Moon Shyne wrote:
"Assumed" wrote in message
oups.com...

DB wrote:
"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Only AFTER you have spent 100% of the amount paid by the father.

Since the amount I receive is far less than 50% of the actual costs
incurred in supporting and raising the children, it's only common sense
that 100% of what he sends is spent on them.

You've already acknowledge that you receive half of a $1000/month.

I would be interested to see your version of how much is directly spent
on
your children.
Give us actual dollar fugures so we can judge for ourselves if you are
burdened with expensis you cannot afford on your own.

Perhaps common sense isn't your strong suit?

Perhaps budgeting is not your strong suit or maybe you are just cheap!


The 50 percent spent on the child argument lacks a bit of insight.

I consider that mothers, many at the least, do indeed spend as much
money as they can on their children - EVEN though I've yet to meet a CP
who tracked how much she DID spend.

Here is the rub.
A good mother will ALWAYS spend just a bit more than she can afford on
her children.
A good father rarely will.

When the couple are together, it is usually the father that is the
moderating influence on how much is spent on the children.

When the money is an object of the court's directive, the mother will
AGAIN spend a bit more than she can afford, but it is half the father's
money, the money that in another time and place he would have curbed.

So, it has been my experience that a mother, getting decent support
will turn away from tennis shoes at Walmart and go for the Adidas or
the Nikes BECAUSE she can. SHE is the purse holder now and no one, not
the father or even the courts can tell her what how to manage her
money.

It will ALWAYS cost more to raise a child than a mother has but it will
also ALWAYS cost more to raise a child than a mother has, no matter how
much she DOES have.

Many will say "what difference does this make, so long as the child is
taken care of? Why be prudent with the children's money? after all,
it is being spent on the children."

The answer is that there is a mindset that if the child support money
is not spent on the children immediately, there is something wrong.

When "extra" expenses crop up, such as out of pocket medical, a child's
first used car, or....College then there isn't enough money because
none was saved out for these things. The mother was being as
extravagant as possible in the moment.

Rather than rely on that money as TRUELY for the children, in other
words a portion of it SAVED for the children - it is all spent as
quickly as it is gotten, the mother complaining that it isn't really
enough.

In the end, it is the paying NCP that is asked to pay yet again for the
lack of fiscal constraint on the CP's part.

These assumptions on my part can be easily demonstrated btw.

Assume this, Leonard. My child incurred thousands of dollars in medical
bills (after the insurance coverage, insurance that I solely provide) after
sustaining an injury 7 months ago.

Every bill has been paid off in full.

My children have not one, but two college trust funds (each), even though
college is still years off.

You paint all custodial mothers with the same brush, when all people are
different.

Your prejudices are distasteful.



Leonard


Good for you. How much have you in those accounts? Yes, I am
prejudice but if you will read the entire description I lay out a sort
of mother who takes her responsabilites seriously. I simply see many
of them as being very short sighted.

Leonard