If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#521
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child support debt?
In article , teachrmama says...
"Paula" wrote in message ... On Nov 17, 9:41 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote: "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. It's not. As I've said before, I'm all for parents figuring things out by themselves, sharing custody, and being left alone by the system. But when one or both just *cannot* see past themselves for the sake of the child(ren), finance seems to be the *only* thing that can be enforced by the court. Now we get down to the nitty gritty of the problem. IF both are cooperative and want to works things out, they should be left alone by the court. However, it is much more difficult to be cooperative when you know that, just by being uncooperative and letting the court step in, you will get much more than even you are asking for. Just as an example (not real figures) let's say dad is willing to pay $500 per month and have the children 40% of the time. Mom wants $650 per month and also will permit him 40% of the time. The system will give her $950 per month and only let him have the kids the standard 25% of the time. She won't budge on her $650 because she *knows* that she can get $950 just by being stubborn. Is that really an incentive-free arena of cooperation that has been set up? How about if they approach the judge with that? How about if they're allowed to do that, both with counsel, and make that a legal agreement. 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? For what purpose ... "just because". No. Does increasing the amount of CS received help a parent to do their job better? Can I rephrase that as "Can money allow parenting to be more effective?" Yes, when the money is actually getting to the child(ren). Really? So children reared in middle income homes are less able to deal with the world as adults than children raised in wealthy homes? And children raised among the working poor are even less able to cope in thereal world when they are adults? Hmmmm..... You might ask the working families with no health insurance how they feel about *that* statement. BTW, I don't think extra curricular sports and acitivies hobbies and some vacations are strictly a middle-class thing. Even the poor scratch that together, though limited to PAL and other programs. Hmm (lemme look..) yep, I didn't see of that in your proposal of "basic needs". I guess it's in "misc." right along with bedsheets and shampoo. 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. And men do the same thing ... either the man or the woman can choose to up and walk away from the family. Bob's point was that women are the ones most likely to use these excuses to break up a marriage--not that men never do. I do think he has a point there. Banty |
#522
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child
"Banty" wrote in message ... In article , Paula says... You're children should have *always* been relevant. That's one thing upon which we agree. This falls into my "SOL shouldn't be imbalanced" ... while I may have only specifically mentioned the parent, I believe that subsequent children are included in that parent's household ... meaning big sis' doesn't get a huge chunk of NCP's income causing lil sis' and bro' to do without while big sis' is boppin' around with her new iPod. "SOL"? Banty ("**** outta luck" didnt' seem to fit...) chuckle |
#523
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child support debt?
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... | | "Paula" wrote in message | ... | On Nov 17, 9:41 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote: | "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. | | | It's not. As I've said before, I'm all for parents figuring | things out by themselves, sharing custody, and being | left alone by the system. But when one or both just | *cannot* see past themselves for the sake of the | child(ren), finance seems to be the *only* thing that | can be enforced by the court. | | Now we get down to the nitty gritty of the problem. IF both are cooperative | and want to works things out, they should be left alone by the court. | However, it is much more difficult to be cooperative when you know that, | just by being uncooperative and letting the court step in, you will get much | more than even you are asking for. Just as an example (not real figures) | let's say dad is willing to pay $500 per month and have the children 40% of | the time. Mom wants $650 per month and also will permit him 40% of the | time. The system will give her $950 per month and only let him have the | kids the standard 25% of the time. She won't budge on her $650 because she | *knows* that she can get $950 just by being stubborn. Is that really an | incentive-free arena of cooperation that has been set up? Not to mention that there is the hidden incentive of the FOC to place the child where the CS is maximized, since that will increase their federal kickback. | | | 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? | | For what purpose ... "just because". No. | | Does increasing the amount of | CS received help a parent to do their job better? | | Can I rephrase that as "Can money allow parenting | to be more effective?" Yes, when the money is actually | getting to the child(ren). | | Really? So children reared in middle income homes are less able to deal | with the world as adults than children raised in wealthy homes? And | children raised among the working poor are even less able to cope in thereal | world when they are adults? Hmmmm..... | | | 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. | | And men do the same thing ... either the man or the | woman can choose to up and walk away from the | family. | | Bob's point was that women are the ones most likely to use these excuses to | break up a marriage--not that men never do. | | | |
#524
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child support debt?
"Banty" wrote in message ... In article , teachrmama says... "Paula" wrote in message ... On Nov 17, 9:41 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote: "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. It's not. As I've said before, I'm all for parents figuring things out by themselves, sharing custody, and being left alone by the system. But when one or both just *cannot* see past themselves for the sake of the child(ren), finance seems to be the *only* thing that can be enforced by the court. Now we get down to the nitty gritty of the problem. IF both are cooperative and want to works things out, they should be left alone by the court. However, it is much more difficult to be cooperative when you know that, just by being uncooperative and letting the court step in, you will get much more than even you are asking for. Just as an example (not real figures) let's say dad is willing to pay $500 per month and have the children 40% of the time. Mom wants $650 per month and also will permit him 40% of the time. The system will give her $950 per month and only let him have the kids the standard 25% of the time. She won't budge on her $650 because she *knows* that she can get $950 just by being stubborn. Is that really an incentive-free arena of cooperation that has been set up? How about if they approach the judge with that? How about if they're allowed to do that, both with counsel, and make that a legal agreement. Ah, but the system right now does not do that, and parents who ask for a lesser amount might be told that they have no right to deny children the full amount that the system has decreed that they need. 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? For what purpose ... "just because". No. Does increasing the amount of CS received help a parent to do their job better? Can I rephrase that as "Can money allow parenting to be more effective?" Yes, when the money is actually getting to the child(ren). Really? So children reared in middle income homes are less able to deal with the world as adults than children raised in wealthy homes? And children raised among the working poor are even less able to cope in thereal world when they are adults? Hmmmm..... You might ask the working families with no health insurance how they feel about *that* statement. BTW, I don't think extra curricular sports and acitivies hobbies and some vacations are strictly a middle-class thing. Even the poor scratch that together, though limited to PAL and other programs. Hmm (lemme look..) yep, I didn't see of that in your proposal of "basic needs". I guess it's in "misc." right along with bedsheets and shampoo. The figures used in that example were just round numbers to make a point. They were not real numbers. You continually twist things to make it seem as if anyone who would like to do away with lifestyle support based on salary, and use a figure that covers the basic needs of children are advocating forcing children into poverty. It's just not so. It must be nice to have the amount of money you obviously must have so you can dictate how much money must be available for what you consider to be *needs* that others might not see as needs. As for your health insurance comment--not to worry--children with NCPs in their lives *have* health insurance ordered by the courts *on top of* the CS already paid. Even if it takes coverage away from the irrelevant subsequent children. |
#525
|
|||
|
|||
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... "Paula" wrote in message ... On Nov 17, 9:41 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote: "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. It's not. As I've said before, I'm all for parents figuring things out by themselves, sharing custody, and being left alone by the system. But when one or both just *cannot* see past themselves for the sake of the child(ren), finance seems to be the *only* thing that can be enforced by the court. Now we get down to the nitty gritty of the problem. IF both are cooperative and want to works things out, they should be left alone by the court. However, it is much more difficult to be cooperative when you know that, just by being uncooperative and letting the court step in, you will get much more than even you are asking for. Just as an example (not real figures) let's say dad is willing to pay $500 per month and have the children 40% of the time. Mom wants $650 per month and also will permit him 40% of the time. The system will give her $950 per month and only let him have the kids the standard 25% of the time. She won't budge on her $650 because she *knows* that she can get $950 just by being stubborn. Is that really an incentive-free arena of cooperation that has been set up? How about if they approach the judge with that? How about if they're allowed to do that, both with counsel, and make that a legal agreement. Ah, but the system right now does not do that, and parents who ask for a lesser amount might be told that they have no right to deny children the full amount that the system has decreed that they need. But in your scenario, the $950 and 25% is put in opposition to $650 and 40%. Isn't the latter getting into joint physical custody? 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? For what purpose ... "just because". No. Does increasing the amount of CS received help a parent to do their job better? Can I rephrase that as "Can money allow parenting to be more effective?" Yes, when the money is actually getting to the child(ren). Really? So children reared in middle income homes are less able to deal with the world as adults than children raised in wealthy homes? And children raised among the working poor are even less able to cope in thereal world when they are adults? Hmmmm..... You might ask the working families with no health insurance how they feel about *that* statement. BTW, I don't think extra curricular sports and acitivies hobbies and some vacations are strictly a middle-class thing. Even the poor scratch that together, though limited to PAL and other programs. Hmm (lemme look..) yep, I didn't see of that in your proposal of "basic needs". I guess it's in "misc." right along with bedsheets and shampoo. The figures used in that example were just round numbers to make a point. They were not real numbers. You continually twist things to make it seem as if anyone who would like to do away with lifestyle support based on salary, and use a figure that covers the basic needs of children are advocating forcing children into poverty. It's just not so. It must be nice to have the amount of money you obviously must have so you can dictate how much money must be available for what you consider to be *needs* that others might not see as needs. As for your health insurance comment--not to worry--children with NCPs in their lives *have* health insurance ordered by the courts *on top of* the CS already paid. Even if it takes coverage away from the irrelevant subsequent children. But you forget my point about your "basic support". You don't even know what *that* is. Do you think you could figure your neighbor-down-the-street basic expenses?? I don't think I honestly could. Or better yet - how about they do *yours*. If they fall short and you point out expenses they overlooked, you get to hear "must be nice". I simply object to this idea of basic needs which don't include actual needs that just about every parent strives to get for their children. You might think they're warm, fed plenty, and educated. But that's not enough. Banty |
#526
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child
Banty wrote:
In article , Sarah Gray says... Banty wrote: In article , Sarah Gray says... 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. Oh, I believe that. I *more* than believe that! Mind: that I disagree strongly on certain important points does NOT mean I don't see the system having some pretty perverse incentives in it for that sort of thing. But - how is it going with the request for joint custody? Banty I got joint custody. Parenting time was 50/50. Ex then left the state and now he balks at paying a minimal amount of child support. Go figure. OK...what if. You decided to to something else in your 50% of the time, too? Banty You mean if I moved out of state, violating a court order in the process? I imagine I'd lose custody completely. -- Sarah Gray |
#527
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child
teachrmama wrote:
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message et... Banty wrote: In article , Sarah Gray says... 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. Oh, I believe that. I *more* than believe that! Mind: that I disagree strongly on certain important points does NOT mean I don't see the system having some pretty perverse incentives in it for that sort of thing. But - how is it going with the request for joint custody? Banty I got joint custody. Parenting time was 50/50. Ex then left the state and now he balks at paying a minimal amount of child support. Go figure. -- Sarah Gray (benefit of being a CP #1: child playing "bongo head" on you while you type while she sings :"you're my favorite mama in the whole wide world") One of those wonderful perks of paernthood that I wouldn't want to give up for all the money in the world!! =c) My point exactly. Parenting is it's own reward. Well, and punishment, at times, but I guess I'll see more of that when she's a teenager -- Sarah Gray |
#528
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child support debt?
"Banty" wrote in But you forget my point about your "basic support". You don't even know what *that* is. Neither does the government! Do you think you could figure your neighbor-down-the-street basic expenses?? I don't think I honestly could. Or better yet - how about they do *yours*. Better yet, how about the government does it and totally botch up the whole process. Government has no right to dictate our personal lives regardless of our marital status!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
#529
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child
In article , Sarah Gray says...
Banty wrote: In article , Sarah Gray says... Banty wrote: In article , Sarah Gray says... 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. Oh, I believe that. I *more* than believe that! Mind: that I disagree strongly on certain important points does NOT mean I don't see the system having some pretty perverse incentives in it for that sort of thing. But - how is it going with the request for joint custody? Banty I got joint custody. Parenting time was 50/50. Ex then left the state and now he balks at paying a minimal amount of child support. Go figure. OK...what if. You decided to to something else in your 50% of the time, too? Banty You mean if I moved out of state, violating a court order in the process? I imagine I'd lose custody completely. Oh more than *that*. Imagine the scene after a concerned neighbor calls authorities about your kid. Yet, your ex has gotten away with it. Banty |
#530
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child
In article , Sarah Gray says...
teachrmama wrote: "Sarah Gray" wrote in message et... Banty wrote: In article , Sarah Gray says... 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. Oh, I believe that. I *more* than believe that! Mind: that I disagree strongly on certain important points does NOT mean I don't see the system having some pretty perverse incentives in it for that sort of thing. But - how is it going with the request for joint custody? Banty I got joint custody. Parenting time was 50/50. Ex then left the state and now he balks at paying a minimal amount of child support. Go figure. -- Sarah Gray (benefit of being a CP #1: child playing "bongo head" on you while you type while she sings :"you're my favorite mama in the whole wide world") One of those wonderful perks of paernthood that I wouldn't want to give up for all the money in the world!! =c) My point exactly. Parenting is it's own reward. Well, and punishment, at times, but I guess I'll see more of that when she's a teenager Teen years overall actually have been pretty fun and easy going. Although I have boy... Banty |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
how to collect more child support | fathersrights | Child Support | 4 | September 6th 07 05:30 AM |
HOW TO COLLECT MORE SUPPORT | dadslawyer | Child Support | 0 | August 21st 06 03:40 PM |
Question on Child Support Debt | xyz | Child Support | 8 | October 20th 05 06:07 PM |
Phantom debt creation by child support bureaucrats | Edmund Esterbauer | Child Support | 0 | January 23rd 04 10:42 AM |
Outrage Over Plan To Wipe Child Support Debt | Greg | Child Support | 4 | December 10th 03 02:48 AM |