"Child Support" money?

Gini52 wtote:

In article , Fighting For Kids
says...

On 12 Nov 2003 18:45:30 -0800, Gini52 wrote:


====
Yep. It comes from your percent share. (My proposal is, however, that only
the
amount over reasonable actual expenses should be subject to accounting.)
====
====


But what is a reasonable amount? Not one person here has agreed to any
amount proposed.
====
I have repeatedly suggested that a reasonable amount is commensurate with the
amount states pay for foster children. This includes regional COL variances.

How can one set amount for all children in the same geopgraphical area be
reasonable? Should Trump pay CS at the same rate as Joe Average who earns 40K?

In the same county you can have poverty level and millionares paying CS. Is it
really reasonable for a millionare to pay the same CS as the poverty level
person?

Should children that have been raised all of their lives stop getting the
creature comforts they have been getting because their parents divorce?

Of course the obligatory *the NCP can then contribute anything they want above
the base support* is expected. However the problem lies in that without being
forced to provide above foster care level of support some will choose to spend
on themselves, their new SO, or just about anything other than their child.

I happen to know someone that DOES save receipts and sends copies of every
receipt to her ex, as he kept bellyaching about how he paid too much. All it
has done is create more animosity between the two of them. He calls her and
questions why his kids can't eat plain hamburgers rather than chicken nuggets.
From what I have seen it just leads to nitpicking.

I do feel CPs should be responsible for showing how the CS is spent, that way
any nogoodnicks will have to straighten up. Overall I bet if all were required
to show where the CS money is going there would be a lot less of *I pay too
much* but a lot more critical comments that will virtually make no differance
at all in the end.

Mrs Indyguy
====
====

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:40:36 -0500, "Tiffany"
wrote:

Outrages amounts? What to you is a reasonable amount?
4755 is the average support thats been ordered for BOTH mothers and
fathers. Thats about 400.00 for each case, not each child. Is that
reasonable?

The $4,755 is the amount CP's claim has been ordered and this number is from
1999 orders that could have been modified upward twice since the Census data
was collected. For perspective it needs to be stated this average CS amount
includes teenage mothers aged 15 and up who have had children with very low
income teenage boys, as well as adult children over the age of majority for
CS but under age 21. The $4,755 does not include healthcare insurance and
reimbursements, life insurance, daycare, etc. that are add-ons to the basic
CS order. And it does not include education CS paid directly to adult
children attending college. It also does not account for the additional
support value for non-cash support that 60% of CP's report receiving from
NCP's.

The average CS award has got to be at least $400-500 per month more than the
Census shows when you consider all the other factors NCP's are required to
pay.

The government has an agenda to make CS payments and collections sound low
to continually increase the guideline amounts and justify the $4 billion
bureaucracy that has been created to chase down NCP's.

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:40:36 -0500, "Tiffany"
wrote:

Outrages amounts? What to you is a reasonable amount?
4755 is the average support thats been ordered for BOTH mothers and
fathers. Thats about 400.00 for each case, not each child. Is that
reasonable?

The $4,755 is the amount CP's claim has been ordered and this number is from
1999 orders that could have been modified upward twice since the Census data
was collected. For perspective it needs to be stated this average CS amount
includes teenage mothers aged 15 and up who have had children with very low
income teenage boys, as well as adult children over the age of majority for
CS but under age 21. The $4,755 does not include healthcare insurance and
reimbursements, life insurance, daycare, etc. that are add-ons to the basic
CS order. And it does not include education CS paid directly to adult
children attending college. It also does not account for the additional
support value for non-cash support that 60% of CP's report receiving from
NCP's.

The average CS award has got to be at least $400-500 per month more than the
Census shows when you consider all the other factors NCP's are required to
pay.

The government has an agenda to make CS payments and collections sound low
to continually increase the guideline amounts and justify the $4 billion
bureaucracy that has been created to chase down NCP's.

If your child isnt being taken care of properly you probably would
have CPS on your steps, knocking at your door. To take your children
away.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 14:47:31 -0500 (EST), wrote:

Chris ...
In most states, there is no accountability on how CS is spent. If your
child is not being taken care of properly, then you jump in with both
feet and make sure the money goes where it's supposed to.


nm

If your child isnt being taken care of properly you probably would
have CPS on your steps, knocking at your door. To take your children
away.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 14:47:31 -0500 (EST), wrote:

Chris ...
In most states, there is no accountability on how CS is spent. If your
child is not being taken care of properly, then you jump in with both
feet and make sure the money goes where it's supposed to.


nm

Chris wrote:


"Jon" wrote in message
news:AjCsb.187030$e01.681443@attbi_s02...
What I am saying is this: The actual physical child support dollars that
come in the form of a check from the Family Support Registry do not have
to
be spent on the children if the custodial parent has already had to take
the NCP's share out of their own income to pay direct and indirect child
expenses for any given month. This is not rocket science.

If they've already paid for such expenses out of their own pocket, then they
don't need the "child support" money, do they?

Clarify please. Are you trying to say if the CP earns enough to totally support
their child that the NCP shouldn't have to pay any CS?

My niece is employed. She remarried and her new husband earns a considerable
amount. Should her ex no longer pay CS because the two of them can do it on
their own? You know the really sad thing is that her new DH would gladly do so,
he loves his SD. If given the chance to not pay her ex would take the offer in
a heart beat, speaks volumes about him doesn't it.

Mrs Indyguy



"The Dave©" wrote in message
...
Jon wrote:
So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
drink?

FYI. Child support "dollars" can be spent on anything the CP
wants, as long as they have already had to beg, borrow or steal from
others to make up the the deadbeat's share before he decided to pay.

So, you admit that CS is really general income for the CP (read:
mother), and should be taxed accordingly?

Chris wrote:


"Jon" wrote in message
news:AjCsb.187030$e01.681443@attbi_s02...
What I am saying is this: The actual physical child support dollars that
come in the form of a check from the Family Support Registry do not have
to
be spent on the children if the custodial parent has already had to take
the NCP's share out of their own income to pay direct and indirect child
expenses for any given month. This is not rocket science.

If they've already paid for such expenses out of their own pocket, then they
don't need the "child support" money, do they?

Clarify please. Are you trying to say if the CP earns enough to totally support
their child that the NCP shouldn't have to pay any CS?

My niece is employed. She remarried and her new husband earns a considerable
amount. Should her ex no longer pay CS because the two of them can do it on
their own? You know the really sad thing is that her new DH would gladly do so,
he loves his SD. If given the chance to not pay her ex would take the offer in
a heart beat, speaks volumes about him doesn't it.

Mrs Indyguy



"The Dave©" wrote in message
...
Jon wrote:
So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
drink?

FYI. Child support "dollars" can be spent on anything the CP
wants, as long as they have already had to beg, borrow or steal from
others to make up the the deadbeat's share before he decided to pay.

So, you admit that CS is really general income for the CP (read:
mother), and should be taxed accordingly?

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:02:34 -0800, "Chris" wrote:


"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:56:39 -0800, "Chris" wrote:



That ought to be left up to the parent to decide; dontcha think?


If a utopia exsisted, yes. It doesn't. Some parents are able to come
to reasonable agreements that work for them. Some parents are not
able to reach a reasonable agreement and must have a third party
intervene. Whether it be a mediator or judge.

And WHO'S the judge as to whether or not they need a judge? "Reasonable"
is
a matter of opinion subject to the individual.


Usually one of the people in the parties. Our state has madatory
mediation requirements in all divorces (im not sure about the custody
and child support arrangements in which the parents were not married)
I think thats a good step because it forces people to sit down and try
and make a resonable agreement. Some mediations dont work out and
the court is the next step.

Who decides in any lawsuit if a judge is needed?

This is called negotiating in the shadow of the court. It's a joke. The
attorney for the mother will tell her: "Here is what you can expect to get
if we go to a judge. Don't agree to anything less than that." The whole
mediation process is set up to fail. It's a waste of time and taxpayer
money.

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:02:34 -0800, "Chris" wrote:


"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:56:39 -0800, "Chris" wrote:



That ought to be left up to the parent to decide; dontcha think?


If a utopia exsisted, yes. It doesn't. Some parents are able to come
to reasonable agreements that work for them. Some parents are not
able to reach a reasonable agreement and must have a third party
intervene. Whether it be a mediator or judge.

And WHO'S the judge as to whether or not they need a judge? "Reasonable"
is
a matter of opinion subject to the individual.


Usually one of the people in the parties. Our state has madatory
mediation requirements in all divorces (im not sure about the custody
and child support arrangements in which the parents were not married)
I think thats a good step because it forces people to sit down and try
and make a resonable agreement. Some mediations dont work out and
the court is the next step.

Who decides in any lawsuit if a judge is needed?

This is called negotiating in the shadow of the court. It's a joke. The
attorney for the mother will tell her: "Here is what you can expect to get
if we go to a judge. Don't agree to anything less than that." The whole
mediation process is set up to fail. It's a waste of time and taxpayer
money.

In article ,
says...

Chris ...
In most states, there is no accountability on how CS is spent. If your
child is not being taken care of properly, then you jump in with both
feet and make sure the money goes where it's supposed to.
====
Actually, many states do have such statutes. The problem is that they are never
enforced. Florida's statutes specifically forbid the CP from using CS for
her/his personal expenses but it's window dressing--one of those "pretend
remedies" enacted to make it appear the state gives a damn.
====
====


nm