Share vehicle, insurance expenses?

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
.

I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there is an
amount
of CS
paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's forceibly
extracted
via
wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for anything,
because
he
wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of multiple court
orders for
refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs (beyond what
is
covered
by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's refused to
pay.......so
there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense, as all it
would do
is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and refusing.........
to
hell
with him.

It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
costs are covered by child support."

Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular activities
either.......
since I don't see him offering any alternative that would allow the
child
to
take part in normal child activities........... at what point does
anyone
stop
to think what would be good for the child, by the way? Ever?

Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't seem to
feel
that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving at 14.

Yet he provides no basis, aside from he "doesn't like the idea" -
meanwhile, in
the big bad real world, it's 100% legal for a child that age to drive for
the
purposes of going to school.

In the original post, the poster indicates that he does not live in the same
state as his child. He says that driving at 14 is permitted "in that
state", not "in our state", which leads me to believe that they live in
different places. So running the child back and forth to her activities
would not be an alternative for him.

According to him, mom says it would be "difficult or impossible" for her to
get the child places. Many, many parents work through the difficulties of
transporting children to activities. It goes with the job! Maybe mom could
arrange to transport daughter to the "difficult" activities, and she can
drop the "impossible" ones.


Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion count on
that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
activities make up for the driving?

Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't like the
idea"?
At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of the
community,
the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she lives
come in?
Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut?
"Doesn't
like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date? "Doesn't
like
the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?

Believe it or not, Moon, we do not choose to raise our children based on the
"standards of the community". We make the choices that we think are best
for them. And we have been told that we are overprotective. A minor
example was a field trip to the zoo I did not permit one daughter to
participate in. The weather forecast said it would be 107 that day--there
was no indoor area at the zoo to get out of the sun--and the children would
be there for several hours, then go to a park for a picnic. My child is
very fair skinned, and I said no. But my child did not miss the next three
days of school with a severe sunburn, along with half of her
classmates--which she would have if I had used the "standards of the
community" judgement. The standards of the community are secondary to the
decisions of the parents, unless the parents are breaking the law.



When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
everything else, BTW.

As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community, and in
this
case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best interests
of
the child take precedence?

Because the *parents* get to make the decisions--not the community! Besides
which, DAD doesn't think it IS in the best interests of the child!


I see that phrase used to justify a lot of pain
inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it into her
head
that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter should
have a
car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should my husband
be
forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in the best
interests of the child"?

Different scenario - the OP specifically stated that the car was to go to
school.

Nope--the child apparently can get back and forth to school without a car
(probably by bus). It's the extracurricular activities she needs the car
for. Probably no buses running for the activities--just for school itself.


He already pays 85% of her total support. Should
he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he started paying
child
support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be supported.
But
should they lose out on even more because we need to consider her best
interests when thinking about the car?

Running mom's errands isn't best interest - going to school certainly is.

On the contrary, mom doesn't like to leave the apartment at all--daughter
does all the shopping, etc. by begging rides from neighbors. Having a car
would certainly help her out! And the daughter in the post needs the car
for extracurricular activities--not for school itself.

And
if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used one which
they
fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer - she
got the
child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten her, if
dad
wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be legally
able
to drive a car.

Dad has probably read the statistics on teenage drivers. He didn't mention
growing up--he commented on concern for her safety. That is some judgement
you've made about a man who has voiced his concern about the safety of his
daughter!


She is certainly the only child that
the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the "best
interests of the child" are a cover for something else.

Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?

OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom *could* get
child
to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get child
to
activities - did you?

I saw that he most likely lives in another state.


Certainly
hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside their
own
personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.

Yes, and I'm one of them - apparently, the OP isn't.

He seems to live in another state.


And
probably an equal number of children miss out on activities because
their
parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there.

And how selfish of the parent, if there are other options available to get
the
child there!

It depends on what the other options are, Moon! Would you let your children
ride to activities with a 14 year old driver?


And the
majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best
interests
of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one parent
seems
to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
interests"
bat?

I didn't see anyone, in the OP's case, beating anyone, with the possible
exception of the OP beating his ex wife, for daring to have asked for his
help
in providing THEIR daughter with a used car so that she could get to
school.

I didn't see any beating in the original post. I saw a NC father asking for
advice. Not only about his concern with his daughter driving at so young an
age. But also about permitting himself to be sent a bill each month for
something he wasn't consulted about and didn't agree to.


And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his daughter
at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.

If he had the daughter's best interest at heart, I think I would have seen
something along the lines of "I think she's too young to drive, so I
offered to
take her to extracurricular activities 2 days one week, and 3 days the
following
week, in order to share the burden with her mother"

All the way from another state?

One more point. She would not be missing school, which is imperative.
She
would be missing out on extracurricular activities--which are not
imperative. Yes, they contribute to a child's development. But the
child
will survive without them. Thousands of children do. Although they may
be
enjoyable and healthy for the child, her "best interests" in attending
them
do not necessarily overshadow dad's objections to her driving at 14,
and/or
his objections to paying an amount over and above court odered child
support
to maintain a car for her.

And when dad objects to her driving at 16? Then what?

As far as I'm concerned, Moon, CS is supposed to cover transportation for
the child. Perhaps this dad, though, would feel more comfortable about her
driving a couple of years down the road. I don't know. He did mention that
he would prefer to handle driving expenses when she was with him, and let
mom handle them when she is with mom. Entirely fair, since CS is supposed
to cover transportation for the child.

When dad objects to his
baby girl growing up? Then what?

There is absolutely nothing in the original post to suggest this. You seem
to have decided that any parent that doesn't base the raising of their
children on the standards of the community is somehow out of line. I
disagree. Dad has every right to voice his opinion about his child driving
at 14 without being accused of objecting to his child growing up.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
.

I'm really not in a position to answer that one, TM - there is an
amount
of CS
paid by my ex because it's out of his control - it's forceibly
extracted
via
wage assignment. Aside from that, I don't ask him for anything,
because
he
wouldn't pay it anyway - he's currently in contempt of multiple court
orders for
refusal to pay thing like 50% unreimbursed medical costs (beyond what
is
covered
by insurance which only I provide), GAL fees that he's refused to
pay.......so
there's no point in my asking him to help with any expense, as all it
would do
is give him the satisfaction of hanging up on me and refusing.........
to
hell
with him.

It looks like he can just say "no--transportation
costs are covered by child support."

Which means he also says "no - can't do extracurricular activities
either.......
since I don't see him offering any alternative that would allow the
child
to
take part in normal child activities........... at what point does
anyone
stop
to think what would be good for the child, by the way? Ever?

Let's look at that one a little more closely. The OP doesn't seem to
feel
that it *is* in the best interests of the child to be driving at 14.

Yet he provides no basis, aside from he "doesn't like the idea" -
meanwhile, in
the big bad real world, it's 100% legal for a child that age to drive for
the
purposes of going to school.

In the original post, the poster indicates that he does not live in the same
state as his child. He says that driving at 14 is permitted "in that
state", not "in our state", which leads me to believe that they live in
different places. So running the child back and forth to her activities
would not be an alternative for him.

According to him, mom says it would be "difficult or impossible" for her to
get the child places. Many, many parents work through the difficulties of
transporting children to activities. It goes with the job! Maybe mom could
arrange to transport daughter to the "difficult" activities, and she can
drop the "impossible" ones.


Extracurricular activities not withstanding. Does his opinion count on
that--or should he fork over the money because *mom* feels that the
activities make up for the driving?

Should the entire decision rest on nothing more than he "doesn't like the
idea"?
At what point does a rational decision, based in the standards of the
community,
the maturity level of the child, and the accepted laws where she lives
come in?
Suppose dad "doesn't like the idea" of the child getting a haircut?
"Doesn't
like the idea" of the child being allowed to go out on a date? "Doesn't
like
the idea" that the child doesn't like to eat brussels sprouts?

Believe it or not, Moon, we do not choose to raise our children based on the
"standards of the community". We make the choices that we think are best
for them. And we have been told that we are overprotective. A minor
example was a field trip to the zoo I did not permit one daughter to
participate in. The weather forecast said it would be 107 that day--there
was no indoor area at the zoo to get out of the sun--and the children would
be there for several hours, then go to a park for a picnic. My child is
very fair skinned, and I said no. But my child did not miss the next three
days of school with a severe sunburn, along with half of her
classmates--which she would have if I had used the "standards of the
community" judgement. The standards of the community are secondary to the
decisions of the parents, unless the parents are breaking the law.



When do the best interests of the child stop taking precedence over
everything else, BTW.

As long as what we're talking is legal, accepted by the community, and in
this
case inevitable in the long run anyway, why *shouldn't* the best interests
of
the child take precedence?

Because the *parents* get to make the decisions--not the community! Besides
which, DAD doesn't think it IS in the best interests of the child!


I see that phrase used to justify a lot of pain
inflicted on others. What if my stepdaughter's mother took it into her
head
that, since she is no longer permitted to drive, her daughter should
have a
car to drive around and do errands, activities, etc. Should my husband
be
forced to pay the upkeep for that car, since it would be "in the best
interests of the child"?

Different scenario - the OP specifically stated that the car was to go to
school.

Nope--the child apparently can get back and forth to school without a car
(probably by bus). It's the extracurricular activities she needs the car
for. Probably no buses running for the activities--just for school itself.


He already pays 85% of her total support. Should
he pay more? Our 2 daughters lost out on a lot when he started paying
child
support. Which is ok, because the young lady needs to be supported.
But
should they lose out on even more because we need to consider her best
interests when thinking about the car?

Running mom's errands isn't best interest - going to school certainly is.

On the contrary, mom doesn't like to leave the apartment at all--daughter
does all the shopping, etc. by begging rides from neighbors. Having a car
would certainly help her out! And the daughter in the post needs the car
for extracurricular activities--not for school itself.

And
if you go back to the OP, I believe the car purchased was a used one which
they
fixed up? It's not like mom went out and bought daughter a beamer - she
got the
child probably the same damned kind of car dad would have gotten her, if
dad
wasn't getting so hung up on his daughter growing up enough to be legally
able
to drive a car.

Dad has probably read the statistics on teenage drivers. He didn't mention
growing up--he commented on concern for her safety. That is some judgement
you've made about a man who has voiced his concern about the safety of his
daughter!


She is certainly the only child that
the court is concerned about. I think that, all to often, the "best
interests of the child" are a cover for something else.

Why is it that mom can't get the child to her activities?

OP didn't put that, though I didn't see him arguing that mom *could* get
child
to activities, nor did I see any indication that dad offered to get child
to
activities - did you?

I saw that he most likely lives in another state.


Certainly
hundreds of thousands of parents all over this country put aside their
own
personal convenience to accomodate their children's activities.

Yes, and I'm one of them - apparently, the OP isn't.

He seems to live in another state.


And
probably an equal number of children miss out on activities because
their
parents just can't get off work, etc, to make sure they get there.

And how selfish of the parent, if there are other options available to get
the
child there!

It depends on what the other options are, Moon! Would you let your children
ride to activities with a 14 year old driver?


And the
majority of all of these parents are probably considering the best
interests
of their children. Why is it, when parents divorce, that one parent
seems
to get permission to beat the other over the head with the "best
interests"
bat?

I didn't see anyone, in the OP's case, beating anyone, with the possible
exception of the OP beating his ex wife, for daring to have asked for his
help
in providing THEIR daughter with a used car so that she could get to
school.

I didn't see any beating in the original post. I saw a NC father asking for
advice. Not only about his concern with his daughter driving at so young an
age. But also about permitting himself to be sent a bill each month for
something he wasn't consulted about and didn't agree to.


And, again, dad does seem to have the best interests of his daughter
at heart. Even if not everyone agrees with his opinion.

If he had the daughter's best interest at heart, I think I would have seen
something along the lines of "I think she's too young to drive, so I
offered to
take her to extracurricular activities 2 days one week, and 3 days the
following
week, in order to share the burden with her mother"

All the way from another state?

One more point. She would not be missing school, which is imperative.
She
would be missing out on extracurricular activities--which are not
imperative. Yes, they contribute to a child's development. But the
child
will survive without them. Thousands of children do. Although they may
be
enjoyable and healthy for the child, her "best interests" in attending
them
do not necessarily overshadow dad's objections to her driving at 14,
and/or
his objections to paying an amount over and above court odered child
support
to maintain a car for her.

And when dad objects to her driving at 16? Then what?

As far as I'm concerned, Moon, CS is supposed to cover transportation for
the child. Perhaps this dad, though, would feel more comfortable about her
driving a couple of years down the road. I don't know. He did mention that
he would prefer to handle driving expenses when she was with him, and let
mom handle them when she is with mom. Entirely fair, since CS is supposed
to cover transportation for the child.

When dad objects to his
baby girl growing up? Then what?

There is absolutely nothing in the original post to suggest this. You seem
to have decided that any parent that doesn't base the raising of their
children on the standards of the community is somehow out of line. I
disagree. Dad has every right to voice his opinion about his child driving
at 14 without being accused of objecting to his child growing up.

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.

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.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Moon Shyne wrote in message
...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Moon Shyne wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

snip


Yet it's still legal for them to obtain a driver's license, and to
drive.
People talking on cell phones, people eating, people shaving or
putting on
make-up while driving are also at great risk to themselves and to
others.
Shall
we legislate against all of those?

Well, some areas in the country try. This is not an issue about what is
legal or not. We see that it is legal for this 14 yr old to drive.
Should
the NCP have to pay extra for this? Hell no. That is what CS is for.

And it wouldn't have cost him a damned penny to offer to help get the
child to
and from the extracurricular activities....... AND he would have had the
extra
bonus of more time with the child.

Pretty tough to do when he stated his daughter lives in a different state.


It was the absence of this concept that raised red flags when I read his
post.

Read it again and get back to us.



snip


I saw nothing along the lines of "buying a car wasn't necessary when
I'm
available and *willing* to take daughter to the extracurricular
activities" -
did you see the OP post anything along those lines? I sure didn't.

No but the car was bought then the cp asked for more money. Again,
doesn't
seem he had a chance to offer any help, minus the money that was wanted.

What stopped him from offering to help provide the transportation? I
don't see
that he was prevented in any way, shape or form from offering....... the
only
thing that stopped him was himself.

And that pesky little detail that he lives in a different state.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Moon Shyne wrote in message
...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Moon Shyne wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

snip


Yet it's still legal for them to obtain a driver's license, and to
drive.
People talking on cell phones, people eating, people shaving or
putting on
make-up while driving are also at great risk to themselves and to
others.
Shall
we legislate against all of those?

Well, some areas in the country try. This is not an issue about what is
legal or not. We see that it is legal for this 14 yr old to drive.
Should
the NCP have to pay extra for this? Hell no. That is what CS is for.

And it wouldn't have cost him a damned penny to offer to help get the
child to
and from the extracurricular activities....... AND he would have had the
extra
bonus of more time with the child.

Pretty tough to do when he stated his daughter lives in a different state.


It was the absence of this concept that raised red flags when I read his
post.

Read it again and get back to us.



snip


I saw nothing along the lines of "buying a car wasn't necessary when
I'm
available and *willing* to take daughter to the extracurricular
activities" -
did you see the OP post anything along those lines? I sure didn't.

No but the car was bought then the cp asked for more money. Again,
doesn't
seem he had a chance to offer any help, minus the money that was wanted.

What stopped him from offering to help provide the transportation? I
don't see
that he was prevented in any way, shape or form from offering....... the
only
thing that stopped him was himself.

And that pesky little detail that he lives in a different state.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

snip

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
it'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.



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.

Your CS order doesn't specify the amount both parents are supposed to be
paying? My husband's order says he is paying 85% of the child's needs
with
his $XXX per month payment. Which means that mom is supposed to be
paying
15% of the child's expenses.

My ex has a court ordered amount of child support. He's supposed to be
providing health insurance - he isn't, I am. He was supposed to keep up
his
pre-divorce life insurance, with the 2 minor children as beneficiaries -
he
didn't, I did. He is supposed to reimburse me for half of the co-pays,
and
uncovered medical bills (after the insurance has paid their share) - he
doesn't,
I pay the full amount. In the first 5 years, post-divorce, I paid over
$44,000
in day care alone - he paid nothing. I can show documentation that I"m
providing the lion's share of the children's financial needs, as well as
100% of
their emotional/physical/psyche needs. His share doesn't come close to
half.



What child
expenditures would a father paying the court ordered amount not pay
towards?

Orthodontia............ Unreimbursed medical expenses.......
extraordinary
medical expenses.......... to name just a few.

But I notice that your list doesn't include the upkeep of a car, Moon.
My
children are under 12 - I don't expect my ex to help with my car expenses,
though he's apparently more than happy to complain that I had to purchase
a new
one 2 years ago when mine was totalled by an uninsured driver.

I would hope that when each of the children becomes of legal age to drive,
that
he would offer to help them obtain cars........ though I won't hold my
breath.







You are proving my point - fathers shouldn't fall into the trap
of
agreeing
to extraordinary expenditures for the child because by doing so
they
are
implying they will help pay for those expenditures.

There ya go - punish the child so dear old dad doesn't have to
part
with
one red
cent more than absolutely mandated.

Proof you really believe the CS award is just the minimum a father
should
pay. Nice guilt trip though - suggesting that fathers who refuse to
not
pay
one red cent more than absolutely mandated are punishing their
children.

In many cases, they are.

And, Moon, in "many" cases, mom is padding the expenses just to get more
money, and is trotting out that tired old "best interests of the child"
phrase to guilt dad into paying more. The fact that dad doesn't jump to
pay
for everything mom says the child needs doesn't mean that dad is guilty
of
punishing the child. It may just as well mean that mom is not being
fiscally responsible.

Like I"ve said all along........ I didn't see the OP offering to help get
his
daughter to and from extracurricular activities - would have saved the
cost of
the car AND given him more time with the child. There are other ways to
help
out aside from money - all I see is the OP pointing out problems, without
showing any inclination to help provide solutions.

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

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

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

snip

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
it'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.



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.

Your CS order doesn't specify the amount both parents are supposed to be
paying? My husband's order says he is paying 85% of the child's needs
with
his $XXX per month payment. Which means that mom is supposed to be
paying
15% of the child's expenses.

My ex has a court ordered amount of child support. He's supposed to be
providing health insurance - he isn't, I am. He was supposed to keep up
his
pre-divorce life insurance, with the 2 minor children as beneficiaries -
he
didn't, I did. He is supposed to reimburse me for half of the co-pays,
and
uncovered medical bills (after the insurance has paid their share) - he
doesn't,
I pay the full amount. In the first 5 years, post-divorce, I paid over
$44,000
in day care alone - he paid nothing. I can show documentation that I"m
providing the lion's share of the children's financial needs, as well as
100% of
their emotional/physical/psyche needs. His share doesn't come close to
half.



What child
expenditures would a father paying the court ordered amount not pay
towards?

Orthodontia............ Unreimbursed medical expenses.......
extraordinary
medical expenses.......... to name just a few.

But I notice that your list doesn't include the upkeep of a car, Moon.
My
children are under 12 - I don't expect my ex to help with my car expenses,
though he's apparently more than happy to complain that I had to purchase
a new
one 2 years ago when mine was totalled by an uninsured driver.

I would hope that when each of the children becomes of legal age to drive,
that
he would offer to help them obtain cars........ though I won't hold my
breath.







You are proving my point - fathers shouldn't fall into the trap
of
agreeing
to extraordinary expenditures for the child because by doing so
they
are
implying they will help pay for those expenditures.

There ya go - punish the child so dear old dad doesn't have to
part
with
one red
cent more than absolutely mandated.

Proof you really believe the CS award is just the minimum a father
should
pay. Nice guilt trip though - suggesting that fathers who refuse to
not
pay
one red cent more than absolutely mandated are punishing their
children.

In many cases, they are.

And, Moon, in "many" cases, mom is padding the expenses just to get more
money, and is trotting out that tired old "best interests of the child"
phrase to guilt dad into paying more. The fact that dad doesn't jump to
pay
for everything mom says the child needs doesn't mean that dad is guilty
of
punishing the child. It may just as well mean that mom is not being
fiscally responsible.

Like I"ve said all along........ I didn't see the OP offering to help get
his
daughter to and from extracurricular activities - would have saved the
cost of
the car AND given him more time with the child. There are other ways to
help
out aside from money - all I see is the OP pointing out problems, without
showing any inclination to help provide solutions.

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

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

"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?

"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?