"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the
child
support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are
deducted,
the
remainder be returned to the parents?

Actually, yes. It's bold move and would need extremely fast processing
but
if the technology allows it then yes.

That's what I thought. So how would you actually work this out? Take
our
case as an example. Hubby found out that he had a 13 year daughter he
never
knew about, product of a one night stand. Began having paycheck
garnished
for 20% of his wages. The mother has a variety of illegitimate children
by
an equal number of men. Only 1 (my husband) has been ordered to pay
child
support. Seems they are still working their way down the lists for the
others. Mom has not worked a day in her life, but has minimum wage
imputed
to her. I worked my way through college and have been working ever
since.
Hubby and I have 8 and 9 year old daughters. So how does this great
system
you want to establish handle this? Doe his daughter by welfare mom
deserve
to live at the same standard of living that our 2 daughters (who have 2
working parents) enjoy? If this daughter has her standard of living
raised,
how about all her half siblings? How will you explain to them that sis
gets
many things that they do not because her dad has been discovered? Or do
all
of the children in that household have to be similarly supported? Will
they
take a far greater portion of my husband's paycheck, since I also work?
Can
they force us to sell our house and move to a more modest hovel, just so
all
of the child's siblings are similarly treated? Just exactly how much
power
are we to give the government? And can mom come up with all sorts of
things
she wants for her daughter each month, to the point where we never have
a
clue as to how much we will get back from the government at any given
time?
Try to explain your self in a bit more detail, please. Right now your
plan
makes me very nervous!

Frankly it makes me nervous too but I'm just bring this to the table. It's
not a complete plan by any means. The involvement of social workers and
some
sort of voice of reason is my hope in making it more reasonable for all
parties. I see it as better than the current scenario where there's little
understanding for the father's point of situation. Perhaps there's no
claim
to back-support if they only began searching for the father later on. Is
your husband not responsible for a one-night-stand? Is the child not his?

Perhaps 20% is unreasonable but the fact remains that a child by your
husband exists and could not without his contribution. I know it seems
unfair that this welfare mom hasn't worked at a job but raising children
is
a job to many. The one thing this guideline would allow for is
flexibility,
there's nothing in my plan that says the cp needs an equalized lifestyle.
And yes there are gaps in my plan ... it's early in the design stages.

the siblings are not the concern of the husband, you know that the money
she
received will go to all the children in effect, but that does not change
how
much she's entitled to. I don't expect the system's charter would be to
make
one father pay the whole amount, the social-worker's job is to ensure the
expenses are reasonable and justified.

Do you really expect thast a social worker will be a "voice of reason"? We
have social workers now. And Friends of the Court, and all sorts of people
who aer supposed to be "voices of reason"! But they are a big part of
thereason things have skewed so badly. We live in a different state than
the child. Do you think that, if a social worker in her state repeatedly
files reports saying that the child is living at a fairly impoverished
level, and the social worker in our state reports that our children aer
living at a middle class level, there won't be changes made? The CS that is
paid id dufficient for school clothes--but if it is spent on school clothes
for several, rather than just one, it may appear to a social worker looking
ath the one child, that there was not enough money for school clothes, etc.
Do you not think that the social workers will become spokesmen for thier
particular case load? Do you think there will be no competition for the
money that is brought in?

As far as my husband's daughter goes, yes, she deserves support. And she
absolutely should, by the law, be receiving the benefit of EVERY penny sent
as child support, and no other person in that household should be getting 1
penny's worth of benefit from it. Do you think it is ok for mom to use it
for the entire household, and not just the child it is intended for?
(Including her own rather copious amounts of booze, I might add) But it
will never be that way, because child support never has been and never will
be for the benefit of the child--it is for the benefit of the CP. No matter
how you set up the system. I pretty much think that your system will make
it far easier for money to be transferred from the NCP to the CP with no
protections built in for the NCP.