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

"Banty" wrote
............................

How, exactly, would you mandate that the CP provide what you call
"lifestyle"?
What would make you feel better about this? Because you're not arguing
that all
kids in CP custody should automatically go to just-above-poverty; rather
you're
bothered by if the CP is 'mandated' somehow.
==
If one class of parents is mandated to spend a percentage of income on their
children,
so should all classes. If the government isn't prepared to require ALL
classes of parents
to do this, it should not be requiring the NCP to do it. It really isn't
that hard to see the
disparity is it? Preferred solution: Assess CS at basic childrearing costs
regardless of
income.

In article U0p_i.7275$NC.4867@trndny07, Gini says...


"Banty" wrote
...........................

How, exactly, would you mandate that the CP provide what you call
"lifestyle"?
What would make you feel better about this? Because you're not arguing
that all
kids in CP custody should automatically go to just-above-poverty; rather
you're
bothered by if the CP is 'mandated' somehow.
==
If one class of parents is mandated to spend a percentage of income on their
children,
so should all classes. If the government isn't prepared to require ALL
classes of parents
to do this, it should not be requiring the NCP to do it. It really isn't
that hard to see the
disparity is it? Preferred solution: Assess CS at basic childrearing costs
regardless of
income.



I can't sign on to this. Actually, it seems like a contrived equal-rights
argument (y'know, like smokers vs non-smokers, people with kids vs. people with
dogs 'should have same rights'). NCP's have a different status because they
*are in a different situation*. NCP, CP, not same.

Banty

"DB" wrote

"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?
==
From anyone who benefits from said system, the answer is typically a
resounding "Yes!"
Well, so long as THEY aren't required to do it.

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article U0p_i.7275$NC.4867@trndny07, Gini says...


"Banty" wrote
...........................

How, exactly, would you mandate that the CP provide what you call
"lifestyle"?
What would make you feel better about this? Because you're not arguing
that all
kids in CP custody should automatically go to just-above-poverty; rather
you're
bothered by if the CP is 'mandated' somehow.
==
If one class of parents is mandated to spend a percentage of income on
their
children,
so should all classes. If the government isn't prepared to require ALL
classes of parents
to do this, it should not be requiring the NCP to do it. It really isn't
that hard to see the
disparity is it? Preferred solution: Assess CS at basic childrearing costs
regardless of
income.



I can't sign on to this. Actually, it seems like a contrived equal-rights
argument (y'know, like smokers vs non-smokers, people with kids vs. people
with
dogs 'should have same rights'). NCP's have a different status because
they
*are in a different situation*. NCP, CP, not same.
==
Duh.

"Banty" wrote in

I can't sign on to this. Actually, it seems like a contrived equal-rights
argument (y'know, like smokers vs non-smokers, people with kids vs. people
with
dogs 'should have same rights').

And now you know why **YOUR** Constitution forbids the federal government
from getting into the personal affairs of the people.

In article , Bob Whiteside
says...

Then we basically agree. How would you implement it, though?

Define "child support." Create specific criteria for how CS is to be spent.
Require periodic disclosure of expenses paid. Do the same thing to CP
mothers they do to NCP dads - presume they are guilty of misappropriation of
the funds and make them prove otherwise. IOW - Assume they won't spend the
money as intended and force them to rebut the assumption by showing they
spent it correctly.


Hmm, I mean who and how and how is it going to be paid for?

Seems you're more motivated by doing unto 'them' what was done to 'us' than
actually seeing that the kids get the benefit...

Banty

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article U0p_i.7275$NC.4867@trndny07, Gini says...


"Banty" wrote
...........................

How, exactly, would you mandate that the CP provide what you call
"lifestyle"?
What would make you feel better about this? Because you're not arguing
that all
kids in CP custody should automatically go to just-above-poverty; rather
you're
bothered by if the CP is 'mandated' somehow.
==
If one class of parents is mandated to spend a percentage of income on
their
children,
so should all classes. If the government isn't prepared to require ALL
classes of parents
to do this, it should not be requiring the NCP to do it. It really isn't
that hard to see the
disparity is it? Preferred solution: Assess CS at basic childrearing costs
regardless of
income.



I can't sign on to this. Actually, it seems like a contrived equal-rights
argument (y'know, like smokers vs non-smokers, people with kids vs. people
with
dogs 'should have same rights'). NCP's have a different status because
they
*are in a different situation*. NCP, CP, not same.


Equal rights is one of the most misunderstood Constitutional Amendments.
The amendment precludes the government from giving special privileges and
immunities to a particular class, rather than discriminating against a
particular class.

It is for that reason I have always felt the equal rights arguments in
family law should be about the children rather than the parents. If the
government's CS laws give special treatment to a first born child over
subsequent born child, then I consider that an equal rights violation. But
the way the CS system works children have no Constitutional rights.

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob Whiteside
says...

Then we basically agree. How would you implement it, though?

Define "child support." Create specific criteria for how CS is to be
spent.
Require periodic disclosure of expenses paid. Do the same thing to CP
mothers they do to NCP dads - presume they are guilty of misappropriation
of
the funds and make them prove otherwise. IOW - Assume they won't spend
the
money as intended and force them to rebut the assumption by showing they
spent it correctly.


Hmm, I mean who and how and how is it going to be paid for?

Seems you're more motivated by doing unto 'them' what was done to 'us'
than
actually seeing that the kids get the benefit...

Nope. I am more for getting the government completely out of family
decisions. The intrusion by government into people's private lives has
become a real crisis. I personally fear it because to me it is social
engineering run amok.

They do it under the guise of their actions being in the best interest of
the children, but in reality everything they do is in the best interest of
the government. Until the "other side" starts to feel what it is like to
get similar treatment to what they advocate for fathers to receive I don't
see any change occurring. You see it is a zero sum game - To give rights to
fathers the government has to take rights away from mothers. As you may
have notice in this newsgroup, many of the father's rights advocates are
second wives who have lived through how their husbands have been mistreated,
or children of fathers who got bad treatment. The advocates for the status
quo are always the people who benefit from the unfairness inherent in the
current system.

"Banty" wrote in

Seems you're more motivated by doing unto 'them' what was done to 'us'
than
actually seeing that the kids get the benefit...

That's just the point, hundreds of dollars are handed over to the mother,
she doesn't have to account for one dime of it!
If the government cannot enforce allocation of the money directly for the
child, then they have no business collecting it in the name of the child.

Many fathers have complained that they pay a lot of money, only to see their
child running around in rags!

You have a bloated CS bureaucracy of 50, 000 employees collecting money for
no specific purpose other than to tranfer money from males to females. This
isn't saving the tax payer a penny!

Banty wrote:


I'm afraid I have to agree with this recommendation. Do you know how basic
"basic" is? Leaving it at that would have the CP underwriting a much larger
proportion of the childrearing cost.


But anything more than basic expenditures is discretionary, not
necessary. No parent should be required by law to support their child
more than that.

Would you be OK with the recommendation if there were oversight of the CP
expenditures?




--

Sarah Gray