A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Name change because parent not visiting child



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #311  
Old December 18th 06, 05:24 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
ups.com...

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in
message
oups.com...

DB wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in

children)--that extra $100 per month should be accounted
for--Johnnies
Little League fee, field trip to San Francisco, 3 Green
Day
CDs--whatever--to make sure that the extra is being
spent on
Johnnie--not
Mom--not other siblings--not new boyfriend. How
difficult is that?
Just
the amount over and above basic support--the lifestyle
nonsense that
the
court requires to be paid but doesn't require to be
spent on the
child.

That's the best idea I've read here to date!

Accountability for anything above the basics, we should
have the right
to
know that our money is being spent on our children. If
they want more
money, we should have the right to know where the first
$400 went?

Thats actually where the potential problem arises, who
determines if
the benifit justifies the cost? If Johnnie lives with Mom
the
household needs about $25K to stay above water in most
areas of this
country. Thats about 12.5K or $500 per month per parent to
support
Johnnies share. How much does Johnnie benifit from having a
nicer home,
a safer school, a nicer car to ride in, better tasting food
in the
fridge, cable TV and internet, savings to allow for
emergencies, better
heath insurance on mom, life insurance on mom, etc? The
addition of
more people and more income creates economics of scale that
Johnnie
benifits from does that mean that the child support should
go down
because Johnnie became cheaper to support?

Whats to stop the CP from saying that they use the money to
meet the
fixed expenses, because honestly the fixed expenses in any
household
are larger than any normal NCP's child support award. Even
if you go to
a by share basis who determines what the household buys
because Johnnie
wants it and what is bought because Step-dad and Johnnie
like it. If
the amount of Johnnies child support is less then his share
of the
mortgage, utilities, and food does that give the NCP the
right to
demand what the CP spent their own salary on because of the
fact that
the child support shifted money that the CP would have
otherwise spent.

What on earth are you talking about? Johnnie's share of
housing is the
difference between a 1 and 2 bedroom apartment. He does not
owe a
percentage of the cost of buying a house! Dad most assuredly
does not
have
any responsibility to kick in for mom's life and/or health
insurance. You
sound like a money-grubber in this one, ghost! "If I can say
that Johnnie
wants it, then Dad should have to pay." How ridiculous! The
government
only requires a certain minimum level of provision for a
child--if it's
good
enough to require of married parents, it's good enough to
require of
unmarried parents. The fact that Johnnie might benefit from
it is not a
good enough reason to force one segment of the population to
pay for what
another has no requirement to provide. If both parents are
actively
involved in their child's life, there is a much better chance
that both
will
*want* to provide these things--and the child will be a
common bond.

The giant flaw in CS calculation methodology and the CS
guidelines is CP's
are allowed to pretend their per child expenses exist in a
vacuum. When a
woman has children with two men she is allowed 1/2 of her
living expenses
against one child, with the other 1/2 being her own marginal
expenses. And
then she can charge the other half of her marginal living
expenses against
the second child and that CS order. In essence with this and
other child
rearing expenses considered based on shared expenses within the
CS
calculation methodology the system allows women to show 100%
plus of their
own marginal expenses against child rearing costs and pay
nothing for their
own expenses when multiple CS orders are in place. The CS
calculation
method allows the CP mother to have zero marginal costs to
support herself.

Yuck, that definately sucks.

I can see a serious issue where two (or more) fathers are
involved,
since neither father would want to pay above the minimun to
support his
kid. But moms in the vice since the basic costs of support are
higher
for three as compared to just two. I can see why a courts would
side
with the mom in order to protect the kids from getting hurt in
the
crossfire.

I can't. I can't see any reason why courts should be biased.
Kids are not being protected when one of their parents is being
screwed by the law. Of course the costs are higher for 3 than
2--but not so much higher that a mother deserves 2 full CS awards
to cover those costs.

The problem is that the courts decisions are so uninformed,
and long lasting. A temporary order until the estabilishment of
a
negotated agreement seems like a much better way.

Riiiiight....that will certainly happen--the temporary order is
so high that the mother has no reason to negotiate to get it
changed. Or the temporary order is so low that the dad drags his
feet. As long as the system is adversarial there will be big
business in screwing the other guy to get what you want. And
there will be vultures out there to help you and get their pound
of flesh, too.


That does kind of gloss over the fact that negoating an
agreement would
be very difficult since five different peoples interests are at
stake.

No, there are never 5 people involved. Only mom and dad. 2
people responsible for their joint child(ren). Nobody else.

1. Mom
2. Child A
3. Father of child A
4. Child B
5. Father of child B

In a negotiation for child support between mom and father of child
A? I don't think so. Why should child B and father of child B be
involved at all? How asinine!

Are you being dense on purpose?

Parents of child A (that's 2 people) deal with the needs for child A
(that's person number 3)

Parents of child B (that adds dad, who is person number 4) deal with
the needs for child B (that's person number 5).

If you still can't understand this, perhaps you should consider
giving up teaching.

Actually, Moon, that is NOT what ghost said in his post. He said
that all are involved in the negotiations--not just mom and dad A for
kid 1 and mom and dad B for kid 2. Read it again.

Um, no, that's NOT what he said. Read again

{portions not relevant to this particular issue snipped, reference for
full post at top of quoted portions]

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
ups.com...


Yuck, that definately sucks.

I can see a serious issue where two (or more) fathers are involved,
since neither father would want to pay above the minimun to support
his
kid. .......

That does kind of gloss over the fact that negoating an agreement
would
be very difficult since five different peoples interests are at
stake.


Ghostwriter

He says nothing about all 5 people being in the same negotiation.

There are 5 people in total. 3 of those people are the various
parents of the various children. There are noegotiations about CS.

Ghost is proposing that there SHOULD be negotiations about CS--that it
would make for a better system than the one we have today. He is
proposing that the parents negotiate monies paid above the basic
support level--the level of support that children require for food,
shelter and clothing.

Here is the post you picked and chose phrases from:

****That does kind of gloss over the fact that negoating an agreement
would
be very difficult since five different peoples interests are at stake.
However, I still think that a legally mandated minimum (based on all
the children in the household) followed by a negotiated agreement with
the judge placing some of the adults (based on their discresion) income
into escrow and freezing collection of any bills that go past due in
the process would likley be the best way forward. Even if all three
adults have to be beaten over the head by a mediator (selection by
elimation), that still seems the best way to protect the interests of
society as a whole while still respecting the ability of humans to make
better choices than a law book.****


The legally mandated minimum is based on all the children in the
household. The amount each father pays now becomes part of a
negotiation among all 3 parents involved. It's really not that hard to
understand.

So you're suggesting that the father of Child A should be part of the
negotiations about child support for Child B?

Aren't you the one who deemed that asinine?


I didn't suggest it, Moon. Ghost did. Go drink some coffee and come
back when you can focus a bit better.


Nothing wrong with my focus, Teach, and I don't drink coffee past noon,
because of the caffeine.


Don't know what would help you, then. Maybe paying closer attention to the
thread.


  #312  
Old December 18th 06, 10:24 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
ghostwriter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Name change because parent not visiting child



In spite of what you say here, ghost, you are so doggone focused on money
that it's not even funny! Parents owe their children support--NOT jsut
MONEY. If mom decieves the father of the child and does not inform him that
he is a father for years and years, and he has married and has another
family, thet fool of a selfish, self centered woman should have NO POWER
WHATSOEVER to dictate how much she can take the man for. She should get to
LISTEN when he talks, and nothing more. No negotiation! He should have the
option to pay minimum support--and more if and when he wants to. No matter
how much higher his income is than hers. The child is simply unfortunate to
have such scum for a mother. That frees tha father to be as kind and loving
as he wants to be, but keeps his family safe, too.

When parents divorce, 50/50 custody should be ths law. Money should not
enter the picture unless mom has been a stay-at-home mom devoting herself to
family while dad is the breadwinner. At that point a negotiation should
take place so mom can develop the skills she needs to support herself and
her children. That's only fair.

But, if both parents work. then they need to work things out before they
split up so that the children are taken care of. Dump it on them--no
divorce until you get it settled. No attorneys, no court intervention. A
mutually agreeable counselor. But YOU are the parents--get the job done.

Where one parent is going to have full custody--if it is over the objection
of the other parent, then the one claiming the kids pays for the kids. If
she wants help paying for things, then share the children, too.

I agree with you that seeing adults work out their differences is a
wonderful example. It would be far better if these differences were worked
out within the marriage, so fewer divorces took place. I was reading this
article yesterday where a celebrity was asked about whether she was going to
start dating again. Her comment was that she was going to be more selective
in who she went out with now, and that there would be no sex for at least 6
months. Whew--what a wonderful message: It's ok to risk creating a child
out of wedlock as long as you wait 6 months before doing so. And look where
this wonderful lack of a moral code has brought us as a society. And the
family court system is not even beginning to help solve the problem. It is
making it worse by giving women a far superior position than men in almost
every situation. Take away any vestige of that and put them in a position
where they and they alone have the power to makt things work, and we will
see an almost immediate change.

And, ghost, I still desagree that things will work if you force every adult
involved into the negotiations. How would you handle this?

Woman has 5 kids by 4 dads. Negotiation would involve:

Dad 1, his wife ( kid by mom 1 and 2 by his wife)
Dad 2, his ex wife, his current wife, his former mistress (1 kid by mom 1,
1 by ex wife, 1 by current wife, 1 by mistress)
Dad 3, his 3 exes, (1 by mom 1, 1 by ex 1, 1 by ex 2, 1 by ex 3)
Dad 4, his current wife, (2 by mom 1, 2 by current wife)

That would be 12 adults negotiating for 14 kids.

Salaries

Mom 1--0 doesn't work and neither does current live-in boyfriend
Dad 1--$35K/year
Dad 2--$100K per year
Dad 3--$44Kper year
Dad 4--$26K per year

Now, ghost, who should pay how much? How would you negotiate this out?
Should Dad 2 pay the most to make sure that all of mom 1's kids have an
equal lifestyle? Should the other children of the fathers live lower
lifestyle's than mom 1's kids so that all of HER kids are equal? Should all
26 people involved live the exact same lifestyls/ (Perhaos set up a commune
and all share equally) How would you work this out equitably?

Think it doesn't happen? I KNOW this family!


I know several that could very easily fit into this family tree, most
of the foster kids dont have family trees so much as bushes.

Currently each father has been ordered to pay something on the amount
of 25% of there income. So currently, assuming all the dads pay thats
25% of $200K or about $50K. I would suggest that once the fathers were
aware of each others existance they have a much stronger case that mom
1 is taking them for an unreasonable amount of money. Any negotiator
picked with input from these men would likley take a dim view on
neither adult in mom's household working. Most of the men would gladly
band together and demand that they receive some of the economics of
scale that the courts is currently giving to mom. If mom had to accept
an unbiased negotator rather than the easily manipulated written law
then she would have little choice but to get a job. I would think that
most of the fathers would demand that her employment be a written part
of the agreement. A negoatior with a history of allowing either side to
get away with a lot of crap would simple be eliminated early in the
selection process.

The negotiator then spends a few months interviewing everyone seperatly
and collecting all of the income information and writes up an
agreement. He can visit the children in the house and demand a list of
expenses from mom. Based on that information and an evaluation of what
mom's skills are worth on the market, he can write up a support package
that allows the household to maintain a resonable lifestyle without
robbing the dads blind. If mom could make $20K a year answer a
telephone somewhere, then a 40% reduction in support would allow the
same lifestyle if she were forced to work. All parties get a copy and a
month to submit comments, the final agreement is then drafted with
appeals allowed only on the basis of malpractice not because you
thought you could have gotten more or payed less. The lawyer fees are
payed by a portion of the support amount. The payment is deduced by a
bank that then sends out a single check each month to mom.

If mom was unwilling to maintain a job I would have her held in
contempt the same if one of the dad quit to dodge support.

Likley a father with a lot of kids by different women would be party to
several agreements, if the NEGOTIATOR of a second agreement thought
that the amount of a prior agreement was unusally high, then it would
up to them to contact the orginal negotiator and seek an explaination.
A negotiator would be able to bring an admistrative hearing to question
the amount in front of a judge, who could then throw out the previous
agreement if it was found to be unreasonable detramental to another
household. The negotiator protects the kids interests and a judge
determines if they made unreasonable assumtions while doing so. Human
judgement subject to review being the only way I can see to protect
everyone in this situation.

Ghostwriter

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NFJA Position Statement: Child Support Enforcement Funding Dusty Child Support 0 March 2nd 06 01:49 AM
| | Kids should work... Kane Foster Parents 3 December 9th 03 12:53 AM
Kids should work. ChrisScaife Foster Parents 16 December 7th 03 05:27 AM
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking Kane Spanking 63 November 17th 03 11:12 PM
Helping Your Child Be Healthy and Fit sX3#;[email protected]'U John Smith Kids Health 0 July 20th 03 04:50 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.