In article , Cameron Stevens
says...


"Gini52" wrote in message
...
In article , Cameron Stevens
says...
Supporting the mother *is* supporting the child. I know what you mean but
there's no sane or reasonable way to enforce this.
=====
Of course there is. Our government requires us to maintain receipts for
all tax
deductions for, what--7 years? We call it insane and unreasonable but the
government has no problem requiring us to do it. There is no reason a CP
should
not be subject to audit if there is reason to believe CS is being misused.
All
she needs to do is keep a shoebox for receipts should there be a question.
This
would not apply however, if the amount ordered is in line with the actual
reasonable costs of a child. In that case, there is little room for
"discretionary spending."
==

I agree with the principle and I know this will be a challenge for those
people who are especially challenged to budget or manage their money.
===
Might I suggest that it isn't "their money?" Therein lies the contention with
the system. The money for which "we" are requesting an accounting is money that
one parent gave to the other parent exclusively for the financial needs of the
child. At no time does this money belong to the CP (in theory :-). Curious isn't
it that monies seen by the state (& the CP) as the CPs' is all theoretical--it
is only the money of the NCP that is a legal mandate.
===
===

Cameron