Share vehicle, insurance expenses?

Scott,
I agree with you, if I had a 14 year old child I would not want them driving.
Your daughter might be responsible but maturity and experiences of 14 year olds
makes them very risky drivers-period. I'm sure most people can remember the names
or at least the recent time when young drivers were killed in their own
neighborhoods.

It sounds like her mom and step dad already purchased, repaired, and insured a
vehicle for your daughter, without your consent. Your ex wife was wrong not to
discuss this with you first and also selfish to have brought your daughter into a
conversation about money and her freedom to drive a vehicle. How can you not look
like the bad guy here?!

Anyway, it does not seem like you would NOT have any obligation to pay anything, and
it sounds pretty tacky for your x to be asking, since she made this choice 100%
without you. I would tell her that you respect her opinion on the matter but you
really feel uncomfortable with her driving at age 14. You could than politely
decline to contribute to your daughter's driving, and would feel more comfortable
spending that money another way on your daughter. Your daughter might get mad at
you, but I think she is old enough to hear from you that it is not a matter of
money, it is solely because you know that 14 years old is to unsafe to be driving,
at that you love her too much to contribute to her driving. Perhaps when she is
older and working or going to College, you would be happy to help her choose and
contribute to a nice safe and reliable vehicle.

Scott Ross wrote:

in article , Moon Shyne at
wrote on 8/15/03 3:43 AM:


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Scott Ross" wrote in message
...
I am looking for opinions.

My daughter, 14, lives during the school year with her mom who lives 10
miles or so out in the country.

It is legal for 14-year-olds to drive to and from school in that state,
so
her mom and step-dad have purchased and repaired a vehicle for her to
drive.
Otherwise, they say it would be difficult or impossible for her to
participate in extra-curricular school activities.

They are asking me to share half the cost of the vehicle, repairs and
ongoing expenses for necessary insurance.

My opinion is that I should provide a vehicle and insurance for her when
it
is necessary for her to drive when she is with me, but I question
whether it
is reasonable to expect me to be responsible for her school car and
insurance. (I am not at all excited about a 14-year-old driving in the
first
place).

Anybody out there have opinions/experiences to share?

Why not reverse it - if child is living with you, and has car - do you
think Mom
should help shoulder the cost?

But the child is not living with him, Moon. And it sounds as if he does not
approve of her driving at 14 (if it is even legal in his state) so perhaps
her car would be parked the whole time she was with him. If mom made a
unilateral decision that the child should have a car, mom should pay for it.
Or have the child get a job and pay her own car expenses.

I'm curious to see how he feels about the situation if it were reversed - I
think that will be a whole lot more telling than trying to determine rights or
wrongs for an area that permits 14 year old children to drive.





Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an interesting
exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a simple
standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with necessary
driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to broaden
that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.

I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental opposition to
a 14-year-old driving without supervision. It's difficult to work that into
the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is "necessary",
and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my daughter part
of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to
consider this.

I really appreciate all of the feedback I've gotten on this.

"Moon Shyne" wrote
"Scott Ross" wrote
.................
Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an interesting
exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a simple
standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with
necessary
driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to
broaden
that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.

I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental opposition
to
a 14-year-old driving without supervision.

Which is apparently legal where she resides?

It's difficult to work that into
the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is
"necessary",

Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to take
part
in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.

So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's
apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then
prohibited
from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.

Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular
activities?

and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my daughter
part
of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to
consider this.

The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is
permitted to
drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident. There
is no
magical age that will protect them from risk.
==
But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense)
dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
regardless of statute.
==
==

"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote
"Scott Ross" wrote
................
Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an interesting
exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a simple
standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with
necessary
driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to
broaden
that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.

I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental opposition
to
a 14-year-old driving without supervision.

Which is apparently legal where she resides?

It's difficult to work that into
the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is
"necessary",

Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to take
part
in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.

So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's
apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then
prohibited
from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.

Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular
activities?

and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my daughter
part
of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to
consider this.

The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is
permitted to
drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident. There
is no
magical age that will protect them from risk.
==
But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense)
dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
regardless of statute.

So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's permits, or
16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly sensible?

There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many children,
common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(

What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad is having
more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of those
landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something tells me he'll
have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16 as well.



==
==

"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote
"Scott Ross" wrote
................
Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an interesting
exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a simple
standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with
necessary
driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to
broaden
that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.

I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental opposition
to
a 14-year-old driving without supervision.

Which is apparently legal where she resides?

It's difficult to work that into
the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is
"necessary",

Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to take
part
in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.

So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's
apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then
prohibited
from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.

Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular
activities?

and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my daughter
part
of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to
consider this.

The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is
permitted to
drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident. There
is no
magical age that will protect them from risk.
==
But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense)
dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
regardless of statute.

So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's permits, or
16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly sensible?

There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many children,
common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(

What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad is having
more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of those
landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something tells me he'll
have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16 as well.



==
==

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...


"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote
"Scott Ross" wrote
................
Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an
interesting
exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a
simple
standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with
necessary
driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to
broaden
that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.

I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental
opposition
to
a 14-year-old driving without supervision.

Which is apparently legal where she resides?

It's difficult to work that into
the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is
"necessary",

Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to
take
part
in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.

So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's
apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then
prohibited
from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.

Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular
activities?

and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my
daughter
part
of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to
consider this.

The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is
permitted to
drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident.
There
is no
magical age that will protect them from risk.
==
But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense)
dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
regardless of statute.

So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's
permits, or
16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly
sensible?

There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many
children,
common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(

What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad is
having
more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of those
landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something tells me
he'll
have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16 as
well.

Whatever his reasons may be, Moon, do you think it fair for mom ans stepdad
to go out, purchase the car, then call dad and say "Now you have to pay half
of the expenses for a decision that you had not part in." Or do you think
that the child support he is paying include transportation expenses?



==
==

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...


"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote
"Scott Ross" wrote
................
Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an
interesting
exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a
simple
standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with
necessary
driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to
broaden
that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.

I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental
opposition
to
a 14-year-old driving without supervision.

Which is apparently legal where she resides?

It's difficult to work that into
the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is
"necessary",

Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to
take
part
in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.

So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's
apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then
prohibited
from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.

Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular
activities?

and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my
daughter
part
of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to
consider this.

The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is
permitted to
drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident.
There
is no
magical age that will protect them from risk.
==
But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense)
dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
regardless of statute.

So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's
permits, or
16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly
sensible?

There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many
children,
common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(

What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad is
having
more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of those
landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something tells me
he'll
have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16 as
well.

Whatever his reasons may be, Moon, do you think it fair for mom ans stepdad
to go out, purchase the car, then call dad and say "Now you have to pay half
of the expenses for a decision that you had not part in." Or do you think
that the child support he is paying include transportation expenses?



==
==

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...


"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote
"Scott Ross" wrote
................
Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an
interesting
exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a
simple
standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with
necessary
driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to
broaden
that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.

I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental
opposition
to
a 14-year-old driving without supervision.

Which is apparently legal where she resides?

It's difficult to work that into
the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is
"necessary",

Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to
take
part
in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.

So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's
apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then
prohibited
from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.

Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular
activities?

and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my
daughter
part
of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to
consider this.

The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is
permitted to
drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident.
There
is no
magical age that will protect them from risk.
==
But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense)
dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
regardless of statute.

So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's
permits, or
16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly
sensible?

There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many
children,
common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(
==
Exactly--Which is why I think the driving age should be at least 24 ;-). (Of
course, my ex disagreed with me and began driving lessons with my boys at
age 10.) More seriously, I met an older lady in my early college days who
told me that even though she worried all the time about her son's safety,
the worrying didn't keep him safe. She lost him due to a car accident when
he was 17.
==
==

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...


"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote
"Scott Ross" wrote
................
Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an
interesting
exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a
simple
standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with
necessary
driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to
broaden
that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.

I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental
opposition
to
a 14-year-old driving without supervision.

Which is apparently legal where she resides?

It's difficult to work that into
the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is
"necessary",

Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to
take
part
in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.

So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's
apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then
prohibited
from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.

Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular
activities?

and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my
daughter
part
of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to
consider this.

The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is
permitted to
drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident.
There
is no
magical age that will protect them from risk.
==
But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense)
dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
regardless of statute.

So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's
permits, or
16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly
sensible?

There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many
children,
common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(
==
Exactly--Which is why I think the driving age should be at least 24 ;-). (Of
course, my ex disagreed with me and began driving lessons with my boys at
age 10.) More seriously, I met an older lady in my early college days who
told me that even though she worried all the time about her son's safety,
the worrying didn't keep him safe. She lost him due to a car accident when
he was 17.
==
==

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...


"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote
"Scott Ross" wrote
................
Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an
interesting
exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a
simple
standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with
necessary
driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to
broaden
that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.

I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental
opposition
to
a 14-year-old driving without supervision.

Which is apparently legal where she resides?

It's difficult to work that into
the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is
"necessary",

Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to
take
part
in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.

So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's
apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then
prohibited
from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.

Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular
activities?

and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my
daughter
part
of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to
consider this.

The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is
permitted to
drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident.
There
is no
magical age that will protect them from risk.
==
But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense)
dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
regardless of statute.

So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's
permits, or
16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly
sensible?

There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many
children,
common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(

What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad is
having
more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of those
landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something tells me
he'll
have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16 as
well.

Whatever his reasons may be, Moon, do you think it fair for mom ans stepdad
to go out, purchase the car, then call dad and say "Now you have to pay half
of the expenses for a decision that you had not part in." Or do you think
that the child support he is paying include transportation expenses?

This is why I asked him to reverse the situation - if he could get past his
objections to her being legally old enough to drive, to have looked at the
situation in reverse, he might have come to the conclusion that both parents
should (or should not) be helping with the costs.

Please try to understand - like anyone else on this board, I view things through
the glasses of my experiences...... and I have an ex who has steadfastly refused
to take part in any decision making, despite 5 years of letters and phone calls
asking for input. So my view is that there's at least a *possibility* that
we're looking at a parent like my ex, who refuses to take part in the decision
making, criticizes the decisions made, despite having had every opportunity to
take part in the decision making process, and then refuses to pay his legally or
morally mandated share, on the grounds that he had no part in making the
decision.




==
==

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...


"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote
"Scott Ross" wrote
................
Considering a situation from the reverse angle is always an
interesting
exercise, and I agree that it is often quite useful. And from a
simple
standpoint, I would agree that "reasonable costs" associated with
necessary
driving (or maybe I should just say "necessary transportation" to
broaden
that topic a bit) are expenses which can be equitably shared.

I'm having difficulty with this one because of my fundamental
opposition
to
a 14-year-old driving without supervision.

Which is apparently legal where she resides?

It's difficult to work that into
the "reverse angle". I cannot yet conclude that this driving is
"necessary",

Yet without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to
take
part
in the extra-curricular activities. That's what you posted.

So the result of balking at her growing up, and doing something that's
apparently entirely legal where she lives, is that she is also then
prohibited
from taking part in the extra-curricular activities.

Perhaps if you offered to ferry her around to her extra curricular
activities?

and I would certainly not consider the new risk of harm to my
daughter
part
of a "reasonable cost", and that is the angle from which I've got to
consider this.

The risk of harm is going to be present no matter what age she is
permitted to
drive. I know this, I buried a 21-year old after a car accident.
There
is no
magical age that will protect them from risk.
==
But, there is common sense and common sense (at least my common sense)
dictates that 14 is too young to drive--
regardless of statute.

So why would 15, the age many states allow children to get learner's
permits, or
16, the age by which most states allow driving, be any more commonly
sensible?

There's nothing magical between 14 and 15, or 14 and 16, and for many
children,
common sense doesn't seem to sink in by the time they're 21 :-(

What it's looking like (and this is merely opinion) is that the dad is
having
more of a problem with his daughter growing up and reaching some of those
landmark ages, rather than this being about driving - something tells me
he'll
have the same issues with it in 2 years, when the daughter turns 16 as
well.

Whatever his reasons may be, Moon, do you think it fair for mom ans stepdad
to go out, purchase the car, then call dad and say "Now you have to pay half
of the expenses for a decision that you had not part in." Or do you think
that the child support he is paying include transportation expenses?

This is why I asked him to reverse the situation - if he could get past his
objections to her being legally old enough to drive, to have looked at the
situation in reverse, he might have come to the conclusion that both parents
should (or should not) be helping with the costs.

Please try to understand - like anyone else on this board, I view things through
the glasses of my experiences...... and I have an ex who has steadfastly refused
to take part in any decision making, despite 5 years of letters and phone calls
asking for input. So my view is that there's at least a *possibility* that
we're looking at a parent like my ex, who refuses to take part in the decision
making, criticizes the decisions made, despite having had every opportunity to
take part in the decision making process, and then refuses to pay his legally or
morally mandated share, on the grounds that he had no part in making the
decision.




==
==