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

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

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

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

"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.
So you're *not* for CS at all.

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.
Actually I don't. I see that increasingly *either* fathers and
mothers
take
either role (as it's not a zero sum game), and advocate for *both*
having
some
physical custody, which is also happening increasingly. But that
won't
'stick
it to' anyone to make a point to your satisfaction, it seems.

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.
Who might have something of a vested interest in smaller CS payments.
Who also might have some vested interest in equity.


That's best determined by a third party, not the two parties with
conflicting
interests.
So let me challenge your theory on third parties making decisions on
conflicting interests. A mother has two children with different fathers.
Father #1 is ordered to pay her $800 per month to support his child.
Father
#2 is ordered to pay her $200 per month to support his child. The mother
gets $1000 per month in CS. If the mother co-mingles the CS into the
household budget she spends $500 per child. Child #1 is getting the
benefit
of $300 less than the court ordered CS. Child #2 is getting the benefit
of
$300 more than the court ordered CS. How should a third party rule on how
the CS is being spent and what should be done about it?

Well, I dont' know *why* the payments are so different. Say - maybe it's
to
avoid the "Welfare queeen" "CS queen thing" And some judge decided
two
girls, different fathers or no, can go into one bedroom. Or Dad #2 has a
much
lower earning capacity.

Inevitably, the expenses would co-mingle. Dinner get made at one time;
Mom
woudln't take two girls to the zoo and only take the older one on the
rides.
And the girls would be sisters to each other.

What, would you think it's like a dog kennel, where I can get a bigger pen
for
my dog if I pay more?

So child support isn't really paid for the wellbeing of the child, but for
the operating expenses of the household?



If someone is raising two children who have different fathers, both
paying support, I can see how it could be difficult for even the most
fair CP to not comingle funds somewhat. Then again, child support is
based on a flawed "standard" anyhow...

Child support mandated by the government should certainly not be figured
to cover anything besides the most basic expenses. If I want to take my
daughter to a movie or to the zoo, that is *my* decision, it's not a
necessary expense, so I pay. If her father wants to treat her to
something similar, the same goes for him.

Intact families are obligated to provide necessities for their children
(albeit, not enforced in the way child support payments are...), but
even though most parents are glad to provide whatever "extras" for their
children they can, that is not something the government should be
sticking their noses in.
--

Sarah Gray

"Sarah Gray" wrote
..............................
Child support mandated by the government should certainly not be figured
to cover anything besides the most basic expenses. If I want to take my
daughter to a movie or to the zoo, that is *my* decision, it's not a
necessary expense, so I pay. If her father wants to treat her to something
similar, the same goes for him.

Intact families are obligated to provide necessities for their children
(albeit, not enforced in the way child support payments are...), but even
though most parents are glad to provide whatever "extras" for their
children they can, that is not something the government should be sticking
their noses in.
====
And no child would be deemed more "deserving" than another.

In article , Bob Whiteside
says...


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


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


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


"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.

So you're *not* for CS at all.


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.

Actually I don't. I see that increasingly *either* fathers and
mothers
take
either role (as it's not a zero sum game), and advocate for *both*
having
some
physical custody, which is also happening increasingly. But that
won't
'stick
it to' anyone to make a point to your satisfaction, it seems.

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.

Who might have something of a vested interest in smaller CS payments.

Who also might have some vested interest in equity.



That's best determined by a third party, not the two parties with
conflicting
interests.

So let me challenge your theory on third parties making decisions on
conflicting interests. A mother has two children with different fathers.
Father #1 is ordered to pay her $800 per month to support his child.
Father
#2 is ordered to pay her $200 per month to support his child. The mother
gets $1000 per month in CS. If the mother co-mingles the CS into the
household budget she spends $500 per child. Child #1 is getting the
benefit
of $300 less than the court ordered CS. Child #2 is getting the benefit
of
$300 more than the court ordered CS. How should a third party rule on how
the CS is being spent and what should be done about it?


Well, I dont' know *why* the payments are so different.

Let's say the payments are different because momma had a kid with her
executive husband and then had a second child with the pool cleaner. She is
no as welfare queen. She is just a sex crazed whore who likes tanned men
with muscles.


Charmant, Msr. Whiteside.

Say - maybe it's to
avoid the "Welfare queeen" "CS queen thing" And some judge decided
two
girls, different fathers or no, can go into one bedroom. Or Dad #2 has a
much
lower earning capacity.

Inevitably, the expenses would co-mingle. Dinner get made at one time;
Mom
woudln't take two girls to the zoo and only take the older one on the
rides.
And the girls would be sisters to each other.

What, would you think it's like a dog kennel, where I can get a bigger pen
for
my dog if I pay more?

So is it okay for CS from one father to be used to support another father's
child or not? This is a very simple question so please stop the dancing
around the issue. How should a third party rule on this issue?


I answered the question. The funds comingle. She can't run a household raising
the kids together otherwise. *Not* to do so would be difficult and
strife-producing.

Banty

In article , teachrmama says...


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


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


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


"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.

So you're *not* for CS at all.


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.

Actually I don't. I see that increasingly *either* fathers and
mothers
take
either role (as it's not a zero sum game), and advocate for *both*
having
some
physical custody, which is also happening increasingly. But that
won't
'stick
it to' anyone to make a point to your satisfaction, it seems.

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.

Who might have something of a vested interest in smaller CS payments.

Who also might have some vested interest in equity.



That's best determined by a third party, not the two parties with
conflicting
interests.

So let me challenge your theory on third parties making decisions on
conflicting interests. A mother has two children with different fathers.
Father #1 is ordered to pay her $800 per month to support his child.
Father
#2 is ordered to pay her $200 per month to support his child. The mother
gets $1000 per month in CS. If the mother co-mingles the CS into the
household budget she spends $500 per child. Child #1 is getting the
benefit
of $300 less than the court ordered CS. Child #2 is getting the benefit
of
$300 more than the court ordered CS. How should a third party rule on how
the CS is being spent and what should be done about it?


Well, I dont' know *why* the payments are so different. Say - maybe it's
to
avoid the "Welfare queeen" "CS queen thing" And some judge decided
two
girls, different fathers or no, can go into one bedroom. Or Dad #2 has a
much
lower earning capacity.

Inevitably, the expenses would co-mingle. Dinner get made at one time;
Mom
woudln't take two girls to the zoo and only take the older one on the
rides.
And the girls would be sisters to each other.

What, would you think it's like a dog kennel, where I can get a bigger pen
for
my dog if I pay more?

So child support isn't really paid for the wellbeing of the child, but for
the operating expenses of the household?



How can you separate them? Think of your own two kids! How would it be to
raise one one way; the other the other way. Just having them in the same place
and sitting at the same dinner table would account for much of the CS.

Like we have been talking about, the operating expenses of the household are
counted as far as *additional* expenses are necessary to set up a household to
raise the kids in. Vs. the less expensive and wider options available to a
single person.

Banty

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


snip for length

BTW, you're pretty cool to discuss with.

I enjoy discussing with you, too. It's nice to talk with someone who is
polite and willing to look at other sides of the issue.

I am willing to look at both sides of the issue. I've known people on both
sides. I see a strong measure of blinkered perspective in just about
everyone,
though.

I like to punch up my prose, glad you still find it polite. I like to
keep it
civil, though.

I had absolutely no
idea what this system was like until we were dragged into it, and I'm sure
I
felt very much about it like you do right now. Being on the "inside"
rather
than just am observer is quite an eye opener. (BTW--with my own ears I
heard
a judge say that my husband's and my 2 daughters were "irrelevant." How's
that for an introduction to the system?)


Well, he's speaking as a *lawyer*. Like when a friend of mine found that
the
value of his treasured pets, lost in a carelessly-started fire, had no
value
other than that they would have gotten in the market. Which was zero
:-( The
law doesn't pretend to encompass the emotional or spiritual side of it.

This wan't just emotional/spiritual though. It was like the system closed
its eyes to the needs of our children and looked only at the other child.
Whatever was left after meeting the needs of that child could be spent on
our 2 children. As for the size of the award crippling us, and making it
very difficult to support our own children, tough luck--our children were
irrelevant. Ask Gini about her experience with the relative importance of
children of the order vs children not of the order.




Well, it sounds like you have a worst case, and a lot of what I have been
talking about has been related to the aftermath of divorce. I think in
your
sudden-paternity case there should have been *no* arrears, *no* fines or
interest* (as your hubby totally dind't know), and this may be a case for
his
only being required to provide half of the basics. As there was no
previous way
of life your husband had established with the child to hurt the child
from.

Just for the fun of it, think about the loopholes THAT could open up!
Communication and relationship (and perhaps a bit of sanity and common
sense) have GOT to be brought into this mix sometime. When people ask my
advice in this area, I tell them to do everything in their power to keep
things out of court. It's just not worth it.

In article , teachrmama says...


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


snip for length

BTW, you're pretty cool to discuss with.

I enjoy discussing with you, too. It's nice to talk with someone who is
polite and willing to look at other sides of the issue.

I am willing to look at both sides of the issue. I've known people on both
sides. I see a strong measure of blinkered perspective in just about
everyone,
though.

I like to punch up my prose, glad you still find it polite. I like to
keep it
civil, though.

I had absolutely no
idea what this system was like until we were dragged into it, and I'm sure
I
felt very much about it like you do right now. Being on the "inside"
rather
than just am observer is quite an eye opener. (BTW--with my own ears I
heard
a judge say that my husband's and my 2 daughters were "irrelevant." How's
that for an introduction to the system?)


Well, he's speaking as a *lawyer*. Like when a friend of mine found that
the
value of his treasured pets, lost in a carelessly-started fire, had no
value
other than that they would have gotten in the market. Which was zero
:-( The
law doesn't pretend to encompass the emotional or spiritual side of it.

This wan't just emotional/spiritual though. It was like the system closed
its eyes to the needs of our children and looked only at the other child.
Whatever was left after meeting the needs of that child could be spent on
our 2 children. As for the size of the award crippling us, and making it
very difficult to support our own children, tough luck--our children were
irrelevant. Ask Gini about her experience with the relative importance of
children of the order vs children not of the order.

Yeah, I've heard alll abou that too. As if the current budget is all that
childrearing is about (AGAIN over and over again this viewpoint - and people
complain about being 'treated as wallets').

The older kids get continuing CP based on previous agreement. Period. For
good.

The kids with the current marriage relationship get:
* The presence and attention of their parents
* The labor of their parents to offset any expenses (fixing own roof, etc.)
* The efficiencies of being in a two-adult household (else there'd be no new
kids)
* Benefit of the income produced by the new partner/step parent!!
* Benefit of the increasing income potential of *both* parents over time.
* Benefit of any new income or windfalls coming to the new family (it always
amazed me this - the CP is supposed be sharing in all the downturns and burdens
of the NCP family that he or she knows nothing about, and can do nothing about,
but damn sure, if the NCP or the new partner got an inheritance, the CP won't
get to share in THAT, nor should they)

New kids being treated as if they're lesser, my foot!!





Well, it sounds like you have a worst case, and a lot of what I have been
talking about has been related to the aftermath of divorce. I think in
your
sudden-paternity case there should have been *no* arrears, *no* fines or
interest* (as your hubby totally dind't know), and this may be a case for
his
only being required to provide half of the basics. As there was no
previous way
of life your husband had established with the child to hurt the child
from.

Just for the fun of it, think about the loopholes THAT could open up!
Communication and relationship (and perhaps a bit of sanity and common
sense) have GOT to be brought into this mix sometime. When people ask my
advice in this area, I tell them to do everything in their power to keep
things out of court. It's just not worth it.



In your case, they didn't hate each other. It wasn't a divorce. People often
hate each other after a divorce. You're suggesting requiring a CP to ask
someone who is trying to HURT her or him at every turn just so that their son
can do the Parent-Son camp at Cub Scouts?? Are you kidding??

Like I said before, divorce was the end of that relationship. THe end of that
partnership. Furthermore, NOT going to joing physical custody handed 90% of the
childrearing responsibility to one party.

If someone wants *control* (which is what this 'relationship' thing is really
about), it's way past time.

Banty

On Nov 12, 8:49 pm, Banty wrote:
In article , Bob Whiteside
says...



"Banty" wrote in message
...

Well, Gini said:

I mean Teachrmamma :*)



__________

And yet, when they figure out CS on percentage of income, it
can be far more than that. The system, at the moment, is not at all
reasonable--NCPs get hurt by it most often--but CPs can suffer, too. The
system
is about $$$$$, not children. sigh
__________

..and I asked why.

Specifically, what about the system leads to an unreasonable percentage of
income being required of NCP's.

OK, great - this is more what I'm wondering about.



CS guideline amounts are based on child rearing expenditures in intact
families. The three biggest child rearing expenses - housing,
transportation, and micellaneous - are all overstated because the data uses
marginal costs, not child specific costs.

What are "marginal costs" vs. child specific costs?

No consideration is given to the
NCP's expenses for establishing a second home. The child rearing costs that
"travel with the children" (most estimates are 27%) are ignored.

Meaning, there's no credit for the visitation time? Like, CP is 1/2 of a months
groceries, where it should be 1/2 of 30 minus four or five days' groceries,
etc.?

The NCP's
costs for visitations are ignored. CS awards are not adjusted for
parenting time until the NCP's share exceeds 30% or more.

Sounds like it can be accounted for better here..

The cost of
raising other children is ignored.

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.

Women on welfare are presumed to be
unable to pay CS.

Can't say that's wrong, though - or it would be saying that welfare provides
income that can be spared from the household!

Hearing fact finders refuses to accept the CS guidelines
as guidelines and treat the tables as de facto law. There is no full
disclosure of how some of the CS guideline construction assumptions are
applied so arguments can be made to rebut the assumptions. Guideline
add-ons for medical, child care, education, special needs, etc. are done at
actual rather than area acceptable averages.

I agree that things should be transparent. As to the add ons, what do you mean
by 'actual' vs. 'area acceptable'?





So I expected to hear about how the system leads to that. Incentives were
brought up. So, to me the question is - are the incentives set up to
actually
make child support awards *larger* than they otherwise would be. Which
would be
a very bad thing all around.

Incentives are set up to reward the states for compliance with federal laws.
The incentives encourage the states to go after NCP's who pay their support
and have good paying jobs more agressively for CS order modifications. The
harder to collect orders - small dollar amounts, interstate orders,
international orders, orders requiring parent locator services - get far
less attention. The state go after the easy to collect, high dollar orders
becasue they boost the state's collection to cost ratio.

So, because it's by the percent, the 'deeper pockets' get more pressure to pay.
Even if they're already paying. But if you're already paying, what's the diff?
Is the employer involvement the biggest issue? I can sympathize with that...





But that incentives exist, and that funds are rewarded, does not mean the
incentives are set up so as to make CS payments unecessarily *larger*.

See above.

At first (and still...?) it looks like the incentives are there to make
sure
that amount awarded, actually is collected. Which is not the same thing
as
incentivizing the size of the CS payments themselves. Just as a repo man
gets
paid and may be quite aggressive, but that does not mean you bought the
car for
a higher price. It just means that, once you default, there's a big push
to
recitify that.

Just about any corporation business association has some kind of
measurement
like these - incentives if there have been problems. States are motivated
that
people don't end up on welfare. That they exist doesn't mean people are
'getting hurt'.

This is one of the governments false statements they put out. 2/3 of the
cost of welfare is paid by the feds. The states pay 1/3. The average CS
award for a woman on welfare is close to $300 per month. The welfare
benefits are typically around $1,700 per month. CS awards for welfare mom's
are assigned to the state for repayment of federal and state benefits. To
keep people off of welfare CS awards would have to be 5 times larger than
they are already. And they would have to be paid directly to the welfare
recipients, not the state.

OK, it doesnt' keep people off the rolls, but it lessens the burden. I don't
see that as a bad thing.





First you asked about performance bonuses. Then you asked for the
criteria
and how they were calculated. Now you want an explanation for how the
resutls relate to how NCP's are treated.

Sure - because that's how this whole thing came up! Else how are NCP's
hurt by
the system? Unless you actually mean not being able to get away with
nonpayment
is "hurt". I'm afraid I can't sign on to that sentiment.

But I *am* ready and willing to consider that incentives may be set up to
actually screw NCPs out of funds they wouldn't otherwise *owed* (vs.
paid).

I mean, you have to expect that these things are tracked. It doesn't
surprise
me at all that it be tracked; it would be bad if it weren't.

This stuff isn't rocket science. If the states get paid bonuses to
establish new CS orders, establish paternities, provide medical orders,
periodically increase CS orders, collect the money, improve interstate
collections, and for cost effectiveness of their operations all of those
items are detrimental to NCP's.

That's not so clear without knowing exactly what you mean. Unless the
complaint
is simply that the system works at all! *Is* that the complaint?

No. The system is broken. A lot of good social science research goes into
establishing a sound basis for CS. The problems are in the inequities
surrounding CS calculation methodologies, the smoke and mirrors approach to
"adjusting" the child rearing data, and the gender biased treatment of the
parents.

OK. So you don't object to the concept of child support; it's how it's
determined, and for whom.





Regarding your comment about how the government tracks data - The
government
conveniently omits the tracking of data that might air their dirty linen.
Things like gender of the CP's and NCP's are not tracked, CS orders based
on
imputed incomes are not tracked, CS reductions denied are not tracked,
mistaken paternity tests are not tracked, non-bio parents being forced pay
CS to children they didn't create are not tracked, how CS money is spent
is
not tracked, the CP share of CS total CS orders is not tracked, tax
benefits
accruing to the CP's are not tracked, etc. IOW - The government only
tracks
data for selected services they provide to CP's and they ignore the side
effects of their operations that hurt NCP's.

OK, I'm willing to learn something here - what do you mean by "imputed
incomes".
Some of the above are more a matter of the law than the CS system (all
children
born within a marriage being considered legitimate, for example). And why
would
these be gender-specific? Should a female NCP be pushed harder than a male
NCP?
What does that have to do with it?

Imputed income is an income higher than actual used to create CS orders
higher than the real income would warrant. The CS guidelines are
constructed and applied in such a way that the NCP's income drives the
outcome. Female NCP's are very rare. Most are incarcerated, real lowlifes,
or missing. The gender bias is in how custody is established.

Um, I *personally* know female NCP's, and have 'known' a few more in Usenet.
It's becoming more and more common.

As far as imputed income, are you talking about how the NCP is expected to
provide according to their current earning potential. You know what a big giant
loophole it would be to just decide to join an artists colony at that time, or
to only take work off the books?

Some
studies have determined CP's are 85% mothers, 7% relatives of the mother,
and 8% fathers. Initial custody for fathers is lower than 8%. The 8%
includes teenagers who rebelled against their mothers and the mother
voluntarily gave up custody to the children's fathers.

Sure. From my experience, this is from who, of the couple, actually steps in to
be the parent. Of my *personal* acquaintance, it's most often the female parent
that's taking the steps to make sure the kids are still provided for as to their
breakfast, clothes, getting to lessons and sports, can still go to the same
schools, etc. etc. Now that's changing, and that change is good. But it's a
reflection of the role the father had in the family in the first place vis a vis
the kids - how active and involved he was in the day to day upbringing of the
kids. So, yes, the stats are skewed, but that reflects the reality that the
roles are still (although increasingly less so..) skewed in the same way.



I looked at the links you most recently provided me with, BTW (actually, I
had
gone there before in my poking around earlier), and the one item that
might mean
NCP's are getting screwed for more funds would be the "order
establishment"
incentives. There's not much on

...

read more

At www.collectyourdebtusa.com we aare able to collect on all kinds of
debt. If their was an obligation to collect we will try and find a why

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


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


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


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


"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.

So you're *not* for CS at all.


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.

Actually I don't. I see that increasingly *either* fathers and
mothers
take
either role (as it's not a zero sum game), and advocate for *both*
having
some
physical custody, which is also happening increasingly. But that
won't
'stick
it to' anyone to make a point to your satisfaction, it seems.

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.

Who might have something of a vested interest in smaller CS
payments.

Who also might have some vested interest in equity.



That's best determined by a third party, not the two parties with
conflicting
interests.

So let me challenge your theory on third parties making decisions on
conflicting interests. A mother has two children with different
fathers.
Father #1 is ordered to pay her $800 per month to support his child.
Father
#2 is ordered to pay her $200 per month to support his child. The
mother
gets $1000 per month in CS. If the mother co-mingles the CS into the
household budget she spends $500 per child. Child #1 is getting the
benefit
of $300 less than the court ordered CS. Child #2 is getting the benefit
of
$300 more than the court ordered CS. How should a third party rule on
how
the CS is being spent and what should be done about it?


Well, I dont' know *why* the payments are so different. Say - maybe
it's
to
avoid the "Welfare queeen" "CS queen thing" And some judge decided
two
girls, different fathers or no, can go into one bedroom. Or Dad #2 has
a
much
lower earning capacity.

Inevitably, the expenses would co-mingle. Dinner get made at one time;
Mom
woudln't take two girls to the zoo and only take the older one on the
rides.
And the girls would be sisters to each other.

What, would you think it's like a dog kennel, where I can get a bigger
pen
for
my dog if I pay more?

So child support isn't really paid for the wellbeing of the child, but for
the operating expenses of the household?



How can you separate them? Think of your own two kids! How would it be
to
raise one one way; the other the other way. Just having them in the same
place
and sitting at the same dinner table would account for much of the CS.

Like we have been talking about, the operating expenses of the household
are
counted as far as *additional* expenses are necessary to set up a
household to
raise the kids in. Vs. the less expensive and wider options available to
a
single person.

I thought we were discussing CS in the context of your agreeing children
should receive the benefit of their parent's income beyond the basics and
you also believed a third party should settle disputes over how the money is
spent.

Now you appear to be saying it is okay for CP mothers to ignore the way CS
awards are determined and re-allocate the money so the child does not
receive the benefit of their parent's income and actually receive less than
the court ordered. And you seem to be saying it is okay for a father's CS
payments to be used to provide for non-biological children with a different
father.

Are you really meaning to say a third party should tell a father it is okay
for his child to get less than he is under court order to provide and it is
okay for his CS payments to be used for someone else's child?

wrote in


At www.collectyourdebtusa.com we aare able to collect on all kinds of
debt. If their was an obligation to collect we will try and find a why

More low lifes who profit from the misery of others!

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


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


snip for length

BTW, you're pretty cool to discuss with.

I enjoy discussing with you, too. It's nice to talk with someone who is
polite and willing to look at other sides of the issue.

I am willing to look at both sides of the issue. I've known people on
both
sides. I see a strong measure of blinkered perspective in just about
everyone,
though.

I like to punch up my prose, glad you still find it polite. I like to
keep it
civil, though.

I had absolutely no
idea what this system was like until we were dragged into it, and I'm
sure
I
felt very much about it like you do right now. Being on the "inside"
rather
than just am observer is quite an eye opener. (BTW--with my own ears I
heard
a judge say that my husband's and my 2 daughters were "irrelevant."
How's
that for an introduction to the system?)


Well, he's speaking as a *lawyer*. Like when a friend of mine found
that
the
value of his treasured pets, lost in a carelessly-started fire, had no
value
other than that they would have gotten in the market. Which was zero
:-( The
law doesn't pretend to encompass the emotional or spiritual side of it.

This wan't just emotional/spiritual though. It was like the system closed
its eyes to the needs of our children and looked only at the other child.
Whatever was left after meeting the needs of that child could be spent on
our 2 children. As for the size of the award crippling us, and making it
very difficult to support our own children, tough luck--our children were
irrelevant. Ask Gini about her experience with the relative importance of
children of the order vs children not of the order.

Yeah, I've heard alll abou that too. As if the current budget is all that
childrearing is about (AGAIN over and over again this viewpoint - and
people
complain about being 'treated as wallets').

The older kids get continuing CP based on previous agreement. Period.
For
good.

Which would be really nice if the previous agreement were followed. But
what do you do when the CS is doubled after you have budgeted and have
things set to support not only the older children via support, but the
children from your current relationship/ Should an NCP have to plan that,
perhaps, his child support will go from $700 per month to $1400 per month
with no warning? I don't really consider that part of any "previous
agreement." Do you?


The kids with the current marriage relationship get:
* The presence and attention of their parents
* The labor of their parents to offset any expenses (fixing own roof,
etc.)
* The efficiencies of being in a two-adult household (else there'd be no
new
kids)
* Benefit of the income produced by the new partner/step parent!!
* Benefit of the increasing income potential of *both* parents over time.
* Benefit of any new income or windfalls coming to the new family (it
always
amazed me this - the CP is supposed be sharing in all the downturns and
burdens
of the NCP family that he or she knows nothing about, and can do nothing
about,
but damn sure, if the NCP or the new partner got an inheritance, the CP
won't
get to share in THAT, nor should they)

In a marriage, the spouse has no legal right to money inherited my their
partner. Big deal. Besides which, a quick trip to court provides an upward
modification if the NCP's salary increases. Downward modifications are not
so easy to get.


New kids being treated as if they're lesser, my foot!!

Um, I would say that being told that the children of the order have the
right to anything that the court elects to give them, and that second born
children have no standing, nor any claim on any of the CS payor's income
might be seen as being "lesser."


Well, it sounds like you have a worst case, and a lot of what I have
been
talking about has been related to the aftermath of divorce. I think in
your
sudden-paternity case there should have been *no* arrears, *no* fines or
interest* (as your hubby totally dind't know), and this may be a case
for
his
only being required to provide half of the basics. As there was no
previous way
of life your husband had established with the child to hurt the child
from.

Just for the fun of it, think about the loopholes THAT could open up!
Communication and relationship (and perhaps a bit of sanity and common
sense) have GOT to be brought into this mix sometime. When people ask my
advice in this area, I tell them to do everything in their power to keep
things out of court. It's just not worth it.



In your case, they didn't hate each other. It wasn't a divorce. People
often
hate each other after a divorce. You're suggesting requiring a CP to ask
someone who is trying to HURT her or him at every turn just so that their
son
can do the Parent-Son camp at Cub Scouts?? Are you kidding??

Hey, I truly know some people who hate each other who have worked out the
whole CS/custody issue without the courts. It can be done, if the focus is
really on the children.


Like I said before, divorce was the end of that relationship. THe end of
that
partnership. Furthermore, NOT going to joing physical custody handed 90%
of the
childrearing responsibility to one party.

If someone wants *control* (which is what this 'relationship' thing is
really
about), it's way past time.

Again, not relationship with each other. Each concentrating on relationship
with the children.