NO Parental responsibilty but must pay
 

How can a mother, who will not include a father's name on their
child's birth certificate, who has refused the father any contact and,
refused the father Parental responsibility, demand that he has to pay
the CSA? Surely, the message from the mother is "**** off, I dont want
you to have anything to do with our baby." This being so, why does
the law and media treat thousands of fathers like us as deadbeats
etc...when all we want is to see our children and pay a reasonable
support that we can afford.

NO Parental responsibilty but must pay
 

wrote in message
ups.com...
How can a mother, who will not include a father's name on their
child's birth certificate, who has refused the father any contact and,
refused the father Parental responsibility, demand that he has to pay
the CSA? Surely, the message from the mother is "**** off, I dont want
you to have anything to do with our baby." This being so, why does
the law and media treat thousands of fathers like us as deadbeats
etc...when all we want is to see our children and pay a reasonable
support that we can afford.

Welcome to the wonderful world of child support. Where the only right you
have Is to pay...

NO Parental responsibilty but must pay
 

"Dusty Steenbock" wrote in

Welcome to the wonderful world of child support. Where the only right you
have Is to pay...


And pay what they say!

Welcome to the suckers club of America!

NO Parental responsibilty but must pay
 

"DB" wrote in message
. net...

"Dusty Steenbock" wrote in

Welcome to the wonderful world of child support. Where the only right
you
have Is to pay...


And pay what they say!

With NO guarantee that one thin dime is ever spent on the child.
Last I checked, one gets something for their money. But when it comes to
"child support", you get NOTHING for your money! Gee, what a deal.


Welcome to the suckers club of America!

NO Parental responsibilty but must pay
 

I have two kids that I paid support for. When my daughter turned
eighteen my support went down seven dollars a week. Several months later
my support went UP seventeen dollars a week for the cost of living
increase!l

NO Parental responsibilty but must pay
 

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:57:44 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


"DB" wrote in message
.net...

"Dusty Steenbock" wrote in

Welcome to the wonderful world of child support. Where the only right
you
have Is to pay...


And pay what they say!

With NO guarantee that one thin dime is ever spent on the child.
Last I checked, one gets something for their money. But when it comes to
"child support", you get NOTHING for your money! Gee, what a deal.


Welcome to the suckers club of America!




What would you say to a system in which both parents are required to
pay their portion of child support into a fund from which they could
withdraw with appropriate receipts? I see something like this
accomplishing a few things:

A) It enforces the notion that EACH parent MUST contribute,
B) It provides a paper trail to ensure the money was actually
spent for the child, and
C) It ensures that whomever SPENDS money on a child can receive
the reimbursement.
D) IF anything remains upon the child reaching the age of
majority, either the parents are refunded the money in the percentage
in which they contributed OR the money is released to the child.

What if the receipts total more than the contributions? Then both
reimbursements would be scaled down equally and reimbursed at the next
possible time in which contributions exceed expenses. There would
need to be guidelines as to what expenses are acceptable, of course.

If EITHER parent fails to contribute, receipts submitted shall not be
considered. Furthermore, any excess would be set aside for the parent
who contributed and any deficiencies shall be paid to the contributing
parent BEFORE current receipts in a month where both contribute are
calculated.

Heck, in a double entry accounting system, reports could be generated
upon demand so either parent could ensure their money is caring for
their child.



Beverly

NO Parental responsibilty but must pay
 

Rod wrote:
I have two kids that I paid support for. When my daughter turned
eighteen my support went down seven dollars a week. Several months later
my support went UP seventeen dollars a week for the cost of living
increase!l



That's why I recommend you count your sperm each and every night. . .
you never know when one will come back and bite you in the ass.

NO Parental responsibilty but must pay
 

"Beverly" wrote in

D) IF anything remains upon the child reaching the age of
majority, either the parents are refunded the money in the percentage
in which they contributed OR the money is released to the child.

I would be in favor of such a system, but the notion of the parents paying a
child is silly unless they give the money for college. My parents could not
afford to send us to college, we had to fund that on our own, nothing wrong
with that either.

NO Parental responsibilty but must pay
 

"Beverly" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:57:44 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


"DB" wrote in message
.net...

"Dusty Steenbock" wrote in

Welcome to the wonderful world of child support. Where the only right
you
have Is to pay...


And pay what they say!

With NO guarantee that one thin dime is ever spent on the child.
Last I checked, one gets something for their money. But when it comes to
"child support", you get NOTHING for your money! Gee, what a deal.


Welcome to the suckers club of America!




What would you say to a system in which both parents are required to
pay their portion of child support into a fund from which they could
withdraw with appropriate receipts?

I would say it's just another unnecessary government control. But if any
parent chooses to hire the government people to manage their private budget,
more power to them.

What would you say to a "system" where each parent is DIRECTLY responsible
for the care of their children?

I see something like this
accomplishing a few things:

A) It enforces the notion that EACH parent MUST contribute,
B) It provides a paper trail to ensure the money was actually
spent for the child, and

Uhuh. The woman takes her boyfriend and three other friends out to dinner.
She then claims it was her children that dined with her. So much for your
paper trail.

C) It ensures that whomever SPENDS money on a child can receive
the reimbursement.

As well as spending money on the boyfriend. (see above)

D) IF anything remains upon the child reaching the age of
majority, either the parents are refunded the money in the percentage
in which they contributed OR the money is released to the child.

How about the parents keep the money in their OWN pockets and spend it
if/when/how they deem fit? Or are the government people better managers of
and more entitled to the parents' private budgets than are the parents?


What if the receipts total more than the contributions? Then both
reimbursements would be scaled down equally and reimbursed at the next
possible time in which contributions exceed expenses. There would
need to be guidelines as to what expenses are acceptable, of course.

Yup. And should not such "guidelines" be determined by each parent?


If EITHER parent fails to contribute, receipts submitted shall not be
considered.

Isn't that the default in most parental situations? Neither parent
contributes to a government "child support" fund, and neither parent gets
reimbursed for any receipts. Been working since the beginning of time; why
change it now?

Furthermore, any excess would be set aside for the parent
who contributed and any deficiencies shall be paid to the contributing
parent BEFORE current receipts in a month where both contribute are
calculated.

Why have a middleman? I would presume the service would not be free, thus
LESS money "for the children".


Heck, in a double entry accounting system, reports could be generated
upon demand so either parent could ensure their money is caring for
their child.

The ONLY way to ensure such is to provide yourself. Nevertheless, who pays
for this service?




Beverly

NO Parental responsibilty but must pay
 

"Rod" wrote in message
...
I have two kids that I paid support for. When my daughter turned
eighteen my support went down seven dollars a week. Several months later
my support went UP seventeen dollars a week for the cost of living
increase!l

Indeed! That's their game. Ever notice that the alloted amount for the first
(oldest) child is significantly LESS than any subsequent children? Ya think
that's by accident? I could never figure out why it costs less to "support"
an older child. Would somebody explain this to me?

Wouldn't the difference between how much you paid (per court order) and how
much it gets reduced upon termination be an overpayment subject to
reimbursement? After all, if you no longer have to pay "support" for a
child, and the total payment gets reduced by seven bucks, it follows that
seven bucks is all it cost to "support" that particular child.