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

"Paula" wrote in message
...
On Nov 16, 10:36 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message

...





On Nov 16, 7:39 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message

...

On Nov 15, 11:31 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"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.

You arestill laboring under the idea that the NCP is a "single
person."
The
NCP needs the same # of bedrooms as the CP--for the exact same
children.
He
needs supplies for those children when they are with him. He needs
furniture for them when they are with him. He is NOT living as a
single
person--that is such an odd idea.

And what of those fathers who choose (no, I'm not speaking
of those who are driven away, and, yes, that does occur just
not in all situations as is assumed most of the time in here)
to NEVER have the child(ren) with him? What of those who
just walk away?

Do you think they should be charged extra to make up for their seeming
inability to love?

Did I say that?

Do you feel that a parent who only wants to pay for the basic necessities
of
life should be permitted to do that?

If parent1 provides a full life for the children in their 50/50
physical custody
agreement, they should be able to pay co-parent1 minimal if any CS.
Else,
no. The only other exception to a reasonable-but-more-than-basics CS
is
poverty.

What? You feel that having the necessities of life is poverty? I lived for
years in a poverty community--I can tell you that basics and poverty are 2
totally different things!!


Or do you feel that a parent should be
forced to provide more than basics (and I'm not talking poverty level)?
If
so, which parents should be forced to provide more than basics, and which
ones can decide to provide only basics?

Intact families would be the only ones that can decide to provide only
basics and only because it *would* be an intrusion of the state for it
to step into the intact family. Parents who are split who can't
figure
this stuff out for themselves *need* the intervention of the state to
ensure the interests of the child(ren).

Ah--now I see. You suscribe to the "idiot adults need the help of Big Daddy
Government to survive" theory!! Please describe in sufficient detail your
notion of "best interests of the children." I think this will be
interesting.


The 'basics' to which you refer consider only physical needs. There
is
sooo much more to raising a child than that, and there are costs that
come with nurturing the emotional, psychological, spiritual child. If
parent1 does not provide for those needs, ex-parent1 has additional
costs to be covered within CS.

Really? What would those needs be? Giving them the Playstation (or skates,
or bike, or new trumpet for the band) they had been begging for and watching
their eyes light up when they opened the box, feeling their hug of
gratitude, and watching them joyously experiment with their new toy? (NCPs
don't need to bond with their children that way. They just need to send
$$$ ) Signing them up for T-Ball, and watching them take their first steps
toward the "sports hero dreams," and smiling as they run around the field
high-fiving their friends? (NCPs do't need to experience that joy--they
just need to send money) Right?


BUT I agree with the logic behind the case that Gini posted. The
child's
standard of living should not be imbalanced in favor of child over
parent at
parent's expense. And I know that happens; we don't disagree that
the system is broken. We just disagree regarding how to go about
fixing it.

How would YOU fix it?

In article , teachrmama says...


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


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

On Nov 16, 12:13 pm, Banty wrote:
In article
,
Paula says...







On Nov 16, 10:39 am, Banty wrote:
In article
,
Paula says...

On Nov 15, 11:31 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"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.

You arestill laboring under the idea that the NCP is a "single
person."
The
NCP needs the same # of bedrooms as the CP--for the exact same
children.
He
needs supplies for those children when they are with him. He
needs
furniture for them when they are with him. He is NOT living as a
single
person--that is such an odd idea.

And what of those fathers who choose (no, I'm not speaking
of those who are driven away, and, yes, that does occur just
not in all situations as is assumed most of the time in here)

Yes, it can be made impossible to stay in a household, and hugely
costly to
set
up immmediately to share the childrearing. (Note I said
"immediately".) Yes,
it
happens. (And I suspect you're right about it not as frequently as
assumed in
here..)

But the father doesn't go *far* away. And I don't think evul wife is
stalking
him, preventing him from looking at houses or apartments to rent.

to NEVER have the child(ren) with him? What of those who
just walk away?

More often that just walking away (at least IME), it's more like
drift
away -
a
mental resignation of custody to the other parent before they ever go
to court
because they're feeling overwhelmed by thinking of what real changes
they'd
need
to make, or they're thinking all-or-nothing full custody or forget
it
and
they're advised that ain't gonna happen.

Banty

Actually I was speaking of situations such as my own
where the NCP has severed all contact with the child
(based upon an ultimatum regarding the financials --
"sign the thing as is or visitation is over") and does
not have a need to provide food, shelter, or anything
else because of never having contact with the child.

Yes. That happens. The "my way or the highway" thing.

And the guys who just never show.

Both of these types are living like a single person, or moving on
otherwise. No
clue, no contribution. Sucks.

Do you ever get accused have having 'driven him away'?

Banty

Yep, I sure do ... and I bent over backwards attempting to
keep him involved. That ended when my DD decided that she
got to treat Mommy in the manner in which she witnessed
Daddy treating Mommy -- i.e. "Daddy ignores what you
say, so can I".

This when she spent an average of a couple hours a week
with him, and he _chose_ not to attend parent-teacher
conferences, doctor appointments, etc. He chose not to
co-parent, and I was left to do all of the parenting work.

That extra effort that I put into trying to keep him involved
ended when DD said what's quoted above. Especially
considering the fact that he's never been an active parent,
I can't abide by her being taught to disrespect and
disregard the only real parent she has ... that would have
disastrous consequences once she reaches her tween
and teen years.

YES see. See that's the thing that that can't be emphasized enough with
all
this talk of monetary control and monetary measuring and who shares in
downturns
(but not windfalls) and why-do-I-hafta-but-they-don'-hafta.

There are noncustodial jerks. And there are custodial jerks. And NO
SYSTEM
is going to change that fact.

Of course. But any system has to *account* for that. And many the
non-jerks
are people *mad at each other*.

And any decent system would not build in perverse incentives.

But the *vast majority* of parents are good,
knd, anring parents. The system squashed good, kind, caring people like
bugs. Good, kind, caring people should not even be in the system. Once
they get over the first shock and hurt of divorce, they can manage just
fime
by being the good, kind caring people they are. Not all NCPs are like
Paula's ex, and they shouldn't be treated as if they are. Just like not
all
CPs are like the mother of my husband's daughter--and they shouldn't be
treated as if they are.

I'm not talking the extremes; I'm talking the usual cases.

Tell me this - if it's all about giving good people the benefit of the
doubt
when it comes to the NCP, why is there a desire for making sure the *CP*
is
allocating the money correctly??

The system DOES NOT recognize any NCP as decent. It DOES NOT recognize any
CP as not so decent. There is an underlying assumption that the CP will
treat her children exremely well, and that the NCP will try his darndest to
prevent her from having the means to do so. That is why so much money is
taken from the NCP and given to the CP--so that the struggling heroine can
survive despite the cruelty of the deadbeat NCP. It is very wearing to
constantly be labeled the bad guy, no matter what you do. I can tell you,
that in our personal case, we were denied a refi on our home (which would
have saved us thousands), because the system told the refi company that they
would not subjugate their claim in arrearages because "this guy is a real
deadbeat," even though he NEVER missed a payment, and NEVER paid late--snd
did not know the child existed until she was almost 13. The system looked
ot the fact that he hadn't paid until she was almost 13 as HIM BEING WRONG,
AND THE POOR MAMA BEING ROOKED. So HE was evil, despite the fact that it
wasn't his choice--it was HERS!! And that is how the system sees NCPs. We
need to LET fathers be fathers--give them the opportunity to provide for
their children. The vast majority WANT to do that--they don't need to be
turned into evil jerks trying to escape any responsibility by a system that
seeks to expand the ability of mothers to parent, and push fathers off to
the side.


This is, that his credit was affected by the timing of his child support
payments? (The mortgage problem.)

I can understand a LOT of frustration over that. In general, this automatic
wage withholding, and the privacy and beaurocratic problems attendant to that.
And I've been reading that since 1994 wage withholding is immediate, and in
practice the exceptions are narrowly drawn. I can see how the credit report
picks that up if things don't work just right, and you have no way to know if
things aren't working just right, or even fix that.

I think this automatic withholding for *any* court order is wrong wrong (as in,
conceptually wrong, and *works* wrong). And I can see how the media drumbeat
about deatbeat dads created the legislative atmosphere for that.

How does this thing work that his not paying until his daughter was 13 showed
up?

Banty

In article , teachrmama says...


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


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


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

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

On Nov 15, 11:31 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"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.

You arestill laboring under the idea that the NCP is a "single
person."
The
NCP needs the same # of bedrooms as the CP--for the exact same
children. He
needs supplies for those children when they are with him. He needs
furniture for them when they are with him. He is NOT living as a
single
person--that is such an odd idea.

And what of those fathers who choose (no, I'm not speaking
of those who are driven away, and, yes, that does occur just
not in all situations as is assumed most of the time in here)

Yes, it can be made impossible to stay in a household, and hugely
costly
to set
up immmediately to share the childrearing. (Note I said
"immediately".)
Yes, it
happens. (And I suspect you're right about it not as frequently as
assumed in
here..)

But the father doesn't go *far* away. And I don't think evul wife is
stalking
him, preventing him from looking at houses or apartments to rent.

to NEVER have the child(ren) with him? What of those who
just walk away?

More often that just walking away (at least IME), it's more like
drift
away - a
mental resignation of custody to the other parent before they ever go
to
court
because they're feeling overwhelmed by thinking of what real changes
they'd need
to make, or they're thinking all-or-nothing full custody or forget it
and
they're advised that ain't gonna happen.

And they have probably already been told by their lawyer to accept
what
is
offered, because the fight for custody will probably be long and
futile.
It is only recently that we are beginning to see even a small shift in
the
tradition of maternal custody.

Here is the legal advice I got in the mid-80's - Fighting for custody
will
cost you at least another $12,000-15,000 in legal fees and the results
are
most likely to go against you. You may also be ordered to pay your
wife's
legal fee to fight your attempts to get custody. If you ever intend to
get
remarried you are better off not having custody of children. Divorced
men
without custody of children statistically have a greater rate of
remarriage
than divorced men with custody of children.


I'm talking about why I'm seeing a lot of fathers not setting up for
JOINT
physical custody. One of the reasons, BTW, being an all-or-nothing
full-custody
or forget it attitude. in a state where joint physical custody is
common.

OK, are you talking about joint custody, which does no necessarily mean
50/50 and can still have an NCP and a CP identified, or 50/50 shared
custody, whre the child has a home with each parent equally? Joint
custody
*can* mean only a right to help make decisions, but might not result in
any
more time spent with the children than normal visitation.



How many times have my fingers tripped over each other tapping out "joint
physical custody" and how my friend ha settled for "joint legal custody".
Look
just above your response.

Banty, joint physical custody does not necessarily mean 50/50. It just
doesn't. Sounds really good, though.



It means a lot more than visitation even in the not-50/50 cases (gee, I thought
folks were trying to get off the path of the "zoo daddy"!), and it does
ammeliorate the child support amounts.

I know CS doesn't go completely away a lot of the times due to earning potential
differences. I happen to think having fostering equal earning potential is the
best way to deal with that. And that happens during the marriage, and before.

Banty

In article , teachrmama says...


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


"Paula" wrote in message
...
On Nov 16, 7:39 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message

...





On Nov 15, 11:31 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"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.

You arestill laboring under the idea that the NCP is a "single
person."
The
NCP needs the same # of bedrooms as the CP--for the exact same
children.
He
needs supplies for those children when they are with him. He needs
furniture for them when they are with him. He is NOT living as a
single
person--that is such an odd idea.

And what of those fathers who choose (no, I'm not speaking
of those who are driven away, and, yes, that does occur just
not in all situations as is assumed most of the time in here)
to NEVER have the child(ren) with him? What of those who
just walk away?

Do you think they should be charged extra to make up for their seeming
inability to love?

Did I say that?

Do you feel that a parent who only wants to pay for the basic necessities
of
life should be permitted to do that? Or do you feel that a parent should
be
forced to provide more than basics (and I'm not talking poverty level)?
If
so, which parents should be forced to provide more than basics, and which
ones can decide to provide only basics?


See, this "two classes of parents/equality" is an instance of framing the
argument.

One "class" has nearly all the responsibility. Fundamentally different.
Apples/oranges/HELLO.

Not so. Every parent everywhere (except NCPs) has the right to decide to
provide only basics. Many parents have the ability to provide only basics.
Many CS orders cover only basics, because that is all the salaries of the
parents can afford. These people live happily and well.

NCP's don't have a continuing *incentive* to provide more than basics. Only out
of the goodness of their hearts. Furthermore, what they *do* decide to provide
doesn't necessarily mesh with the day to day needs. School uniforms in March,
remember. A custodial parent woudl be doing bare basics only if that's all they
could truly provide because he or she woudl be dealing with and seeing the
results of only doing that daily. Ah! You just told me above that, when it's
determined that that's all the NCP can truly provide, that's all that's
required! How well and happily - I think your statement about that rather
broad, to say the very least. But, my reckoning, there's your precious
equality. (Remember too, the CP is doing all the WORK - that's not to be
directly compensated, but that's not to be forgotten either.)

Still, sorry, but I don't see this as a "right". It's a funny right to fight
for - - "my right to only provide the bare phsycial needs of my child".

And saying it over and over again, doens't make it so!



With responsibility, comes discretion.

Absolutely correct!! Give the NCP the opportunity to be responsible, and I
am sure that you will find that he will be equal to the task. Enough of
this struggling heroine CP vs evil NCP nonsense!!



THAT, I think, is the way to frame with question. Instead of this "classes of
parents equal" business. They're because they're NOT.

Custody *is* reponsibility! It's "here YOU're the one doing the work and seeing
the results and knowing all the details".

What are the problems and reasons for not having at least half custody, if the
responsibility is so strongly desired?

OK, I'm hearing "court prejudice against fathers". "Feminism". Well, most
judges are men; I dont' think they're self-hating. But maybe they're applying
some gender-based expectations. The "tender years" doctrine most definitely was
that.

Is it the "primary provider" doctrine? And/or other factors? What do you
think? (Clearly in your case, your husband had no opportunity; I mean in
general.)

Banty

On Nov 17, 12:21 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message

...

On Nov 16, 10:36 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message

...

On Nov 16, 7:39 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message

...

On Nov 15, 11:31 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"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.

You arestill laboring under the idea that the NCP is a "single
person."
The
NCP needs the same # of bedrooms as the CP--for the exact same
children.
He
needs supplies for those children when they are with him. He needs
furniture for them when they are with him. He is NOT living as a
single
person--that is such an odd idea.

And what of those fathers who choose (no, I'm not speaking
of those who are driven away, and, yes, that does occur just
not in all situations as is assumed most of the time in here)
to NEVER have the child(ren) with him? What of those who
just walk away?

Do you think they should be charged extra to make up for their seeming
inability to love?

Did I say that?

Do you feel that a parent who only wants to pay for the basic necessities
of
life should be permitted to do that?

If parent1 provides a full life for the children in their 50/50
physical custody
agreement, they should be able to pay co-parent1 minimal if any CS.
Else,
no. The only other exception to a reasonable-but-more-than-basics CS
is
poverty.

What? You feel that having the necessities of life is poverty? I lived for
years in a poverty community--I can tell you that basics and poverty are 2
totally different things!!

Having *only* the basic necessities of life is close enough to poverty
to be the same to me.

Or do you feel that a parent should be
forced to provide more than basics (and I'm not talking poverty level)?
If
so, which parents should be forced to provide more than basics, and which
ones can decide to provide only basics?

Intact families would be the only ones that can decide to provide only
basics and only because it *would* be an intrusion of the state for it
to step into the intact family. Parents who are split who can't
figure
this stuff out for themselves *need* the intervention of the state to
ensure the interests of the child(ren).

Ah--now I see. You suscribe to the "idiot adults need the help of Big Daddy
Government to survive" theory!! Please describe in sufficient detail your
notion of "best interests of the children." I think this will be
interesting.

Whose definition of sufficient detail are we using here?

I've already stated that there are physical, emotional, psychological,
and spiritual aspects of child development that are at risk in these
contentious situations. Being ever mindful of that spectrum of need
within the child(ren) and holding those needs with priority is the
"best interests of the children."

The 'basics' to which you refer consider only physical needs. There
is
sooo much more to raising a child than that, and there are costs that
come with nurturing the emotional, psychological, spiritual child. If
parent1 does not provide for those needs, ex-parent1 has additional
costs to be covered within CS.

Really? What would those needs be? Giving them the Playstation (or skates,
or bike, or new trumpet for the band) they had been begging for and watching
their eyes light up when they opened the box, feeling their hug of
gratitude, and watching them joyously experiment with their new toy? (NCPs
don't need to bond with their children that way. They just need to send
$$$ ) Signing them up for T-Ball, and watching them take their first steps
toward the "sports hero dreams," and smiling as they run around the field
high-fiving their friends? (NCPs do't need to experience that joy--they
just need to send money) Right?

That's not what I said at all, and you know it. If a parent wants to
maintain that connection they should be allowed to, and if the other
parent interferes that should result in a change of custody.

BUT I agree with the logic behind the case that Gini posted. The
child's
standard of living should not be imbalanced in favor of child over
parent at
parent's expense. And I know that happens; we don't disagree that
the system is broken. We just disagree regarding how to go about
fixing it.

How would YOU fix it?

I wouldn't do it by yanking the rug out from under the many,
many children who are dependent upon this broken system.

"Paula" wrote in message
...

Whose definition of sufficient detail are we using here?

I've already stated that there are physical, emotional, psychological,
and spiritual aspects of child development that are at risk in these
contentious situations. Being ever mindful of that spectrum of need
within the child(ren) and holding those needs with priority is the
"best interests of the children."

Paula - You usually have some good perspectives on issues but I have to
challenge what you are saying here. First you said there were "costs"
associated with emotional, psychological, and spiritual child rearing and
you related it to CS needing to be provided to cover those costs. Now it
seems you are backing off of your original comment and referring to those
factors as being "aspects" of child rearing. Which is it?

My experience is none of the child rearing models come close to expanding
the costs of rearing children beyond the basic needs of housing, food,
transportation, clothes, education, healthcare, and miscellaneous
expenditures.

And if, as you suggested, parents are responsible for providing for a
child's emotional, psychological, and spiritual upbringing, why are women
given a free pass for disrupting those child development factors when they
initiate divorce 85% of the time? Why are the fathers who are kicked out of
their children's lives over their objections held responsible to repair the
issues created by the mothers?

"Paula" wrote in

parent's expense. And I know that happens; we don't disagree that
the system is broken. We just disagree regarding how to go about
fixing it.

How would YOU fix it?

I wouldn't do it by yanking the rug out from under the many,
many children who are dependent upon this broken system.

It's not the children who are dependant, it's all the free loaders taking
advantage of a typical government system!

The government hasn't solved the problem, they are the problem!!!!!

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


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


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

On Nov 16, 12:13 pm, Banty wrote:
In article
,
Paula says...







On Nov 16, 10:39 am, Banty wrote:
In article
,
Paula says...

On Nov 15, 11:31 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"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.

You arestill laboring under the idea that the NCP is a "single
person."
The
NCP needs the same # of bedrooms as the CP--for the exact same
children.
He
needs supplies for those children when they are with him. He
needs
furniture for them when they are with him. He is NOT living as
a
single
person--that is such an odd idea.

And what of those fathers who choose (no, I'm not speaking
of those who are driven away, and, yes, that does occur just
not in all situations as is assumed most of the time in here)

Yes, it can be made impossible to stay in a household, and hugely
costly to
set
up immmediately to share the childrearing. (Note I said
"immediately".) Yes,
it
happens. (And I suspect you're right about it not as frequently as
assumed in
here..)

But the father doesn't go *far* away. And I don't think evul wife
is
stalking
him, preventing him from looking at houses or apartments to rent.

to NEVER have the child(ren) with him? What of those who
just walk away?

More often that just walking away (at least IME), it's more like
drift
away -
a
mental resignation of custody to the other parent before they ever
go
to court
because they're feeling overwhelmed by thinking of what real
changes
they'd
need
to make, or they're thinking all-or-nothing full custody or
forget
it
and
they're advised that ain't gonna happen.

Banty

Actually I was speaking of situations such as my own
where the NCP has severed all contact with the child
(based upon an ultimatum regarding the financials --
"sign the thing as is or visitation is over") and does
not have a need to provide food, shelter, or anything
else because of never having contact with the child.

Yes. That happens. The "my way or the highway" thing.

And the guys who just never show.

Both of these types are living like a single person, or moving on
otherwise. No
clue, no contribution. Sucks.

Do you ever get accused have having 'driven him away'?

Banty

Yep, I sure do ... and I bent over backwards attempting to
keep him involved. That ended when my DD decided that she
got to treat Mommy in the manner in which she witnessed
Daddy treating Mommy -- i.e. "Daddy ignores what you
say, so can I".

This when she spent an average of a couple hours a week
with him, and he _chose_ not to attend parent-teacher
conferences, doctor appointments, etc. He chose not to
co-parent, and I was left to do all of the parenting work.

That extra effort that I put into trying to keep him involved
ended when DD said what's quoted above. Especially
considering the fact that he's never been an active parent,
I can't abide by her being taught to disrespect and
disregard the only real parent she has ... that would have
disastrous consequences once she reaches her tween
and teen years.

YES see. See that's the thing that that can't be emphasized enough
with
all
this talk of monetary control and monetary measuring and who shares in
downturns
(but not windfalls) and why-do-I-hafta-but-they-don'-hafta.

There are noncustodial jerks. And there are custodial jerks. And NO
SYSTEM
is going to change that fact.

Of course. But any system has to *account* for that. And many the
non-jerks
are people *mad at each other*.

And any decent system would not build in perverse incentives.

But the *vast majority* of parents are good,
knd, anring parents. The system squashed good, kind, caring people like
bugs. Good, kind, caring people should not even be in the system. Once
they get over the first shock and hurt of divorce, they can manage just
fime
by being the good, kind caring people they are. Not all NCPs are like
Paula's ex, and they shouldn't be treated as if they are. Just like not
all
CPs are like the mother of my husband's daughter--and they shouldn't be
treated as if they are.

I'm not talking the extremes; I'm talking the usual cases.

Tell me this - if it's all about giving good people the benefit of the
doubt
when it comes to the NCP, why is there a desire for making sure the *CP*
is
allocating the money correctly??

The system DOES NOT recognize any NCP as decent. It DOES NOT recognize
any
CP as not so decent. There is an underlying assumption that the CP will
treat her children exremely well, and that the NCP will try his darndest
to
prevent her from having the means to do so. That is why so much money is
taken from the NCP and given to the CP--so that the struggling heroine can
survive despite the cruelty of the deadbeat NCP. It is very wearing to
constantly be labeled the bad guy, no matter what you do. I can tell you,
that in our personal case, we were denied a refi on our home (which would
have saved us thousands), because the system told the refi company that
they
would not subjugate their claim in arrearages because "this guy is a real
deadbeat," even though he NEVER missed a payment, and NEVER paid
late--snd
did not know the child existed until she was almost 13. The system looked
ot the fact that he hadn't paid until she was almost 13 as HIM BEING
WRONG,
AND THE POOR MAMA BEING ROOKED. So HE was evil, despite the fact that it
wasn't his choice--it was HERS!! And that is how the system sees NCPs.
We
need to LET fathers be fathers--give them the opportunity to provide for
their children. The vast majority WANT to do that--they don't need to be
turned into evil jerks trying to escape any responsibility by a system
that
seeks to expand the ability of mothers to parent, and push fathers off to
the side.


This is, that his credit was affected by the timing of his child support
payments? (The mortgage problem.)

No. His credit was affected, but THAT would have made NO DIFFERENCE in the
refi. Because there were not "late payments" more than 30 days past due.
(Every month was comsidered "past due" because, although the payment was
collected on time, it was credited late, but that didn't affect his credit)
It was specifically because the CS officer would not give the bank "first
dibs" if we defaulted on our loan and they had to foreclose. The CS system
wanted first dibs in order to get THE 2 YEARS ASSIGNED ARREARAGES, AND EVERY
PENNY THAT WOULD BE OWED UNTIL THE END OF THE CS ORDER. "Just in case."
Although nary a payment had been missed and our credit was spotless--mine
without a blemish and his with only the CS issue. They WANTED to refinance
us--but for the CS issue and the fact that the CS officer adamantly called
my husband a deadbeat.


I can understand a LOT of frustration over that. In general, this
automatic
wage withholding, and the privacy and beaurocratic problems attendant to
that.
And I've been reading that since 1994 wage withholding is immediate, and
in
practice the exceptions are narrowly drawn. I can see how the credit
report
picks that up if things don't work just right, and you have no way to know
if
things aren't working just right, or even fix that.

Not the credit report. Direct and derogatory comments by the CS officer,
indicating that HE, in his total lack of any wisdom whatsoever, considered
us to be poor credit risks. He knew nothing about my husband--but he did
not hesitate to make the comments he dis as the "official" stand of the CS
system.


I think this automatic withholding for *any* court order is wrong wrong
(as in,
conceptually wrong, and *works* wrong). And I can see how the media
drumbeat
about deatbeat dads created the legislative atmosphere for that.

Yep--and reinforces the right of the system to be negative toward
"deadbeats" who may have dome nothing whatsoever wrong, but the label
assists the system in furthering its power over individuals.


How does this thing work that his not paying until his daughter was 13
showed
up?

Not on his credit--only in the CS records. But they have more power than
you might realize.

"Paula" wrote in message
...
On Nov 17, 12:21 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message

snip


Do you feel that a parent who only wants to pay for the basic
necessities
of
life should be permitted to do that?

If parent1 provides a full life for the children in their 50/50
physical custody
agreement, they should be able to pay co-parent1 minimal if any CS.
Else,
no. The only other exception to a reasonable-but-more-than-basics CS
is
poverty.

What? You feel that having the necessities of life is poverty? I lived
for
years in a poverty community--I can tell you that basics and poverty are
2
totally different things!!

Having *only* the basic necessities of life is close enough to poverty
to be the same to me.

I think that if you had actually lived in poverty, you might not be saying
that. Even during the most difficult times getting back on our feet after
being kicked to the ground with the CS order, even when we had perhaps $2.00
left at the end of the month, and prayed we had enough gas to get to work to
pick up a paycheck, I knew we were not in poverty--just struggling to make
ends meet, like thousands do every day. I would not even want to see a CS
order that would leave families in that position--but I think that including
enough for alll the "extras" is wrong, too.


Or do you feel that a parent should be
forced to provide more than basics (and I'm not talking poverty
level)?
If
so, which parents should be forced to provide more than basics, and
which
ones can decide to provide only basics?

Intact families would be the only ones that can decide to provide only
basics and only because it *would* be an intrusion of the state for it
to step into the intact family. Parents who are split who can't
figure
this stuff out for themselves *need* the intervention of the state to
ensure the interests of the child(ren).

Ah--now I see. You suscribe to the "idiot adults need the help of Big
Daddy
Government to survive" theory!! Please describe in sufficient detail
your
notion of "best interests of the children." I think this will be
interesting.

Whose definition of sufficient detail are we using here?

I've already stated that there are physical, emotional, psychological,
and spiritual aspects of child development that are at risk in these
contentious situations. Being ever mindful of that spectrum of need
within the child(ren) and holding those needs with priority is the
"best interests of the children."

Define "best interests of the children." That is the umbrella under which
the CS system does all that it does right now--but there is NO
difinition--it's an excuse parading as a reason.


The 'basics' to which you refer consider only physical needs. There
is
sooo much more to raising a child than that, and there are costs that
come with nurturing the emotional, psychological, spiritual child. If
parent1 does not provide for those needs, ex-parent1 has additional
costs to be covered within CS.

Really? What would those needs be? Giving them the Playstation (or
skates,
or bike, or new trumpet for the band) they had been begging for and
watching
their eyes light up when they opened the box, feeling their hug of
gratitude, and watching them joyously experiment with their new toy?
(NCPs
don't need to bond with their children that way. They just need to send
$$$ ) Signing them up for T-Ball, and watching them take their first
steps
toward the "sports hero dreams," and smiling as they run around the field
high-fiving their friends? (NCPs do't need to experience that joy--they
just need to send money) Right?

That's not what I said at all, and you know it. If a parent wants to
maintain that connection they should be allowed to, and if the other
parent interferes that should result in a change of custody.

But if the CP has all the money for such expenses sent to her each month,
WHAT does the NCP use to pay for such things?


BUT I agree with the logic behind the case that Gini posted. The
child's
standard of living should not be imbalanced in favor of child over
parent at
parent's expense. And I know that happens; we don't disagree that
the system is broken. We just disagree regarding how to go about
fixing it.

How would YOU fix it?

I wouldn't do it by yanking the rug out from under the many,
many children who are dependent upon this broken system.

Oh, so we are back to NCPs not being important enough to consider and
subsequent children being less important than first children.

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

snip for length

Do you feel that a parent who only wants to pay for the basic
necessities
of
life should be permitted to do that? Or do you feel that a parent
should
be
forced to provide more than basics (and I'm not talking poverty level)?
If
so, which parents should be forced to provide more than basics, and
which
ones can decide to provide only basics?


See, this "two classes of parents/equality" is an instance of framing
the
argument.

One "class" has nearly all the responsibility. Fundamentally different.
Apples/oranges/HELLO.

Not so. Every parent everywhere (except NCPs) has the right to decide to
provide only basics. Many parents have the ability to provide only
basics.
Many CS orders cover only basics, because that is all the salaries of the
parents can afford. These people live happily and well.

NCP's don't have a continuing *incentive* to provide more than basics.

WHAT?!?!?!?! You have got the LOWEST opinion of NCPs of anyone I have ever
talked to!!!! NCPS don't want their children to be happy? NCPs don't care
if their children do without? How can you keep saying things like this?
Just what kind of lowlifes do you run with?

Only out
of the goodness of their hearts.

CPs don't do things out of the goodness of their hearts? You don't provide
for your child, even if you do without something yourself out of the
goodness of your heart?

Furthermore, what they *do* decide to provide
doesn't necessarily mesh with the day to day needs.

Ah, so now NCPs are ignorant. too.

School uniforms in March,
remember.

That was *one* parent--and you have extrapolated it across every NCP that
breates air. That is hardly fair.

A custodial parent woudl be doing bare basics only if that's all they
could truly provide because he or she woudl be dealing with and seeing the
results of only doing that daily. Ah! You just told me above that, when
it's
determined that that's all the NCP can truly provide, that's all that's
required!

If that is all that the parents can provide, then that is all they can
provide--what is so "ah!" about that?

How well and happily - I think your statement about that rather
broad, to say the very least. But, my reckoning, there's your precious
equality. (Remember too, the CP is doing all the WORK - that's not to be
directly compensated, but that's not to be forgotten either.)

Sorry--being a parent is not compensible--it is a choice. If she doesn't
want to "do all the work" of being a parent, she should request shared
custody. Nobody should expect to be paid for being a parent.


Still, sorry, but I don't see this as a "right". It's a funny right to
fight
for - - "my right to only provide the bare phsycial needs of my child".

There you go again with the "bare" adjective. Basics and bare needs are not
the same. That just emotional whipped cream to build up your side of the
discussion.


And saying it over and over again, doens't make it so!



With responsibility, comes discretion.

Absolutely correct!! Give the NCP the opportunity to be responsible, and
I
am sure that you will find that he will be equal to the task. Enough of
this struggling heroine CP vs evil NCP nonsense!!



THAT, I think, is the way to frame with question. Instead of this
"classes of
parents equal" business. They're because they're NOT.

Of course they are. In different situations, but still, parents are
parents, and have the same legal requirements to provide the basics for
their children.


Custody *is* reponsibility! It's "here YOU're the one doing the work and
seeing
the results and knowing all the details".

It's "Leave, I don't want you here any more. But you can visit now and then
and send money every month."


What are the problems and reasons for not having at least half custody, if
the
responsibility is so strongly desired?

Uh, it's called a court order and a strong bias toward maternal custody.


OK, I'm hearing "court prejudice against fathers". "Feminism". Well,
most
judges are men; I dont' think they're self-hating. But maybe they're
applying
some gender-based expectations. The "tender years" doctrine most
definitely was
that.

It has not really gone away--simply been relabeled as "best interests of the
child." But the results are the same. It's a cookie cutter approach.


Is it the "primary provider" doctrine? And/or other factors? What do you
think? (Clearly in your case, your husband had no opportunity; I mean in
general.)

Accepted social practice. Do you think there would be so many divorces if
there were not a practically guaranteed maternal custody at the end of the
rainbow?