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

"ME" wrote in message
...

"Phil #3" wrote in message
link.net...
[snip]

I disagree with your basic premise that the CP has a "right" to a
portion
of
the finances of their ex.

I say that in the event of a seperated couple for whatever reason doesnt
have joint custody whree they could supply jointly for the childs needs
in
there individual homes. Some NCP simply do not want custody. So if NCP
has
no desire to have custody then they cant provide thethings the child
needs
when they are with NCP half the time...because they arent with them half
the
time as in joint custody.

It is true that there are some NCPs who do not want custody as well as
some
CPs who do not, however there seems to be a limit to even allowing the
thought to progress through court as the ratio seems to stay within the
80-90% mother CPs with sole-custody, regardless the district. This
phenomonon is based in the fact that mother is usually the one to file for
divorce, and custody, and given primary consideration due to the
adversarial
protocol.
For those instances where one parent is either unwilling, unable or
unqualified (which is difficult to judge) to share custody, there would
have
to be some form of cash payment set up to assist in proper rearing of the
children. Even then, the costs should be more aligned with actual expenses
instead of the fanatical and unbelieveable guidelines in place today.
When either parent moves far enough away from the marital home to cause
the
shared custody not to work, they should do so with the knowledge that they
become the "absent-parent" through their own choosing and are encumbered
to
pay a reasonable and just support.


A far better way would be to continue to let
parents *be* parents AND to let ALL parents support their children as
they
see fit, as long as the children are not deprived. Only after it has
become
obvious and demonstrative that a parent will not properly support
their
children should the state have anything at all to do with divorce and
C$.
All parents should be treated exactly the same way, regardless their
maritial status.
IOW, parents share custody and purchase what the children need when
with
that parent; Items of greater cost can be shared between the parents.

That is a great idea, too bad it isnt done more. Considering both
parties
live in the same school district, one has child from sunday at 6 to the
following sunday at 6...equal time together, both providing for the
child(ren) while in their custody, and as you said splitting the cost of
larger cost items. Perfect idea...do we see it ? Not often. My ex hubby
did
that at one point until his childs mother moved to a different school
district then they had to make other arrangements. (In the end it ended
up
in the court systems anyway) But it was great while it lasted. Great for
the
child, and for both parents. Equal time spent, no money exchanged.

This seems to be the normal procedu mother decides she can do without
the
husband but not his money therefore she divorces but instills the courts
indulgence to force "child support" as a means of continuing to live in
the
same, or at least better than she can directly afford, standard of living
without raising her own income. Quite often she will move back to "home"
to
be near her family or she meets her next ex-husband and moves to his area.
Either way is out of the hands of the father who is held as irresponsible
when he can't visit the children who were removed by law and distance
without his approval.


Forcing a parent out of their children's lives and then forcing them
to
give
money to their ex that does not benefit the children is not conductive
to
cooperation and the statistics bear this out.

Not all NCP are forced out of the child's life though...some NCP walk
out
of
the child's life on his/her own.

Yes, as do mothers... However, it should NEVER be forced, but frequently,
it
is.


When a father is granted
visitation, he is more likely to pay the extortion; when he is granted
no
visitation at all, he is less likely to play the game according to
changing
rules on which he has no input or control.

Although we do go through court systems most time here for CS, NCP does
have
input...IT is figured out by income and expenses...time spent with the
child
by NCP ona weekly basis (figuring that NCP would be providing for this
time
period and therefore doesnt have to pay support for this time period).
All
couples are given the chance to agree on a support amount and then the
courts say nothing about it. Only if they cant agree is it taken further
by
looking at everything to figure an amount, and even then they still have
the
right to talk about it and make the final decision.


You stated it about right in that the input of the father is usually
limited
to how much does he make. Some guidelines do not note a difference in how
much time the children are with the NCP unless it approaches shared
custody,
then there is usually a break of some kind but rarely, if ever, sensible.
Sometimes, there is no difference unless he is named the custodial or
"resident parent".
Sometimes, judges will throw out any agreement between parents and impose
state guidelines anyway.
You know the difference between God and a judge, don't you?
God doesn't pretend that he is a district court judge.
Phil #3

Through this whole discussion I think I came up with one thing for sure....
Things are different where I live than where you live---and yes I am in
the US. Here judges don't over rule any agreement unless it were to be
an extreme case.