If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#301
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"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 ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "ghostwriter" wrote in message ups.com... Bob Whiteside wrote: "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... DB wrote: "teachrmama" wrote in The problem is that the courts decisions are so uninformed, and long lasting. A temporary order until the estabilishment of a negotated agreement seems like a much better way. Riiiiight....that will certainly happen--the temporary order is so high that the mother has no reason to negotiate to get it changed. Or the temporary order is so low that the dad drags his feet. As long as the system is adversarial there will be big business in screwing the other guy to get what you want. And there will be vultures out there to help you and get their pound of flesh, too. That does kind of gloss over the fact that negoating an agreement would be very difficult since five different peoples interests are at stake. No, there are never 5 people involved. Only mom and dad. 2 people responsible for their joint child(ren). Nobody else. I think the point was for each child there is one mom and one dad involved in each CS cases. But to take your example to the extreme: 1. Mom 2. Child A 2A. Maternal grandma and grandpa. 2 B. Mom's new live-in boyfriend. You forgot Dad's flavor of the week. Dads are told by judges to get rid of their flavor of the week because they cannot afford to support a second family relationship. While live-in boyfriends are okay'd by the courts for mothers since they supposedly add to the children's financial wellbeing. Don't you see a double standard in how the courts rule on these blended family situations? Well, Bob, your statements are simply that - they don't carry a whole lot of weight unless you can provide cites for your anecdotes. Got any? Nobody can provide cites for anecdotes. But if you hear enough anecdotes you start to see a pattern of events. Here's a few anecdotes that show a pattern: I asked the court for lower CS so I could have money for a social life and to buy appropriate clothing for my level of employment. The court told me I had no business dating and I should wear my suits until they wore out. Teachrmama has had her children described as "irrelevant" by the court. The implication is her husband had no business getting married. CS guideline formulas do not include support for subsequent children. Moon Shyne and other women complain their ex's spends money dating instead of paying CS as ordered. The courts allow vindictive mothers to use draconian methods to collect the CS and stop the dating. Live-in boyfriends are more likely than fathers to commit intimate partner violence. Studies using small samples cause this statistic to vary from twice as likely to 60 times as likely but the courts do nothing to stop it from happening. |
#302
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
animal wrote: teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message ups.com... Bob Whiteside wrote: "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "ghostwriter" wrote in message legroups.com... DB wrote: "teachrmama" wrote in children)--that extra $100 per month should be accounted for--Johnnies Little League fee, field trip to San Francisco, 3 Green Day CDs--whatever--to make sure that the extra is being spent on Johnnie--not Mom--not other siblings--not new boyfriend. How difficult is that? Just the amount over and above basic support--the lifestyle nonsense that the court requires to be paid but doesn't require to be spent on the child. That's the best idea I've read here to date! Accountability for anything above the basics, we should have the right to know that our money is being spent on our children. If they want more money, we should have the right to know where the first $400 went? Thats actually where the potential problem arises, who determines if the benifit justifies the cost? If Johnnie lives with Mom the household needs about $25K to stay above water in most areas of this country. Thats about 12.5K or $500 per month per parent to support Johnnies share. How much does Johnnie benifit from having a nicer home, a safer school, a nicer car to ride in, better tasting food in the fridge, cable TV and internet, savings to allow for emergencies, better heath insurance on mom, life insurance on mom, etc? The addition of more people and more income creates economics of scale that Johnnie benifits from does that mean that the child support should go down because Johnnie became cheaper to support? Whats to stop the CP from saying that they use the money to meet the fixed expenses, because honestly the fixed expenses in any household are larger than any normal NCP's child support award. Even if you go to a by share basis who determines what the household buys because Johnnie wants it and what is bought because Step-dad and Johnnie like it. If the amount of Johnnies child support is less then his share of the mortgage, utilities, and food does that give the NCP the right to demand what the CP spent their own salary on because of the fact that the child support shifted money that the CP would have otherwise spent. What on earth are you talking about? Johnnie's share of housing is the difference between a 1 and 2 bedroom apartment. He does not owe a percentage of the cost of buying a house! Dad most assuredly does not have any responsibility to kick in for mom's life and/or health insurance. You sound like a money-grubber in this one, ghost! "If I can say that Johnnie wants it, then Dad should have to pay." How ridiculous! The government only requires a certain minimum level of provision for a child--if it's good enough to require of married parents, it's good enough to require of unmarried parents. The fact that Johnnie might benefit from it is not a good enough reason to force one segment of the population to pay for what another has no requirement to provide. If both parents are actively involved in their child's life, there is a much better chance that both will *want* to provide these things--and the child will be a common bond. The giant flaw in CS calculation methodology and the CS guidelines is CP's are allowed to pretend their per child expenses exist in a vacuum. When a woman has children with two men she is allowed 1/2 of her living expenses against one child, with the other 1/2 being her own marginal expenses. And then she can charge the other half of her marginal living expenses against the second child and that CS order. In essence with this and other child rearing expenses considered based on shared expenses within the CS calculation methodology the system allows women to show 100% plus of their own marginal expenses against child rearing costs and pay nothing for their own expenses when multiple CS orders are in place. The CS calculation method allows the CP mother to have zero marginal costs to support herself. Yuck, that definately sucks. I can see a serious issue where two (or more) fathers are involved, since neither father would want to pay above the minimun to support his kid. But moms in the vice since the basic costs of support are higher for three as compared to just two. I can see why a courts would side with the mom in order to protect the kids from getting hurt in the crossfire. I can't. I can't see any reason why courts should be biased. Kids are not being protected when one of their parents is being screwed by the law. Of course the costs are higher for 3 than 2--but not so much higher that a mother deserves 2 full CS awards to cover those costs. The problem is that the courts decisions are so uninformed, and long lasting. A temporary order until the estabilishment of a negotated agreement seems like a much better way. Riiiiight....that will certainly happen--the temporary order is so high that the mother has no reason to negotiate to get it changed. Or the temporary order is so low that the dad drags his feet. As long as the system is adversarial there will be big business in screwing the other guy to get what you want. And there will be vultures out there to help you and get their pound of flesh, too. That does kind of gloss over the fact that negoating an agreement would be very difficult since five different peoples interests are at stake. No, there are never 5 people involved. Only mom and dad. 2 people responsible for their joint child(ren). Nobody else. However, I still think that a legally mandated minimum (based on all the children in the household) Oh, I don't think so. You can't hold dad A responsible for the legally mandated minimum for 4 children if he is only the father of 1 of the children. What if dad A makes $100K per year and is the dad of 1 child, and dad B makes $30K per year and is the father of 3 of the children--should dad A have to fork over to raise the lifestyles of dad B's children just so they will all be equal? How do you even begin to see that as fair? followed by a negotiated agreement with the judge placing some of the adults (based on their discresion) income into escrow and freezing collection of any bills that go past due in the process would likley be the best way forward. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.....you're joking, right? Even if all three adults have to be beaten over the head by a mediator (selection by elimation), that still seems the best way to protect the interests of society as a whole while still respecting the ability of humans to make better choices than a law book. Why should 3 adults be negotiating at all? Do you mean that if the mother has 7 children by 7 fathers, that 8 adults would be negotiating? Geesh, ghost--what are you thinking? He's not, and you have to wonder with thinking like that, if he should be around impressinoable children. Getting licenced as a foster parent requires you to be financially stable prior without the income. The money is nice but meaningless in the long run, if they only payed my expenses I would still do it. In the end it pays about half my tithe at church and thats about it. In the end the amount of money a child gets is far less important than the intangibles of life, thats the reason that I am in favor of joint custody, thats the reason I am in favor of forcing mom and dad to figure out a dynamic that allows them to both prosper, the examples of adults dealing with the problems is priceless for a kid growning up. A binding agreement is necessary for stability and security, society has to have a formal dispute resolution available. And yes all effected members have to be involved even if just by being given a copy of the agreement and a chance to submit written comments. The point is I want a unbias informed decision made that reflects the best interests of all involved. Lifestyle is important, but how important is left to the mediator to determine if the participant cant agree. Teaching self-control and love of family is far more important, but can be far harder to teach if the household is on the edge of failing. This is the stuff I teach the kids that come into my home, if you dont like it go get licenced yourself. Ghostwriter |
#303
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"ghostwriter" wrote in message ups.com... animal wrote: teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message ups.com... Bob Whiteside wrote: "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "ghostwriter" wrote in message legroups.com... DB wrote: "teachrmama" wrote in children)--that extra $100 per month should be accounted for--Johnnies Little League fee, field trip to San Francisco, 3 Green Day CDs--whatever--to make sure that the extra is being spent on Johnnie--not Mom--not other siblings--not new boyfriend. How difficult is that? Just the amount over and above basic support--the lifestyle nonsense that the court requires to be paid but doesn't require to be spent on the child. That's the best idea I've read here to date! Accountability for anything above the basics, we should have the right to know that our money is being spent on our children. If they want more money, we should have the right to know where the first $400 went? Thats actually where the potential problem arises, who determines if the benifit justifies the cost? If Johnnie lives with Mom the household needs about $25K to stay above water in most areas of this country. Thats about 12.5K or $500 per month per parent to support Johnnies share. How much does Johnnie benifit from having a nicer home, a safer school, a nicer car to ride in, better tasting food in the fridge, cable TV and internet, savings to allow for emergencies, better heath insurance on mom, life insurance on mom, etc? The addition of more people and more income creates economics of scale that Johnnie benifits from does that mean that the child support should go down because Johnnie became cheaper to support? Whats to stop the CP from saying that they use the money to meet the fixed expenses, because honestly the fixed expenses in any household are larger than any normal NCP's child support award. Even if you go to a by share basis who determines what the household buys because Johnnie wants it and what is bought because Step-dad and Johnnie like it. If the amount of Johnnies child support is less then his share of the mortgage, utilities, and food does that give the NCP the right to demand what the CP spent their own salary on because of the fact that the child support shifted money that the CP would have otherwise spent. What on earth are you talking about? Johnnie's share of housing is the difference between a 1 and 2 bedroom apartment. He does not owe a percentage of the cost of buying a house! Dad most assuredly does not have any responsibility to kick in for mom's life and/or health insurance. You sound like a money-grubber in this one, ghost! "If I can say that Johnnie wants it, then Dad should have to pay." How ridiculous! The government only requires a certain minimum level of provision for a child--if it's good enough to require of married parents, it's good enough to require of unmarried parents. The fact that Johnnie might benefit from it is not a good enough reason to force one segment of the population to pay for what another has no requirement to provide. If both parents are actively involved in their child's life, there is a much better chance that both will *want* to provide these things--and the child will be a common bond. The giant flaw in CS calculation methodology and the CS guidelines is CP's are allowed to pretend their per child expenses exist in a vacuum. When a woman has children with two men she is allowed 1/2 of her living expenses against one child, with the other 1/2 being her own marginal expenses. And then she can charge the other half of her marginal living expenses against the second child and that CS order. In essence with this and other child rearing expenses considered based on shared expenses within the CS calculation methodology the system allows women to show 100% plus of their own marginal expenses against child rearing costs and pay nothing for their own expenses when multiple CS orders are in place. The CS calculation method allows the CP mother to have zero marginal costs to support herself. Yuck, that definately sucks. I can see a serious issue where two (or more) fathers are involved, since neither father would want to pay above the minimun to support his kid. But moms in the vice since the basic costs of support are higher for three as compared to just two. I can see why a courts would side with the mom in order to protect the kids from getting hurt in the crossfire. I can't. I can't see any reason why courts should be biased. Kids are not being protected when one of their parents is being screwed by the law. Of course the costs are higher for 3 than 2--but not so much higher that a mother deserves 2 full CS awards to cover those costs. The problem is that the courts decisions are so uninformed, and long lasting. A temporary order until the estabilishment of a negotated agreement seems like a much better way. Riiiiight....that will certainly happen--the temporary order is so high that the mother has no reason to negotiate to get it changed. Or the temporary order is so low that the dad drags his feet. As long as the system is adversarial there will be big business in screwing the other guy to get what you want. And there will be vultures out there to help you and get their pound of flesh, too. That does kind of gloss over the fact that negoating an agreement would be very difficult since five different peoples interests are at stake. No, there are never 5 people involved. Only mom and dad. 2 people responsible for their joint child(ren). Nobody else. However, I still think that a legally mandated minimum (based on all the children in the household) Oh, I don't think so. You can't hold dad A responsible for the legally mandated minimum for 4 children if he is only the father of 1 of the children. What if dad A makes $100K per year and is the dad of 1 child, and dad B makes $30K per year and is the father of 3 of the children--should dad A have to fork over to raise the lifestyles of dad B's children just so they will all be equal? How do you even begin to see that as fair? followed by a negotiated agreement with the judge placing some of the adults (based on their discresion) income into escrow and freezing collection of any bills that go past due in the process would likley be the best way forward. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.....you're joking, right? Even if all three adults have to be beaten over the head by a mediator (selection by elimation), that still seems the best way to protect the interests of society as a whole while still respecting the ability of humans to make better choices than a law book. Why should 3 adults be negotiating at all? Do you mean that if the mother has 7 children by 7 fathers, that 8 adults would be negotiating? Geesh, ghost--what are you thinking? He's not, and you have to wonder with thinking like that, if he should be around impressinoable children. Getting licenced as a foster parent requires you to be financially stable prior without the income. The money is nice but meaningless in the long run, if they only payed my expenses I would still do it. In the end it pays about half my tithe at church and thats about it. In the end the amount of money a child gets is far less important than the intangibles of life, thats the reason that I am in favor of joint custody, thats the reason I am in favor of forcing mom and dad to figure out a dynamic that allows them to both prosper, the examples of adults dealing with the problems is priceless for a kid growning up. A binding agreement is necessary for stability and security, society has to have a formal dispute resolution available. And yes all effected members have to be involved even if just by being given a copy of the agreement and a chance to submit written comments. The point is I want a unbias informed decision made that reflects the best interests of all involved. Lifestyle is important, but how important is left to the mediator to determine if the participant cant agree. Teaching self-control and love of family is far more important, but can be far harder to teach if the household is on the edge of failing. In spite of what you say here, ghost, you are so doggone focused on money that it's not even funny! Parents owe their children support--NOT jsut MONEY. If mom decieves the father of the child and does not inform him that he is a father for years and years, and he has married and has another family, thet fool of a selfish, self centered woman should have NO POWER WHATSOEVER to dictate how much she can take the man for. She should get to LISTEN when he talks, and nothing more. No negotiation! He should have the option to pay minimum support--and more if and when he wants to. No matter how much higher his income is than hers. The child is simply unfortunate to have such scum for a mother. That frees tha father to be as kind and loving as he wants to be, but keeps his family safe, too. When parents divorce, 50/50 custody should be ths law. Money should not enter the picture unless mom has been a stay-at-home mom devoting herself to family while dad is the breadwinner. At that point a negotiation should take place so mom can develop the skills she needs to support herself and her children. That's only fair. But, if both parents work. then they need to work things out before they split up so that the children are taken care of. Dump it on them--no divorce until you get it settled. No attorneys, no court intervention. A mutually agreeable counselor. But YOU are the parents--get the job done. Where one parent is going to have full custody--if it is over the objection of the other parent, then the one claiming the kids pays for the kids. If she wants help paying for things, then share the children, too. I agree with you that seeing adults work out their differences is a wonderful example. It would be far better if these differences were worked out within the marriage, so fewer divorces took place. I was reading this article yesterday where a celebrity was asked about whether she was going to start dating again. Her comment was that she was going to be more selective in who she went out with now, and that there would be no sex for at least 6 months. Whew--what a wonderful message: It's ok to risk creating a child out of wedlock as long as you wait 6 months before doing so. And look where this wonderful lack of a moral code has brought us as a society. And the family court system is not even beginning to help solve the problem. It is making it worse by giving women a far superior position than men in almost every situation. Take away any vestige of that and put them in a position where they and they alone have the power to makt things work, and we will see an almost immediate change. And, ghost, I still desagree that things will work if you force every adult involved into the negotiations. How would you handle this? Woman has 5 kids by 4 dads. Negotiation would involve: Dad 1, his wife ( kid by mom 1 and 2 by his wife) Dad 2, his ex wife, his current wife, his former mistress (1 kid by mom 1, 1 by ex wife, 1 by current wife, 1 by mistress) Dad 3, his 3 exes, (1 by mom 1, 1 by ex 1, 1 by ex 2, 1 by ex 3) Dad 4, his current wife, (2 by mom 1, 2 by current wife) That would be 12 adults negotiating for 14 kids. Salaries Mom 1--0 doesn't work and neither does current live-in boyfriend Dad 1--$35K/year Dad 2--$100K per year Dad 3--$44Kper year Dad 4--$26K per year Now, ghost, who should pay how much? How would you negotiate this out? Should Dad 2 pay the most to make sure that all of mom 1's kids have an equal lifestyle? Should the other children of the fathers live lower lifestyle's than mom 1's kids so that all of HER kids are equal? Should all 26 people involved live the exact same lifestyls/ (Perhaos set up a commune and all share equally) How would you work this out equitably? Think it doesn't happen? I KNOW this family! This is the stuff I teach the kids that come into my home, if you dont like it go get licenced yourself. Ghostwriter |
#304
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "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 ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "ghostwriter" wrote in message ups.com... Bob Whiteside wrote: "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... DB wrote: "teachrmama" wrote in The problem is that the courts decisions are so uninformed, and long lasting. A temporary order until the estabilishment of a negotated agreement seems like a much better way. Riiiiight....that will certainly happen--the temporary order is so high that the mother has no reason to negotiate to get it changed. Or the temporary order is so low that the dad drags his feet. As long as the system is adversarial there will be big business in screwing the other guy to get what you want. And there will be vultures out there to help you and get their pound of flesh, too. That does kind of gloss over the fact that negoating an agreement would be very difficult since five different peoples interests are at stake. No, there are never 5 people involved. Only mom and dad. 2 people responsible for their joint child(ren). Nobody else. I think the point was for each child there is one mom and one dad involved in each CS cases. But to take your example to the extreme: 1. Mom 2. Child A 2A. Maternal grandma and grandpa. 2 B. Mom's new live-in boyfriend. You forgot Dad's flavor of the week. So, apparently, did ghost. Do you think Dad's new wife and his subsequent children should have as much say over his money as the mother of his other children does? Do you think that subsequent children deserve equal standing in the eyes of the court? Teach, you missed my point, entirely. Bob is SO QUICK to slam the mom, with "Mom's new live-in boyfriend" (who, by the way is certainly entitled to how HIS money is allocated, especially since the child isn't his, nor is it his responsibility to support said child) - but was SO NON-RESPONSIVE to show dear old dad equal treatment with his flavor of the week (who is also entitled to how HER money is allocated, especially since the child isn't hers, nor it is her responsibility o support said child). Now, in answer to your question... Dad's new wife and his subsequent children get say over dad's available resources to their communal household. They do NOT get any say in dad's responsibilities to any prior children. In the eyes of the court, standing is determined by the court orders. The children who are NOT the subject/recipient/topic of general conversation of existing court orders have NO standing in the court proceedings of a child who IS the subject/recipient/topic of general conversation of existing court orders. The same way you have no standing in any court proceedings concerning my children, or anyone else's children. You're not part of the court order, you're not part of the equation. I didn't ask what the law said. I already know that--my children are orrelevant, remember? I asked what YOU think of that particular type of situation. Should all children be considered equal--or are the older children more deserving? You ask what I think - ok, here's what I think. It isn't a matter of "more deserving" - and as long as you choose to use an inflammatory phrase like that, you're going to stir up nothing but anger.... and certainly no solutions. When I was married, I inherited 2 stepsons. There was an existing court order. I had no say in that court order. That's how it SHOULD be. I sure as HELL don't think that my ex's flavor of the week #4 (or 5, or whatever number he might be up to by now) has ANY say in the support of my children. But in my situation, he didn't even know he was the father of another child until our children were 3 and 4 years old. There was no court order. So that does not apply. And, in any case, children are children. NONE should be deemed irrelevant! EVER! They are irrelevant to the court proceedings for child support for some other child, just as they are irrelevant to the court proceedings for child support for my children. No, no, Moon. You are playing blind again. They are considered irrelevant as to any need they have fortheir father's income. Money for the child that was kept from him for 13 years is taken out, and whatever is left is deemed to be good enough ofr them. The system could take everything we have in the name of the other child and leave our irrelevant children destitute if they wanted to--if my husband were disabled and unable to pay the extortionate CS rate for example. As flavor of the week #3, I know you are aware of that. You just gloss over it because you have no real answers. Someday, perhaps you'll get over it. I will NEVER agree that ANY child is irrelevant, Moon. I don't see people as disposable. I think what you don't get, TM, is that all children are irrelevant when it comes to C$. The only determining factor is: how much money can a woman make from her children. It just ain't about the children, any children. Phil #3 |
#305
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"Phil" wrote in message k.net... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "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 ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "ghostwriter" wrote in message ups.com... Bob Whiteside wrote: "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... DB wrote: "teachrmama" wrote in The problem is that the courts decisions are so uninformed, and long lasting. A temporary order until the estabilishment of a negotated agreement seems like a much better way. Riiiiight....that will certainly happen--the temporary order is so high that the mother has no reason to negotiate to get it changed. Or the temporary order is so low that the dad drags his feet. As long as the system is adversarial there will be big business in screwing the other guy to get what you want. And there will be vultures out there to help you and get their pound of flesh, too. That does kind of gloss over the fact that negoating an agreement would be very difficult since five different peoples interests are at stake. No, there are never 5 people involved. Only mom and dad. 2 people responsible for their joint child(ren). Nobody else. I think the point was for each child there is one mom and one dad involved in each CS cases. But to take your example to the extreme: 1. Mom 2. Child A 2A. Maternal grandma and grandpa. 2 B. Mom's new live-in boyfriend. You forgot Dad's flavor of the week. So, apparently, did ghost. Do you think Dad's new wife and his subsequent children should have as much say over his money as the mother of his other children does? Do you think that subsequent children deserve equal standing in the eyes of the court? Teach, you missed my point, entirely. Bob is SO QUICK to slam the mom, with "Mom's new live-in boyfriend" (who, by the way is certainly entitled to how HIS money is allocated, especially since the child isn't his, nor is it his responsibility to support said child) - but was SO NON-RESPONSIVE to show dear old dad equal treatment with his flavor of the week (who is also entitled to how HER money is allocated, especially since the child isn't hers, nor it is her responsibility o support said child). Now, in answer to your question... Dad's new wife and his subsequent children get say over dad's available resources to their communal household. They do NOT get any say in dad's responsibilities to any prior children. In the eyes of the court, standing is determined by the court orders. The children who are NOT the subject/recipient/topic of general conversation of existing court orders have NO standing in the court proceedings of a child who IS the subject/recipient/topic of general conversation of existing court orders. The same way you have no standing in any court proceedings concerning my children, or anyone else's children. You're not part of the court order, you're not part of the equation. I didn't ask what the law said. I already know that--my children are orrelevant, remember? I asked what YOU think of that particular type of situation. Should all children be considered equal--or are the older children more deserving? You ask what I think - ok, here's what I think. It isn't a matter of "more deserving" - and as long as you choose to use an inflammatory phrase like that, you're going to stir up nothing but anger.... and certainly no solutions. When I was married, I inherited 2 stepsons. There was an existing court order. I had no say in that court order. That's how it SHOULD be. I sure as HELL don't think that my ex's flavor of the week #4 (or 5, or whatever number he might be up to by now) has ANY say in the support of my children. But in my situation, he didn't even know he was the father of another child until our children were 3 and 4 years old. There was no court order. So that does not apply. And, in any case, children are children. NONE should be deemed irrelevant! EVER! They are irrelevant to the court proceedings for child support for some other child, just as they are irrelevant to the court proceedings for child support for my children. No, no, Moon. You are playing blind again. They are considered irrelevant as to any need they have fortheir father's income. Money for the child that was kept from him for 13 years is taken out, and whatever is left is deemed to be good enough ofr them. The system could take everything we have in the name of the other child and leave our irrelevant children destitute if they wanted to--if my husband were disabled and unable to pay the extortionate CS rate for example. As flavor of the week #3, I know you are aware of that. You just gloss over it because you have no real answers. Someday, perhaps you'll get over it. I will NEVER agree that ANY child is irrelevant, Moon. I don't see people as disposable. I think what you don't get, TM, is that all children are irrelevant when it comes to C$. The only determining factor is: how much money can a woman make from her children. It just ain't about the children, any children. In the case involving my husband's daughter, though, it isn't the fool mother--it is big daddy gubmint. SHE is supported by the taxpayers and always has been. Big daddy gubmint wants as big a take as they can get--no matter what it does to our children. |
#306
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"Phil" wrote in I think what you don't get, TM, is that all children are irrelevant when it comes to C$. The only determining factor is: how much money can a woman make from her children. It just ain't about the children, any children. I would have to severely agree with this statement! A child is nothing more than a ticket to rob, a license to raid, a porthole to take from a man's paycheck. What's worse is we have a wacked out government that condones this behavior! |
#307
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"teachrmama" wrote in In the case involving my husband's daughter, though, it isn't the fool mother--it is big daddy gubmint. SHE is supported by the taxpayers and always has been. Big daddy gubmint wants as big a take as they can get--no matter what it does to our children. Yes, there's no incentive for her to get out and earn a living with big daddy G paying all the bills! Then the politicians can smile and claim victory when they raid dad's bank account to pay for their generosity. |
#308
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"Bob Whiteside" 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 ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "ghostwriter" wrote in message ups.com... Bob Whiteside wrote: "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... DB wrote: "teachrmama" wrote in The problem is that the courts decisions are so uninformed, and long lasting. A temporary order until the estabilishment of a negotated agreement seems like a much better way. Riiiiight....that will certainly happen--the temporary order is so high that the mother has no reason to negotiate to get it changed. Or the temporary order is so low that the dad drags his feet. As long as the system is adversarial there will be big business in screwing the other guy to get what you want. And there will be vultures out there to help you and get their pound of flesh, too. That does kind of gloss over the fact that negoating an agreement would be very difficult since five different peoples interests are at stake. No, there are never 5 people involved. Only mom and dad. 2 people responsible for their joint child(ren). Nobody else. I think the point was for each child there is one mom and one dad involved in each CS cases. But to take your example to the extreme: 1. Mom 2. Child A 2A. Maternal grandma and grandpa. 2 B. Mom's new live-in boyfriend. You forgot Dad's flavor of the week. Dads are told by judges to get rid of their flavor of the week because they cannot afford to support a second family relationship. While live-in boyfriends are okay'd by the courts for mothers since they supposedly add to the children's financial wellbeing. Don't you see a double standard in how the courts rule on these blended family situations? Well, Bob, your statements are simply that - they don't carry a whole lot of weight unless you can provide cites for your anecdotes. Got any? Nobody can provide cites for anecdotes. But if you hear enough anecdotes you start to see a pattern of events. Here's a few anecdotes that show a pattern: I asked the court for lower CS so I could have money for a social life and to buy appropriate clothing for my level of employment. The court told me I had no business dating and I should wear my suits until they wore out. Teachrmama has had her children described as "irrelevant" by the court. The implication is her husband had no business getting married. CS guideline formulas do not include support for subsequent children. Moon Shyne and other women complain their ex's spends money dating instead of paying CS as ordered. I have NEVER made such a claim, Bob. Try truth instead of fiction, please. The courts allow vindictive mothers to use draconian methods to collect the CS and stop the dating. Live-in boyfriends are more likely than fathers to commit intimate partner violence. Studies using small samples cause this statistic to vary from twice as likely to 60 times as likely but the courts do nothing to stop it from happening. |
#309
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "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 ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "ghostwriter" wrote in message ups.com... Bob Whiteside wrote: "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... DB wrote: "teachrmama" wrote in children)--that extra $100 per month should be accounted for--Johnnies Little League fee, field trip to San Francisco, 3 Green Day CDs--whatever--to make sure that the extra is being spent on Johnnie--not Mom--not other siblings--not new boyfriend. How difficult is that? Just the amount over and above basic support--the lifestyle nonsense that the court requires to be paid but doesn't require to be spent on the child. That's the best idea I've read here to date! Accountability for anything above the basics, we should have the right to know that our money is being spent on our children. If they want more money, we should have the right to know where the first $400 went? Thats actually where the potential problem arises, who determines if the benifit justifies the cost? If Johnnie lives with Mom the household needs about $25K to stay above water in most areas of this country. Thats about 12.5K or $500 per month per parent to support Johnnies share. How much does Johnnie benifit from having a nicer home, a safer school, a nicer car to ride in, better tasting food in the fridge, cable TV and internet, savings to allow for emergencies, better heath insurance on mom, life insurance on mom, etc? The addition of more people and more income creates economics of scale that Johnnie benifits from does that mean that the child support should go down because Johnnie became cheaper to support? Whats to stop the CP from saying that they use the money to meet the fixed expenses, because honestly the fixed expenses in any household are larger than any normal NCP's child support award. Even if you go to a by share basis who determines what the household buys because Johnnie wants it and what is bought because Step-dad and Johnnie like it. If the amount of Johnnies child support is less then his share of the mortgage, utilities, and food does that give the NCP the right to demand what the CP spent their own salary on because of the fact that the child support shifted money that the CP would have otherwise spent. What on earth are you talking about? Johnnie's share of housing is the difference between a 1 and 2 bedroom apartment. He does not owe a percentage of the cost of buying a house! Dad most assuredly does not have any responsibility to kick in for mom's life and/or health insurance. You sound like a money-grubber in this one, ghost! "If I can say that Johnnie wants it, then Dad should have to pay." How ridiculous! The government only requires a certain minimum level of provision for a child--if it's good enough to require of married parents, it's good enough to require of unmarried parents. The fact that Johnnie might benefit from it is not a good enough reason to force one segment of the population to pay for what another has no requirement to provide. If both parents are actively involved in their child's life, there is a much better chance that both will *want* to provide these things--and the child will be a common bond. The giant flaw in CS calculation methodology and the CS guidelines is CP's are allowed to pretend their per child expenses exist in a vacuum. When a woman has children with two men she is allowed 1/2 of her living expenses against one child, with the other 1/2 being her own marginal expenses. And then she can charge the other half of her marginal living expenses against the second child and that CS order. In essence with this and other child rearing expenses considered based on shared expenses within the CS calculation methodology the system allows women to show 100% plus of their own marginal expenses against child rearing costs and pay nothing for their own expenses when multiple CS orders are in place. The CS calculation method allows the CP mother to have zero marginal costs to support herself. Yuck, that definately sucks. I can see a serious issue where two (or more) fathers are involved, since neither father would want to pay above the minimun to support his kid. But moms in the vice since the basic costs of support are higher for three as compared to just two. I can see why a courts would side with the mom in order to protect the kids from getting hurt in the crossfire. I can't. I can't see any reason why courts should be biased. Kids are not being protected when one of their parents is being screwed by the law. Of course the costs are higher for 3 than 2--but not so much higher that a mother deserves 2 full CS awards to cover those costs. The problem is that the courts decisions are so uninformed, and long lasting. A temporary order until the estabilishment of a negotated agreement seems like a much better way. Riiiiight....that will certainly happen--the temporary order is so high that the mother has no reason to negotiate to get it changed. Or the temporary order is so low that the dad drags his feet. As long as the system is adversarial there will be big business in screwing the other guy to get what you want. And there will be vultures out there to help you and get their pound of flesh, too. That does kind of gloss over the fact that negoating an agreement would be very difficult since five different peoples interests are at stake. No, there are never 5 people involved. Only mom and dad. 2 people responsible for their joint child(ren). Nobody else. 1. Mom 2. Child A 3. Father of child A 4. Child B 5. Father of child B In a negotiation for child support between mom and father of child A? I don't think so. Why should child B and father of child B be involved at all? How asinine! Are you being dense on purpose? Parents of child A (that's 2 people) deal with the needs for child A (that's person number 3) Parents of child B (that adds dad, who is person number 4) deal with the needs for child B (that's person number 5). If you still can't understand this, perhaps you should consider giving up teaching. Actually, Moon, that is NOT what ghost said in his post. He said that all are involved in the negotiations--not just mom and dad A for kid 1 and mom and dad B for kid 2. Read it again. Um, no, that's NOT what he said. Read again {portions not relevant to this particular issue snipped, reference for full post at top of quoted portions] "ghostwriter" wrote in message ups.com... Yuck, that definately sucks. I can see a serious issue where two (or more) fathers are involved, since neither father would want to pay above the minimun to support his kid. ....... That does kind of gloss over the fact that negoating an agreement would be very difficult since five different peoples interests are at stake. Ghostwriter He says nothing about all 5 people being in the same negotiation. There are 5 people in total. 3 of those people are the various parents of the various children. There are noegotiations about CS. Ghost is proposing that there SHOULD be negotiations about CS--that it would make for a better system than the one we have today. He is proposing that the parents negotiate monies paid above the basic support level--the level of support that children require for food, shelter and clothing. Here is the post you picked and chose phrases from: ****That does kind of gloss over the fact that negoating an agreement would be very difficult since five different peoples interests are at stake. However, I still think that a legally mandated minimum (based on all the children in the household) followed by a negotiated agreement with the judge placing some of the adults (based on their discresion) income into escrow and freezing collection of any bills that go past due in the process would likley be the best way forward. Even if all three adults have to be beaten over the head by a mediator (selection by elimation), that still seems the best way to protect the interests of society as a whole while still respecting the ability of humans to make better choices than a law book.**** The legally mandated minimum is based on all the children in the household. The amount each father pays now becomes part of a negotiation among all 3 parents involved. It's really not that hard to understand. So you're suggesting that the father of Child A should be part of the negotiations about child support for Child B? Aren't you the one who deemed that asinine? I didn't suggest it, Moon. Ghost did. Go drink some coffee and come back when you can focus a bit better. Nothing wrong with my focus, Teach, and I don't drink coffee past noon, because of the caffeine. |
#310
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" 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 ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "ghostwriter" wrote in message ups.com... Bob Whiteside wrote: "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... DB wrote: "teachrmama" wrote in The problem is that the courts decisions are so uninformed, and long lasting. A temporary order until the estabilishment of a negotated agreement seems like a much better way. Riiiiight....that will certainly happen--the temporary order is so high that the mother has no reason to negotiate to get it changed. Or the temporary order is so low that the dad drags his feet. As long as the system is adversarial there will be big business in screwing the other guy to get what you want. And there will be vultures out there to help you and get their pound of flesh, too. That does kind of gloss over the fact that negoating an agreement would be very difficult since five different peoples interests are at stake. No, there are never 5 people involved. Only mom and dad. 2 people responsible for their joint child(ren). Nobody else. I think the point was for each child there is one mom and one dad involved in each CS cases. But to take your example to the extreme: 1. Mom 2. Child A 2A. Maternal grandma and grandpa. 2 B. Mom's new live-in boyfriend. You forgot Dad's flavor of the week. Dads are told by judges to get rid of their flavor of the week because they cannot afford to support a second family relationship. While live-in boyfriends are okay'd by the courts for mothers since they supposedly add to the children's financial wellbeing. Don't you see a double standard in how the courts rule on these blended family situations? Well, Bob, your statements are simply that - they don't carry a whole lot of weight unless you can provide cites for your anecdotes. Got any? Nobody can provide cites for anecdotes. But if you hear enough anecdotes you start to see a pattern of events. Here's a few anecdotes that show a pattern: I asked the court for lower CS so I could have money for a social life and to buy appropriate clothing for my level of employment. The court told me I had no business dating and I should wear my suits until they wore out. Teachrmama has had her children described as "irrelevant" by the court. The implication is her husband had no business getting married. CS guideline formulas do not include support for subsequent children. Moon Shyne and other women complain their ex's spends money dating instead of paying CS as ordered. I have NEVER made such a claim, Bob. Try truth instead of fiction, please. You are correct. You have complained your ex was not paying all CS as ordered. And you have complained your ex is living with his flavor of the week. But you have only implied the two complaints are related. I should have known deductive reasoning never works with anything you say. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NFJA Position Statement: Child Support Enforcement Funding | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | March 2nd 06 12:49 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Foster Parents | 3 | December 8th 03 11:53 PM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Foster Parents | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 63 | November 17th 03 10:12 PM |
Helping Your Child Be Healthy and Fit sX3#;WA@'U | John Smith | Kids Health | 0 | July 20th 03 04:50 AM |