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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#551
|
|||
|
|||
"Child Support" money?
Tracy wrote:
Let me also comment this way - let's say we have another CP who is not being mean. She would like to contribute to this group. Like I mentioned to Bob, this is not a CP/mother-friendly group at this time. Instead of making statements that she has "missed the point" and is expecting CS to cover 100% of the cost ("You seem to miss the point that CS is not supposed to cover 100% of the child's needs."), why not question why she is receiving so little. Wouldn't you agree that $75/month is very little if her situation is the norm (70% parenting-time)? Give Mary the benefit of the doubt, and let her feel she can talk.. You're point is well taken about the friendliness of the group to certain aspects of the issue. And, I agree that we should be more friendly to open up better discussion, etc. In this case, the OP's post was so overwhelmingly one-sided that I had to ask some basic questions. She left out what I would consider very important details. Details that I thought could have supported her point of view very well, depending on what the thruth is. The degree of one-sidedness seemed way to convenient for me. |
#552
|
|||
|
|||
"Child Support" money?
Tracy wrote:
Let me also comment this way - let's say we have another CP who is not being mean. She would like to contribute to this group. Like I mentioned to Bob, this is not a CP/mother-friendly group at this time. Instead of making statements that she has "missed the point" and is expecting CS to cover 100% of the cost ("You seem to miss the point that CS is not supposed to cover 100% of the child's needs."), why not question why she is receiving so little. Wouldn't you agree that $75/month is very little if her situation is the norm (70% parenting-time)? Give Mary the benefit of the doubt, and let her feel she can talk.. You're point is well taken about the friendliness of the group to certain aspects of the issue. And, I agree that we should be more friendly to open up better discussion, etc. In this case, the OP's post was so overwhelmingly one-sided that I had to ask some basic questions. She left out what I would consider very important details. Details that I thought could have supported her point of view very well, depending on what the thruth is. The degree of one-sidedness seemed way to convenient for me. |
#553
|
|||
|
|||
"Child Support" money?
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:24:59 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote: You are correct, except for one thing... Fighting For Kids wrote: On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:03:12 GMT, Melvin Gamble wrote: A choice she made... Moon Shyne wrote: "Cameron Stevens" wrote in message ... snip At one time I *WAS* able to pay my CS directly. I can still pay it electronically, in fact the payments are scheduled right through to December 2004. The Legislative Body should be able to legislate that CS is required. The CS Agency should have a place to pursue arrears. The problem *I* see with the system is that while the amount pursued is based on income, the amount does not float with the income but rather is a cold harsh number, enforced without concern for the circumstances of the people involved. This is not about telling you how to raise your children, and if the CP and NCP come to an agreement it should be respected by the courts/system. It is not the NCPs that have the necessary level of responsibility that the system should be involved with. The problem is that a system that begins to care about the circumstances of the people involved becomes expensive to operate. Without the system's help there is a significant number (this could be 1% and still be significant) of children who are not voluntarily supported but the NCP. The system, when automated - as technology might allow the control required - becomes threatening and a discomfort to the user of the system but how does one implement a system that is changable, for every case, which are ALL DIFFERENT without the costs becoming astronomical. The system, as it stands, does not serve the needs of the child. It exists under this premise because it was designed to serve the responsible mother whose husband had taken off and left her destitute. Helpless, she needed money to remain at home and exist and welfare was not prepared to pick up the tab. The system was designed to equalize the incomes so that the CPs lessened ability to find work of equal value would not present to the child an grass-is-greener perspective on the now occational world of the NCP. After all the NCP (father) makes all the big money. This is the logic of the system. This is the foundation of it's original purpose. Very respectible from a 1960's point-of-view. There's a huge difference from that "design" to today's reality. We need the system to drop the prejudice of the woman being unable to find work of equal value (or boyfriend/new husband to subsidize) Why would you transfer the responsibility for the children to some new boyfriend/husband? Why not transfer it to some new girlfriend/wife of the NCP? and protect the child's real best interest, the relationship with BOTH parents (not money as presumed byt the system). The amounts involved need to appreciate that there are hills and valleys to life and that professional momentum and success can be affected by speedbumps and semi-trailers on the highway of life. The CP must take responsibility for budgetting their money and understand that, just as they would need to do if married to the NCP, planning for a worst-case is essential. Doesn't the NCP have to do the same budgeting and planning? The father may lose his job, may go on disability and may need to work someplace else and while she may not appreciate his position he may just burn out and need to take a seriously less stressful and lower-paying job to simply survive.. And all of the same may well be true for the CP, who, in addition to working to supply her share of support for the children, has the additional workload of the hands on care for the children for the majority of the time. ...and now chooses to moan about. "Poor me, poor me...I demanded full custody of these damn kids and now I have FULL custody of these damn kids. I am SOOO stressed out, but I'll be damned if I'll let that ******* share evenly in the work no matter how much he begs. I'll just make him pay more while I whine about how stressed these danmed kids make me..." Mel Gamble Hmm..sounds like more of what you write about all the time. Poor me, poor me... I didnt want custody of the kids now I have to pay to help support them. I just can't handle this so now i'm going to cry about how the sytem is taking advantage of me. ...the CP is moaning about a custody situation she demanded, while the NCP is moaning about a situation forced on him against his will. Please.. you make choices about what happens in your life. Playing the victim again. Oh, and one would gladly trade places with the other - guess which one that would be??? Yeah, im sure you men would gladly change places with CP's. That is funny. I bet that most men,if the CP handed them their children, would run as fast as they could. Mel Gamble There is a very clear but mislead impression that men walk away from a marriage unscathed or smelling like roses. While some wealthy people have teh power to bend the system to thier will, the bulk of the fathers/NCPs do not and those fathers are negatively impacted by the process of divorce itself. Bankrupcy is pursued by many fathers (NCPs) as a necessity, Just as it is pursued by many mothers as a necessity. not as a shirking of responsibility and the over all impression of the father being a "Deadbeat Dad" is unfair if not a persecution in itself. A fine upstanding employee may, if the employer is biased or mislead, become recognised as a burden on the company, a criminal of sorts, when the garanshee notice arrives. In this day and age where nearly all child support orders are via wage assignment? Somehow, I doubt that the company won't recognize it for exactly what it is - SOP. It's shameful to the father, whether his payment is reasonable or not. I will always advise that falling behind in CS is to be avoided at all costs. It's difficult to stay ahead of it sometimes but it should be the focus. If you need to contact the CS agency, take the tiem the hour off to negotiate a repayment schedule will save your skin later on. Even so, the system remains a fickle beast that is more prone to nip once and devour it's prey in the next blink of an eye, just as the prey was ready to fead the beast forever without the need for a fight. Cameron |
#554
|
|||
|
|||
"Child Support" money?
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:24:59 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote: You are correct, except for one thing... Fighting For Kids wrote: On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:03:12 GMT, Melvin Gamble wrote: A choice she made... Moon Shyne wrote: "Cameron Stevens" wrote in message ... snip At one time I *WAS* able to pay my CS directly. I can still pay it electronically, in fact the payments are scheduled right through to December 2004. The Legislative Body should be able to legislate that CS is required. The CS Agency should have a place to pursue arrears. The problem *I* see with the system is that while the amount pursued is based on income, the amount does not float with the income but rather is a cold harsh number, enforced without concern for the circumstances of the people involved. This is not about telling you how to raise your children, and if the CP and NCP come to an agreement it should be respected by the courts/system. It is not the NCPs that have the necessary level of responsibility that the system should be involved with. The problem is that a system that begins to care about the circumstances of the people involved becomes expensive to operate. Without the system's help there is a significant number (this could be 1% and still be significant) of children who are not voluntarily supported but the NCP. The system, when automated - as technology might allow the control required - becomes threatening and a discomfort to the user of the system but how does one implement a system that is changable, for every case, which are ALL DIFFERENT without the costs becoming astronomical. The system, as it stands, does not serve the needs of the child. It exists under this premise because it was designed to serve the responsible mother whose husband had taken off and left her destitute. Helpless, she needed money to remain at home and exist and welfare was not prepared to pick up the tab. The system was designed to equalize the incomes so that the CPs lessened ability to find work of equal value would not present to the child an grass-is-greener perspective on the now occational world of the NCP. After all the NCP (father) makes all the big money. This is the logic of the system. This is the foundation of it's original purpose. Very respectible from a 1960's point-of-view. There's a huge difference from that "design" to today's reality. We need the system to drop the prejudice of the woman being unable to find work of equal value (or boyfriend/new husband to subsidize) Why would you transfer the responsibility for the children to some new boyfriend/husband? Why not transfer it to some new girlfriend/wife of the NCP? and protect the child's real best interest, the relationship with BOTH parents (not money as presumed byt the system). The amounts involved need to appreciate that there are hills and valleys to life and that professional momentum and success can be affected by speedbumps and semi-trailers on the highway of life. The CP must take responsibility for budgetting their money and understand that, just as they would need to do if married to the NCP, planning for a worst-case is essential. Doesn't the NCP have to do the same budgeting and planning? The father may lose his job, may go on disability and may need to work someplace else and while she may not appreciate his position he may just burn out and need to take a seriously less stressful and lower-paying job to simply survive.. And all of the same may well be true for the CP, who, in addition to working to supply her share of support for the children, has the additional workload of the hands on care for the children for the majority of the time. ...and now chooses to moan about. "Poor me, poor me...I demanded full custody of these damn kids and now I have FULL custody of these damn kids. I am SOOO stressed out, but I'll be damned if I'll let that ******* share evenly in the work no matter how much he begs. I'll just make him pay more while I whine about how stressed these danmed kids make me..." Mel Gamble Hmm..sounds like more of what you write about all the time. Poor me, poor me... I didnt want custody of the kids now I have to pay to help support them. I just can't handle this so now i'm going to cry about how the sytem is taking advantage of me. ...the CP is moaning about a custody situation she demanded, while the NCP is moaning about a situation forced on him against his will. Please.. you make choices about what happens in your life. Playing the victim again. Oh, and one would gladly trade places with the other - guess which one that would be??? Yeah, im sure you men would gladly change places with CP's. That is funny. I bet that most men,if the CP handed them their children, would run as fast as they could. Mel Gamble There is a very clear but mislead impression that men walk away from a marriage unscathed or smelling like roses. While some wealthy people have teh power to bend the system to thier will, the bulk of the fathers/NCPs do not and those fathers are negatively impacted by the process of divorce itself. Bankrupcy is pursued by many fathers (NCPs) as a necessity, Just as it is pursued by many mothers as a necessity. not as a shirking of responsibility and the over all impression of the father being a "Deadbeat Dad" is unfair if not a persecution in itself. A fine upstanding employee may, if the employer is biased or mislead, become recognised as a burden on the company, a criminal of sorts, when the garanshee notice arrives. In this day and age where nearly all child support orders are via wage assignment? Somehow, I doubt that the company won't recognize it for exactly what it is - SOP. It's shameful to the father, whether his payment is reasonable or not. I will always advise that falling behind in CS is to be avoided at all costs. It's difficult to stay ahead of it sometimes but it should be the focus. If you need to contact the CS agency, take the tiem the hour off to negotiate a repayment schedule will save your skin later on. Even so, the system remains a fickle beast that is more prone to nip once and devour it's prey in the next blink of an eye, just as the prey was ready to fead the beast forever without the need for a fight. Cameron |
#555
|
|||
|
|||
"Child Support" money?
I think she ran through the meds for the month, and it is only the 19th
"Melvin Gamble" wrote in message ... Fighting for Air would see a flying pig and holler "deadbeat"....she's back into her I-lost-track-of-the-logic-so-I'll-just-toss-random-insults mode. Mel Gamble Paul Fritz wrote: ASSuming. why am I not surprised. "Fighting For Kids" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:38:12 GMT, Melvin Gamble wrote: It's not being nasty - when you see a flying pig, you don't say "My, what a strange bird...", you YELL "Hey, look - it's a freaking flying pig!" Sometimes the obvious is just too obvious to dance around about. Mel Gamble Gee I see a deadbeat... and another and another.. |
#556
|
|||
|
|||
"Child Support" money?
I think she ran through the meds for the month, and it is only the 19th
"Melvin Gamble" wrote in message ... Fighting for Air would see a flying pig and holler "deadbeat"....she's back into her I-lost-track-of-the-logic-so-I'll-just-toss-random-insults mode. Mel Gamble Paul Fritz wrote: ASSuming. why am I not surprised. "Fighting For Kids" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:38:12 GMT, Melvin Gamble wrote: It's not being nasty - when you see a flying pig, you don't say "My, what a strange bird...", you YELL "Hey, look - it's a freaking flying pig!" Sometimes the obvious is just too obvious to dance around about. Mel Gamble Gee I see a deadbeat... and another and another.. |
#557
|
|||
|
|||
"Child Support" money?
My name is Melvin Gamble. I really have nothing better to do with my
time than feel sorry for myself . I really screwed things up formyself , but its far easier to blame someone else. You know use the mother as the scapegoat for all my bad choices and blame the system for my current problems. On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:31:07 GMT, Melvin Gamble wrote: Fighting for Air would see a flying pig and holler "deadbeat"....she's back into her I-lost-track-of-the-logic-so-I'll-just-toss-random-insults mode. Mel Gamble Paul Fritz wrote: ASSuming. why am I not surprised. "Fighting For Kids" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:38:12 GMT, Melvin Gamble wrote: It's not being nasty - when you see a flying pig, you don't say "My, what a strange bird...", you YELL "Hey, look - it's a freaking flying pig!" Sometimes the obvious is just too obvious to dance around about. Mel Gamble Gee I see a deadbeat... and another and another.. |
#558
|
|||
|
|||
"Child Support" money?
My name is Melvin Gamble. I really have nothing better to do with my
time than feel sorry for myself . I really screwed things up formyself , but its far easier to blame someone else. You know use the mother as the scapegoat for all my bad choices and blame the system for my current problems. On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:31:07 GMT, Melvin Gamble wrote: Fighting for Air would see a flying pig and holler "deadbeat"....she's back into her I-lost-track-of-the-logic-so-I'll-just-toss-random-insults mode. Mel Gamble Paul Fritz wrote: ASSuming. why am I not surprised. "Fighting For Kids" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:38:12 GMT, Melvin Gamble wrote: It's not being nasty - when you see a flying pig, you don't say "My, what a strange bird...", you YELL "Hey, look - it's a freaking flying pig!" Sometimes the obvious is just too obvious to dance around about. Mel Gamble Gee I see a deadbeat... and another and another.. |
#559
|
|||
|
|||
"Child Support" money?
Be my guest..... .........hell, you can make that a song LOL
"Melvin Gamble" wrote in message ... Hey, "dumb and dumber"...sounds like a good idea for a movie script - mind if I give it a try, Paul? Mel Gamble Paul Fritz wrote: snicker what a hoot......two tree stumps battling about who is dumber. LMAO "stealing for mommies" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 04:42:55 -0600, "Moon Shyne" wrote: Take your feet out of your mouth - I'm the CP of 2 children, and have sole custody - they don't "come over to spend time" here, they *live* here. I have them 100% of the time, and yes, there are times that we get out the air mattress and put it in the living room, and watch movies all night - and we still call it camping out. Hey!!!! Why dont you take your feet out of your mouth now, dumbass!!!! I was making a comment about the entire discussion not anything directly related to you!!!! |
#560
|
|||
|
|||
"Child Support" money?
Be my guest..... .........hell, you can make that a song LOL
"Melvin Gamble" wrote in message ... Hey, "dumb and dumber"...sounds like a good idea for a movie script - mind if I give it a try, Paul? Mel Gamble Paul Fritz wrote: snicker what a hoot......two tree stumps battling about who is dumber. LMAO "stealing for mommies" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 04:42:55 -0600, "Moon Shyne" wrote: Take your feet out of your mouth - I'm the CP of 2 children, and have sole custody - they don't "come over to spend time" here, they *live* here. I have them 100% of the time, and yes, there are times that we get out the air mattress and put it in the living room, and watch movies all night - and we still call it camping out. Hey!!!! Why dont you take your feet out of your mouth now, dumbass!!!! I was making a comment about the entire discussion not anything directly related to you!!!! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | July 29th 04 05:16 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | February 16th 04 09:58 AM |
The Determination of Child Custody in the USA | Fighting for kids | Child Support | 21 | November 17th 03 01:35 AM |
So much for the claims about Sweden | Kane | Spanking | 10 | November 5th 03 06:31 AM |
Helping Your Child Be Healthy and Fit sX3#;WA@'U | John Smith | Kids Health | 0 | July 20th 03 04:50 AM |