Share vehicle, insurance expenses?

(pssst....hey....stupid nasty, nasty and stupid - don't tell anybody, but....)

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Moon Shyne wrote in message
...

"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote
.....................

Whether she should or should not be driving is really a non-issue.
It's
legal
where she lives.
==
If prostitution were legal in her jurisdiction would it be OK for her
to
engage in that as well?

If the activity she was doing was legal, and she was legally of an age to
be
participating in the activity, how would you propose stopping her?


In this case.... don't buy a car.

He can refuse to help with the expense, and he can refuse to offer to take
the
child to the extracurricular activities. I can't see where he's going to be
able to stop the child from driving, since it's legal where she lives.

(... Tiffany didn't say WHO should not buy the car. See, since she's going to
be driving because MOMMY bought the car...MOMMY could NOT buy the car. Now
don't take it too hard, I'm sure you could have thought of that on your own if
you hadn't been racking your little brain trying to figure out how to totally
take over this thread and make it all about you...)

Mel Gamble

Perhaps he (and others) need to sit down and take a hard look at what they
can,
and can't control, and decide on a reasonable course of action. If he
doesn't
want his daughter driving, it would be reasonable to offer her an
alternative,
don't you think?

(pssst....hey....stupid nasty, nasty and stupid - don't tell anybody, but....)

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Moon Shyne wrote in message
...

"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote
.....................

Whether she should or should not be driving is really a non-issue.
It's
legal
where she lives.
==
If prostitution were legal in her jurisdiction would it be OK for her
to
engage in that as well?

If the activity she was doing was legal, and she was legally of an age to
be
participating in the activity, how would you propose stopping her?


In this case.... don't buy a car.

He can refuse to help with the expense, and he can refuse to offer to take
the
child to the extracurricular activities. I can't see where he's going to be
able to stop the child from driving, since it's legal where she lives.

(... Tiffany didn't say WHO should not buy the car. See, since she's going to
be driving because MOMMY bought the car...MOMMY could NOT buy the car. Now
don't take it too hard, I'm sure you could have thought of that on your own if
you hadn't been racking your little brain trying to figure out how to totally
take over this thread and make it all about you...)

Mel Gamble

Perhaps he (and others) need to sit down and take a hard look at what they
can,
and can't control, and decide on a reasonable course of action. If he
doesn't
want his daughter driving, it would be reasonable to offer her an
alternative,
don't you think?

You've really got your nerve, Teach...

(SNIP)

Read the original post, Moon. They don't seem to live in the same state!

.... expecting nasty to read a post before trying to take over the thread...

Mel Gamble

You've really got your nerve, Teach...

(SNIP)

Read the original post, Moon. They don't seem to live in the same state!

.... expecting nasty to read a post before trying to take over the thread...

Mel Gamble

Guess that puts the lie to her claim, Bob...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

I have to throw in the NCP father's perspective. It is a trap
for
fathers
to get sucked into decision making regarding higher than normal
children
expenditures.

Bull****. I would ask the ex if it was ok with him if son took
part
in
soccer......... and never asked him to pay one cent towards it. I
paid it
all.

Nice neutral language. Just more evidence vindictive Moonie could
care
less
about what NCP fathers think about this type of situation. It's
always
about her case!

Let me get this straight - you can bring in the NCP father's
persepective,
but a
CP mother can't bring in her perspective?

In case you missed it, the thread was all about how mother's
perspectives
and I added the father's perspective.

Since it's clear you missed it, the OP was the father, and *his*
perspective.






Same for gymnastics, dance class, summer camp, and everything
else.

That's the type of expenses CS is meant to pay. They are called
extracurricular activities.

Summer camp for kids too young to be home alone is a necessary expense
for
any
parent that works - perhaps you have some "NCP father's perspective"
as to
why
some NCP father's seem to feel they don't need to be contributing to
that
one?
They're working, and not seeing to the children, aren't they?

Sure. The father's perspective is day care is included in either the
basic
CS award or is an add-on to the basic CS award depending on state law
definitions of how day care is handled. Summer camps are just another
form
of day care. And since they are usually more expensive than normal day
care, the CP's decision to send the children to a more expensive summer
camp
requires budget adjustments within the children's household, not an
additional payment from the father.

When the father pays nothing towards day care, and it's not built into the
CS?
Somehow, this is exactly what I expected from you.

Look, some of us have been around here long enough to know a lot about your
case. You have previously posted that Wisconsin law allows the NCP to take
a pro-rata share of the day care tax deductions.

This would indicate that Wisconsin considers CS - in the general sense - to
INCLUDE an amount for daycare.

You also posted that you
had language placed in your divorce decree stating none of the CS he paid
was to be considered day care related so you could take 100% of the tax
deductions.

.... further indicating she knows damn well that daycare is included in CS in
Wisconsin - in general...

Claiming he pays nothing towards day care is disingenuous on
your part. You ask that it be set up that way and you got what you asked
for.

Actually, Bob, I think she started making the claim in this thread in a more
general statement - as if she believes CS - in general - doesn't include
daycare. Guess she has trouble keeping things seperate when she tries to make
a thread all about her - she often seems to forget whether she's referring to
the general or the specific.

Mel Gamble




While it is nice to be consulted, the bottom line is there is
an implied assumption that agreeing with the major expenditure
equates
to
agreeing to help pay for the major expenditure as an
extraordinary
need
over
and above normal CS expenditures.

Bull****. That may be YOUR life.......... it isn't that way for
everyone.

So let's get this straight once and for all. Do you consider the CS
award
dictated by the state to be the minimum amount of CS due or the
maximum
amount of CS owed?

Neither. It's an amount set by the state to reflect what is probably
an
over-generalized average - clearly each case is different, and a child
with
cancer, a cleft palate and dyslexia will have far different needs from
a
child
that has none of those - you don't really think the child support
should
be the
same for both children, do you?

If the court orders the same amount for both children under the state CS
guidelines, then they both get the same amount.

Yup - it's clear where your concern is - and it ain't the kids.

Well let me reveal a detail from my case to change your mind. Both of my
children had severe acne conditions when they were in their early teens. My
son's was so bad he was getting teased about it at school. My daughter's
was at the stage of causing scaring. I discussed dermatologist treatments
with my ex and urged her to take the children to the dermatologist. She
claimed she didn't have the money needed to take the children to the doctor.
So I made appointments with the dermatologist, picked the children up from
school, took the children to the dermatologist, paid for 100% of their
Accutane treatments, and took them back for follow-up visits and required
lab work for blood tests.

Now you want to tell me again my concerns "ain't with the kids?" That's
just one example of many. And I'm sure other fathers here can relate
similar experiences where the mothers refused to spend the CS on the
children. Mel has shared a few.


Of course, courts vary from
the CS guidlelines and consider special circumstances like you have
pointed
out as reasons to increase the CS awards. Ironically, the courts do not
use
the same logic in reverse and reduce CS awards when the children are
healthy.





So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and
make
it
very
clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and i
t's
up
to
the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she
allocates
the
CS
she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.

Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he
doesn't
like
the
mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.

Isn't paying the CS amount ordered enough?

In some cases, no.

And in most cases, yes. If the CP believes the CS award is not
sufficient
the CP has the ability to go back to court, show a significant change of
circumstance, and seek a higher CS award.

And in other cased, if the NCP believes the CS is too high, the NCP has
the
ability to go back to court, show a significant change of circunstance,
and seek
a lower CS award - and please tell me it doesn't happen, because it does
(and
did)



Why are you insisting fathers
pay more than the CS award in order to have a say in how the money
is
spent?

I've insisted on nothing, except that the parent who is *not* paying
has
no
place to be complaining.

But the discussion was about parents who *do* pay CS. Of course, you
can
always argue that the CP has the right to comparmentalize CS payments
and
claim all of the support received went to pay certain defined expenses
and
didn't cover the rest of the expenses. (Like your summer camp example
where
the CS received is enough to pay for normal day care but not enough to
cover
the extra expenses for summer camp.)

Wrong. In my summer camp example, there was nothing received towards
*any* day
care.

See above. We all know why no day care was covered by CS.




Does a father have to pay more than the court orders to have a say
in
how
his children are raised?

Nope - he just has to make sure that if he hasn't paid towards the
item(s)
about
which he's complaining, he'd best stick a sock in it.

CS is designed to cover 100% of the children's needs.

Oh? So I'm not required to supplement it by a comparitive contribution
out of
my earnings? You sure about this one? Shoot, all that money I could have
been
saving.

Let me help you. Wisconsin is a percent of income state that only accesses
CS against the NCP's income. As the CP you have no CS ordered amount to
provide. But in income shares model states the total CS award is detailed
and the percentage share to be paid by each parnet is detailed. In the vast
majority of states the CS ordered is designed to cover 100% of the child's
expenses.

Guess that puts the lie to her claim, Bob...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

I have to throw in the NCP father's perspective. It is a trap
for
fathers
to get sucked into decision making regarding higher than normal
children
expenditures.

Bull****. I would ask the ex if it was ok with him if son took
part
in
soccer......... and never asked him to pay one cent towards it. I
paid it
all.

Nice neutral language. Just more evidence vindictive Moonie could
care
less
about what NCP fathers think about this type of situation. It's
always
about her case!

Let me get this straight - you can bring in the NCP father's
persepective,
but a
CP mother can't bring in her perspective?

In case you missed it, the thread was all about how mother's
perspectives
and I added the father's perspective.

Since it's clear you missed it, the OP was the father, and *his*
perspective.






Same for gymnastics, dance class, summer camp, and everything
else.

That's the type of expenses CS is meant to pay. They are called
extracurricular activities.

Summer camp for kids too young to be home alone is a necessary expense
for
any
parent that works - perhaps you have some "NCP father's perspective"
as to
why
some NCP father's seem to feel they don't need to be contributing to
that
one?
They're working, and not seeing to the children, aren't they?

Sure. The father's perspective is day care is included in either the
basic
CS award or is an add-on to the basic CS award depending on state law
definitions of how day care is handled. Summer camps are just another
form
of day care. And since they are usually more expensive than normal day
care, the CP's decision to send the children to a more expensive summer
camp
requires budget adjustments within the children's household, not an
additional payment from the father.

When the father pays nothing towards day care, and it's not built into the
CS?
Somehow, this is exactly what I expected from you.

Look, some of us have been around here long enough to know a lot about your
case. You have previously posted that Wisconsin law allows the NCP to take
a pro-rata share of the day care tax deductions.

This would indicate that Wisconsin considers CS - in the general sense - to
INCLUDE an amount for daycare.

You also posted that you
had language placed in your divorce decree stating none of the CS he paid
was to be considered day care related so you could take 100% of the tax
deductions.

.... further indicating she knows damn well that daycare is included in CS in
Wisconsin - in general...

Claiming he pays nothing towards day care is disingenuous on
your part. You ask that it be set up that way and you got what you asked
for.

Actually, Bob, I think she started making the claim in this thread in a more
general statement - as if she believes CS - in general - doesn't include
daycare. Guess she has trouble keeping things seperate when she tries to make
a thread all about her - she often seems to forget whether she's referring to
the general or the specific.

Mel Gamble




While it is nice to be consulted, the bottom line is there is
an implied assumption that agreeing with the major expenditure
equates
to
agreeing to help pay for the major expenditure as an
extraordinary
need
over
and above normal CS expenditures.

Bull****. That may be YOUR life.......... it isn't that way for
everyone.

So let's get this straight once and for all. Do you consider the CS
award
dictated by the state to be the minimum amount of CS due or the
maximum
amount of CS owed?

Neither. It's an amount set by the state to reflect what is probably
an
over-generalized average - clearly each case is different, and a child
with
cancer, a cleft palate and dyslexia will have far different needs from
a
child
that has none of those - you don't really think the child support
should
be the
same for both children, do you?

If the court orders the same amount for both children under the state CS
guidelines, then they both get the same amount.

Yup - it's clear where your concern is - and it ain't the kids.

Well let me reveal a detail from my case to change your mind. Both of my
children had severe acne conditions when they were in their early teens. My
son's was so bad he was getting teased about it at school. My daughter's
was at the stage of causing scaring. I discussed dermatologist treatments
with my ex and urged her to take the children to the dermatologist. She
claimed she didn't have the money needed to take the children to the doctor.
So I made appointments with the dermatologist, picked the children up from
school, took the children to the dermatologist, paid for 100% of their
Accutane treatments, and took them back for follow-up visits and required
lab work for blood tests.

Now you want to tell me again my concerns "ain't with the kids?" That's
just one example of many. And I'm sure other fathers here can relate
similar experiences where the mothers refused to spend the CS on the
children. Mel has shared a few.


Of course, courts vary from
the CS guidlelines and consider special circumstances like you have
pointed
out as reasons to increase the CS awards. Ironically, the courts do not
use
the same logic in reverse and reduce CS awards when the children are
healthy.





So my advice would be for the father to stick to his ground and
make
it
very
clear the CS he pays already covers ALL child expenditures and i
t's
up
to
the CP mother to make appropriate decisions about how she
allocates
the
CS
she receives to cover whatever child expenses she chooses.

Then dear old dad had damned well best *not* complain when he
doesn't
like
the
mother's decisions, when he isn't paying jack **** towards it.

Isn't paying the CS amount ordered enough?

In some cases, no.

And in most cases, yes. If the CP believes the CS award is not
sufficient
the CP has the ability to go back to court, show a significant change of
circumstance, and seek a higher CS award.

And in other cased, if the NCP believes the CS is too high, the NCP has
the
ability to go back to court, show a significant change of circunstance,
and seek
a lower CS award - and please tell me it doesn't happen, because it does
(and
did)



Why are you insisting fathers
pay more than the CS award in order to have a say in how the money
is
spent?

I've insisted on nothing, except that the parent who is *not* paying
has
no
place to be complaining.

But the discussion was about parents who *do* pay CS. Of course, you
can
always argue that the CP has the right to comparmentalize CS payments
and
claim all of the support received went to pay certain defined expenses
and
didn't cover the rest of the expenses. (Like your summer camp example
where
the CS received is enough to pay for normal day care but not enough to
cover
the extra expenses for summer camp.)

Wrong. In my summer camp example, there was nothing received towards
*any* day
care.

See above. We all know why no day care was covered by CS.




Does a father have to pay more than the court orders to have a say
in
how
his children are raised?

Nope - he just has to make sure that if he hasn't paid towards the
item(s)
about
which he's complaining, he'd best stick a sock in it.

CS is designed to cover 100% of the children's needs.

Oh? So I'm not required to supplement it by a comparitive contribution
out of
my earnings? You sure about this one? Shoot, all that money I could have
been
saving.

Let me help you. Wisconsin is a percent of income state that only accesses
CS against the NCP's income. As the CP you have no CS ordered amount to
provide. But in income shares model states the total CS award is detailed
and the percentage share to be paid by each parnet is detailed. In the vast
majority of states the CS ordered is designed to cover 100% of the child's
expenses.

And maybe she's forgotten, Teach ...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

(SNIP)

So his solution is to offer nothing? How does that benefit the child?

He pays child support, Moon! Why do you expect more than that from him? He
seems to have the child with him for at least a portion of the time that she
isn't in school, too, so it isn't as if he is ignoring her.

Mommy and stepdaddy bought AND FIXED a car for her. So they're sending her
down the road in a junker - "How does that benefit the child?" - as nasty would
say.

Mel Gamble

And maybe she's forgotten, Teach ...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

(SNIP)

So his solution is to offer nothing? How does that benefit the child?

He pays child support, Moon! Why do you expect more than that from him? He
seems to have the child with him for at least a portion of the time that she
isn't in school, too, so it isn't as if he is ignoring her.

Mommy and stepdaddy bought AND FIXED a car for her. So they're sending her
down the road in a junker - "How does that benefit the child?" - as nasty would
say.

Mel Gamble

In the majority of cases, ...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Moon Shyne wrote in message
...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Moon Shyne wrote in message
...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...



snipped


I understand that....... and he doesn't want to pay any money. Ok,
so
don't.
But at least offer to help in some other way
It's not that hard to work out, if the whole idea is to be
co-parenting...... if
you don't like the other parent's way, fine,, don't like it. But do
*something*
that helps to reach the end goal.






Again, he wasn't given options, just a bill. But as TM has stated,
something
I missed and maybe you missed too was that he mentioned possibly that
he
doesn't live in the same state as the daughter. That could mean he
lives
to
far away to offer help, maybe not.

So he's too far away to be a father?






We are talking about rides from school for extra activities. Nice try.

Isn't that part of what a parent does? Or is it only moms that are supposed
to
do that stuff?

.... it is done by whoever is parenting the child on the day in question,
although some of us realize that if we didn't do it, our kids would never get
to do anything.

But in general - "... is it only moms that are supposed to do that stuff?" -
only if she opted for custody.

Mel Gamble

In the majority of cases, ...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Moon Shyne wrote in message
...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Moon Shyne wrote in message
...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...



snipped


I understand that....... and he doesn't want to pay any money. Ok,
so
don't.
But at least offer to help in some other way
It's not that hard to work out, if the whole idea is to be
co-parenting...... if
you don't like the other parent's way, fine,, don't like it. But do
*something*
that helps to reach the end goal.






Again, he wasn't given options, just a bill. But as TM has stated,
something
I missed and maybe you missed too was that he mentioned possibly that
he
doesn't live in the same state as the daughter. That could mean he
lives
to
far away to offer help, maybe not.

So he's too far away to be a father?






We are talking about rides from school for extra activities. Nice try.

Isn't that part of what a parent does? Or is it only moms that are supposed
to
do that stuff?

.... it is done by whoever is parenting the child on the day in question,
although some of us realize that if we didn't do it, our kids would never get
to do anything.

But in general - "... is it only moms that are supposed to do that stuff?" -
only if she opted for custody.

Mel Gamble