"Child Support" money?

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:32:16 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


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.

Or modified downward.

Downward modifications are rare. The national CSE site shows they occur in
only 4% of the modifications.



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.

WHo probably make up a small portion of the reported numbers. If I
remember the majority of support was given to those 21 and up.

It's two different categories. The young girls age 15-17 account for a
small number of support cases and they are considered statistically too
small of a group to extend out to the total population. The other category
are adult children aged 18-21 who still live with their former CP mother,
but because of their age they are no longer included on CS orders in states
where CS ends at 18 or 19. Also, children living at home, but having CS
paid directly to them would fit into this category too.



The $4,755 does not include healthcare insurance and
reimbursements, life insurance, daycare, etc. that are add-ons to the
basic
CS order.

It very well may. My state includes daycare expenses in the support
order already added in. Life insurance? Reimbursements? Those are
judgements that are seperate from the CS order anyway. I dont know
one person who got life insurance ordered. I have seen reimbursement
for medical expenses or extrordinary expense like braces, private
school, etc. However, most children dont go to private school and
many dont need braces.

Life insurance is ordered all the time to gurantee the CS is paid if the NCP
dies before the children reach the age of majority. Some states have case
law preventing a judge from forcing an NCP to designate the children as
beneficiaries. In those states they tell the fathers they have a choice -
either take out the required insurance in the amount the court sets, or the
court will reserve the right to create a constructive trust over the
father's assets in the event of his death in the same amount.


And it does not include education CS paid directly to adult
children attending college.

Where did you see this statement?

It isn't in the Census report. However, CS ordered to be paid directly to
the adult child is not CS ordered to be paid to the CP mother. In some
cases, the judgment creditor is changed from the mother to the child. This
can account for a child living in the CP's home without the mother receiving
any CS for the child.


It also does not account for the additional
support value for non-cash support that 60% of CP's report receiving from
NCP's.

What is non-cash support?

I've answered this question twice. See page 6 of the report. 60% of CP's
report receiving at least one form of non-cash support from NCP's. This
includes gifts, clothes, food and groceries, medical expenses other than
healthcare insurance, child care, and summer camp reimbursements.


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.

Possibly in some cases but not all. In some cases this could be less.

It's just a guess on my part that these items can add $400-500 per month.
Let me share some of my own experience with this. While I was paying CS for
my daughter attending college, I also agreed to pay all of her school
expenses not covered by student and parent loans. I also paid her car
insurance, all of her medical expenses, and bought her a laptop to use at
school. That stuff adds up very fast.



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.

I doubt that.

So why do you think CSE inflates the amount of CS due by including in their
statistics the amount they would collect if the 50% of parents without
formal CS agreements were included in their caseload? Why do you think CSE
has forced every new or newly modified CS order through their agencies for
collection? Have you noticed CSE is collecting fewer and fewer welfare
reimbursement dollars while their non-TANF collections are rising
dramatically? The answers are simple - they are trying to take credit for a
big caseload that they do nothing to collect to make it look like they are
effective to Congress. It's all smoke and mirrors.

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:32:16 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


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.

Or modified downward.

Downward modifications are rare. The national CSE site shows they occur in
only 4% of the modifications.



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.

WHo probably make up a small portion of the reported numbers. If I
remember the majority of support was given to those 21 and up.

It's two different categories. The young girls age 15-17 account for a
small number of support cases and they are considered statistically too
small of a group to extend out to the total population. The other category
are adult children aged 18-21 who still live with their former CP mother,
but because of their age they are no longer included on CS orders in states
where CS ends at 18 or 19. Also, children living at home, but having CS
paid directly to them would fit into this category too.



The $4,755 does not include healthcare insurance and
reimbursements, life insurance, daycare, etc. that are add-ons to the
basic
CS order.

It very well may. My state includes daycare expenses in the support
order already added in. Life insurance? Reimbursements? Those are
judgements that are seperate from the CS order anyway. I dont know
one person who got life insurance ordered. I have seen reimbursement
for medical expenses or extrordinary expense like braces, private
school, etc. However, most children dont go to private school and
many dont need braces.

Life insurance is ordered all the time to gurantee the CS is paid if the NCP
dies before the children reach the age of majority. Some states have case
law preventing a judge from forcing an NCP to designate the children as
beneficiaries. In those states they tell the fathers they have a choice -
either take out the required insurance in the amount the court sets, or the
court will reserve the right to create a constructive trust over the
father's assets in the event of his death in the same amount.


And it does not include education CS paid directly to adult
children attending college.

Where did you see this statement?

It isn't in the Census report. However, CS ordered to be paid directly to
the adult child is not CS ordered to be paid to the CP mother. In some
cases, the judgment creditor is changed from the mother to the child. This
can account for a child living in the CP's home without the mother receiving
any CS for the child.


It also does not account for the additional
support value for non-cash support that 60% of CP's report receiving from
NCP's.

What is non-cash support?

I've answered this question twice. See page 6 of the report. 60% of CP's
report receiving at least one form of non-cash support from NCP's. This
includes gifts, clothes, food and groceries, medical expenses other than
healthcare insurance, child care, and summer camp reimbursements.


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.

Possibly in some cases but not all. In some cases this could be less.

It's just a guess on my part that these items can add $400-500 per month.
Let me share some of my own experience with this. While I was paying CS for
my daughter attending college, I also agreed to pay all of her school
expenses not covered by student and parent loans. I also paid her car
insurance, all of her medical expenses, and bought her a laptop to use at
school. That stuff adds up very fast.



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.

I doubt that.

So why do you think CSE inflates the amount of CS due by including in their
statistics the amount they would collect if the 50% of parents without
formal CS agreements were included in their caseload? Why do you think CSE
has forced every new or newly modified CS order through their agencies for
collection? Have you noticed CSE is collecting fewer and fewer welfare
reimbursement dollars while their non-TANF collections are rising
dramatically? The answers are simple - they are trying to take credit for a
big caseload that they do nothing to collect to make it look like they are
effective to Congress. It's all smoke and mirrors.

So...
"Cameron Stevens" wrote in message
...

"The Beast" wrote in message
.com...

"Cameron Stevens" wrote in message
.. .
Supporting the mother *is* supporting the child. I know what you mean
but
there's no sane or reasonable way to enforce this.

You are assuming that the current enforcement practices are reasonable!

No... It doesn't matter if the practices are reasonable. Paying the mom,
regardless of the amount of fairness, supports the child. How WELL the
child
is supported is then left to the mom (CP, sorry).

Cameron


....we leave mom(CP ,sorry) to her(it's ,sorry) own devices, unchecked,
unbalanced. GREAT IDEA!

You know...just because a legislative body makes a law, any law, does not
make it right!
People from the left in this country have been telling us for years that
morality cannot be legislated upon. Well, friend, that is exactly what CS
legislation is! Laws governing what I or someone else think is right. With
that said, I don't have a problem supporting my children. What I have a
problem with is some government equation telling me how much it costs to
rise MY children. YOU CANNOT tell me how to raise my children or how much I
SHOULD spend on them. IOW's NO ONE SHOULD HAVE MORAL AUTHORITY OVER ME
BESIDES MY CREATOR!!! Not you, not a court, and especially not some elected
"official" that is sucking up PAC money like a cheap whore on the docks on
payday.
However, I would be interested in a system that allowed a NCP to pay a CP
without the blood-stained hands of the court involved. A contract, if you
will, between two consenting adults(novel concept, huh?). And in this day of
technology this would be very easy. Hell, I can pay my phone bill while I'm
driving down the road @ 70mph, why cant I pay my ex electronically and cut
out the middle man(govco)?

So...
"Cameron Stevens" wrote in message
...

"The Beast" wrote in message
.com...

"Cameron Stevens" wrote in message
.. .
Supporting the mother *is* supporting the child. I know what you mean
but
there's no sane or reasonable way to enforce this.

You are assuming that the current enforcement practices are reasonable!

No... It doesn't matter if the practices are reasonable. Paying the mom,
regardless of the amount of fairness, supports the child. How WELL the
child
is supported is then left to the mom (CP, sorry).

Cameron


....we leave mom(CP ,sorry) to her(it's ,sorry) own devices, unchecked,
unbalanced. GREAT IDEA!

You know...just because a legislative body makes a law, any law, does not
make it right!
People from the left in this country have been telling us for years that
morality cannot be legislated upon. Well, friend, that is exactly what CS
legislation is! Laws governing what I or someone else think is right. With
that said, I don't have a problem supporting my children. What I have a
problem with is some government equation telling me how much it costs to
rise MY children. YOU CANNOT tell me how to raise my children or how much I
SHOULD spend on them. IOW's NO ONE SHOULD HAVE MORAL AUTHORITY OVER ME
BESIDES MY CREATOR!!! Not you, not a court, and especially not some elected
"official" that is sucking up PAC money like a cheap whore on the docks on
payday.
However, I would be interested in a system that allowed a NCP to pay a CP
without the blood-stained hands of the court involved. A contract, if you
will, between two consenting adults(novel concept, huh?). And in this day of
technology this would be very easy. Hell, I can pay my phone bill while I'm
driving down the road @ 70mph, why cant I pay my ex electronically and cut
out the middle man(govco)?

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:00:33 -0800, "Chris" wrote:



Untrue. You can provide food, clothing, etc. and not spend one thin dime.
However, that does NOT address the question. I understand the question to
be
inquiring about the mandatory number of dollars intact families must
spend.
So, the answer is?


How exactly can you do all that and not spend one dime? Stealing?
Please let me know because I sure would like to get in on that deal.

Ever hear of bartering? So again, the answer is?

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:00:33 -0800, "Chris" wrote:



Untrue. You can provide food, clothing, etc. and not spend one thin dime.
However, that does NOT address the question. I understand the question to
be
inquiring about the mandatory number of dollars intact families must
spend.
So, the answer is?


How exactly can you do all that and not spend one dime? Stealing?
Please let me know because I sure would like to get in on that deal.

Ever hear of bartering? So again, the answer is?

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



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.

What state do you live in, FFK? I think mandatory mediation is a
great idea!

Mandatory mediation is simply a shrink acting as a judge. If either party
disagrees with the decision, they can appeal it.

Does it seem to work well? Any stats on that?

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



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.

What state do you live in, FFK? I think mandatory mediation is a
great idea!

Mandatory mediation is simply a shrink acting as a judge. If either party
disagrees with the decision, they can appeal it.

Does it seem to work well? Any stats on that?

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:07:53 -0800, "Chris" wrote:


"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:54:44 -0800, "Chris" wrote:


I COULD be wrong, but I believe that you are legally entitled to a
receipt.


lol, you may be legally entitled but that doesnt mean you are going to
get one.

You are legally entitled to wake up tomorrow morning, but that doesn't
mean
someone won't put a bullet in your head tonight. What's your point?

What's yours?

I see that you offer NO point.

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:07:53 -0800, "Chris" wrote:


"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:54:44 -0800, "Chris" wrote:


I COULD be wrong, but I believe that you are legally entitled to a
receipt.


lol, you may be legally entitled but that doesnt mean you are going to
get one.

You are legally entitled to wake up tomorrow morning, but that doesn't
mean
someone won't put a bullet in your head tonight. What's your point?

What's yours?

I see that you offer NO point.