"Phil #3" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"ME" wrote in message
...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
..
[snip]

So-called "child support" is actually money that fathers pay mothers,
because of the custody situation. If any significant number of
mothers
paid child support to fathers, the system would change very quickly --
or to be more accurate, if any significant number of mothers paid
child
support to fathers, that would indicate that the system had ALREADY
changed.

So-called "child support" could also be actual money mothers pay
fathers....because, althought it may be rare, they do pay fathers....so
child support is as you say 'non custodial parent paying money to the
custodial parent'
I strongly feel that 'child support' could definitly be time spent
between
child and non custodial parent. But YES it does take money to raise
children
that is why the non custodial parent is obligated to pay child support.

Obviously not or there would be some guidelines about how this C$ is spent
or at least a modicum of desire to see to it that children benefit
directly
and absolutely from the C$. There isn't, therefore that is not why C$ is
ordered. Compare the rates of foster-parenting payments, social security
and
AFDC payments and benefits with C$ guidelines. Only C$ spending has no
guidelines, outlines or accountability. Odd, no?

Agreed...there should be some spending guidelines as in the other payments
you
mentioned. Very good point made

If my children would ever live with their father, and I ordered to pay
child
support, although it may hurt my financials, I would rather see the
clothing
on my childrens backs, the food in their stomaches, the toys they play
with,
the safe car they are transported in then not pay and watch them not eat
healthy, wear torn clothing, not have many toys and be driven around in
a
vehicle that is unsafe....
Non custodial parents are making a better life for their children every
time
they send that check.

This is patently untrue. The fact is that the C$ makes the CPs life better
by virtue of giving her more money to spend on her choices. Even when the
CP
uses the C$ for better housing, food and clothing, the CP benefits along
with the children in living a SOL above that she could afford otherwise,
meaning the CP is utilizing the other parent's income to bolster her own.
As
long as the minimal threshhold standard of neglect is not breached (which
is
hardly fit for children's physical and mental health), no one cares or
even
looks. Even when it can be proven that the CP is *not* using the majority
of
C$ for the child but is, in fact using it as personal income, it is
impossible to change the situation either legally or actually.

I see the point. Tougher (stricter) rules and some guidelines would surely
help this. You say "CP is utilizing the other parent's income to bolster her
own"
BUT now think of this, when a CP files for say welfare help,
social security/disability, or other state help as in say legal services, or
child day
care services they DO count the child support payment as the CP's income. So
therefore in the eyes of the state (at least here) child support IS CP's
income....
I am not saying that its right...please don't start thrashing my opinions
because
you think that now, too.

If, indeed the focus was on the betterment of the children's lives, there
would be *some* mandate about what C$ is for. As it is, C$ is for whatever
the CP chooses, even when it has absolutely no relation to the children as
long as they are not neglected according to the state's definition of
"neglect". The state's definition of "neglect" applies equally to those at
every income level; those earning $0 and those earning $10,000/month.

And the definition of 'neglect' should not be different for someone who is
considered poor, middleman, or rich.

Most non custodial parents look at it as paying the
custodial parent....maybe in some cases it is true where the custodial
parent 'blows' the money or spends it on his or herself, but not always.
This stuff should be evaluated on a case by case basis and the entire
categories (custodia - non custodial) not put down because of this. Non
custodial parent A may be happy to pay support to see custodial parent a
give the children have a better life, while non custodial parent B gets
so
mad because he sees custodial parent B wearing the latest fashions etc
while
she doesn't work herself. Not all CUSTODIAL PARENTS take advantage of
the
CS system....Not all NON CUSTODIAL PARENTS pay child support....
I am not doubting that the figures do favor women -- but not every case
does....

Five legged sheep. When a few of a category change from the norm, the norm
remains.
In my very limited viewpoint, the case of the CP gouging

CP gouging the CS system? So since CP has custody NCP should not have to
help in the financial aspect of raising the child? I agree the system is not
fair, it
never has been, never will be...but CP has every right to CS from NCP, maybe
in some cases (or more than some) the CP is getting more than he/she
needs, but NCP can't just forget how much it costs to raise a child...If
both parties
wanted to be fair to each other they would go to the CS hearing and agree
between
them on a fair amount...if they can't agree (here anyway) that is when and
only when
the hearing officer takes income/expense sheets and figures the CS to be
paid from
NCP to CP.

the C$ system is
normal. Having a few differ from the norm does nothing to change the norm.
[snip]
Phil #3