View Single Post
  #312  
Old December 18th 06, 10:24 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
ghostwriter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Name change because parent not visiting child



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!


I know several that could very easily fit into this family tree, most
of the foster kids dont have family trees so much as bushes.

Currently each father has been ordered to pay something on the amount
of 25% of there income. So currently, assuming all the dads pay thats
25% of $200K or about $50K. I would suggest that once the fathers were
aware of each others existance they have a much stronger case that mom
1 is taking them for an unreasonable amount of money. Any negotiator
picked with input from these men would likley take a dim view on
neither adult in mom's household working. Most of the men would gladly
band together and demand that they receive some of the economics of
scale that the courts is currently giving to mom. If mom had to accept
an unbiased negotator rather than the easily manipulated written law
then she would have little choice but to get a job. I would think that
most of the fathers would demand that her employment be a written part
of the agreement. A negoatior with a history of allowing either side to
get away with a lot of crap would simple be eliminated early in the
selection process.

The negotiator then spends a few months interviewing everyone seperatly
and collecting all of the income information and writes up an
agreement. He can visit the children in the house and demand a list of
expenses from mom. Based on that information and an evaluation of what
mom's skills are worth on the market, he can write up a support package
that allows the household to maintain a resonable lifestyle without
robbing the dads blind. If mom could make $20K a year answer a
telephone somewhere, then a 40% reduction in support would allow the
same lifestyle if she were forced to work. All parties get a copy and a
month to submit comments, the final agreement is then drafted with
appeals allowed only on the basis of malpractice not because you
thought you could have gotten more or payed less. The lawyer fees are
payed by a portion of the support amount. The payment is deduced by a
bank that then sends out a single check each month to mom.

If mom was unwilling to maintain a job I would have her held in
contempt the same if one of the dad quit to dodge support.

Likley a father with a lot of kids by different women would be party to
several agreements, if the NEGOTIATOR of a second agreement thought
that the amount of a prior agreement was unusally high, then it would
up to them to contact the orginal negotiator and seek an explaination.
A negotiator would be able to bring an admistrative hearing to question
the amount in front of a judge, who could then throw out the previous
agreement if it was found to be unreasonable detramental to another
household. The negotiator protects the kids interests and a judge
determines if they made unreasonable assumtions while doing so. Human
judgement subject to review being the only way I can see to protect
everyone in this situation.

Ghostwriter