Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child support debt?

"Sarah Gray" wrote
............................
What bugs me about some of the people on this group is that they say that
CP's don't "have" to spend money on their children. While there are many
CP's who take advantage of the system, and there is no accountability for
the spending of child support funds (and there should be! I would have no
problem accounting for expenses in detail.), anyone who takes care of a
child full time or close to it, certainly "has" to take care of their
child. There may not be anyone checking up on them, but it is not as if
most CP's are letting their children go hungry and without clothing, just
to spend child support on themselves. If child support was based on actual
(or average) *expenses*, not % of income of the NCP, I think more NCP's
would pay, and feel better about doing so.
==
Exactly. It is the "lifestyle" mandate (required by law) that is the
sticking point for NCPs.
It should be a mandated for *all* parents or none. And, need-based support
would be
much more palatable for NCPs.

In article , Sarah Gray says...

Banty wrote:
In article , teachrmama says...

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article Uk8_i.1812$eV.1258@trndny04, Gini says...

"Banty" wrote
Gini says...
"Banty" wrote
.................
Well, now you're getting into choices made after the obligation is
already
known, or should damn well be figured was in the picture even if not
yet
specifically set.
==
Not at all. My husband's CS was doubled *after* we had two subsequent
children.
It went from 600. to 1200. We almost lost our house.
Why did it double?
==
Cuz the judge said it did. That's how it works.
He or she must have given a rationale, though. What was it?

==
Still, procreation
decisions made
by NCPs should not be subject to government control (and it *is*
government
control)
unless the state is prepared to control procreation decisions for all
other
classes of parents.
Everyone has what they can afford impact their decisions. Having prior
obligations impacts what can be afforded. That's not "control".
==
That wasn't the point. Government control of one class of people was the
point.
A lot of stuff here is going right past you.
I just dont' sign on to the idea that it's "government control" to have an
obligation.

==
................................
But there's a standard of decency, I think, that's reflected. I mean,
how
would
you have it - totally voluntary? I'm afraid that doesn't work.
==
For whom does it not work? If you think it is OK for the government to
mandate "decency," how would you
respond if the mandate were placed on you for something you thought was
"decent" but the government did not?
What if the government demands that *you* spend a percentage of your
income
on your children, subject to prison if you
did not comply? Is that OK with you?
There is a miminal standard to not be neglectful for me as a parent. Not
being
in a custody situation, I have a lot of latitude other than that (but a
huge
part of my income expenditure and lifestyle is set by my parenthood).
But yes,
there are minimum standards for divorced parents who are in the courts
that are
well above that bare standard.

To me, the answer is this, and it's evident in a lot of what I read here
and
elsewhere and see in real life - unfortunately, there are two opposing
parties;
the divorcing parents. Pretty much focussed on each other instead of the
kids,
even more unfortunately. If one parent has custody, that parent, mad at
the
other, would LOVE to demand an exhorbitant support rate, not just for his
or her
household, but to get at the other person. The one without custody, too
often,
would LOVE to pay a pittance or nothing.
I have to say, Banty, that I know very few people who want to pay a pittance
or nothing at all. The vast majority of parents want to support their
children--but they would also like their needs to be considered, not just
the court-mandated lifestyle of the child. If either I or my husband lost
our job, we would tighten our belts and get through the rough time. The
system has dictated, however, that children of NCPs do NOT have to tighten
their belts, because the NCP has to keep paying, no matter what. I am
pretty sure that if intact families were told to keep supporting their
children at the pre-job-loss level, the citizens of this country would be up
in arms. But it seems to be ok if it is only happening to NCPs.

Well, as to the pittance, unfortunately IRL IME if it's not nothing (like the
guy who wanted abortion), it's *very* often this idea that support consists in
clothing and food and school fees; that there is overhead of housing and heat

Heat is a negligible expense when based on a per-child methodology. Just
saying

Not up here in upstate New York! Heating a 1 bedroom apartment or condo is
quite a different proposition from heating a house or even a 2 or 3 bedroom
apartment or condo. Even the increased ins and outs of kids leads to higher
heating costs.


and hired care for a single parent just isn't on the menu, should they decide
for themselves what they should support. Witness the person here who wants
everything left to gifts, and gosh darn it, if Mom can't wait until a spring
birthday to get new clothing for her daughter for the new school year in
September(never mind what she has outgrown!), she's 'not patient'. I've run
into that sort of thing IRL, too. "I'll support my children my way in my own
good goddamm time." And the girl either goes naked or mom coughs ups the
clothing cost in September anyway. Of course mom coughs up. That's why this
goes to a third party.


What bugs me about some of the people on this group is that they say
that CP's don't "have" to spend money on their children. While there are
many CP's who take advantage of the system, and there is no
accountability for the spending of child support funds (and there should
be! I would have no problem accounting for expenses in detail.),

Yeah - if there was some way to have a trustee do it, it would put a lot of this
(and step parent issues, etc. etc.) to rest. At least for most people.

anyone
who takes care of a child full time or close to it, certainly "has" to
take care of their child. There may not be anyone checking up on them,
but it is not as if most CP's are letting their children go hungry and
without clothing, just to spend child support on themselves. If child
support was based on actual (or average) *expenses*, not % of income of
the NCP, I think more NCP's would pay, and feel better about doing so.

Reworking the system would lead to more compliance. At least I'd hope.


Now, it has been enlightening that support is set as if the CP would only be
living in half a house otherwise, which is overestimating what a kid would cost.
That isn't fair. I'm looking into that more... But left to a lot of NCP's, it
would be wrong in the other direction.

Like I said before, an intact family would have more options because the are
actually working together and not having to call on enforcement.

See, IRL I've seen the person out of a job; the NCP wants to just cut the
support. In the family, he'd be drawing on credit and help from relatives if
necessary. Yes, there would be belt tightening, but people do more than that.


This is obviously not legally enforceable for all parents, but I think
parents have an obligation to their children before themselves. If I
could not help support my child on my income, I'd get a better or a
second job. Period.

Ditto.

Also, it's inconsistent to argue that child support should be reduced based on a
temporarily reduced income based on what an intact family would do, then turn
around and argue that a new family requires a reduced CS amount as most
definately that's not what an intact family would do!

Now, I *do* think there should be some discretion as to all that, like for a
depressed economy.


It's that enforcement is hard to set such that it's sensitive to these
situations, but still doesn't have loopholes to drive a truck through. That's
hard to do. It's a situation better not entered into if possible.

To have more money for im or her, and
get at the other person. It's a situation that pretty much forces a third
party
to intervene set a standard. Often below what one party wants; above what
the
other wants, one that compares to common community standards. Again, what
would
you have happen when there are conflicting interests about what should be
done?
For me, I would say that the needs of the child--food, clothing,
shelter--are added up and split in half. No luxuries of any kind added in.
Just the standard of support required to meet the child's needs. This
figure is divided in half, and each parent is responsible for their half.
Then, let each parent's relationship with and love of the child determine
what else they want to provide. Not a court-ordered lifestyle dictated by a
judge based on income.

But that still would be argued over. Like the idea that the CP can sleep on the
living room couch in a one bedroom apartment - hey, there's a roof over the
head. It's a formula that leaves the CP largely underwriting the costs. Sorry,
those "luxury" costs are real.


I think an only child having their own bedroom is not a luxury. However,
in families with more than one child of the same gender, there is no
reason the children cannot share a room.

Agreed. I always thought that 3 bedrooms is the max necessary, and that only
for mixed gender kids. They can double, or even triple-up.

But I've seen quite unreasonable arguments in the *other* direcation, putting
the custodial parent on the living room couch for 18 years!

But see how we're making judgements here. Everyone does - there has to be some
standard. It's just that it needs to be a widely accepted standard.

FWIW, I was considering the above arrangement when my ex still lived in
town, but now that I have my daughter full-time, I think it would be too
crazy for me to not have a bedroom of my own. That doesn't mean I think
the cost of shelter for my child should be half of my rent.

Right.


I think the only real option is joint physical custody. Which adds up to
lifestyle limitations too in that people need to stay in the area. But that's
responsibility to a kid.


I had that situation; my daughter's father left and now he balks at
paying an appropriate amount of support.

Yep. And its extremely common.


I can't sign on to this idea that an NCP should be off free to do whatever, as
long as he or she kicks a few bucks into a bank account every month. Having
kids is a big responsibility that impacts what people do.

There's no neat option that's easy for everyone that's honorable IMO.

Or an even better solution is 50/50 joint custody with no money changing
hands.

==
Going through
divorce and not having at least part residential custody makes one
subject
to
some sort of accounting.
==
It is government regulation of one class of parent. Perhaps you are fine
with that.
Perhaps you don't get it. People who profit from a system are more likely
to
defend it
whether it is right or not.
Actually, both classes of parents have limits (if you mean NCP and CP).
Place
of residence, for example. Scrutiny of lifestyle issues w.r.t. future
custody
changes.

You'd think so, wouldn't you. But guess what--the custodial parent is not
required to spend one penny of child support on the child. So long as the
child's basic needs are met, the CP is free to spend the money on anything
she so desires with no accounting. No kidding.



Well, that's true. Now, just as you think NCP's are wunnerful people who would
support there kids really truly, I tend to give more credence to the CP being
more willing to really do what's necessary to support the kid in the household
with him or her. Why? What is my bias? Well, my bias comes from the fact
that person is actually *raising* the child and *living with* the child day to
day minute to minute. A hell of a lot less likely situation to ignore a kid's
needs in - no out of sight out of mind about it. If Pop Warner football fees
are considered "luxury" and a CP has an energetic boy who had loved Pop Warner
football bouncing off the walls in her house, she'll have to dig in, tighten the
belt, and come up with the fees. Because her boy *needs* it and that need is
right under her nose. The NCP over in another house can think "Pop Warner
football fees are a luxury" and have his evenings in complete peace and blissful
ignorance about it. Add to that what I've observed of certain NCP's I know who
dont' seem to understand any kind of overhead.

Now, I've often wondered if there should be a third party overseeing the
expenses - that child support payments should go to a trustee, who would handle
certain bills and and dole out cash for misc. expenses. But that's another huge
beaurocracy that people would complain about the $$$ involved to actually do
that. But other than that it wouldn't be a bad thing IMO. There's a loss of
privacy, but even if the CP would have been using the money correctly, everyone
would be confident that the money is used correctly and relations would be
better IMO. Would you support that?


I think that sounds like a reasonable idea; at least it is better than
no accountability at all.



Wondering how it woudl be implemented, though. But there would be a lot of
benefit even to situations where the CS money would have been spent reasonably
anyway. It gives confidence and assurance (to most anyway; some people would be
suspicious of anything).

Banty

In article gli_i.2562$Z01.403@trndny01, Gini says...


"Sarah Gray" wrote
...........................
What bugs me about some of the people on this group is that they say that
CP's don't "have" to spend money on their children. While there are many
CP's who take advantage of the system, and there is no accountability for
the spending of child support funds (and there should be! I would have no
problem accounting for expenses in detail.), anyone who takes care of a
child full time or close to it, certainly "has" to take care of their
child. There may not be anyone checking up on them, but it is not as if
most CP's are letting their children go hungry and without clothing, just
to spend child support on themselves. If child support was based on actual
(or average) *expenses*, not % of income of the NCP, I think more NCP's
would pay, and feel better about doing so.
==
Exactly. It is the "lifestyle" mandate (required by law) that is the
sticking point for NCPs.
It should be a mandated for *all* parents or none. And, need-based support
would be
much more palatable for NCPs.



I still dont' get that CS payments add up to a 'mandate'. If you pay, there's
no issue if it came from spouse's income (frequently partly), a recent
inheritance, or a football lottery. If it's paid, it's paid.

It's not a 'mandate' any more than owing on a large debt if a 'mandate'. There
is less income therefore fewer life options to be sure (but that's life), but
it's not a 'mandate'.

Banty

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , teachrmama says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article Uk8_i.1812$eV.1258@trndny04, Gini says...


"Banty" wrote
Gini says...
"Banty" wrote
.................

Well, now you're getting into choices made after the obligation is
already
known, or should damn well be figured was in the picture even if not
yet
specifically set.
==
Not at all. My husband's CS was doubled *after* we had two subsequent
children.
It went from 600. to 1200. We almost lost our house.

Why did it double?
==
Cuz the judge said it did. That's how it works.

He or she must have given a rationale, though. What was it?

==

Still, procreation
decisions made
by NCPs should not be subject to government control (and it *is*
government
control)
unless the state is prepared to control procreation decisions for all
other
classes of parents.

Everyone has what they can afford impact their decisions. Having prior
obligations impacts what can be afforded. That's not "control".
==
That wasn't the point. Government control of one class of people was the
point.
A lot of stuff here is going right past you.

I just dont' sign on to the idea that it's "government control" to have
an
obligation.

==
................................
But there's a standard of decency, I think, that's reflected. I mean,
how
would
you have it - totally voluntary? I'm afraid that doesn't work.
==
For whom does it not work? If you think it is OK for the government to
mandate "decency," how would you
respond if the mandate were placed on you for something you thought was
"decent" but the government did not?
What if the government demands that *you* spend a percentage of your
income
on your children, subject to prison if you
did not comply? Is that OK with you?

There is a miminal standard to not be neglectful for me as a parent. Not
being
in a custody situation, I have a lot of latitude other than that (but a
huge
part of my income expenditure and lifestyle is set by my parenthood).
But yes,
there are minimum standards for divorced parents who are in the courts
that are
well above that bare standard.

To me, the answer is this, and it's evident in a lot of what I read here
and
elsewhere and see in real life - unfortunately, there are two opposing
parties;
the divorcing parents. Pretty much focussed on each other instead of
the
kids,
even more unfortunately. If one parent has custody, that parent, mad at
the
other, would LOVE to demand an exhorbitant support rate, not just for
his
or her
household, but to get at the other person. The one without custody, too
often,
would LOVE to pay a pittance or nothing.

I have to say, Banty, that I know very few people who want to pay a
pittance
or nothing at all. The vast majority of parents want to support their
children--but they would also like their needs to be considered, not just
the court-mandated lifestyle of the child. If either I or my husband lost
our job, we would tighten our belts and get through the rough time. The
system has dictated, however, that children of NCPs do NOT have to tighten
their belts, because the NCP has to keep paying, no matter what. I am
pretty sure that if intact families were told to keep supporting their
children at the pre-job-loss level, the citizens of this country would be
up
in arms. But it seems to be ok if it is only happening to NCPs.

Well, as to the pittance, unfortunately IRL IME if it's not nothing (like
the
guy who wanted abortion), it's *very* often this idea that support
consists in
clothing and food and school fees; that there is overhead of housing and
heat
and hired care for a single parent just isn't on the menu, should they
decide
for themselves what they should support. Witness the person here who
wants
everything left to gifts, and gosh darn it, if Mom can't wait until a
spring
birthday to get new clothing for her daughter for the new school year in
September(never mind what she has outgrown!), she's 'not patient'. I've
run
into that sort of thing IRL, too. "I'll support my children my way in my
own
good goddamm time." And the girl either goes naked or mom coughs ups the
clothing cost in September anyway. Of course mom coughs up. That's why
this
goes to a third party.

Now, it has been enlightening that support is set as if the CP would only
be
living in half a house otherwise, which is overestimating what a kid would
cost.
That isn't fair. I'm looking into that more... But left to a lot of
NCP's, it
would be wrong in the other direction.

Like I said before, an intact family would have more options because the
are
actually working together and not having to call on enforcement.

See, IRL I've seen the person out of a job; the NCP wants to just cut the
support. In the family, he'd be drawing on credit and help from relatives
if
necessary. Yes, there would be belt tightening, but people do more than
that.

But they do get to tighten their belts--the NCP does not get that option.
And if he is not able to pay the full amount, arrearages build up, and he is
forced to pay it all back with interest--even if the amounts he paid are
already on a high interest credit card. The CP does not have the same
problem--the money will eventually come in from the NCP.


It's that enforcement is hard to set such that it's sensitive to these
situations, but still doesn't have loopholes to drive a truck through.
That's
hard to do. It's a situation better not entered into if possible.

It would be nice if adults would work things out between themselves--but
when the system almost guarantees one party preferential treatment, it is
hard to be reasonableknowing that just by being unreasonable you will be
handed far more by the court.



To have more money for im or her, and
get at the other person. It's a situation that pretty much forces a
third
party
to intervene set a standard. Often below what one party wants; above
what
the
other wants, one that compares to common community standards. Again,
what
would
you have happen when there are conflicting interests about what should
be
done?

For me, I would say that the needs of the child--food, clothing,
shelter--are added up and split in half. No luxuries of any kind added
in.
Just the standard of support required to meet the child's needs. This
figure is divided in half, and each parent is responsible for their half.
Then, let each parent's relationship with and love of the child determine
what else they want to provide. Not a court-ordered lifestyle dictated by
a
judge based on income.

But that still would be argued over. Like the idea that the CP can sleep
on the
living room couch in a one bedroom apartment - hey, there's a roof over
the
head. It's a formula that leaves the CP largely underwriting the costs.
Sorry,
those "luxury" costs are real.

A bedroom for the CP is NOT a luxury. The idea is not to leave the CP
scrabbling in poverty, but to adequately cover the actual costs of the
actual needs of the child--which include a bedroom in the home of both CP
and NCP. Luxuries are after school sports, a new playstation, designer
clothes, school band,etc. All those things that loving parents provide
because they love their child. And the $$ for those should not be court
ordered, because they are not required in an intact family.


I think the only real option is joint physical custody. Which adds up to
lifestyle limitations too in that people need to stay in the area. But
that's
responsibility to a kid.

THAT I agree with. Your responsibility to your child is to live in the same
area and actually parent your child. I think 50/50 joint custody should be
the default position.


I can't sign on to this idea that an NCP should be off free to do
whatever, as
long as he or she kicks a few bucks into a bank account every month.
Having
kids is a big responsibility that impacts what people do.

Oh, I don't like the idea of a parent walking away free and clear either.
But if all the incentives for custody were removed, I think we would see a
lot more people willing to sit down and work things out themsleves, instead
of the armed camps we see today.

In article , teachrmama says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , teachrmama says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article Uk8_i.1812$eV.1258@trndny04, Gini says...


"Banty" wrote
Gini says...
"Banty" wrote
.................

Well, now you're getting into choices made after the obligation is
already
known, or should damn well be figured was in the picture even if not
yet
specifically set.
==
Not at all. My husband's CS was doubled *after* we had two subsequent
children.
It went from 600. to 1200. We almost lost our house.

Why did it double?
==
Cuz the judge said it did. That's how it works.

He or she must have given a rationale, though. What was it?

==

Still, procreation
decisions made
by NCPs should not be subject to government control (and it *is*
government
control)
unless the state is prepared to control procreation decisions for all
other
classes of parents.

Everyone has what they can afford impact their decisions. Having prior
obligations impacts what can be afforded. That's not "control".
==
That wasn't the point. Government control of one class of people was the
point.
A lot of stuff here is going right past you.

I just dont' sign on to the idea that it's "government control" to have
an
obligation.

==
................................
But there's a standard of decency, I think, that's reflected. I mean,
how
would
you have it - totally voluntary? I'm afraid that doesn't work.
==
For whom does it not work? If you think it is OK for the government to
mandate "decency," how would you
respond if the mandate were placed on you for something you thought was
"decent" but the government did not?
What if the government demands that *you* spend a percentage of your
income
on your children, subject to prison if you
did not comply? Is that OK with you?

There is a miminal standard to not be neglectful for me as a parent. Not
being
in a custody situation, I have a lot of latitude other than that (but a
huge
part of my income expenditure and lifestyle is set by my parenthood).
But yes,
there are minimum standards for divorced parents who are in the courts
that are
well above that bare standard.

To me, the answer is this, and it's evident in a lot of what I read here
and
elsewhere and see in real life - unfortunately, there are two opposing
parties;
the divorcing parents. Pretty much focussed on each other instead of
the
kids,
even more unfortunately. If one parent has custody, that parent, mad at
the
other, would LOVE to demand an exhorbitant support rate, not just for
his
or her
household, but to get at the other person. The one without custody, too
often,
would LOVE to pay a pittance or nothing.

I have to say, Banty, that I know very few people who want to pay a
pittance
or nothing at all. The vast majority of parents want to support their
children--but they would also like their needs to be considered, not just
the court-mandated lifestyle of the child. If either I or my husband lost
our job, we would tighten our belts and get through the rough time. The
system has dictated, however, that children of NCPs do NOT have to tighten
their belts, because the NCP has to keep paying, no matter what. I am
pretty sure that if intact families were told to keep supporting their
children at the pre-job-loss level, the citizens of this country would be
up
in arms. But it seems to be ok if it is only happening to NCPs.

Well, as to the pittance, unfortunately IRL IME if it's not nothing (like
the
guy who wanted abortion), it's *very* often this idea that support
consists in
clothing and food and school fees; that there is overhead of housing and
heat
and hired care for a single parent just isn't on the menu, should they
decide
for themselves what they should support. Witness the person here who
wants
everything left to gifts, and gosh darn it, if Mom can't wait until a
spring
birthday to get new clothing for her daughter for the new school year in
September(never mind what she has outgrown!), she's 'not patient'. I've
run
into that sort of thing IRL, too. "I'll support my children my way in my
own
good goddamm time." And the girl either goes naked or mom coughs ups the
clothing cost in September anyway. Of course mom coughs up. That's why
this
goes to a third party.

Now, it has been enlightening that support is set as if the CP would only
be
living in half a house otherwise, which is overestimating what a kid would
cost.
That isn't fair. I'm looking into that more... But left to a lot of
NCP's, it
would be wrong in the other direction.

Like I said before, an intact family would have more options because the
are
actually working together and not having to call on enforcement.

See, IRL I've seen the person out of a job; the NCP wants to just cut the
support. In the family, he'd be drawing on credit and help from relatives
if
necessary. Yes, there would be belt tightening, but people do more than
that.

But they do get to tighten their belts--the NCP does not get that option.
And if he is not able to pay the full amount, arrearages build up, and he is
forced to pay it all back with interest--even if the amounts he paid are
already on a high interest credit card. The CP does not have the same
problem--the money will eventually come in from the NCP.

Well, options *are* *fewer* whatever one does. How (other then joint phsysical,
that we both agree on, but won't apply in all situations) would you suggest it
be handled? Should a court scrutinize each and every case as to whether or not
due effort (and possible compromise in plans) is being taken to maintain income?
Possibly, that's the only way. But are you suggesting to just tie CS to some
percentage of income? You know what would happen if they did that?

BTW, IRL I do know of cases wehre CS was reduced.



It's that enforcement is hard to set such that it's sensitive to these
situations, but still doesn't have loopholes to drive a truck through.
That's
hard to do. It's a situation better not entered into if possible.

It would be nice if adults would work things out between themselves--but
when the system almost guarantees one party preferential treatment, it is
hard to be reasonableknowing that just by being unreasonable you will be
handed far more by the court.

Well, keep in mind, in these cases one party has taken on the day to day, minute
to minute responaibilities of childrearing, and all the limitations that entails
(including to employability - try being the one that has to leave at 4:45 pm
every day to make the childcare pickup where most people often stay longer, and
hearing about impending layoffs....).




To have more money for im or her, and
get at the other person. It's a situation that pretty much forces a
third
party
to intervene set a standard. Often below what one party wants; above
what
the
other wants, one that compares to common community standards. Again,
what
would
you have happen when there are conflicting interests about what should
be
done?

For me, I would say that the needs of the child--food, clothing,
shelter--are added up and split in half. No luxuries of any kind added
in.
Just the standard of support required to meet the child's needs. This
figure is divided in half, and each parent is responsible for their half.
Then, let each parent's relationship with and love of the child determine
what else they want to provide. Not a court-ordered lifestyle dictated by
a
judge based on income.

But that still would be argued over. Like the idea that the CP can sleep
on the
living room couch in a one bedroom apartment - hey, there's a roof over
the
head. It's a formula that leaves the CP largely underwriting the costs.
Sorry,
those "luxury" costs are real.

A bedroom for the CP is NOT a luxury. The idea is not to leave the CP
scrabbling in poverty, but to adequately cover the actual costs of the
actual needs of the child--which include a bedroom in the home of both CP
and NCP. Luxuries are after school sports, a new playstation, designer
clothes, school band,etc. All those things that loving parents provide
because they love their child. And the $$ for those should not be court
ordered, because they are not required in an intact family.

You're not one of the extreme folks ;-)

But I have *never* IRL heard of new playstations and designer clothes being
included in CS caluculations. And I'm not so sure those after school activities
aren't necessary.

I don't sign on to this 'intact family' idea this far. Surely the 'intact
family' argument doesn't get pulled out when talking about new wives and kids!
(well, and intact family wouldn't have done that!)



I think the only real option is joint physical custody. Which adds up to
lifestyle limitations too in that people need to stay in the area. But
that's
responsibility to a kid.

THAT I agree with. Your responsibility to your child is to live in the same
area and actually parent your child. I think 50/50 joint custody should be
the default position.


Yep. Default unless there is real cause. And both parties have to stay put.
But that's not what intact families do either, now is it? Of course it's
because they move together, having made (hopefully) mutual decisions. This is
another area where the 'what would an intact family get to do' doesn't apply.
The intact family is gone; the situation has changed.

Not that there shouldnt' be *some* reference to intact families for some things.
Including some provision for real economic hardship - that far I agree. But not
in every case; believe me, people would walk away.


I can't sign on to this idea that an NCP should be off free to do
whatever, as
long as he or she kicks a few bucks into a bank account every month.
Having
kids is a big responsibility that impacts what people do.

Oh, I don't like the idea of a parent walking away free and clear either.
But if all the incentives for custody were removed, I think we would see a
lot more people willing to sit down and work things out themsleves, instead
of the armed camps we see today.


I'm afraid that, in divorce, the armed camps are there whatever we do. And
things 'worked out' often mean one party intimidating the other into something.
Although - a worked out arrangement taken to a third party may be a good way to
go.

Banty

"Banty" wrote in

Face it, Gini, this is just hyperbole. Child support is mandated.
"Lifestyle"
is not.

If lifestyle is not a factor, then why do the stars pay millions in CS to
their Ex's?

Since when in America is anybody guaranteed a lifestyle?

Once you provide the basic necessities of life, that's where the government
needs to get out of our lives!!!!!
I should be able to give my daughter a nice new coat when ever I please, not
because the government says so.

"Banty" wrote in

Wondering how it woudl be implemented, though. But there would be a lot
of
benefit even to situations where the CS money would have been spent
reasonably
anyway. It gives confidence and assurance (to most anyway; some people
would be
suspicious of anything).


Suspicion is a good thing, hence the need to create the Constitution to
restrict a government's power!

In article , DB says...


"Banty" wrote in

Wondering how it woudl be implemented, though. But there would be a lot
of
benefit even to situations where the CS money would have been spent
reasonably
anyway. It gives confidence and assurance (to most anyway; some people
would be
suspicious of anything).


Suspicion is a good thing, hence the need to create the Constitution to
restrict a government's power!



Exhibit A.

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , DB says...


"Banty" wrote in

Wondering how it woudl be implemented, though. But there would be a lot
of
benefit even to situations where the CS money would have been spent
reasonably
anyway. It gives confidence and assurance (to most anyway; some people
would be
suspicious of anything).


Suspicion is a good thing, hence the need to create the Constitution to
restrict a government's power!


Exhibit A.


Exhibit B

The troops are fighting for freedom, but whose Freedom are they really
fighting for?
Man receives 20 years prison for failing to pay government mandated C$

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1403

"Banty" wrote in

For that matter, how basic is basic? FEMA trailer, rice and beans, baths
twice
a week, a pair of shoes per year?


Why not, if it's good enough for government standards, then that should
apply to all separated families as a minimal guide to existence. Do you
think the government should be in the business of controlling it's citizens
lifestyle standards?