Name change because parent not visiting child

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dale" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

We pay women to whelp children. The more children they have, the
more money
they get. The more men they have children with, the more they make.
The
poorest women have the largest safety net system to support their
single
motherhood.


It's turning out that way, a kid is a free ticket to 18 years of tax
free income!

And well more than 18 years of bills.

Such as?
What bills, other than minimal support of children and her own costs is
she forced to pay?

Please define this "minimal support of children" - cause all I know is,
I have 2 teenagers, and everything from food to educational expenses, to
clothing expenses to health and dental insurance to medical and dental
expenses has risen steadily between their infancy and their current
adolescence.

And it doesn't magically stop when they hit their 18th birthday.

Phil #3


Minimal support is that required by law, which if you've ever seen
situations that barely meet the situation, you'd agree are not acceptable
to many, if not most, parents.
It is the very basic food, shelter, clothing, etc.
You are only legally required to minimally support your children, period.
That you choose to support them better is a choice.
If the support doesn't end with their attaining adulthood, it is BY YOUR
CHOICE.
Now what, beside minimal support is the CP *required* to supply?

Pretty much what *any* parent feels compelled to provide to their
children - a reasonable upbringing.

Yoiu and BOb seem to be on the same page - if that's how you've treated
your children, I feel sorry for them.

OK, you don't agree that minimal support is enough. But it is a *choice* to
provide more than that. You are only *legally required* to provide the
minimum. Your choice to provide more does not change the legal requirement
in any way.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
oups.com...

snip for length


And how is allowing everyone to opt out going to solve that?

It is not "allowing everyone to opt out", it's allowing those who
choose
to be supportive of their children the right and ability to do that
without untold governmental interferrence. It *won't* solve it but it
would allow the focus to be put on those who try to avoid it. As it
is,
those who willingly pay are being touted as money being forcefully
collected, which it isn't. All the while, those who are adamant about
not paying still aren't. By using the draconian methods to force
money
from one adult to another, which may or may not benefit the children,
many see the falicy and opt out.

So you dont want to opt out you just want the amount to be
undetermined
and unenforcable except in extreme cases. That of course isnt going to
lead to more failed households, yeah right. Sounds like a Libertarian
rosetintted view personally.

No! Let the parents act like adults and discuss together what the
children need.

Unfortunately, you can't control how people act, and not all parents act
like adults.

Let the fathers be just as involved as the mothers in the raising of
the children, instead of just being walking wallets.

Unfortunately, not all fathers WANT to be just as involved as mothers.

Let the parents decide
together that Little League is important for Johnny, and decide
together who will buy the uniform and pay the fees required--instead of
mom being able to go to court to force dad to pay more because *she*
decides that Little League is important.

Unfortunately,. not all divorced/separated parents of children are able
to decide ANYTHING together.

You forgot to read this paragraph:

" Geesh, ghost! Enforcement is specifically for the times that the above
system wouldn't work! By spending so much energy collecting from those
who would gladly take care of things on their own, LESS time and energy
are available for those who refuse to do what is right. The current is
actually making it *easier* for true deadbeats to get away with it."



Let the parents BE parents! You are sooooooooooo
distrustful!! Why do you think that fathers are out to harm and/or
purposely neglect their children?



Yes I agree that many if not most of the time this would work but it
would also prevent enforcement in the large number of cases in which
it
wouldnt work.

Geesh, ghost! Enforcement is specifically for the times that the above
system wouldn't work! By spending so much energy collecting from those
who would gladly take care of things on their own, LESS time and energy
are available for those who refuse to do what is right. The current is
actually making it *easier* for true deadbeats to get away with it.


By the way nothing says a child support order must be in
place, a great many CP's do not feel they are necessary to make the
NCP
pay. And I imagine that a lot of child support orders are because the
CP is greedy, but of course I imagine that an equal number exist
because the NCP's idea of reasonable child support, isnt.

Then let's concentrate on the true deadbeats, and the truly greedy CPs.

And how would you determine the level of someone's greed? Whatt would
be the guidelines for acceptable levels of greed, versus unacceptable
levels of greed? Face it, all people, at some time or another,
experience greed - whether it be a larger slice of cake, bigger helping
of steak, whatever.

Set things up so the CP is forced to show what she is actually spending
the $$$ on.

Why? To use *your own* argument, married parents aren't required to do
so. Why are you singling out CP's and requiring them to do so?

If NCPs are required to pay the money, CPs should be required to account for
it. Let them both sail in the same leaky boat. Married parents aren't
required to either provide a specific amount or acoount for it. But if NCPs
face those requirements, so should CPs.


I think patterns of spending reeveal a lot. If dad is living in
poverty, and kid is flitting from one expensive sport to another, with
all the attending costs associated with such, it would be safe to say
that CS is not set at a fair level.

It also at least shows that the money is being spent on the child - and
weren't you advocating letting parent(s) decide what is important to/for
the child?

Parents---BOTH parents. NOT one parent as the chooser and the other as the
payer. BOTH make the choices.


Of course, if you have 1 parent who refuses to take part in the decision
making process, then it does sort of fall on the other parent to have to
make the decisions.

I don't think so. Then, obviously, the uncooperative parent is saying "no
additional expenses." And, as I said before, if the NCP is refusing even
the most basic needs of the child, THAT IS WHAT THE SYSTEM IS FOR! Not
because Daddy refuses to by a new baseball mitt, or other nonsense like
that.


And no, not all parents are "forced out" of the decision making process.
Shoot, there's any number of *married* parents who simply let the other
parent decide. My best hypothesis says that approximately the same
proportions on married parents default out of the decision making process
as divorced parents do.

I'm sure that hypothesis is comfortable for you, Moon.


"Greedy" was a word I took form the post I was
responding to. The point is--let's leave those who can handle it on
their own alone, and trun attention to those who are abousing the system
on BOTH sides of the issue.

Works for me - I just see you propose some things that really won't work
in the real world. Not all divorced parents are just champing at the bit
to take on 50 or more % of the care of their children, either in time or
in money. It's just not reality. So your starting point that all
parents, 100% of them, should start with joint custody/care/expense
obligations just doesn't seem to address this reality.

Well, Moon, it's better than the starting point being "beat the living crap
out of the NCP until he is compliant to every demand." Starting with trust
is a much better option.




I can see
your arguement, that the cost isnt worth the benifit, that the
system
does not work.

Not only does it not work, it causes most of the problems to begin
with,
IMO.

What causes most of the problem is two adults having kids and being
unable to make it work. Child support is an attempt by the state (a
clumsy, heavyhanded one) to insure the welfare of the only blameless
party, the kids.

And what it actually does is ensure ongoing support of the mother, who
has no legal responsibility of any kind to provide more than bare bones
support for her children. She gets to spend the rest however she wants
to.

She also gets all the "pay me now" bills for the children - it's silly
to assume that she pays none of the expenses of the children with that
child support money, puts them on welfare rations, tattered clothing
from the trashbin and no electricity after 6pm so the mom can what? Buy
lottery tickets?

You must have a very low opinion of CP mothers, if you think that we
don't have the same priorities of taking care of our children first -
realistically,. there's nothing to stop a married parent from onlyt
providing the bare bones support for their children, and then spend the
rest however they want it to - why would you hold a divorced parent to a
different standard?

Moon, I am (and always have been) talking specifically about the abusers
of the system.

Then it would be nice if you were careful about pointing that out when you
slam CP's as you are when you promote sympathy for NCP's.

What the heck are you talking about. I have *always* said that there are
abusers on both sides of the system!! I have no more sympathy for the true
deadbeats than I do for the greedy CPs who pad their expenses and take what
is not rightfully theirs for themselves!


The vast majority of both CPs and NCPs do not need the system,
but are fair, honest adults. As for there being no lapreventing married
parents from providing only a bare bones existence--so what?

Well, let's not treat married parents differently from divorced parents -
isn't that one of the things you have posted in the past? That all
parents need to be treated the same?

Absolutely!! Let's trust the divorced parents until they prove themselves
untrustworthy just as we do married parents. And let's keep the levels of
*required* support exactly the same for both.


There is also
no law requiring them to provide any existence above tha--so why should
divorced fathers be held to that standard? That is not the point, and
you know it.

Then why are you holding CP-receiving mothers to some standard above that?
That was my point.

I'm not. I'm saying that NCPs should be asked to pay only 50% of the amount
required to meet a child's needs. Anything else should be voluntary. Just
like married parents.





The problem is that in the absence of any alternative
the existing system works a whole lot better than anything else I
have
ever heard.

Then you haven't been listening. Most parent, even fathers, want to
support their children but when they are removed by force and
prevented
from being a parent, you get a result that can be forecast with
relative
accuracy. The current child support system is the problem; parents
not
fully supporting their children is just a symptom that in a large
part
results from the problem.

Impoverished children is one of the primary causes of
society's major problems(a completely different discussion but I
can
support that position if need-be), so taking money from their
FATHERS
to relieve a portion of that is a GOOD trade.

It *would* be a good trade if the C$ were mandated for the children's
needs. Forcing one parent to pay money that can be used for anything
at
all does nothing for the children unless the receptient is honest,
which
many are not. If, and that's a big "if", the C$ could only be used
for
or by the children, more would be willing to play the game according
to
the rules.

Almost all judges dismissed that crap logic a long time ago, "for the
child" is impossible to define and begging for a thousand challanges
on
ever little detail.

Yes it sucks, and no the
system doesnt work that well, but if the only alternative you have
to
suggest is allowing people to operate on an honor system, I will
never
willing support that.

Then you feel that *all* intact parents should be mandated by the
court
to pay 100% of the state's guideline amounts toward their children?
This is part of the problem. Parents, lacking a government mandate
(court order), have the ability to spend less than the official
guideline amount on their children as they see fit as long as the
children are not legally neglected, which is a very low standard in
any
state.

No, I think that having a child and then allowing the household to
fail
invites the interference of outsiders. The government mandate is
likley
far higher than necessary, but at least some mandated amount is
necessary since a custodial parent can be charged with neglect whereas
a NCP can not.

On the contrary, it is very difficult to charge the custodial parent
with neglect if she feeds and clothes the children even minimally.
Charing the NCP an exorbitant rate does not in any way insure a
standard of living to the child. And it doesn't take much to avoid
neglect charges. Believe me, I have seen some lollapaloozers in the
course of my career. I know how little is necessary to avoid a neglect
label!


Any increase in fathers rights must be coupled
with an increase in social services, and/or support investigation
and
enforcement, otherwise the problems at the bottom of the spectrum
will
get worst.
And when families fail the costs to society in terms of both
money and quality of life are far higher than when a grown man does
without.

Not necessarily. When fathers are in an intact family, most choose to
fully support their families, including children, without court
orders.
By giving NCPs the same rights and responsibilities as the CP,
equality
reigns and everyone, including children win. Something like 85% of
children raised without a father present in the home develop
behavorial
problems. Juveniles committed to juvenile prisons in Texas: 1% are
from
single father homes, 20% are from 2-parent homes, 79% are from
fatherless homes. Single father homes constitute 4% of households,
single mother homes constitute 37%, and two parent homes constitute
59%.
The children of single mother households are 8.5 times more likely to
be
in juvenile prisons than children of single father households.
Children
of single father households are 35% less likely than the children of
two
parent households to be in juvenile prisons.

Your missing some data there, what percentage of single mother
households are below poverty, what percentage of single father
households. Poverty in childhood correlates overwhelmingly to
incarceration, both in childhood and in adulthood. That would suggest
that more child support to get the single mother households above
poverty would be the solution not less. Somehow I dont think that is
what you were trying to say.

But taking money from an already impoverished father is not going to
make a substantial difference in the poverty level of the children.
They'll *still* be living in poverty! And just how many separated
families do you think there are where the father is living high on the
hog, while mother and children languish in poverty?

How many separated families do you think there are where the mother is
living high on the hog, while the father languishes in poverty?

Once you get past the melodrama, the answer is 'probably very few in
either scenario'

THAT'S RIGHT!! Then why base an entire system on the possibility that
such a thing is happening? "We are curing poverty for millions of
children by forcing those scummy NCPs to pay." NONSENSE!!!!!!

Thre only ones I see talking about children in poverty are the ones who
are having to pay CS for some prior child, and how their own children are
now forced into poverty.

Actually, the system was set up to "keep children from poverty." It hasn't
worked because the system is flawed.


Certainly, I have been promoting the concept that raising children costs
money

Of course it does--but how much money is to meet basic needs, and how much
is parental choice?

Since it costs money to raise children, someone needs to pay that money.
That someone needs to be the child's legal mother and father

Absolutely. For their basic needs. The rest should be voluntary.


Child support is not tied to parenting time/visitation/whatever in hell
you want to call it. Some people get so hung up on the label for
something, they miss out that it was the thing they really wanted.

My bet says that most men, when they were married, didn't question their
wives on how each and every penny was spent. They just didn't. I find it
almost humorous that those very same men who didn't give a damn how the
money was spent while married now want to micromanage their ex's
financials, completely overlooking that her checkbook is no longer his
business, post divorce.

Well, Moon, if you cannot understand that, then you need to go get yourself
another cup of coffee and wake up. OF COURSE they are going to question
now. They have every right to! Things have changed--why should the woman
continue to have access to what was partnership $$ before the partnership
was broken by divorce.

Get over it.

Get over what?



My ex was all up in arms the year that I bought a new SUV.

He insisted that I had used the CS money for it, and was starving our
children (who were naked and had to walk 5 miles to school, barefoot, in
the snow, uphill both ways apparently).

He insisted this, he tried to make a federal case out of it, he even tried
to sue me in civil court.

Pity for him, my prior car had been totalled, and the new one was far less
expensive - and I didn't use a single penny of CS to pay for it.

I don't have a problem with either parent buying things with their own
money.



So much of this is simply a control game - you can't control me, therefore
you try to control my checkbook.

Why not take all that angry energy and do something constructive with it,
like working on strengthening a relationship with ALL your kids? The ones
who live with you, the ones who don't live with you.... at least then,
you'd have tangible results that make you feel as though you've made a
positive change in your corner of the world.

What a waste to sit on any forum, ranting and raving, and saying the same
things over and over, year after year, with no change after years and
years of it.

Teach - any idea how long you've been ranting and raving about the use of
the word irrelevant?

Well, Moon, if you don't mind having an entire system labeling your system
irrelevant, then I guess you and your irrelevant children can continue your
irrelevant existewnces believing your irrelevant thoughts.


As for me, no system has any right to label any child irrelevant. Have an
irrelevant day with your irrelevant children.

"Phil" wrote in message
news

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dale" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

We pay women to whelp children. The more children they have, the
more money
they get. The more men they have children with, the more they
make. The
poorest women have the largest safety net system to support their
single
motherhood.


It's turning out that way, a kid is a free ticket to 18 years of tax
free income!

And well more than 18 years of bills.

Such as?
What bills, other than minimal support of children and her own costs
is she forced to pay?

Please define this "minimal support of children" - cause all I know is,
I have 2 teenagers, and everything from food to educational expenses,
to clothing expenses to health and dental insurance to medical and
dental expenses has risen steadily between their infancy and their
current adolescence.

And it doesn't magically stop when they hit their 18th birthday.

Phil #3


Minimal support is that required by law, which if you've ever seen
situations that barely meet the situation, you'd agree are not
acceptable to many, if not most, parents.
It is the very basic food, shelter, clothing, etc.
You are only legally required to minimally support your children,
period.
That you choose to support them better is a choice.
If the support doesn't end with their attaining adulthood, it is BY YOUR
CHOICE.
Now what, beside minimal support is the CP *required* to supply?

Pretty much what *any* parent feels compelled to provide to their
children - a reasonable upbringing.

Minimal support does not to that in my opinion. YMMV, of course.

Yoiu and BOb seem to be on the same page - if that's how you've treated
your children, I feel sorry for them.

We realize what limits are placed on CPs and what responsibilities are
placed on NCPs that far supercede that placed on the CPs.
My children love me and all, including the one that is nearing middle age,
call frequently for a visit or advice; I can't say the same about their
feelings for their mother who shared their C$ as if it was solely for her
use.
Sadly, it is your children that deserve pity. They'll never know how
sentient and responsible adults should act.

Since you know nothing about my children, your statement is pure bull****.

Phil #3

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dale" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

We pay women to whelp children. The more children they have, the
more money
they get. The more men they have children with, the more they
make. The
poorest women have the largest safety net system to support their
single
motherhood.


It's turning out that way, a kid is a free ticket to 18 years of tax
free income!

And well more than 18 years of bills.

Such as?
What bills, other than minimal support of children and her own costs
is she forced to pay?

Please define this "minimal support of children" - cause all I know is,
I have 2 teenagers, and everything from food to educational expenses,
to clothing expenses to health and dental insurance to medical and
dental expenses has risen steadily between their infancy and their
current adolescence.

And it doesn't magically stop when they hit their 18th birthday.

Phil #3


Minimal support is that required by law, which if you've ever seen
situations that barely meet the situation, you'd agree are not
acceptable to many, if not most, parents.
It is the very basic food, shelter, clothing, etc.
You are only legally required to minimally support your children,
period.
That you choose to support them better is a choice.
If the support doesn't end with their attaining adulthood, it is BY YOUR
CHOICE.
Now what, beside minimal support is the CP *required* to supply?

Pretty much what *any* parent feels compelled to provide to their
children - a reasonable upbringing.

Yoiu and BOb seem to be on the same page - if that's how you've treated
your children, I feel sorry for them.

OK, you don't agree that minimal support is enough. But it is a *choice*
to provide more than that. You are only *legally required* to provide the
minimum. Your choice to provide more does not change the legal
requirement in any way.

Reality being what it is, there IS no "legal requirement" - certainly none
that I've seen spelled out in the divorce laws of my state, nor spelled out
in my divorce.

On a more personal level, I'd be pretty worried about ANY parent who was
calculating how much support to provide to their children based on some
"legal minimum requirement"

"Phil" wrote in message
.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...


snip

Why not take all that angry energy and do something constructive with it,
like working on strengthening a relationship with ALL your kids? The ones
who live with you, the ones who don't live with you.... at least then,
you'd have tangible results that make you feel as though you've made a
positive change in your corner of the world.

In other words, Teachermama, enjoy it since it's inevitable. )

chuckle


What a waste to sit on any forum, ranting and raving, and saying the same
things over and over, year after year, with no change after years and
years of it.

Like you


Teach - any idea how long you've been ranting and raving about the use of
the word irrelevant?

Does it matter?
You can't make an unfair and unrealistic thing into fair and realistic by
ignoring it.
You take TM to task for doing exactly what you've been doing, which is how
pitiful your life is because of your ex.You've been here about a decade
doing similar things under different names, right?

Not to worry, Phil. She always brings up some silly thing when she runs out
of ways to argue. I don't think she really expects me to accept the court's
decree that my children are irrelevant. And she has no idea what my
relationship with my husband's daughter is. Mostly because she has never
picked up on the fact that I have NEVER said a bad word about the young
lady. It is the system that I disagree with.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

Accountability and equality in support would eliminate most of
the
problem. Thankfully, many parents, male and female, want the
best
for
their children.

Then why do you think so many posters on here insist that the CP
mothers
who
are getting CS aren't using it for their children? They're
parents,
too,
and presumably just as likely to want the best for their children.

Because there is no accountabiltiy for how hundreds of thousands of
dollars
of CS gets used and the vast majority of CP mothers who come here
object
to
being asked to account for how the CS money is spent. If it was
all
on
the
up and up, and in the best interests of the children, the CP
mothers
would
bend over backwards to show they were using the CS money
appropriately.

So do you think it's ok to castigate all CP's, even though they might
be
the
ones who have no problem providing an accounting?

How many is this vast majority of which you speak, anyway? I've seen
very
few asked, and one of the ones asked was me, and I've indicated
repeatedly
that I have no problem providing an accounting.

I could care less how you spend the CS money you get. It is my belief
CP
mothers should voluntarily provide an accounting for CS money to the
NCP
father.

There are too many NCP fathers, including me, who have asked for an
accounting of CS money and we were told to f' off because it was none
of
our
business.

You asked why posters here think CS money is not being used for their
children. I gave you my answer. I just gave you more detail to
explain
my
previous answer.

Yet you didn't answer a simple question - how many is this vast majority
you
cited?

And if CP's are to voluntarily provide a financial accounting to the
NCP's,
are the NCP's expected to voluntarily provide a financial accounting to
the
CP's? That would be pretty equal, wouldn't it?

Sure would! So for every dime that the CP gives to the NCP, they are
entitled to an accounting of how it is spent.

So if the accounting is only for any CS money passed from one to the
other, how I spend my own income from my own employment (or any other
money I should acquire) is none of my ex's business?

So long as you can prove that you are providing your share of your income to
care for your children. And so long as the NCP is not accountable to you
for how the rest of his $$$ is spent.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
oups.com...

snip for length


And how is allowing everyone to opt out going to solve that?

It is not "allowing everyone to opt out", it's allowing those who
choose
to be supportive of their children the right and ability to do that
without untold governmental interferrence. It *won't* solve it but
it
would allow the focus to be put on those who try to avoid it. As it
is,
those who willingly pay are being touted as money being forcefully
collected, which it isn't. All the while, those who are adamant
about
not paying still aren't. By using the draconian methods to force
money
from one adult to another, which may or may not benefit the
children,
many see the falicy and opt out.

So you dont want to opt out you just want the amount to be
undetermined
and unenforcable except in extreme cases. That of course isnt going
to
lead to more failed households, yeah right. Sounds like a Libertarian
rosetintted view personally.

No! Let the parents act like adults and discuss together what the
children need.

Unfortunately, you can't control how people act, and not all parents
act like adults.

Let the fathers be just as involved as the mothers in the raising of
the children, instead of just being walking wallets.

Unfortunately, not all fathers WANT to be just as involved as mothers.

Let the parents decide
together that Little League is important for Johnny, and decide
together who will buy the uniform and pay the fees required--instead
of mom being able to go to court to force dad to pay more because
*she* decides that Little League is important.

Unfortunately,. not all divorced/separated parents of children are able
to decide ANYTHING together.

You forgot to read this paragraph:

" Geesh, ghost! Enforcement is specifically for the times that the
above
system wouldn't work! By spending so much energy collecting from those
who would gladly take care of things on their own, LESS time and energy
are available for those who refuse to do what is right. The current is
actually making it *easier* for true deadbeats to get away with it."



Let the parents BE parents! You are sooooooooooo
distrustful!! Why do you think that fathers are out to harm and/or
purposely neglect their children?



Yes I agree that many if not most of the time this would work but it
would also prevent enforcement in the large number of cases in which
it
wouldnt work.

Geesh, ghost! Enforcement is specifically for the times that the
above system wouldn't work! By spending so much energy collecting
from those who would gladly take care of things on their own, LESS
time and energy are available for those who refuse to do what is
right. The current is actually making it *easier* for true deadbeats
to get away with it.


By the way nothing says a child support order must be in
place, a great many CP's do not feel they are necessary to make the
NCP
pay. And I imagine that a lot of child support orders are because the
CP is greedy, but of course I imagine that an equal number exist
because the NCP's idea of reasonable child support, isnt.

Then let's concentrate on the true deadbeats, and the truly greedy
CPs.

And how would you determine the level of someone's greed? Whatt would
be the guidelines for acceptable levels of greed, versus unacceptable
levels of greed? Face it, all people, at some time or another,
experience greed - whether it be a larger slice of cake, bigger helping
of steak, whatever.

Set things up so the CP is forced to show what she is actually spending
the $$$ on.

Why? To use *your own* argument, married parents aren't required to do
so. Why are you singling out CP's and requiring them to do so?

If NCPs are required to pay the money, CPs should be required to account
for it. Let them both sail in the same leaky boat. Married parents
aren't required to either provide a specific amount or acoount for it.
But if NCPs face those requirements, so should CPs.


I think patterns of spending reeveal a lot. If dad is living in
poverty, and kid is flitting from one expensive sport to another, with
all the attending costs associated with such, it would be safe to say
that CS is not set at a fair level.

It also at least shows that the money is being spent on the child - and
weren't you advocating letting parent(s) decide what is important to/for
the child?

Parents---BOTH parents. NOT one parent as the chooser and the other as the
payer. BOTH make the choices.


Of course, if you have 1 parent who refuses to take part in the decision
making process, then it does sort of fall on the other parent to have to
make the decisions.

I don't think so. Then, obviously, the uncooperative parent is saying "no
additional expenses."

No, the uncooperative parent is simply saying "no cooperation"

And, as I said before, if the NCP is refusing even
the most basic needs of the child, THAT IS WHAT THE SYSTEM IS FOR! Not
because Daddy refuses to by a new baseball mitt, or other nonsense like
that.


And no, not all parents are "forced out" of the decision making process.
Shoot, there's any number of *married* parents who simply let the other
parent decide. My best hypothesis says that approximately the same
proportions on married parents default out of the decision making process
as divorced parents do.

I'm sure that hypothesis is comfortable for you, Moon.

You know nothing about my comfort levels, Teach, and it's dishonest of you
to pretend that you do.



"Greedy" was a word I took form the post I was
responding to. The point is--let's leave those who can handle it on
their own alone, and trun attention to those who are abousing the system
on BOTH sides of the issue.

Works for me - I just see you propose some things that really won't work
in the real world. Not all divorced parents are just champing at the bit
to take on 50 or more % of the care of their children, either in time or
in money. It's just not reality. So your starting point that all
parents, 100% of them, should start with joint custody/care/expense
obligations just doesn't seem to address this reality.

Well, Moon, it's better than the starting point being "beat the living
crap out of the NCP until he is compliant to every demand." Starting with
trust is a much better option.

Well, since I never proposed a starting point of "beat the living crap out
of the NCP until he is compliant to every demand." , this is another
superflous thing that you're bringing up.





I can see
your arguement, that the cost isnt worth the benifit, that the
system
does not work.

Not only does it not work, it causes most of the problems to begin
with,
IMO.

What causes most of the problem is two adults having kids and being
unable to make it work. Child support is an attempt by the state (a
clumsy, heavyhanded one) to insure the welfare of the only blameless
party, the kids.

And what it actually does is ensure ongoing support of the mother, who
has no legal responsibility of any kind to provide more than bare
bones support for her children. She gets to spend the rest however
she wants to.

She also gets all the "pay me now" bills for the children - it's silly
to assume that she pays none of the expenses of the children with that
child support money, puts them on welfare rations, tattered clothing
from the trashbin and no electricity after 6pm so the mom can what?
Buy lottery tickets?

You must have a very low opinion of CP mothers, if you think that we
don't have the same priorities of taking care of our children first -
realistically,. there's nothing to stop a married parent from onlyt
providing the bare bones support for their children, and then spend the
rest however they want it to - why would you hold a divorced parent to
a different standard?

Moon, I am (and always have been) talking specifically about the abusers
of the system.

Then it would be nice if you were careful about pointing that out when
you slam CP's as you are when you promote sympathy for NCP's.

What the heck are you talking about. I have *always* said that there are
abusers on both sides of the system!!

Yet you save your flames for CP's who get child support, whether they use it
responsibly or not, whether they have sole or joint custody - as a matter of
fact, it appears that you put your stepdaughter's mother's face on all CP's.

I have no more sympathy for the true
deadbeats than I do for the greedy CPs who pad their expenses and take
what is not rightfully theirs for themselves!


The vast majority of both CPs and NCPs do not need the system,
but are fair, honest adults. As for there being no lapreventing married
parents from providing only a bare bones existence--so what?

Well, let's not treat married parents differently from divorced parents -
isn't that one of the things you have posted in the past? That all
parents need to be treated the same?

Absolutely!! Let's trust the divorced parents until they prove themselves
untrustworthy just as we do married parents. And let's keep the levels of
*required* support exactly the same for both.


There is also
no law requiring them to provide any existence above tha--so why should
divorced fathers be held to that standard? That is not the point, and
you know it.

Then why are you holding CP-receiving mothers to some standard above
that? That was my point.

I'm not. I'm saying that NCPs should be asked to pay only 50% of the
amount required to meet a child's needs.

And how much is required to meet a child's needs? Are all children's needs
the same? Please share this secret number with us.

Anything else should be voluntary. Just
like married parents.





The problem is that in the absence of any alternative
the existing system works a whole lot better than anything else I
have
ever heard.

Then you haven't been listening. Most parent, even fathers, want to
support their children but when they are removed by force and
prevented
from being a parent, you get a result that can be forecast with
relative
accuracy. The current child support system is the problem; parents
not
fully supporting their children is just a symptom that in a large
part
results from the problem.

Impoverished children is one of the primary causes of
society's major problems(a completely different discussion but I
can
support that position if need-be), so taking money from their
FATHERS
to relieve a portion of that is a GOOD trade.

It *would* be a good trade if the C$ were mandated for the
children's
needs. Forcing one parent to pay money that can be used for anything
at
all does nothing for the children unless the receptient is honest,
which
many are not. If, and that's a big "if", the C$ could only be used
for
or by the children, more would be willing to play the game according
to
the rules.

Almost all judges dismissed that crap logic a long time ago, "for the
child" is impossible to define and begging for a thousand challanges
on
ever little detail.

Yes it sucks, and no the
system doesnt work that well, but if the only alternative you have
to
suggest is allowing people to operate on an honor system, I will
never
willing support that.

Then you feel that *all* intact parents should be mandated by the
court
to pay 100% of the state's guideline amounts toward their children?
This is part of the problem. Parents, lacking a government mandate
(court order), have the ability to spend less than the official
guideline amount on their children as they see fit as long as the
children are not legally neglected, which is a very low standard in
any
state.

No, I think that having a child and then allowing the household to
fail
invites the interference of outsiders. The government mandate is
likley
far higher than necessary, but at least some mandated amount is
necessary since a custodial parent can be charged with neglect
whereas
a NCP can not.

On the contrary, it is very difficult to charge the custodial parent
with neglect if she feeds and clothes the children even minimally.
Charing the NCP an exorbitant rate does not in any way insure a
standard of living to the child. And it doesn't take much to avoid
neglect charges. Believe me, I have seen some lollapaloozers in the
course of my career. I know how little is necessary to avoid a neglect
label!


Any increase in fathers rights must be coupled
with an increase in social services, and/or support investigation
and
enforcement, otherwise the problems at the bottom of the spectrum
will
get worst.
And when families fail the costs to society in terms of both
money and quality of life are far higher than when a grown man
does
without.

Not necessarily. When fathers are in an intact family, most choose
to
fully support their families, including children, without court
orders.
By giving NCPs the same rights and responsibilities as the CP,
equality
reigns and everyone, including children win. Something like 85% of
children raised without a father present in the home develop
behavorial
problems. Juveniles committed to juvenile prisons in Texas: 1% are
from
single father homes, 20% are from 2-parent homes, 79% are from
fatherless homes. Single father homes constitute 4% of households,
single mother homes constitute 37%, and two parent homes constitute
59%.
The children of single mother households are 8.5 times more likely
to be
in juvenile prisons than children of single father households.
Children
of single father households are 35% less likely than the children of
two
parent households to be in juvenile prisons.

Your missing some data there, what percentage of single mother
households are below poverty, what percentage of single father
households. Poverty in childhood correlates overwhelmingly to
incarceration, both in childhood and in adulthood. That would
suggest
that more child support to get the single mother households above
poverty would be the solution not less. Somehow I dont think that is
what you were trying to say.

But taking money from an already impoverished father is not going to
make a substantial difference in the poverty level of the children.
They'll *still* be living in poverty! And just how many separated
families do you think there are where the father is living high on the
hog, while mother and children languish in poverty?

How many separated families do you think there are where the mother is
living high on the hog, while the father languishes in poverty?

Once you get past the melodrama, the answer is 'probably very few in
either scenario'

THAT'S RIGHT!! Then why base an entire system on the possibility that
such a thing is happening? "We are curing poverty for millions of
children by forcing those scummy NCPs to pay." NONSENSE!!!!!!

Thre only ones I see talking about children in poverty are the ones who
are having to pay CS for some prior child, and how their own children are
now forced into poverty.

Actually, the system was set up to "keep children from poverty." It
hasn't worked because the system is flawed.


Certainly, I have been promoting the concept that raising children costs
money

Of course it does--but how much money is to meet basic needs, and how much
is parental choice?

Since it costs money to raise children, someone needs to pay that money.
That someone needs to be the child's legal mother and father

Absolutely. For their basic needs. The rest should be voluntary.

And how much do those basic needs cost? What ARE those basic needs? How
many pair of underwear is a basic need? How many pair of socks? How many
jeans, shirts, how many doctor visits per year?

Where is this magical list of a child's basic needs, and is that a one size
list for ALL children?



Child support is not tied to parenting time/visitation/whatever in hell
you want to call it. Some people get so hung up on the label for
something, they miss out that it was the thing they really wanted.

My bet says that most men, when they were married, didn't question their
wives on how each and every penny was spent. They just didn't. I find
it almost humorous that those very same men who didn't give a damn how
the money was spent while married now want to micromanage their ex's
financials, completely overlooking that her checkbook is no longer his
business, post divorce.

Well, Moon, if you cannot understand that, then you need to go get
yourself another cup of coffee and wake up. OF COURSE they are going to
question now. They have every right to! Things have changed--why should
the woman continue to have access to what was partnership $$ before the
partnership was broken by divorce.

Get over it.

Get over what?

The get over it was relative to the idea that post-divorce, the ex no longer
has the right to micromanage the CP's checkbook.




My ex was all up in arms the year that I bought a new SUV.

He insisted that I had used the CS money for it, and was starving our
children (who were naked and had to walk 5 miles to school, barefoot, in
the snow, uphill both ways apparently).

He insisted this, he tried to make a federal case out of it, he even
tried to sue me in civil court.

Pity for him, my prior car had been totalled, and the new one was far
less expensive - and I didn't use a single penny of CS to pay for it.

I don't have a problem with either parent buying things with their own
money.

But how do you know which dollars bought it? :-)
I have a real problem with the assumption that it was CS dollars that bought
my car (or anything else that I purchase, for that matter)




So much of this is simply a control game - you can't control me,
therefore you try to control my checkbook.

Why not take all that angry energy and do something constructive with it,
like working on strengthening a relationship with ALL your kids? The
ones who live with you, the ones who don't live with you.... at least
then, you'd have tangible results that make you feel as though you've
made a positive change in your corner of the world.

What a waste to sit on any forum, ranting and raving, and saying the same
things over and over, year after year, with no change after years and
years of it.

Teach - any idea how long you've been ranting and raving about the use of
the word irrelevant?

Well, Moon, if you don't mind having an entire system labeling your system
irrelevant, then I guess you and your irrelevant children can continue
your irrelevant existewnces believing your irrelevant thoughts.

I would expect that I, and my children, are irrelevant to you - we have no
bearing to your life, just as you and your family have no bearing on mine.



As for me, no system has any right to label any child irrelevant. Have an
irrelevant day with your irrelevant children.

We're having a quite fun day, actually.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dale" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

We pay women to whelp children. The more children they have, the
more
money
they get. The more men they have children with, the more they
make.
The
poorest women have the largest safety net system to support their
single
motherhood.


It's turning out that way, a kid is a free ticket to 18 years of
tax
free income!

And well more than 18 years of bills.

Such as?
What bills, other than minimal support of children and her own costs
is
she forced to pay?

Please define this "minimal support of children" - cause all I know is,
I
have 2 teenagers, and everything from food to educational expenses, to
clothing expenses to health and dental insurance to medical and dental
expenses has risen steadily between their infancy and their current
adolescence.

And it doesn't magically stop when they hit their 18th birthday.

Here's some advice on how other mothers handle your dilemma:

Make the child get a job.

When CS stops, start charging the child rent.

Stop buying food they like so they eat out more.

Force the child to do more around the home - Turn them into unpaid
domestic
workers.

Tell them to buy their own clothes.

Ask the child to buy stuff for you and then never repay them.

As you can see, the free money subsidy doesn't "magically stop when they
hit
their 18th birthday." The trick is to turn previous expenses into an
income
source. Just talk to some other former CP mothers. They can give you
lots
of hints on how to turn your children into money generating assets.

If you want to follow that "advice", go for it. Personally, I think your
advice sucks, and have no intention of treating ANYONE that way, much less
my children.

Hummmm! Maybe my "advice" to solve mother's post-18 CS money problems is
why both my children came to live with me. Have you ever stopped to think
that fathers treat their children in a way that shows children a more
supportive parenting style? Why do you think so many children of divorce
refer to their mothers as being greedy?

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dale" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

We pay women to whelp children. The more children they have, the
more money
they get. The more men they have children with, the more they
make. The
poorest women have the largest safety net system to support their
single
motherhood.


It's turning out that way, a kid is a free ticket to 18 years of
tax free income!

And well more than 18 years of bills.

Such as?
What bills, other than minimal support of children and her own costs
is she forced to pay?

Please define this "minimal support of children" - cause all I know
is, I have 2 teenagers, and everything from food to educational
expenses, to clothing expenses to health and dental insurance to
medical and dental expenses has risen steadily between their infancy
and their current adolescence.

And it doesn't magically stop when they hit their 18th birthday.

Phil #3


Minimal support is that required by law, which if you've ever seen
situations that barely meet the situation, you'd agree are not
acceptable to many, if not most, parents.
It is the very basic food, shelter, clothing, etc.
You are only legally required to minimally support your children,
period.
That you choose to support them better is a choice.
If the support doesn't end with their attaining adulthood, it is BY
YOUR CHOICE.
Now what, beside minimal support is the CP *required* to supply?

Pretty much what *any* parent feels compelled to provide to their
children - a reasonable upbringing.

Yoiu and BOb seem to be on the same page - if that's how you've treated
your children, I feel sorry for them.

OK, you don't agree that minimal support is enough. But it is a *choice*
to provide more than that. You are only *legally required* to provide
the minimum. Your choice to provide more does not change the legal
requirement in any way.

Reality being what it is, there IS no "legal requirement" - certainly none
that I've seen spelled out in the divorce laws of my state, nor spelled
out in my divorce.

On a more personal level, I'd be pretty worried about ANY parent who was
calculating how much support to provide to their children based on some
"legal minimum requirement"

I don't disagree with you on that, Moon. But you have no right to make that
same decision for others.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
oups.com...

snip for length


And how is allowing everyone to opt out going to solve that?

It is not "allowing everyone to opt out", it's allowing those who
choose
to be supportive of their children the right and ability to do that
without untold governmental interferrence. It *won't* solve it but
it
would allow the focus to be put on those who try to avoid it. As it
is,
those who willingly pay are being touted as money being forcefully
collected, which it isn't. All the while, those who are adamant
about
not paying still aren't. By using the draconian methods to force
money
from one adult to another, which may or may not benefit the
children,
many see the falicy and opt out.

So you dont want to opt out you just want the amount to be
undetermined
and unenforcable except in extreme cases. That of course isnt going
to
lead to more failed households, yeah right. Sounds like a
Libertarian
rosetintted view personally.

No! Let the parents act like adults and discuss together what the
children need.

Unfortunately, you can't control how people act, and not all parents
act like adults.

Let the fathers be just as involved as the mothers in the raising of
the children, instead of just being walking wallets.

Unfortunately, not all fathers WANT to be just as involved as mothers.

Let the parents decide
together that Little League is important for Johnny, and decide
together who will buy the uniform and pay the fees required--instead
of mom being able to go to court to force dad to pay more because
*she* decides that Little League is important.

Unfortunately,. not all divorced/separated parents of children are
able to decide ANYTHING together.

You forgot to read this paragraph:

" Geesh, ghost! Enforcement is specifically for the times that the
above
system wouldn't work! By spending so much energy collecting from those
who would gladly take care of things on their own, LESS time and energy
are available for those who refuse to do what is right. The current is
actually making it *easier* for true deadbeats to get away with it."



Let the parents BE parents! You are sooooooooooo
distrustful!! Why do you think that fathers are out to harm and/or
purposely neglect their children?



Yes I agree that many if not most of the time this would work but it
would also prevent enforcement in the large number of cases in which
it
wouldnt work.

Geesh, ghost! Enforcement is specifically for the times that the
above system wouldn't work! By spending so much energy collecting
from those who would gladly take care of things on their own, LESS
time and energy are available for those who refuse to do what is
right. The current is actually making it *easier* for true deadbeats
to get away with it.


By the way nothing says a child support order must be in
place, a great many CP's do not feel they are necessary to make the
NCP
pay. And I imagine that a lot of child support orders are because
the
CP is greedy, but of course I imagine that an equal number exist
because the NCP's idea of reasonable child support, isnt.

Then let's concentrate on the true deadbeats, and the truly greedy
CPs.

And how would you determine the level of someone's greed? Whatt would
be the guidelines for acceptable levels of greed, versus unacceptable
levels of greed? Face it, all people, at some time or another,
experience greed - whether it be a larger slice of cake, bigger
helping of steak, whatever.

Set things up so the CP is forced to show what she is actually spending
the $$$ on.

Why? To use *your own* argument, married parents aren't required to do
so. Why are you singling out CP's and requiring them to do so?

If NCPs are required to pay the money, CPs should be required to account
for it. Let them both sail in the same leaky boat. Married parents
aren't required to either provide a specific amount or acoount for it.
But if NCPs face those requirements, so should CPs.


I think patterns of spending reeveal a lot. If dad is living in
poverty, and kid is flitting from one expensive sport to another, with
all the attending costs associated with such, it would be safe to say
that CS is not set at a fair level.

It also at least shows that the money is being spent on the child - and
weren't you advocating letting parent(s) decide what is important to/for
the child?

Parents---BOTH parents. NOT one parent as the chooser and the other as
the payer. BOTH make the choices.


Of course, if you have 1 parent who refuses to take part in the decision
making process, then it does sort of fall on the other parent to have to
make the decisions.

I don't think so. Then, obviously, the uncooperative parent is saying
"no additional expenses."

No, the uncooperative parent is simply saying "no cooperation"

And, as I said before, if the NCP is refusing even
the most basic needs of the child, THAT IS WHAT THE SYSTEM IS FOR! Not
because Daddy refuses to by a new baseball mitt, or other nonsense like
that.


And no, not all parents are "forced out" of the decision making process.
Shoot, there's any number of *married* parents who simply let the other
parent decide. My best hypothesis says that approximately the same
proportions on married parents default out of the decision making
process as divorced parents do.

I'm sure that hypothesis is comfortable for you, Moon.

You know nothing about my comfort levels, Teach, and it's dishonest of you
to pretend that you do.

Fine. Have it your way. Perhaps your hypotheses are UNcomfortable for you.





"Greedy" was a word I took form the post I was
responding to. The point is--let's leave those who can handle it on
their own alone, and trun attention to those who are abousing the
system on BOTH sides of the issue.

Works for me - I just see you propose some things that really won't work
in the real world. Not all divorced parents are just champing at the
bit to take on 50 or more % of the care of their children, either in
time or in money. It's just not reality. So your starting point that
all parents, 100% of them, should start with joint custody/care/expense
obligations just doesn't seem to address this reality.

Well, Moon, it's better than the starting point being "beat the living
crap out of the NCP until he is compliant to every demand." Starting
with trust is a much better option.

Well, since I never proposed a starting point of "beat the living crap
out of the NCP until he is compliant to every demand." , this is another
superflous thing that you're bringing up.

The system treats NCPs as if they are uncooperative boors out to cheat their
children of even the basic necessities. The is NOT a good starting point.
We need a better one--despite the fact that a small percentage of NCPs do
try to avoid any responsibility for their children. We need to start with
trust, then use the system to deal with those who prove themselves unable to
handle it.


I can see
your arguement, that the cost isnt worth the benifit, that the
system
does not work.

Not only does it not work, it causes most of the problems to begin
with,
IMO.

What causes most of the problem is two adults having kids and being
unable to make it work. Child support is an attempt by the state (a
clumsy, heavyhanded one) to insure the welfare of the only blameless
party, the kids.

And what it actually does is ensure ongoing support of the mother,
who has no legal responsibility of any kind to provide more than bare
bones support for her children. She gets to spend the rest however
she wants to.

She also gets all the "pay me now" bills for the children - it's silly
to assume that she pays none of the expenses of the children with that
child support money, puts them on welfare rations, tattered clothing
from the trashbin and no electricity after 6pm so the mom can what?
Buy lottery tickets?

You must have a very low opinion of CP mothers, if you think that we
don't have the same priorities of taking care of our children first -
realistically,. there's nothing to stop a married parent from onlyt
providing the bare bones support for their children, and then spend
the rest however they want it to - why would you hold a divorced
parent to a different standard?

Moon, I am (and always have been) talking specifically about the
abusers of the system.

Then it would be nice if you were careful about pointing that out when
you slam CP's as you are when you promote sympathy for NCP's.

What the heck are you talking about. I have *always* said that there are
abusers on both sides of the system!!

Yet you save your flames for CP's who get child support, whether they use
it responsibly or not, whether they have sole or joint custody - as a
matter of fact, it appears that you put your stepdaughter's mother's face
on all CP's.

Actually, you are wrong. My husband's daughter's mother ism indeed, a piece
of work. But, if I put her face on all CPs, I would not be able to say that
most people involved in the system are hones and deserve to handle their own
affairs. If, indeed, I put her face on all CPs, I would not be able to say
that there are people on both sides of the system who are getting the short
end of the stick, which I have said quite often. I have no idea why you
need to read such things into what I say. Perhaps it is because you
identify with the CPs who get the short end of the stick. But, not being
able to read your mind, I can not state that definitively.



I have no more sympathy for the true
deadbeats than I do for the greedy CPs who pad their expenses and take
what is not rightfully theirs for themselves!


The vast majority of both CPs and NCPs do not need the system,
but are fair, honest adults. As for there being no lapreventing
married parents from providing only a bare bones existence--so what?

Well, let's not treat married parents differently from divorced
parents - isn't that one of the things you have posted in the past?
That all parents need to be treated the same?

Absolutely!! Let's trust the divorced parents until they prove
themselves untrustworthy just as we do married parents. And let's keep
the levels of *required* support exactly the same for both.


There is also
no law requiring them to provide any existence above tha--so why should
divorced fathers be held to that standard? That is not the point, and
you know it.

Then why are you holding CP-receiving mothers to some standard above
that? That was my point.

I'm not. I'm saying that NCPs should be asked to pay only 50% of the
amount required to meet a child's needs.

And how much is required to meet a child's needs? Are all children's
needs the same? Please share this secret number with us.

It's not that hard to figure out the basic costs of food, shelter, and
clothing for a child in any area of the country. If I provided the figure
for the area where I live, it would be far too high a figure for other
areas, because we live in a high cost of living are. What a silly question.



Anything else should be voluntary. Just
like married parents.





The problem is that in the absence of any alternative
the existing system works a whole lot better than anything else I
have
ever heard.

Then you haven't been listening. Most parent, even fathers, want to
support their children but when they are removed by force and
prevented
from being a parent, you get a result that can be forecast with
relative
accuracy. The current child support system is the problem; parents
not
fully supporting their children is just a symptom that in a large
part
results from the problem.

Impoverished children is one of the primary causes of
society's major problems(a completely different discussion but I
can
support that position if need-be), so taking money from their
FATHERS
to relieve a portion of that is a GOOD trade.

It *would* be a good trade if the C$ were mandated for the
children's
needs. Forcing one parent to pay money that can be used for
anything at
all does nothing for the children unless the receptient is honest,
which
many are not. If, and that's a big "if", the C$ could only be used
for
or by the children, more would be willing to play the game
according to
the rules.

Almost all judges dismissed that crap logic a long time ago, "for
the
child" is impossible to define and begging for a thousand challanges
on
ever little detail.

Yes it sucks, and no the
system doesnt work that well, but if the only alternative you
have to
suggest is allowing people to operate on an honor system, I will
never
willing support that.

Then you feel that *all* intact parents should be mandated by the
court
to pay 100% of the state's guideline amounts toward their children?
This is part of the problem. Parents, lacking a government mandate
(court order), have the ability to spend less than the official
guideline amount on their children as they see fit as long as the
children are not legally neglected, which is a very low standard in
any
state.

No, I think that having a child and then allowing the household to
fail
invites the interference of outsiders. The government mandate is
likley
far higher than necessary, but at least some mandated amount is
necessary since a custodial parent can be charged with neglect
whereas
a NCP can not.

On the contrary, it is very difficult to charge the custodial parent
with neglect if she feeds and clothes the children even minimally.
Charing the NCP an exorbitant rate does not in any way insure a
standard of living to the child. And it doesn't take much to avoid
neglect charges. Believe me, I have seen some lollapaloozers in the
course of my career. I know how little is necessary to avoid a
neglect label!


Any increase in fathers rights must be coupled
with an increase in social services, and/or support investigation
and
enforcement, otherwise the problems at the bottom of the spectrum
will
get worst.
And when families fail the costs to society in terms of both
money and quality of life are far higher than when a grown man
does
without.

Not necessarily. When fathers are in an intact family, most choose
to
fully support their families, including children, without court
orders.
By giving NCPs the same rights and responsibilities as the CP,
equality
reigns and everyone, including children win. Something like 85% of
children raised without a father present in the home develop
behavorial
problems. Juveniles committed to juvenile prisons in Texas: 1% are
from
single father homes, 20% are from 2-parent homes, 79% are from
fatherless homes. Single father homes constitute 4% of households,
single mother homes constitute 37%, and two parent homes constitute
59%.
The children of single mother households are 8.5 times more likely
to be
in juvenile prisons than children of single father households.
Children
of single father households are 35% less likely than the children
of two
parent households to be in juvenile prisons.

Your missing some data there, what percentage of single mother
households are below poverty, what percentage of single father
households. Poverty in childhood correlates overwhelmingly to
incarceration, both in childhood and in adulthood. That would
suggest
that more child support to get the single mother households above
poverty would be the solution not less. Somehow I dont think that is
what you were trying to say.

But taking money from an already impoverished father is not going to
make a substantial difference in the poverty level of the children.
They'll *still* be living in poverty! And just how many separated
families do you think there are where the father is living high on
the hog, while mother and children languish in poverty?

How many separated families do you think there are where the mother is
living high on the hog, while the father languishes in poverty?

Once you get past the melodrama, the answer is 'probably very few in
either scenario'

THAT'S RIGHT!! Then why base an entire system on the possibility that
such a thing is happening? "We are curing poverty for millions of
children by forcing those scummy NCPs to pay." NONSENSE!!!!!!

Thre only ones I see talking about children in poverty are the ones who
are having to pay CS for some prior child, and how their own children
are now forced into poverty.

Actually, the system was set up to "keep children from poverty." It
hasn't worked because the system is flawed.


Certainly, I have been promoting the concept that raising children costs
money

Of course it does--but how much money is to meet basic needs, and how
much is parental choice?

Since it costs money to raise children, someone needs to pay that money.
That someone needs to be the child's legal mother and father

Absolutely. For their basic needs. The rest should be voluntary.

And how much do those basic needs cost? What ARE those basic needs? How
many pair of underwear is a basic need? How many pair of socks? How many
jeans, shirts, how many doctor visits per year?

Ah, Moon. You are so silly sometimes. The ridiculous tables that have been
(mis) used for so many years have no problem demanding "lifestyle" support.
I will be no more difficult to figure out the cost of basic needs.



Where is this magical list of a child's basic needs, and is that a one
size list for ALL children?

First step: Food, clothing, shelter. Things that, indeed, all children
need.





Child support is not tied to parenting time/visitation/whatever in hell
you want to call it. Some people get so hung up on the label for
something, they miss out that it was the thing they really wanted.

My bet says that most men, when they were married, didn't question their
wives on how each and every penny was spent. They just didn't. I find
it almost humorous that those very same men who didn't give a damn how
the money was spent while married now want to micromanage their ex's
financials, completely overlooking that her checkbook is no longer his
business, post divorce.

Well, Moon, if you cannot understand that, then you need to go get
yourself another cup of coffee and wake up. OF COURSE they are going to
question now. They have every right to! Things have changed--why should
the woman continue to have access to what was partnership $$ before the
partnership was broken by divorce.

Get over it.

Get over what?

The get over it was relative to the idea that post-divorce, the ex no
longer has the right to micromanage the CP's checkbook.

Oh for goodness sake, Moon!


My ex was all up in arms the year that I bought a new SUV.

He insisted that I had used the CS money for it, and was starving our
children (who were naked and had to walk 5 miles to school, barefoot, in
the snow, uphill both ways apparently).

He insisted this, he tried to make a federal case out of it, he even
tried to sue me in civil court.

Pity for him, my prior car had been totalled, and the new one was far
less expensive - and I didn't use a single penny of CS to pay for it.

I don't have a problem with either parent buying things with their own
money.

But how do you know which dollars bought it? :-)
I have a real problem with the assumption that it was CS dollars that
bought my car (or anything else that I purchase, for that matter)

So? If you can prove how much you actually spent on your children--which
you have said is far more than any child support paid--what do you care what
people say?


So much of this is simply a control game - you can't control me,
therefore you try to control my checkbook.

Why not take all that angry energy and do something constructive with
it, like working on strengthening a relationship with ALL your kids?
The ones who live with you, the ones who don't live with you.... at
least then, you'd have tangible results that make you feel as though
you've made a positive change in your corner of the world.

What a waste to sit on any forum, ranting and raving, and saying the
same things over and over, year after year, with no change after years
and years of it.

Teach - any idea how long you've been ranting and raving about the use
of the word irrelevant?

Well, Moon, if you don't mind having an entire system labeling your
system irrelevant, then I guess you and your irrelevant children can
continue your irrelevant existewnces believing your irrelevant thoughts.

I would expect that I, and my children, are irrelevant to you - we have no
bearing to your life, just as you and your family have no bearing on mine.

Ah, but MY children were declared to have no rights to their father's
income--irrelevant. That does touch our lives. Just because you have not
had any similar experience in no way negates the fact that the system that
is supposed to be in place to look out for the best interests of the
children declares that only SOME children are important enough to have their
rights protected--and that other children are irrelevant. That is a BAD
system!




As for me, no system has any right to label any child irrelevant. Have
an irrelevant day with your irrelevant children.

We're having a quite fun day, actually.

It's irrelevant.