the privacy and beaurocratic problems
attendant
to
that.
And I've been reading that since 1994 wage withholding is immediate,
and
in
practice the exceptions are narrowly drawn. I can see how the
credit
report
picks that up if things don't work just right, and you have no way
to
know
if
things aren't working just right, or even fix that.

Not the credit report. Direct and derogatory comments by the CS
officer,
indicating that HE, in his total lack of any wisdom whatsoever,
considered
us to be poor credit risks. He knew nothing about my husband--but he
did
not hesitate to make the comments he dis as the "official" stand of
the
CS
system.

So the CS officer didn't know the whole story? or was only listening
to
the
mother? or simply saying arrearages have % percent rate of
satisfaction,
which
is poor?

The mother was never even consulted--the CS stuff was done without her,
because she is out of state. The % of satisfaction from onset of CS was
100%--never a payment missed.

I was referring to arrearages in general.

He was paying on the arrearages every month--never a payment
missed--following to the letter the court order. How can there be a poor
%
of satisfaction in that?

::sigh::

Arrearages *in general*.

I wasn't talking about your personal situation - my comment was that
perhaps the
CS agent had given an assessment of the percent of arrearages *in general*
(all
the arrearages in the US, for instance), that spooked the bank.

No, Banty, the bank would not do the refi because the CS guy told them that
they would not subjugate their claim to the arrearages plus future CS, so
the bank would have to play second fiddle to the CS system if the house ever
fell into foreclosure. The bank was not willing to play second fiddle to
that amount of money--even though they had not problem in playing second
fiddle to the arrearages. It was the *future obligation* that spooked them,
and the fact that the CS jerk told them that my husband was a real deadbeat.


I'd think that for something like arrearages, they're not settled until
they're
gone, completely paid. It's past-due stuff. Legally, anyway. Your
husband
didn't deserve to have arrearages *at all*, but if they're there, they're
there
until they're gone. Like any default.

Unfortunately, what you and I both think on this issue is not the way the CS
system operates. sigh





It wasn't just the arrearages--it was also
possible future payments. And, not, the jerk didn't bother to look at
the
whole story--but that is so common with the system. They report the
facts
that make them seem necessary.


You contested this - right? What happened with that? I realize the
arrearages
are there for a long time until that's done. (Of course, your house
dind't get
refied; that sucks.)

Let's see--it would have cost several thousand dollars to contest, and
we
probably would have lost anyway. And even if we wom, we would have
already
spent a big chunk of anything we would have saved from the refi--and
would
now be paying a lawyer's bill on top of the mortgage--which would have
kept
our monthly payments the same as if we never refied. So, no, we did not
contest. We did not have the $$$$ to do so.

I mean, did you contest the CS arrearages *itself*. Is that was you're
referring
to?

Banty, you can't contest arrearages that are legal. And, in our state at
the time, the legal amount for arrearages was 2 years back from proof of
paternity. So there were 2 years of arrearages plus interest and
penalties
owed plus ongoing support.

*Every case*? Which state is this? Is there any discretion as to wether
or not
the father knew of the possibility, but was denying paternity, or if he
didn't
know at all? I mean - this is an automatic thing?

Every case. That is the law. 2 years back from proof of paternity--just
because. Doesn't matter if you knew there was a child or not. I'm just
glad we are not in a state where they go back to birth. Can you imagine
finding out you are the father of a 17 year old, and you owe the mother all
that $$$$, plus owe the child a college education? whew


But, for purposes of the lien, he owed 8+ years
of child support, because of future payments until the child reached 19
years of age or graduated high school.

Meaning *future* payments?? They had a lien agaisnt a *future*
obligation?

Yes. They still do, and the arrearages hve been paid off.



We were actually fortunate. Had paternity been established a few years
earlier, my husband would have owed child support back to the birth of the
child, plus pregnancy and birth expenses--at his current salary--not what
he
was earning back then! Some states may still go back to the birth of the
child. Some limit arrearages to a certain number of years. And some
charge
CS only from proof of paternity.


Yikes.

Did he ever get to meet his kid?

Yes. We drove out to where she is the summer after we found out. She seems
like a sweetie. Her dear, sweet mother had told her for her entire life
that her dad had abandoned her, and that's why she didn't have a father.Such
a kind, caring woman, looking only to support this child emotionally. I
don't know what she told her other children about their respective fathers.
We've not had the money to make such a trip since then.

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Paula says...

THAT, I think, is the way to frame with question. Instead of this
"classes of
parents equal" business. They're because they're NOT.

Of course they are. In different situations, but still, parents are
parents, and have the same legal requirements to provide the basics for
their children.

That statement is a load of BS. A NCP can go months without
seeing or speaking to the child. A CP taking the same action would
result in the removal of the child.

Damn good point.

A NCP doesn't come anywhere
near having the same legal requirements and responsibilities that
CPs do.

When the child is with the NCP, he must provide for the needs of the child
just like the CP does. How does that make the legal requirements different?


Are the requirements other than financial for the NCP?

"Paula" wrote in message
...
On Nov 17, 2:54 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message

...



Whose definition of sufficient detail are we using here?

I've already stated that there are physical, emotional, psychological,
and spiritual aspects of child development that are at risk in these
contentious situations. Being ever mindful of that spectrum of need
within the child(ren) and holding those needs with priority is the
"best interests of the children."

Paula - You usually have some good perspectives on issues but I have to
challenge what you are saying here. First you said there were "costs"
associated with emotional, psychological, and spiritual child rearing and
you related it to CS needing to be provided to cover those costs. Now it
seems you are backing off of your original comment and referring to those
factors as being "aspects" of child rearing. Which is it?

I don't see a conflict in my comments/perspective. There are
emotional, psychological, spiritual, and physical aspects to
child development. Nurturing said development entails some
cost ... soccer lessons, school trips, church group trips, band
uniforms, Tae Kwon Do lessons, etc.

I agree with the comments about child development being a priority and a
child's need for both parents to be involved in their lives is a key to
raising healthy children. What I don't agree with is the assumption paying
money will fix any child development issues and improve a child's
development. I don't accept the premise providing money is a substitute for
parental attention.


My experience is none of the child rearing models come close to expanding
the costs of rearing children beyond the basic needs of housing, food,
transportation, clothes, education, healthcare, and miscellaneous
expenditures.

I don't know much of what the models are based upon ... only my
opinion of what's right for the child(ren) and what the system should
address.

Well let me challenge that statement too. Should the "system" award extra
money to CP's so they can be better parents? Does increasing the amount of
CS received help a parent to do their job better?


And if, as you suggested, parents are responsible for providing for a
child's emotional, psychological, and spiritual upbringing, why are women
given a free pass for disrupting those child development factors when
they
initiate divorce 85% of the time?

I'd venture to guess that some of that 85% of the time, the mother
is doing the child(ren) a favor by breaking up the household ... my
parents stayed together "for my sake" and, looking back, I wish
that they hadn't. I'd have been better off had they acknowledged
their issues and been more forward in dealing with them ... and
recognizing that they (and I) were better with them apart.

Could be but the social science research seems to support the premise women
break up marriages and relationships for loosey goosey reasons like they
felt like they were growing apart or they needed to find themselves or they
needed a change. None pof those reason have anything to do with the role of
fathers. other than how women perceive the father role to be.


Why are the fathers who are kicked out of
their children's lives over their objections held responsible to repair
the
issues created by the mothers?

They're not. Both parents are equally responsible as long as
they stay in the mix and put the kids needs *first* above their own.

So when women put their own feelings ahead of the relationship how are men
supposed to understand their desires and react?

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , teachrmama says...


"Paula" wrote in message
...
That statement is a load of BS. A NCP can go months without
seeing or speaking to the child. A CP taking the same action would
result in the removal of the child. A NCP doesn't come anywhere
near having the same legal requirements and responsibilities that
CPs do.

*Seeing* the child and providing the legally mandated needs of the child
are
not the same thing. You must be dealing with some lollapaloozer of an ex,
Paula. That must be really ahard on your child. But, no matter how you
look at it, *all* parents are required by law to make sure the basic needs
of their children are met.

Oh dont' be silly I don't think by 'seeing' she's talking about looking
through
a spyglass or camera lens or something.

I don't either. How ridiculous!

If the custodial parent decided not to
be around for awhile, not come home for a few days, even though they're
"her
days", the kid would be in the foster care system and her ass would be up
for
child endangerment. On the other hand, I've never known a CP who leaves a
child
at an appointed place for visitation pickup (sometimes these ex's you
think
would just do the right thang if the gummit would leave them alone can
barely
stand to be in the same town with each other), gotten the call from the
friend
or other appointed person that the NCP didn't show, and NOT come to pick
them up
again. Kinda goes to that fundamental aspect of being a CP.

The key here is, what percentage of the NCP population are you referring to?
I've already commented that you must know some doozies to make the nasty
comments about NCPs that you make. So how about the NCP that waits and
waits and waits forthe child to be dropped off for visitation, and the child
never comes, even though it is *his* weekend? So long as the CP hasn't
abandoned the child, that is ok? (and what % of the CP population do you
think acts in such a despicable way?)


Yeah, that happens. And, that's *some* NCP's who wouldn't show. Some some
some
some not all not all not all. (Why do I feel like I have to say that even
though my paragraph in no way implies 'all NCPs are scum').

But if only *some* do these things, why are *all* NCPs being punished for
it? Why don't we have a system that deals only with those who need to be
dealt with? Sort of like the prison system deals only with those who need
to be dealt with. We wouldn't ever think of locking up everyone in a
certain segment of the population, would we?

In article , teachrmama says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , teachrmama says...


"Paula" wrote in message
...
That statement is a load of BS. A NCP can go months without
seeing or speaking to the child. A CP taking the same action would
result in the removal of the child. A NCP doesn't come anywhere
near having the same legal requirements and responsibilities that
CPs do.

*Seeing* the child and providing the legally mandated needs of the child
are
not the same thing. You must be dealing with some lollapaloozer of an ex,
Paula. That must be really ahard on your child. But, no matter how you
look at it, *all* parents are required by law to make sure the basic needs
of their children are met.

Oh dont' be silly I don't think by 'seeing' she's talking about looking
through
a spyglass or camera lens or something.

I don't either. How ridiculous!

If the custodial parent decided not to
be around for awhile, not come home for a few days, even though they're
"her
days", the kid would be in the foster care system and her ass would be up
for
child endangerment. On the other hand, I've never known a CP who leaves a
child
at an appointed place for visitation pickup (sometimes these ex's you
think
would just do the right thang if the gummit would leave them alone can
barely
stand to be in the same town with each other), gotten the call from the
friend
or other appointed person that the NCP didn't show, and NOT come to pick
them up
again. Kinda goes to that fundamental aspect of being a CP.

The key here is, what percentage of the NCP population are you referring to?

Actually that's not 'key', that's an aside.

The *point* is that a CP can't just decide not to do "her days" without serious
consequences, while the NCP *does* get away with it. I think Paula's in a
position to know that - her ex hasn't had charges of neglect; if she did the
same, she would.

Which more than offsets this complaint about the NCP's CS amount being some kind
of parental "mandate" that the CP isn't similarly be beholden to.

It's pretty straightforward; one parent has the child and the lion's share of
responsibility for the child, half of the expenses go to the parent who does
not, adjusted one way or the other accounting for income producing ability.
Money is transferred every month, deal is done, nothing hanging. And
straightforward, especially when it comes to dealing with people estranged from
each other, is what works all around.

I've already commented that you must know some doozies to make the nasty
comments about NCPs that you make.

Oh come off it. I don't see Paula flipping out over imagined insinuations that
all CP's don't do *their* part and what awful awful crowds people must run with
to have their opinions on the matter. It's argument appealing to emotion, and
it's getting pretty tiresome.

So how about the NCP that waits and
waits and waits forthe child to be dropped off for visitation, and the child
never comes, even though it is *his* weekend? So long as the CP hasn't
abandoned the child, that is ok? (and what % of the CP population do you
think acts in such a despicable way?)


Not the point at all. No one is saying it's "OK". But it doesnt' end up with a
kid in foster care and a parent up on charges now does it. THAT's her point.


Yeah, that happens. And, that's *some* NCP's who wouldn't show. Some some
some
some not all not all not all. (Why do I feel like I have to say that even
though my paragraph in no way implies 'all NCPs are scum').

But if only *some* do these things, why are *all* NCPs being punished for
it? Why don't we have a system that deals only with those who need to be
dealt with? Sort of like the prison system deals only with those who need
to be dealt with. We wouldn't ever think of locking up everyone in a
certain segment of the population, would we?



No one is being 'punished'.

Banty

teachrmama wrote:
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Paula says...
On Nov 16, 1:56 pm, Banty wrote:
In article
,
Paula says...

On Nov 16, 12:13 pm, Banty wrote:
In article
,
Paula says...
On Nov 16, 10:39 am, Banty wrote:
In article
,
Paula says...
And what of those fathers who choose (no, I'm not speaking
of those who are driven away, and, yes, that does occur just
not in all situations as is assumed most of the time in here)
Yes, it can be made impossible to stay in a household, and hugely
costly to
set
up immmediately to share the childrearing. (Note I said
"immediately".)
Yes,
it
happens. (And I suspect you're right about it not as frequently as
assumed
in
here..)
But the father doesn't go *far* away. And I don't think evul wife is
stalking
him, preventing him from looking at houses or apartments to rent.
to NEVER have the child(ren) with him? What of those who
just walk away?
More often that just walking away (at least IME), it's more like
drift away
-
a
mental resignation of custody to the other parent before they ever go
to
court
because they're feeling overwhelmed by thinking of what real changes
they'd
need
to make, or they're thinking all-or-nothing full custody or forget
it and
they're advised that ain't gonna happen.
Banty
Actually I was speaking of situations such as my own
where the NCP has severed all contact with the child
(based upon an ultimatum regarding the financials --
"sign the thing as is or visitation is over") and does
not have a need to provide food, shelter, or anything
else because of never having contact with the child.
Yes. That happens. The "my way or the highway" thing.
And the guys who just never show.
Both of these types are living like a single person, or moving on
otherwise.
No
clue, no contribution. Sucks.
Do you ever get accused have having 'driven him away'?
Banty
Yep, I sure do ... and I bent over backwards attempting to
keep him involved. That ended when my DD decided that she
got to treat Mommy in the manner in which she witnessed
Daddy treating Mommy -- i.e. "Daddy ignores what you
say, so can I".
This when she spent an average of a couple hours a week
with him, and he _chose_ not to attend parent-teacher
conferences, doctor appointments, etc. He chose not to
co-parent, and I was left to do all of the parenting work.
That extra effort that I put into trying to keep him involved
ended when DD said what's quoted above. Especially
considering the fact that he's never been an active parent,
I can't abide by her being taught to disrespect and
disregard the only real parent she has ... that would have
disastrous consequences once she reaches her tween
and teen years.
YES see. See that's the thing that that can't be emphasized enough with
all
this talk of monetary control and monetary measuring and who shares in
downturns
(but not windfalls) and why-do-I-hafta-but-they-don'-hafta.

It's YOU who has to live, every day, every hour, with what happens, and
it's YOU
planning and looking to the future and thinking about what is happening
with the
real flesh and blood human being in front of you, and her development
into some
kind of decent adult. It's YOU with **more** responsibility.

But if you don't buckle under each and ever time and he doesn't get his
pure
perfect way, you're 'driving him away'. Seen that.



He contributes his CS money, and that's it. And he doesn't
seem to care how much pain and confusion she's feeling
because of it.
Wish it could have been different. At least you have that. Are his
wages
garnished?
Nope, but they could be if I requested it. While he is prone to
playing games where he can, he provides the CS on time and
in full, and as long as it stays that way I will not request it.
That' great.

Maybe he really, totally, does not know what to do and does not feel
connected,
but at least recognizes this responsibility (or just the law)?

Just in case the regulars here decide to attempt to jump on
that last line ... if there is a problem that would affect his
ability to pay the CS, all he has to do is bring it to my
attention. I understand reality and would have no problem
with temporary downward-adjustment due to a significant,
long- or medium-term downturn in his income.
Wow they would jump on you for that?

There may be some that would--not most.



I am, for all intents and purposes, a CP, and the only one one here who
I've had a real problem with is Chris, who any reasonable person
probably would butt heads with.

--

Sarah Gray

Banty wrote:
In article , Bob Whiteside
says...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Paula says...
On Nov 15, 11:31 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Banty" wrote in message

...





In article , teachrmama says...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob
Whiteside
says...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , teachrmama says...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob
Whiteside
says...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Bob
Whiteside
says...
Then we basically agree. How would you implement it,
though?
Define "child support." Create specific criteria for how CS
is to
be
spent.
Require periodic disclosure of expenses paid. Do the same
thing
to
CP
mothers they do to NCP dads - presume they are guilty of
misappropriation
of
the funds and make them prove otherwise. IOW - Assume they
won't
spend
the
money as intended and force them to rebut the assumption by
showing
they
spent it correctly.
Hmm, I mean who and how and how is it going to be paid for?
Seems you're more motivated by doing unto 'them' what was
done to
'us'
than
actually seeing that the kids get the benefit...
Nope. I am more for getting the government completely out of
family
decisions. The intrusion by government into people's private
lives
has
become a real crisis. I personally fear it because to me it is
social
engineering run amok.
So you're *not* for CS at all.
They do it under the guise of their actions being in the best
interest
of
the children, but in reality everything they do is in the best
interest
of
the government. Until the "other side" starts to feel what it
is
like
to
get similar treatment to what they advocate for fathers to
receive I
don't
see any change occurring. You see it is a zero sum game - To
give
rights
to
fathers the government has to take rights away from mothers.
Actually I don't. I see that increasingly *either* fathers and
mothers
take
either role (as it's not a zero sum game), and advocate for
*both*
having
some
physical custody, which is also happening increasingly. But
that
won't
'stick
it to' anyone to make a point to your satisfaction, it seems.
As you may
have notice in this newsgroup, many of the father's rights
advocates
are
second wives who have lived through how their husbands have
been
mistreated,
or children of fathers who got bad treatment. The advocates
for the
status
quo are always the people who benefit from the unfairness
inherent
in
the
current system.
Who might have something of a vested interest in smaller CS
payments.
Who also might have some vested interest in equity.
That's best determined by a third party, not the two parties with
conflicting
interests.
So let me challenge your theory on third parties making decisions
on
conflicting interests. A mother has two children with different
fathers.
Father #1 is ordered to pay her $800 per month to support his
child.
Father
#2 is ordered to pay her $200 per month to support his child. The
mother
gets $1000 per month in CS. If the mother co-mingles the CS into
the
household budget she spends $500 per child. Child #1 is getting
the
benefit
of $300 less than the court ordered CS. Child #2 is getting the
benefit
of
$300 more than the court ordered CS. How should a third party rule
on
how
the CS is being spent and what should be done about it?
Well, I dont' know *why* the payments are so different. Say -
maybe
it's
to
avoid the "Welfare queeen" "CS queen thing" And some judge
decided
two
girls, different fathers or no, can go into one bedroom. Or Dad #2
has
a
much
lower earning capacity.
Inevitably, the expenses would co-mingle. Dinner get made at one
time;
Mom
woudln't take two girls to the zoo and only take the older one on
the
rides.
And the girls would be sisters to each other.
What, would you think it's like a dog kennel, where I can get a
bigger
pen
for
my dog if I pay more?
So child support isn't really paid for the wellbeing of the child,
but for
the operating expenses of the household?
How can you separate them? Think of your own two kids! How would it
be
to
raise one one way; the other the other way. Just having them in the
same
place
and sitting at the same dinner table would account for much of the
CS.
Like we have been talking about, the operating expenses of the
household
are
counted as far as *additional* expenses are necessary to set up a
household to
raise the kids in. Vs. the less expensive and wider options
available to
a
single person.
You arestill laboring under the idea that the NCP is a "single person."
The
NCP needs the same # of bedrooms as the CP--for the exact same
children. He
needs supplies for those children when they are with him. He needs
furniture for them when they are with him. He is NOT living as a
single
person--that is such an odd idea.
And what of those fathers who choose (no, I'm not speaking
of those who are driven away, and, yes, that does occur just
not in all situations as is assumed most of the time in here)
Yes, it can be made impossible to stay in a household, and hugely costly
to set
up immmediately to share the childrearing. (Note I said "immediately".)
Yes, it
happens. (And I suspect you're right about it not as frequently as
assumed in
here..)

But the father doesn't go *far* away. And I don't think evul wife is
stalking
him, preventing him from looking at houses or apartments to rent.

to NEVER have the child(ren) with him? What of those who
just walk away?
More often that just walking away (at least IME), it's more like drift
away - a
mental resignation of custody to the other parent before they ever go to
court
because they're feeling overwhelmed by thinking of what real changes
they'd need
to make, or they're thinking all-or-nothing full custody or forget it and
they're advised that ain't gonna happen.
And they have probably already been told by their lawyer to accept what is
offered, because the fight for custody will probably be long and futile.
It is only recently that we are beginning to see even a small shift in the
tradition of maternal custody.
Here is the legal advice I got in the mid-80's - Fighting for custody will
cost you at least another $12,000-15,000 in legal fees and the results are
most likely to go against you. You may also be ordered to pay your wife's
legal fee to fight your attempts to get custody. If you ever intend to get
remarried you are better off not having custody of children. Divorced men
without custody of children statistically have a greater rate of remarriage
than divorced men with custody of children.


I'm talking about why I'm seeing a lot of fathers not setting up for JOINT
physical custody. One of the reasons, BTW, being an all-or-nothing full-custody
or forget it attitude. in a state where joint physical custody is common.

You're talking about what they told you about full custody, right?

(And you would decide to leave your kids not with you to increase your marriage
chances??)

Banty


Banty, even if a father wants joint custody, usually, they would have to
fight for it in court. Because many, many women are not willing to trade
less child support for more time that their children spend with their
father. When my ex filed for divorce, he was asking for full custody of
our daughter. I countered with a request for joint custody, and the
referee (judge's assistant of sorts) was FLOORED that I was not asking
for full in return.

--

Sarah Gray