"pandora" wrote in message
news:UtudnQz44dRF6qnYnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
news:WIWYg.4572$5v5.2140@trndny08...

"Rags" wrote
...........

I also believe that the overwhelming majority of parents whether in
intact or non intact families provide the best standard of living
that
they can for their kids.
==
Exactly. So the government has no business mandating that some parents
provide more than others.
It's very simple really. Until the government is willing to mandate
ALL
parents spend money on their
child based on their income, it has no business mandating that ONE
parent
(NCP) does. It is also
notable that while the government has this mandate against one type of
parent, it has no mandate that
the recipient of the award (CP) spend the money on the child so NO
standard
of living is assured said child.
This is clearly a violation of the equal protection clause of the US
Constitution under the guise of "best interest of the child."

There is another factor that caused tremendous conflict for me to deal
with
in a split custody situation. When my son lived with me, and my
daughter
lived with her mother, my daughter perceived her brother was better off.
He
lived in a bigger, nicer house in a better neighborhood. He had a car
and
lots of possessions my daughter didn't have.

Obviously you could have corrected that perception but you chose not to.
What a terrific parent you are, not.

Kinda one sided don't you think? Implying it is up to a custodial father to
remedy inequalities in the CS system and giving the custodial mother a free
pass. Why don't you think the custodial mother should have provided more
for her custodial child to close the gap created in a split custody
situation?

Oh that's right, I forgot. You believe in gender differences creating
gender warfare and any solution should be based on Marxist/socialism
redistribution of resources. The Capitalist fathers need to pay the worker
mothers to make things equal, right?


The CS guidelines are an artificial methodology designed to create the
appearance of equality. They do not. They create inequality through
too
high of CS awards when the higher wage earner pays money and they create
inequality when there is split custody. The CS guidelines are only
perceived as being fair and equitable when the lower wage earner who is
also
the custodial parent receives money.

And instead of being fair to both your children, you chose to favor your
son
over your daughter. I'm glad you weren't MY parent.

I offered to let her come live with me too. Eventually she did. But her
living situation changed for parenting style reasons, not over money issues.